The Frauds That Pretend to Police Truthfulness in News

27 May 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

One thing that can’t even possibly be done by means of artificial intelligence (AI) is to determine the truth or falsity of a news-story or of any other given narrative. This kind of “fact-checking” cannot be automated. AI has access only to the world of symbols — none to the external world that is supposed to be represented by symbols. Events (the objects in narratives) occur only in that external world — not in the symbols-world. Whether an event actually occurred can be determined ONLY by a perceiver’s perception of it and then judgement of what that perception means — what it was.

The only way that a fact-checker of this type of information (alleged news) can honestly function is therefore by providing to the reader, by means of links, direct access to the fact-checker’s sources, so that the reader then will have access to those sources and therefore be able to evaluate them for oneself, by oneself. No reporter can be any more trustworthy than that reporter’s ultimate SOURCES are; authoritarianism about such judgements (“leave it to us; we will do it — sift out the wheat from the chaff — for you”) is an invitation to liars and to their suckers — NOT to honest communication and intelligent understanding about the external world.

However, there is now an entire profession of ‘fact-checkers’ who pretend to provide such services to the public and to rate newsmedia and reporters on the actually impossible-to-achieve promise that they honestly do these judgements, for you, and that you therefore don’t need to do it on your own or without their ‘assistance’. Here are some of these authoritarian (and certainly NOT authoritative) ‘services’, which are intended, by the billionaires who provide their funding, to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’ in the field of truth (and who actually do this for the benefit of their invesstors, not of the public):

Of course, any search-engine is in this field when it lists “finds” in some particular order, and therefore is necessarily ranking them as BEING “finds” (and excluding some prospective “finds” entirely — which might actually be the best ones of the entire lot), is doing it for its investors, not for the public. The idea that a search-engine is anything more than being a service to its funders (who might not have your interests at heart and might actually even be hostile to your interests) is for only fools to believe, but many people do. The search-engine business is therefore an ocean full of predators, seeking for prey, and serving only their investors.

But there are other types of these ‘services’, as well.

On 19 September 2024, I headlined “POLICING ‘TRUTH’: The Billionaires’ ‘Fact’-Checking Gang to Keep ‘News’-Media ‘Honest’: How the U.S. Government Harvests the Public at Home & in Its Colonies”, and opened:

Let’s take as an example, Politi-Fact, in the United States itself:

On 4 July 2024, I headlined “WHY IS JOE BIDEN NOT BEING TRIED FOR BRIBERY & CONSPIRACY? And why are America’s ‘news’-media covering this up?” I noted there that Politi-Fact has been protecting Biden by misrepresenting the evidence, and that it’s “owned by the Poynter Institute, funded by 11 Democratic billionaires and one Republican one”. Those were 11 ‘non’-profits, but they also are funded by U.S.-and-allied Governments; and, in fact, at least one of the 11, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) seems to be almost entirely so, though it might additionally have more direct but secret funding from or on behalf of U.S. billionaires. And, if we look at the IWPR’s top 11 listed donors or “Supporters”, 3 of the 11 are the U.S. State Department; 3 more are its equivalents for Norway, Netherlands and UK; and the others are the European Commission, the Dutch Postcode Lottery Fund, the UK Conflict Stability and Security Fund, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.N.’s Entity for Gender Equality. So, all 11 of the IWPR’s top “Supporters” are wholly or largely controlled by the U.S. Government. That list is introduced by the IWPR by saying: “This broad support enables us to maintain intensive programs while avoiding over-dependence on any single source. We are especially grateful to those donors who support us through multi-year assistance to strengthen existing activities and those who provide precious institutional assistance.” In addition, the IWPR lists 25 “Partners,” such as Reporters Without Borders, and the International Republican Institute. The IWPR’s International Board is co-headed by a member of the UK Governance Committee, and a member of the “U.S. & NL Governance Committees.” The IWPR was founded in 1991 so as to assist reporters to have a ‘balanced perspective’ on the breaking-up of Yugoslavia (which the CIA was secretly already stoking).

