Experts Say "Experts Say" Headlines are Propaganda - #PropagandaWatch

10/07/201962 Comments

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / YouTube

Experts say don't believe news headlines that start with "Experts say." And, in this case, the expert is me. Find out more in this week's edition of #PropagandaWatch with James Corbett.


Episode 211 - Expertology

So You’ve Decided To Boycott Google… (Search alternatives)

Experts say getting the flu shot early can give you better protection against the Flu

'You are failing us': Plans, frustration at UN climate talks

And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle…

James Corbett on The Post-Carbon Energy Eugenics Hoax

Crimatologists Found Guilty of Hiding Data

$250 Million to Keep Votes Safe? Experts Say Billions Are Needed

Filed in: Propaganda WatchVideos
Tagged with:

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. matt.mewis says:

    It’s amusing when they complain that the public ignore propagandists, sorry I mean “experts”, if we don’t act or vote how they want us to.

    Shock, horror… “Because growing public distrust of the cognoscenti provides fertile ground to demagogues, it poses a threat to democracy.”

    So waking up to propaganda is a threat to democracy, or in other words their control.

    Keep up the good work James.

    • NES says:

      Good example link. The take-away in the article is ridiculous and totally biased.

      Most ‘expert’ articles are boiler-plated from the MSM and passed on as real information when it’s nothing more than parroting the Narrative. With very little effort you can read the exact phrasing on subject matters across hundreds of MSM subject articles of so-called reporting on any subject–such as voting machines. Oh! and yeah–the US needs 2.2B to keep the sitting authorities/lobbying corporations in control of the usual voter fraud without interference from others who may want to do the same. Or who the authorities want to blame for it when they, themselves, get caught in criminal actions.

  2. Astrodonicus says:

    “Excellent video,” said a source familiar with the matter.

    Here is a real zinger I found:

    Washington Post says, “Experts agree: Trump has made Washington hostile to experts.” (link withheld to discourage any traffic to their site–Duckduckgo it)

    • cooly says:


      There’s not a whole lot of difference between “sources say” and “experts say”, is there. Equally vague and/or suspect. Says another source who moonlights as an expert.

      Man, that WP headline is worthy of The Onion.

    • fire says:

      “Simon says…”? It was a game many of us played in kindergarten. Me thinkst that’s how this meme got started. At least, then the kindergarten teacher attributed every quotation to a source.

  3. jamd says:

    Man, I love Propaganda Watch! Whenever I read something from the MSM I always say “experts” in my head like you do James.

    Found one straight away from Time’s website, “About 2.5 Million Acres in Alaska Have Burned. The State’s Wildfire Seasons Are Getting Worse, Experts Say,”

    The article actually then refutes the title by going on to say that twice as many acres were destroyed in 2015, with the record of 6.5 millions acres being destroyed in 2004. So not really getting worse it it guys?

    P.s I like to play a game at work when it comes to MSM news regarding weather events. Read the title out loud then do a sweep stake on which paragraph the “experts” mention climate change. Closest wins the pot.

  4. pearl says:

    Speaking of vaccines, thanks to research tip from a reader at cryptogon, I was directed to Mike Adams’ article citing an Italian lab’s finding of a human male’s entire genome sequence present in many vaccines. But not in the flu vaccines, so those experts are probably right.

    “What they’ve found in beyond shocking… it’s horrifying. As explained by Children’s Health Defense:

    The Corvelva team summarized their findings as follows:

    1- The fetal cell line was found to belong to a male fetus.

    2- The cell line presents itself in such a way that it is likely to be very old, thus consistent with the declared line of the 1960s.

    3- The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine.

    4- The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.

    5- 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.

    6- There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.

    7- What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants.”

    • cooly says:


      Interesting. And very creepy.

      And I’m glad you found and enjoyed that debate. Poor John Cleese got so frustrated with the cognitive limitations of those two. At times the debate was as funny to watch as an actual Python sketch.

      • pearl says:

        Yes! Thanks again, cooly! You ignited in me an appreciation for a comedy team I’ve not really given a chance. To honour (note the British spelling) Monty Python’s 5oth anniversary, I will borrow the series from the library.