Another good example (besides the ‘news’-coverage — or absence of same — regarding the extraordinarily strong bribery & conspiracy case that is not being pursued against the U.S. President) concerns the Philippines, whose Government has, for some reason, been allowing the U.S. Government militarily to increasingly re-occupy that ‘former’ U.S. colony and to place soldiers and weapons there to facilitate an invasion of China. A superb investigative reporter who has been covering this is the independent Brian Berletic, who on 2 November 2023 headlined “US Shapes Philippines into Southeast Asia’s ‘Ukraine’” (land from which to invade China, instead of land from which to invade Russia), and he quoted from sources such as: “Reuters in its article, ‘Exclusive: U.S. military in talks to develop port in Philippines facing Taiwan,’ would report: ‘U.S. military involvement in the proposed port in the Batanes islands, less than 200 km (125 miles) from Taiwan, could stoke tensions at a time of growing friction with China and a drive by Washington to intensify its longstanding defence treaty engagement with the Philippines.’” Berletic went on to quote an official U.S. Government historian describing the brutal 1899-1902 Teddy-Roosevelt-led war that conquered the Philippines and made them a U.S. colony. He noted the U.S. Government’s carefully designed program to reward, with Fulbright scholarships and other inducements, the Philippines’ upper crust. And he said that, “In reality, all the US is building in the Philippines are military bases meant to drag both it and the region into greater instability, economic stagnation, and possibly even war.” His focus was on the constant U.S. propaganda-machine to fool Filippino voters to elect pro-U.S.-anti-China politicians, such as its current President, Bongbong Marcos, the only son of the extremely corrupt U.S.-imposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Berletic didn’t, however, mention such highly relevant facts as that “The Philippines ranked 77th out of 81 countries globally in the student assessment conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for 15-year-old learners.” (Incidentally, China was excluded from that year’s PISA study because in the prior, 2018, one, China topped the list and the U.S. regime was outraged.) …

On 30 December 2022, I headlined “Censorship Prohibits Spreading Truths and Demands Spreading Lies”, and gave many examples of this, starting with the lie that the reason why the U.S. had invaded Iraq in 2003 was ‘errors’ by the intelligence agencies instead of lies by the U.S. President and his Administration (and by Tony Blair’s in the UK). Then I went into a personal experience I had had:

Back in or around 2014, 43 international-news media were publishing my articles, and some of them were mainstream liberal media, some were mainstream conservative, and others were libertarian, but the vast majority were non-mainstream. When Barack Obama in February 2014 perpetrated a coup in Ukraine that installed a rabidly anti-Russian government there on Russia’s border and that was instead ‘reported’ as-if it had been a ‘democratic revolution’, which coup-imposed regime perpetrated a massacre against its pro-Russian protestors inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa on 2 May 2014 (see especially the charred bodies of its victims at 1:50:00- in that video), I started writing about Ukraine; and, then, those 43 international-news sites gradually whittled themselves down to only 7; and, yet, none of them ever alleged that anything in any of my articles was false and asked me to prove it true, but they were instead getting pressure from Google, and from the FBI, and from other Establishment U.S. entities, and were afraid of being forced out of business (which many of them ultimately were) by them. The personal narrative that will now be provided here is about the latest of these cases, which threatens the site Modern Diplomacy, which had been an excellent international-affairs news site and included writers from all across the international-affairs news spectrum, for and against every Government’s policies, and from practically every angle. I had long been expecting MD (because of its impartiality) to receive a warning from the U.S. regime, and this finally happened late in December 2022, when the site’s founder, D., sent me this notice:

Dear Eric, do you know who are these guys? https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria/

They sent me an email with allegations mentioning your articles as false claims and MD as a pro-kremlin propaganda website due to these.

Do they have any influence on Search engines and social media? Will we have any problems at all?

Thanks

D.

I replied with an email

Subject: Since you are a co-founder,

Date: Dec 24, 2022 at 9:20 AM

To: moc.hcetdraugswen@llirb.nevets

Cc: [D.]

I ask you please to explain to me, and to the webmaster at moderndiplomacy.eu, why your organization — well, here is what he sent me about what your organization did:

[I pasted in D.’s message to me.]

As you can see there, he is afraid (that’s a weak version of terrorized) that your organization will downgrade his site because of his site’s posting some of my articles.

It seems to me that there are two reasonable types of responses that you can give him and me:

Either you will cite falsehoods in one or more of my articles at his site

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/author/ericzuesse/

(but, of course, you could also do that regarding any edition of the New York Times or Washington Post; so, why would that be a reason?), or else:

You could search to find such falsehoods, find none, ask your employee why he or she is terrorizing that webmaster and (essentially) indirectly threatening me; and, if that employee fails to provide a reasonable and entirely true answer, which justifies what he or she has done, fire that person and inform the rest of your staff that you have done so and explain to all of them WHY you fired the employee, so that they all can then know to STOP DOING THIS!!!

Sincerely,

Eric Zuesse

Brill didn’t respond. So, I sent to D.:

I take my not having received a reply from either Steven Brill or you to be an ominous sign, because, suddenly, none of my recent articles has been posted by your site. Would you please explain? (If you are cancelling me as an author, I shall remove your site from my submissions-list.) After all, you said “They sent me an email with allegations mentioning your articles as false claims and MD as a pro-kremlin propaganda website due to these.” Did they state what those “false claims” were? Did you ask them? I very much doubt that they were able to find anything in any of my articles that is false. No one has ever before, to my knowledge, alleged any assertion in any of my articles to be false. I don’t ever make a claim that is false. I am EXCEEDINGLY careful. And any assertion in any of my articles that I think some readers MIGHT find questionable I provide a link to its documentation. So, I would distrust that allegation from Brill’s organization and consider it to be likely a lie from them in order to censor out from the news-media information that the U.S. regime wishes the public not to know. Would you not want to know whether that allegation from them was merely an excuse to censor out from your site information that they don’t want the public to know?

D. responded:

Dear Eric,

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your efforts in contacting newsguard, although I was surprised to see that you used my message I sent you in your contact email without my consent. Now they know I took it seriously. Anyway, I decided to stop publishing your articles — at least for a while and see how it goes. Part of my decision was of course the threats (not only from them) but also the fact that you are spreading them to a lot of websites and that google considers it as “scraped content”. I will try to stay in exclusive content although I appreciate your work and your courage.

I worked really hard these 10 years for MD and still can’t monetize it to support the expenses and me of course. Also I am tired and I am thinking about the possibility to find a buyer and stand back. Just keep it in mind, in case you find someone interested in it.

Of course we can stay in touch and keep sending me your articles — at least to have the opportunity to read them.

Below, you will find newsguard allegations concerning your articles. Please don’t use it to reply to them — we both know that there is no use. Instead, maybe you can write a new piece debunking them.

Kind Regards

D.

Here is what he had received from News Guard, and which I shall here debunk [between brackets]:

We found that Modern Diplomacy articles often link to sites rated as unreliable by NewsGuard for promoting false information, such as OrientalReview.org, pro-Kremlin site TheDuran.com, and en.interaffairs.ru <

http://en.interaffairs.ru

> , owned by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The site has also republished articles from sites such as The Gray Zone, rated unfavorably by NewsGuard for repeatedly publishing false claims about the Russia-Ukraine war and Syrian chemical attacks. Could you comment on why Modern Diplomacy republishes or links to sites which consistently promote false claims?

[Rating allegations as “true” or as “false” ON THE BASIS OF the identity of the SITE instead of on the basis of the specific allegation in the specific article (or video) is a standard method of deception of the public, which censors employ to distract and manipulate individuals (readers, etc.) by appealing to their existing prejudices such as (for an American conservative or Republican) “Don’t trust the N.Y. Times” or (for an American liberal or Democrat) “Don’t trust the N.Y. Post” (or, for both, “Russia is bad and wrong, and America is good and right”). It is appealing to prejudices and emotions, instead of to facts and evidence — it is NOT appealing to actual truth and falsity. It is a method of deception.]

We also found that ModernDiplomacy.eu has repeatedly published false and misleading claims about the Russia-Ukraine war.

For example, a June 2022 article titled “Have Europeans been profoundly deceived?,” claims to provide evidence that “A coup occurred in Ukraine during February 2014 under the cover of pro-EU demonstrations that the U.S. Government had been organizing ever since at least June 2011.”