        • cooly says:


          I’m glad to have piqued your interest in them. If you do watch the series, keep your eyes peeled for The Spanish Inquisition. That’s a classic.

          Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    • manbearpig says:


      You mean they’re vaccinating humans against… humans??

      • pearl says:

        His implications are out there, aren’t they? I felt the video to be a bit sensationalized, actually. When I posted it, I hadn’t completed it and assumed it would be strictly based on his article which I should’ve included alongside, and which states:

        “What’s clear from this genetic sequencing is that the vaccine industry is inoculating children with engineered cancer. As CHD explains, the vaccines are deliberately formulated with cancer-causing genes which have been specifically modified to promote cancer tumors[.]”

        The genome sequencing also found that hundreds of genes linked to cancer tumors have been modified. As explained by the study authors:

        ‘…[I]mportant modifications of genes known to be associated with various tumor forms have been identified, for all the 560 verified genes; furthermore, there are variants whose consequences are not known, but which, however, affects genes involved in the induction of human cancer.’
        This indicates that the MRC-5 aborted human fetal cells appear to have been deliberately modified to make them more tumorigenic… i.e. more likely to cause cancer tumors in human recipients of the vaccine injections.

        This would, of course, ensure long-term revenues from the cancer drugs that are also manufactured and sold by the same pharmaceutical giants that manufacture and market vaccines. Repeat business, after all, is a very lucrative business model, and if you can lace vaccines with the genetic blueprints for long-term cancer, you can make sure that a very high percentage of today’s children are eventually diagnosed with cancer, after which they become lucrative customers for Big Pharma’s cancer drugs.”

    • cooly says:


      Speaking of vaccines, you may find this interesting

      Dr. Graham Downing interview

  5. zyxzevn says:

    “Experts say:” is a logical fallacy.
    It is an appeal to authority.

    Logical fallacies as a defense against propaganda

    I find logical fallacies very good in deconstructing many
    propaganda articles.

    Link to logical fallacies:
    There are more on:

    What is interesting is that the technocrats are trying to
    downplay the fallacies by pretending that it is ok.

    *Appeal to authority:
    this is a standard.
    “We know better, so you must listen and obey” – technocrat
    *Ad hominem:
    is a standard respond
    “you are a fool or crazy person” – technocrat
    “you must have misunderstood me, let me repeat again” – technocrat
    “You oppose mandatory vaccines, so you think earth is flat?” – technocrat
    *Poisoning the well:
    “You think that alternative medicine work?” – technocrat
    *Appeal to motive:
    “Russians want to kill us by spreading diseases” – pro-vaxer
    “You must be for Trump” – democrat
    Circular reasoning:
    “We only look at peer-reviewed science” – technocrat
    Appeal to majority:
    “98% of scientists..” – climate alarmist
    Appeal to tradition:
    “We have always been doing this.” -doctors
    Appeal to fear
    “We have only 15 years left!” – climate alarmist

    • zyxzevn says:

      Critical thinking??

      This has been spread around the internet a lot
      “The Ultimate Cheatsheet For Critical Thinking”
      It asks some basic questions starting with a key-word:
      Who? ..benefits from this?
      What? ..are strengths/weaknesses?
      Where? ..would we see in the real world?
      When? this acceptable/unacceptable?
      Why? this a problem/challenge?
      How? this similar to …?

      It teaches nothing about the logical fallacies!
      It misses the basic questions:
      “What is the evidence? How strong is the evidence?”
      “What information is left out?”
      “How did the researchers reach a certain conclusions,
      and what are the alternatives?”

      Instead of critical thinking, this cheatsheet is a method
      to discuss a certain topic without really getting to the
      basic questions or underlying problems.

      And I found similar methods reported in the US school system.
      The education seems to be focused on producing standard replies,
      and not to think.
      The cheatsheet above reflects the same idea.

    • zyxzevn says:

      Appeal to authority – controversy

      On wikipedia, the appeal to authority has been changed meaning
      to “appeal to fake authority”.
      Which is a complete different kind of fallacy.

      That is why I started calling it “expert fallacy”.

      The expert fallacy becomes clear this way:
      “Experts in Astrology are certain that astrology is important for our lives”
      “The authority in Christianity, the Pope, assures us that God exists and that we should read the bible”
      “The commission for female rights in Saudi Arabia declares that women have too many rights”

      In these cases we have experts that do exist, and may fully stand behind those ideas. But many people will disagree with their statements.

      • mkey says:

        That’s a good application of the experts fallacy, but what do you mean when you say they have changed it on wikipedia? They are discussing various forms of it, one is “appeal to non authority”, which is a bit vexing since it implies importance of authority. Is that what you’re referring to?

        • zyxzevn says:

          What experts say about the expert fallacy

          The amount in which “appeal to authority” is recognized as
          a fallacy varies on wikipedia.
          It used to be more technocratic a few years ago, and some
          other sources still refuse to see it as a fallacy.

          False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority (not always fallacious)

          Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided..

          Discussion at quora

          Pure logically the “appeal to authority” is always a logical fallacy.
          So, how can it be divided or not always fallacious?
          Something is clearly wrong here.

          It does not mean that I deny the knowledge and experience that an authority/expert has about a topic.
          The logical fallacy is that we forget that the person is not important,
          if we can trust him/her in some way.
          The value is in the knowledge and experience that he/she can
          add to the discussion.

          And it is to ourselves how we can value this knowledge and experience into the discussion.

          Negative value of Experts / Authorities

          Sometimes/often the truth is the opposite of what the authority claims.
          Like on climate change. An honest specialist in sea levels might not
          have considered the very accurate satellite data. This means that his
          data and knowledge might be right, but his conclusions are likely wrong.

          The problem is that we give to much credit to someone who is an expert in a field. Someone can be completely wrong. Even when he is a god in his field and has been working with saints, the field can change when new accurate data is found. With some wisdom, one might already have expected that.

          A good example is how one doctor advised to wash hands between patients to prevent diseases from go from one patient to another. This is based on experience and wisdom, and care for patients. Later bacteria were discovered and we know why hygiene is so important. But authorities/ experts in the field did oppose that idea for a long time.

          This means that authorities/ experts can often be the cause of problems,
          instead of the solution.

          I see the same thing in astronomy, where experts are talking about all kinds of
          science fiction nonsense. They still do not have a clue about how the sun really works.
          The presented model is full with scientific problems and breaks basic physics.
          And talking with them they use many logical fallacies to strengthen their claims.

          It is so bad, that if someone is an astronomer, I assume that he
          adds negative value, due to the wrong models and false assertions.

          The same is for many PhD’s in most branches of engineering. They start theorizing
          and discussing about all kinds of stuff. But they do not do any real work.

          Max Planck said something similar – “Science progresses with each funeral.”
          Which was directed at his followers to drop his ideas if they needed to.


          By asserting logical value to a person instead of the information and experience
          that he/she provides, we create a logical error.

          And if an expertise only exists for a closed group of authorities,
          it is not an authority, it is a cult.

  6. mkey says:

    I’d like to switch gears for a moment. After a hard day, this seems extremely therapeutic.

    Will Grigg’s on Fire – Best Football Chant Ever

    • cooly says:

      Happy victims. Ignorance is bliss sometimes.

      • mkey says:

        Statistically, you’re probably as right as climate scientists, but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. One needs to unplug now and again, that doesn’t mean they are ignorant.

        • cooly says:


          Thanks for spanking me. I deserve it. That was a cynical and ignorant post I made. Just my frame of mind at the moment. Just thinking about how “they” use pro sports as a kind of laser cat toy to distract the population. I have my own unplug things which would certainly bore the fuck out of most people. So my apologies to all the sports fans out there.

          Cooly, posting from the doghouse for a moment.

  7. AnimalsArentFood says:

    Additionally, there’s no telling what the so-called expert is an expert on.

    They could have interviewed an expert voting machine deliveryman for their election security article.

    They could have interviewed an expert on vaccine shelf life for their flu vaccine article.

    They could have interviewed an expert on creating attention-grabbing headlines for their climate change article.

  8. alexb says:

    I was looking through these show notes and browsing the links until I came to “You are failing us: plans, frustration at UN climate talks.”. When U clicked on this link I got this response, this is a new http response for me, a real first:

    451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

    We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact [email and phone number].