[The word “coup” in that article was linked to this video, every detail of which I have carefully checked and verified to include ONLY evidence that is authentic — and no one has contested any of the evidence in it. The first item of evidence that is referred-to in this video is at 0:35, which item is the audio of a private phone-conversation between two top EU officials in which one, who was in Kiev while the coup was occurring, reported to his boss, who wanted to know whether it was a revolution or instead a coup, and he reported to her that it was a coup, and described to her the evidence, which convinced her. My article later says “Here is that phone-conversation, and here is its transcript along with explanations (to enable understanding of what he was telling her, and of what her response to it indicated — that though it was a disappointment to her, she wouldn’t let the fact that it had been a coup affect EU policies).” This news-reporting is of real evidence, not distractions, not any appeal to the reader’s (and listener’s) prejudices, either. But Mr. Brill’s employee apparently didn’t check my article’s sources (gave no indication of having clicked onto any of my links), because he or she was judging on the basis purely of that person’s own prejudices — NOT upon the basis of any evidence. Then, at 3:35 in that video, is audio of another private phone-conversation, which was of Obama’s planner of the coup, Victoria Nuland, telling his Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, whom to get appointed to run the stooge-regime after the coup will be over, “Yats” Yatsenyuk, which then was done. My article also says “Here is that phone-conversation, and here is its transcript along with explanations (to enable understanding of whom she was referring to in it, and why).” The reference to “June 2011” had appeared in this passage from a prior article of mine, where that two-word phrase linked to Julian Assange’s personal account of the matter — the Obama Administration’s early planning-stage for the coup in Ukraine — that explains how those “pro-EU demonstrations” had been engineered by Obama’s agents. So: everything in that paragraph by Brill’s employee was fully documented in my links — which that person didn’t care to check.]

However, there is no evidence that the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine that led to the ouster of then-president Viktor Yanukovych was a coup orchestrated by the United States. … Angry protesters demanded Yanukovych’s immediate resignation, and hundreds of police officers guarding government buildings abandoned their posts. Yanukovych fled the same day the agreement was signed, and protesters took control of several government buildings the next day. The Ukrainian parliament then voted 328-0 to remove Yanukovych from office and scheduled early presidential elections the following May, the BBC reported. These events, often collectively referred to as the “Maidan revolution,” were extensively covered by international media organizations with correspondents in Ukraine, including the BBC, the Associated Press, and The New York Times.

Could you please comment on why Modern Diplomacy repeated this false claim, despite evidence to the contrary?

A March 2022 article titled “Who actually CAUSED this war in Ukraine?” states that “Russia had done everything it could to avoid needing to invade Ukraine in order to disempower the nazis who have been running the country ever since Obama’s 2014 coup placed it into the hands of rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists there.”

In fact, Nazis are not running Ukraine. … Svoboda won 2.2 percent of the vote. Svoboda currently holds one parliamentary seat.

In February 2022, U.S. news site the Jewish Journal published a statement signed by 300 scholars of the Holocaust, Nazism and World War II, which said that “the equation of the Ukrainian state with the Nazi regime” is “factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive to the memory of millions of victims of Nazism and those who courageously fought against it.” Additionally, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, addressed the Russian public in a Feb. 24, 2022, speech, saying that these claims do not reflect the “real” Ukraine. “You are told we are Nazis. But could people who lost more than 8 million lives in the battle against Nazism support Nazism?”

Could you please comment on why Modern Diplomacy repeated this false claim [that “the nazis who have been running the country ever since Obama’s 2014 coup placed it into the hands of rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists there”], despite evidence to the contrary?

[Yet again, Mr. Brill’s employee simply ignores my evidence — fails even to click onto my links whenever he disagrees with an allegation that has a link. Here was my published assertion, as it was published: “Russia had done everything it could to avoid needing to invade Ukraine in order to disempower the nazis who have been running the country ever since Obama’s 2014 coup placed it into the hands of rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists there.” The evidence is right there, just a click away, but Mr. Brill’s employee again wasn’t interested in seeing the evidence. (Nor is Brill himself.)]