    [EDIT – No email addresses or phone numbers in the comments section. -JC]

  9. flammable says:

    “Experts Says” is an effective propaganda tool to get people to support any subject. But what about a common propaganda tactic to get people to disregard a topic.
    What about “unlikable person says this”? Or “crazy conspiracy entertainer says something outlandish?” Obviously Alex Jones is a perfect example of this. Jones says many things that are insane and factually incorrect but the topics he is covering mostly does have legitimacy. However people are so annoyed by him they completely disregard everything he says. Even if others cover the story correctly like the frogs changing gender, people would immediately think it is fake just because someone unlikable spoke about it.

  10. HomeRemedySupply says:

    West Texas Experts
    At the 2:45 mark, James mentions with the following headline: “Pets shouldn’t be impulse gift, experts say”.

    I always learn a lot from West Texas Experts…

    One example: ”Don’t ever tell the wife that she has a “Woman Brain”, even though she does.”

    Another example: ”If you plant Cadillacs, they probably won’t sprout new ones.”

  11. ronnie.a says:

    Thank you so much. You elucidate things so well. If I could afford to give you more I would. I am so tired of arguing with my “well educated” friends. You research well beyond my time restraints. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are brilliant.

  12. manbearpig says:

    So just for fun I decided to put “les experts disent” between quotation marks into the google bar. The first result as translated by the Uncorrected (by me) automatic translation engine “deepl” was:

    “IPCC Special Report: What the experts say”

    So as the experts of the IPCC are mentioned in the title, I went and searched in the article for what the IPCC had actually said: but that was no where to be found. Only actions decided by …somebody… supposedly in response to what “experts” might or might not have said, phrased in such a way as to be passed off as recommended by the “experts” of the IPCC, supposedly scientists, right?

    Next came:

    “”Manipulator”, “dangerous”: what Jonathann Daval’s experts say”:

    Behind his “beaten dog” look is in fact a “determined, rather dominant man who can, if necessary, become angry or even aggressive””…

    (WHAT??!! A man who become ANGRY! and/or Agressive!?? NO!! Outrageous!!)

    “…It is Jonathann Daval’s portrait drawn up by a psychologist who examined him and whose report Franceinfo was able to consult…

    …Confessions, reversals, unverifiable explanations, contradictory versions… Has Jonathann Daval ever told the truth? When? When? The experts who examined it describe in all cases a “very complex” personality.

    For the psychologist expert who interviewed him, he is a “somewhat chameleon-like” personality who can “become manipulative”…”

    “become manipulative”, wow…

    Don’t know anything about this murder story but the moral of these passages might be: Better hope the psychologists are on your side of the frame…

    Finally, there was: “What do EU experts say about the development of artificial intelligence?

    A recent report published by the European Commission gives its recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence. It seems that our continent will not take the same path as China in terms of privacy.

    No scoring of individuals

    In its report published on 26 June 2019 by the European Commission, a group of political experts considered that mass AI surveillance should not be introduced in our countries. The same applies to the establishment of a social score or rating of citizens, as is already the case in China, where 23 million people are not allowed to travel because of this rating. However, the fact is that the collection of citizens’ data for such uses is unethical and contrary to privacy…

    …Thus, if the European Commission decides to trust this group of experts, the EU Member States will not logically follow the same path as China.”

    Uhhh…That’s a big “IF”.

    and the last report above courtesy of The Verge

    now I don’t need experts to tell me I’m late for the hamsterwheel…eeek!

  13. Nick Weech says:

    “sugar in the gas tank” you said in 2011 about filling newsspace with a non-story. What did you mean?
    I recommmend DuckDuckGo too

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Referring to around the 5:49 minute mark of Corbett’s “Episode 211 – Expertology”

      At the beginning credits of S03E16 (‘Bart the Lover’), the Mechanic says to Bart Simpson’s 4th grade teacher, the lonely divorced Edna Krabappel…
      “Bingo, bango, sugar in the gas tank. Your ex-husband strikes again.”
      (6 seconds)

      While it could have been her ex-husband, it should be noted that Bart Simpson is in her class. We really don’t know for sure. The mechanic assumes it.