An April 2022 article titled “Authentic War-Reporting From Ukraine,” promotes a video report by pro-Kremlin journalist, Patrick Lancaster, filmed in the Eastern Donbas region of Ukraine. The article asserts that Ukraine was “constantly shelling into that region in order to kill and/or compell to flee anybody who lived in that region […] It was an ethnic cleansing in order to get rid of enough of those residents so that, if ever that area would again become integrated into Ukraine and its remaining residents would therefore be voting again in Ukrainian national elections, the U.S.-installed nazi Ukrainian regime will ‘democratically’ be able to continue to rule in Ukraine.” (The article also repeats the claim that the 2014 revolution was a US-backed coup, and makes the unverified claim that “The CIA has instructed all of Ukraine’s nazis (or racist-fascists) to suppress their anti-Semitism and White Supremacy until after Ukraine has become admitted into NATO.”)

The claim that Ukraine conducted an “ethnic cleansing” in the Donbas echoes a falsehood propagated by the Russian government for years. There is no evidence supporting the claim that genocide occurred in Ukraine’s eastern region of Donbas. The International Criminal Court, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have all said they have found no evidence of genocide in Donbas. The U.S. mission to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe called the genocide claim a “reprehensible falsehood” in a Feb. 16, 2022 post on its official Twitter account. It said that the mission “has complete access to the government-controlled areas of Ukraine and HAS NEVER reported anything remotely resembling Russia’s claims.”

Could you please comment on why Modern Diplomacy repeated this false claim, despite evidence to the contrary?

[Yet again, Mr. Brill’s employee relies upon people’s opinions — but ONLY ones who agree with his — instead of any evidence at all. Here, on behalf of myself, and of Modern Diplomacy, and of Patrick Lancaster (INSTEAD OF on behalf of Lockheed Martin and the other U.S.-and-allied international-corporate entities that are profiting from this war), are nine news-reports linking to actual evidence which disproves those opinions:

“Mortar shelling in Kramatorsk. Nazis attacking city district.” 18 May 2014

“Ukraine crisis: ‘Those fascists killed this girl and they will be in hell’” 5 May 2014

“Ukraine Crisis: Kiev’s Slovyansk ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ Kills 300 Pro-Russian Separatists” 4 June 2014

“Luhansk. After Air Strike. Part 4 (of 6)” 2 June 2014

“AP’s Matt Lee challenges White House’s lies on Ukraine” 7 July 2014

“Obama Definitely Caused the Malaysian Airliner to Be Downed” 18 July 2014

“How Our People Do Their Extermination-Jobs In Ukraine” 23 October 2014

“What Obama’s Ukrainian Stooges Did” 10 October 2014

“Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’” 3 February 2015]

My final reply to D.’s final rejection of my position was:

As regards myself, I am with Chris Hedges (who quit the N.Y. Times over this) and with Consortium News (which is standing up against the same pressure that you are caving to), in order to have any hope that the future might possibly be better than the present.

At the same time when News Guard was threatening Modern Diplomacy and perhaps forcing that site to reject all future submissions from me, the news-site, Consortium News, was likewise being threatened by Brill’s shills. On December 29th, Consortium News headlined “On the Influence of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine: A short history of neo-Nazism in Ukraine in response to NewsGuard’s charge that Consortium News published false content about its extent”. That, too, is an excellent example of censors killing truths and leaving only lies. However, mega-corporate America has a number of such ‘fact-checking’ truth-destroying organizations: New Guard is only one of them.

These self-styled truth-policemen of the Web represent the regime, and came into being after the Web itself did. The Web enabled — for the first time in history — articles to be published and read that link to their sources, and this opened up a new possibility and reality, in which the online readers could actually evaluate ON THEIR OWN (by clicking onto such links) the evidence. That upset the billionaires’ applecarts of ‘authoritative opinion’ (which they have hired) so that authoritarianism (which they control) could become replaced by facts (which they can’t). …

Modern Diplomacy removed all of the hundreds of articles that they had previously published from me — this despite the fact that many of my articles there had topped their page-view counts.

On 28 August 2023, I headlined “How the U.S. Government Targets Websites for Destruction”, and opened

Within just the past few weeks, two more websites that had been publishing some of my articles were shut down by the U.S. Government, and so I now am writing here about the various ways they do this (for any news-site that’s bold enough to publish it).

In both of the latest two instances — the sites southfront.org and orientalreview.org — the blockage appeared to be the same. On 18 August, I received this notice from South Front:

On the night of 18 August, the "international domain name registry" blocked southfront.org without warning or explanation. Despite the fact that this organisation [by which they mean the "international domain name registry"] has been formally independent since 1998, it is actually controlled by the US Department of Commerce. What they have done is an unprecedented action in the history of modern information society. This is the American way of democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law.

Here is our official appeal — SouthFront.Org Blocked By U.S.-Controlled Global Internet SupervisorSouth Front

We met that challenge as well. Now, our official website is southfront.press

Please spread this information as widely as possible.

Sincerely yours,

SF Team

I asked them whether they’re being targeted for destruction under the U.S. sanctions against Russia, and got this answer:

Unfortunately in Russia, apparently no one cares about our activities. No one, no one at all, finances us from Russia.

We were forced to switch to a Russian registrar and Russian servers when our persecution by the globalists began. It started in 2017, then in 2021 and finally in 2022. At that time, members of our team with Russian roots recommended that we have email addresses in Russian email services. And, it turned out to be the right decision at that point in time. For example, Google blocked our official addresses. Also, many global email services block emails from southfront.org, and now from southfront.press. So we use alternative options. What are they? Either Chinese, Russian or Iranian.

So, since no one, at all, in Russia, is financing their operation, there can’t be any U.S. legal authority for targeting them, but South Front does publish lots of information (all of which that I have checked I have found to be truthful) that is favorable to Russia’s foreign policies and critical against America’s foreign policies; so, this is purely content-censorship, instead of anything that has a basis in U.S. law — and, as such (censorship that bans truthful political content), if it does indeed come from the U.S. Department of Commerce, then it is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment — it then is action by an actually lawless U.S. Government.

Then, shortly afterward, I found that I was having the same inability to access the articles at Oriental Review, which was another of the few remaining websites that had been continuing to publish some of my articles. I inquired of them, and received this reply:

The website orientalreview.org has been blocked by the domain names registry services provider in the U.S.

Now Oriental Review is on www.orientalreview.su.

I inquired further of them, and then received this:

Officially we were blocked because we had got in a black list but [via] some website-scanners. And in order to be unblocked we have to be delisted from the black list. But it doesn't work so easily. I know it from the previous period, when they were just blocking the security certificates. Also on the ground on [of there allegedly being] some 'malicious activity registered from your IP’.

So, they were apparently given (and accepted) an excuse, not an explanation. I know that it’s not an explanation because when FBI men came to my house in 2020 to tell me that if I wouldn’t stop having articles published on the strategic-culture.org site, I would be investigated under some alleged anti-Russia law whose maximum penalty is $325,000, and so I did quit submitting articles to that site, but these men also told me that there might subsequently be a problem with Oriental Review. And, now, both of those sites were taken down by some sort of U.S. force. So, I don’t think that the explanation for the take-down of Oriental Review is as innocent as the site seems to think to be the case.

Right now, in order for me to be able to get to read either of those now-replaced sites (South Front or Oriental Review), from my particular location, I see the messages:

Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site.

We can’t connect to the server at southfront.press.

If you entered the right address, you can:

Try again later

Check your network connection

But, if I first copy the new domain name (Web-site address) into the save-box at

https://archive.is/

,

then, the copied page does show up; so, I know that my getting that “We can’t connect to the server” notice is due to something somewhere along the path between the International Domain Name Registry and my computer; there is a malicious entity that’s now obstructing reception of this site from my particular service-area.

By contrast, for example: I now am getting the very same “This site can’t be reached” type of notice from the strategic-culture.org site, and when I try to reach it by saving that Web-address into archive.is I get “Not Found” and when I try to save it into web.archive.org I get “Cannot resolve host strategic-culture.org.” So, the site is gone. Then, when I check further, I find that its last save was this on August 16th at web.archive.org. So, they, too, seem to be now entirely gone.