      (A personal anecdote:
      Back in the 1950’s, early 60’s, Duncan YoYo’s were a big deal with lots of advertising. Once, the Lone Ranger, Clayton Moore, came to our small west Texas town to put on a Duncan YoYo promotion. But he couldn’t wear the trademark mask, because of copyright law.)

      In this episode of the Simpsons, the YoYo promoters came to town and all the kids wanted YoYo’s.
      Bart performs a YoYo trick for Milhouse called “Plucking the Pickle”. The writers wanted to use a more crude slang, but the censors wouldn’t let them. Still, if one uses their imagination, they get the idea.
      When Bart is writing the fake love letters to Edna Krabappel, he helps win her heart by stating that he doesn’t like YoYo’s.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Also, I should point out that even though the Mechanic does the taste test, how do we know that it is not a ruse on the Mechanic’s part.

    • mkey says:

      I understood that reference as “something that is in the wrong place”.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Mkey, you got my mental juices flowing.

        Regarding: “Bingo, bango, sugar in the gas tank.”
        QUEUED video just prior to quotes below

        James Corbett says:
        …I think to a certain extent it is just sloppy journalism, combined with tight deadlines and the need to produce a story. Well, what’s an easy way to produce a story? Slap together something that’s absolutely not news by any stretch of the imagination and just attribute it to some “experts”, quote unquote, that you dig up for a couple of obligatory quotes. And there you go – “Bingo, bango, sugar in the gas tank.” – you have an entire news story, like this “Pets shouldn’t be impulse gift, experts say”, which is just as inane as it sounds….

        My think is…
        “Bingo, bango, sugar in the gas tank.” is an idiom.
        It likely has a meaning similar to “There you go” and “It’s a wrap”, “an expression used to show that something is concluded” with ”Bingo Bango” adding an emphasis and acknowledgment to the concept of “finished” / “It’s a done”.

        (An idiom is a phrase or expression whose meaning can’t be understood from the ordinary meanings of the words in it. For example, “Get off my back!” is an idiom.)

        • mkey says:

          There are a few wise sayings which could fit here, but neither of them translates well.

          One is “to give a bear’s favor”; meaning, when a bear gives you a favor, you’ll probably end up regretting it. Applied to this situation, even of you put some sugar in the gas tank with the best intentions, it’s still not the best (if not the worst) investment of time and sugar.

          The other one goes something like “to turn a saw upside down”; meaning to try and use the saw (the manual one) so that you’re sawing with the flat side.

  14. Libertydan says:

    I just did a “Startpage” search (or a number of them)because I was looking to show a friend that the actual paper currency is only about 10% of the overall currency. Thus 90% of the currency could be wiped out in a heart beat, should the private Bankers wish to do so.
    Anyway, every search I did which included the words “Federal Reserve” brought up multiple results which directed me to Federal Reserve Sites, some of which explained that the Federal Reserve was not Owned by anyone. It was easy to find how much of each Bill was in circulation (totaling about 1.7 Trillion now), however I had to know something about M2 and include that in my search along with US Dollars (which no longer exist relative to the definition given them in the 1792 coinage Act)in order to get the overall currency which is about $15 Trillion.
    My point here is that, I used to tell people that they could verify what I was telling them by doing a simple “search” (not Google) expecting that they would find evidence that I knew what I was talking about. This is not true anymore! Now I have to send specific links to info that I have reviewed if I want to make my point. I can no longer just say “The Federal Reserve is not part of the Government, look it up for yourself” and expect that people are going to actually get good info. In fact, if these uninformed people are left to search on there own,they will likely get bad info. This is why Web Sites like the CorbettReport are so important. At least I can still say “go to and type Federal Reserve in his search window” and I will know what people will be looking at.
    Make the world a better place! End the Fed, and End the Empire!

  15. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Voting Machines

    Like Corbett mentioned, what is wrong with a paper ballot?
    It seems so simple.
    Less costly.
    And it does not require a biometric ID.

    • flammable says:

      Well the MSM would bring up the 2000 US Presidential Election controversy over a confusing paper ballot in Florida as the reason why.