It’s not only the U.S. Government that is doing this, but also its many corporate partners, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and their many corporate partners, such as NewsGuard and the many ‘fact-checking’ services that are hired by or for them, likewise do. Any site that’s not (in effect) controlled by the U.S. Government, is targeted. For example, many of the news-sites that formerly published my articles were forced by those corporate entities to shut down or sell out; and, as I previously documented, one site that used to publish me had been established originally with the intent to sell it at a profit, but then it got warned by NewsGuard to stop publishing me or else, and he dropped me in order to have at least a hope of finding a buyer for his news-site. (So, now, only softball criticisms of the U.S. Government are published there.)

This is about the supposedly international organization that controls the internet and thus the Web. It mentions that there are also “other organizations [than ICAAN] such as OpenNIC, that are charged with overseeing the name and number systems of the Internet.” However, if one clicks onto that “OpenNIC” it explains that “Like all alternative root DNS systems, OpenNIC-hosted domains are unreachable to the vast majority of Internet users, because they require a non-default configuration in one's DNS resolver.” In other words: ICAAN, which is controlled by the U.S. Department of Commerce (SouthFront is correct about that), has a global monopoly over the internet and Web. So: not only are they violating the U.S. Constitution, but they are violating the entire world. In order to break that U.S.-imperial monopoly, a new internet/Web must be constructed. Who will do that? (It would be a service to the entire world, if the U.S. empire ends; but at least it would be a service to the publics in all non-U.S.-empire — or non-U.S.-‘allied’ — countries, otherwise; and the result of that would be much faster improvement of the non-U.S.-empire countries.)

This is above and beyond any direct actions by U.S. Government agencies, such as by the FBI and U.S. Department of ‘Justice’. But here are merely a few of the Web-sites that used to publish me but that the U.S. Government has directly shut down:

[The article here shows screenshots of:

The American Herald Tribune, “THIS WEBSITE HAS BEEN SEIZED” insignia of both the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI

Press TV, “THIS WEBSITE HAS BEEN SEIZED” insignia of FBI and U.S. Department of Commerce

OneWorld Press “This account has been suspended” no insignias “Contact your hosting provider for more information”

Those are just three of the many that were shut down, either by the U.S. Government or by its agencies around the world. However, America’s colonies, such as Germany and the UK, also do this.]

Any way that one looks at it, America has a lawless Government. But this is the way that any dictatorship functions. And, “Censorship Is The Way That Any Dictatorship — And No Democracy — Functions”. So: it’s the natural result of the dictatorship. And this is a global dictatorship. So, it affects everybody, and not merely Americans such as myself.

To close here, I would point out that on May 25th, I headlined “How Google Hides My Articles From the Public” and documented that Google now is using its AI so as to generate at the top of some search-finds, their AI-produced U.S. Government propaganda to denigrate finds that expose things the Government wants the public not to know, such as — in that particular instance — my article of the day before (on May 24th), “80% of U.S. Senators Now Back Blockade of Russia”. (Apparently, the U.S. regime wants the public NOT to know that it is preparing — in conjunction with its EU colonies — a 500% tariff upon goods from any country that buys Russian oil or gas, and that the EU is preparing to back that up by blowing up any ship that carries those Russian products in or through its waterways. This seems to be the plan, but Russia is saying that it might mean war with NATO; so, whether it will be carried out isn’t yet known.)

The next day, May 26th, a pro U.S.-empire news-report rating-site, “Ground News”, which is backed by Apple Computer Company and others, rated my May 24th article “100% Right Biased”, based upon its having been published by a mirror-site (i.e., one that automatically republishes from another site) copying from The Duran (which site the U.S. regime NEVER mentions nor links to at all), SGT Report (which they tag as being ‘far-right’), and they also mentioned another mirror-site of The Duran, “AltNews,” which also republished the article from The Duran and which they haven’t yet rated on “Bias”. Anyway, they don’t rate upon the basis of alleged truthfulness (which some other such sites pretend to do), but instead upon their alleged left-right ‘Bias’ of its publisher; and, basically, ANY rating of an article on the basis of what its PUBLISHER is, is plain stupid; so, all of these organizations apparently assume that the public is that stupid — so stupid as to be even illogical.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.