      Now it would make a lot a sense to make a simpler paper ballot like everyone asked for but no. We needed voting machines with computer software as paper can be misread and confusing.

      There were also fears that voting fraud involving destruction of paper ballots and printing fake ones was happening. Yet no evidence of that ever turned up but we still have to use these voting computers anyways.

  16. generalbottlewasher says:

    Rachel Maddow came to The Oil Capitol on Saturday the 5th of September. She has written a book and is on a 8 city book promotion tour. The book, ” Blowout” is all about big oil, fracking and earthquakes. The seismologist Austin Holland is the hero of the book. He was pressured to alter his findings linking hydrolic fracking to earthquakes. You know he loses his job, Maddow said “he doesn’t have a political bone in his body. He stood up for his work and the science. That is a noble thing”
    I propose here , James, you consider writting a damn book to counter her hog wash and crass propeganda (commercialism). She said she didn’t start out to write a book about oil and gas. Two topics intrigued her. Why would Russia blatantly meddle in the American elections? The other was add meaningful analysis to the threat of democracy to authoritarianism. That says it!, in a backward way, a duplicitous way, the Rhoades/Bacon way. Democracy is threatening, her supporting benefactors, their Authoritarian way (rule). Doublespeak like a pro Rhodes Scholar!
    Well!!! we know that book on Big Oil has already been written by you know who.
    {In digital format only though} She goes on to mention other memes already explored, here, by you know who!! Let me remind, you will recognize them from way back. They are “Words as weapons”, Big Oil weaves its influence across the World, ” fake news” ” altering langauges” , Russia , science, technocracy ect.ect. ect… All been said before in a much clearer way for truth and borrowed and lifted by her to turn a phase, into utter hogwash and doublespeak. The small crowd lapped it up.Big cheers, she had em eating out of her hand. She could have at least done the smallest bit of research but admittedly said “the book is not investigative but based on available public records and previously reported stories.
    { experts in ass-troll-ogy, all say ass-troll-ogy works } It brings all these together under one theme”. God help us—- write the book James!

  17. Ragnar says:

    Thank you James for showing viewers how to perform basic research into media propaganda pushes. It sounds sarcastic, but I’m serious. If people were to start doing such research before just believing headlines, it would go a long way toward exposing the baseless, factless tactics the media is using to brainwash people. I’ve noticed over the years how they sway people’s opinions with leading headlines and seemingly innocuous comments by script readers in the media. We all have to wake up to the fact that you CANNOT trust the lamestream media!

  18. cooly says:

    Packaging as propaganda

    Today at the grocery store was a sign for Free Flu Shots! with a stock photo of a very happy person. It was the photo that convinced me to get the shot, because I want to be a very happy person too.

  19. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Inane sloppy journalism
    I think College and High School does this to a person. Their competency goes to the bottom of the pail, along with any sense of caring.

    Corbett mentions the following article, which does NOT name an expert. In fact, the word “expert” is used too much in the brief article.
    “Experts say getting the flu shot early can give you better protection against the Flu”

    This kid, the author, Antonio Stinson, bless him because he is a prime product of our educational system and society’s “normalizing”. Sometimes he churns out a half dozen “stories” in a day. You can tell…he just want to text his friends on his phone and go home, not do any serious journalism. He goes to work to get by.

  20. Ukdavec says:

    Another ‘expert’

    Trump’s ‘China Expert’ Has an Imaginary Friend

    Who is Ron Vara? He only seems to exist in the books of Peter Navarro.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Journalist Tom Bartlett writes an insightful piece. This is a smooth read which gives us a glimpse on how public attitudes and politics can be shaped.

      “The Yellow Peril” scare tactic

      …Before joining the White House, Peter Navarro was a professor of economics and public policy at the University of California at Irvine and the author of books like Death by China: Confronting the Dragon — A Global Call to Action and The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Can Be Won (FT Press). He’s since become one of Trump’s most dogged defenders, telling CNN recently that “I am never disappointed in my president.” …

      …China scholars and fellow economists tend to be less enthused. Navarro doesn’t have a background in Chinese studies, doesn’t speak the language, and reportedly made his first trip to the country only last year…

      Tessa Morris-Suzuki views Navarro’s rhetoric on China with alarm.
      An emeritus professor of Japanese and Korean history at the Australian National University, she has been working on an essay examining the heated language that Navarro employs, noting its similarity to talk of a “yellow peril” at the turn of the 20th century.

      In her research, she kept running across a name she didn’t recognize: Ron Vara. Navarro has quoted Vara a dozen or so times in six books, usually as an epigraph before a chapter. In ‘Death by China’, published in 2011, Vara offers this sweeping assessment of the country’s roughly 1.4 billion people: “Only the Chinese can turn a leather sofa into an acid bath, a baby crib into a lethal weapon, and a cellphone battery into heart-piercing shrapnel.”….

      (The article later reveals “Vara”.)

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Reuters – October 22, 2019
      China says world ‘shocked’ by Navarro fake name


      “I think this also reflects that certain people in the U.S. have tried all methods, without having any limits, to suppress and tarnish China because of their own interests or political intentions. They fabricate and sell lies, even make policies based on lies. This is not only ridiculous, but also dangerous. This will not only impact and threaten normal international relations and order, but in the long run, it will ultimately harm the interests of the United States itself.”

    • Ukdavec says:

      He’s at it again…..

      A critical decision about China tariffs is looming, and Ron Vara, Peter Navarro’s hawkish alter ego, has re-emerged to share some thoughts on the matter.

      President Trump must decide within days whether to proceed with the next round of tariffs on $160 billion of Chinese goods, which are slated to go into effect on Sunday. Mr. Navarro, a senior trade adviser to Mr. Trump and a China skeptic, has cast doubt on the willingness of Beijing to meaningfully overhaul its trade practices and has advocated the tariffs as a tool to force China to change its behavior.

  21. manbearpig says:

    Experts say!

    (Climate Math)

  22. manbearpig says:

    “…Follow the advice from experts and your local authorities and #StayAtHome to slow the spread of the virus.”

    How Dare You question the Experts!

    “Greta Thunberg Says She And Her Father Likely Had The Coronavirus

    …Thunberg and her father have yet to be tested for the virus because Sweden only offers coronavirus tests to those in need of urgent medical care, she explains in her Instagram post. “I have therefore not been tested for COVID-19, but it’s extremely likely that I’ve had it, given the combined symptoms and circumstances.” (RELATED:INTERACTIVE: This Map Shows How Many Have Died From COVID-19 In Each State)

    She explains that she has “basically recovered” and urges everyone to stay at home. “Many (especially young people) might not notice any symptoms at all, or very mild symptoms,” the post said. “We who don’t belong to a risk group have

    an enormous responsibility, our actions can be the difference between life and death

    for many others… Please keep in mind, follow the advice from experts and your local authorities and #StayAtHome to slow the spread of the virus.”

    somehow I imagine we’ll all’ve been “tested” at some point or another…

  23. 515 says:

    This test is terrifying in a post COVID world. Nothing about these results are random, they are all either COVID related or randomly enough the rest all involve guns or mass shooters.

    The specific articles are in themselves revealing because they are the gold standard of nonsense for covid policy. I can’t convey this idea any better than the actual headlines so here are some.

    Food and food packaging highly unlikely to spread Covid-19, experts say
    Cities And States Are Imposing New COVID-19 Restrictions. Experts Say It’s Not Enough

    Health officials say the coronavirus will likely become endemic in the next several years. What does that mean?

    These were all on page one .. this is revealing but terrifying.

    • 515 says:

      A closer look reveals something worth adding. Every single one of the COVID related search results falls into one of two categories that all have one thing in common. Each article is trying to get the reader to do something that on it’s face should seem counterintuitive. Each article either represents health experts or financial backers who want people to either start or stop doing something. The story will go something like this ..
      “health experts say three feet enough for social distance” expert trying to illicit a response OR

      “Experts say children fine to return to school because it is not a good vector for spreading disease”

      “experts say fast food wrappers wont spread”

      “experts say OTC flu med safe with vaccine”

      The amount of fake news and disinformation on here is interesting as well

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top