Washington Post ISIS Headlines
The Economist Says Europe’s Destiny is to Become Eurafrica

The MegaCapitalist Agnelli and Rothschild families in control of the Economist magazine love to tell us what we must accept as inevitable, whether we “like it or not”.
The Social Engineers who wish to mess with people’s countries first use their newspaper rags to spread their lies globally, to demoralise, deceive and destroy. Isn’t it odd, the goals of the Mega Capitalists and the Communists are the same: culture destruction, heritage destruction, border destruction, country destruction, people destruction, with all power resting in the Global Central Bank.
MEDIA MANIPULATION LANGUAGE LIST
Language Tricks
Media Disinformation Agents Use
To Manipulate You
looming on the horizon
looming threat
heating up
imminent
an uptick
a spike
a surge
crisis
unprecedented
uncertain times
trying times
danger to our democracy
threatens our values
a direct threat to
attack on our institutions
undermines faith in
undermines the public trust
worrying levels of
at an alarming rate
potentially
a risk of
is a symptom of
expected / suspected
amid rising concerns
there is concern
growing concern
rising tensions
upheaval
———
impassioned
sends a powerful message
and it’s beautiful
here’s why that’s a good/bad thing
here’s how to think about ___
because of course it is
safe and effective
settled science
trust the science
it’s clear
it feels like
brave
heart-breaking
empowering
disenfranchised
marginalised
get educated / uneducated
the wrong/right side of history
history won’t be kind to
dustbin of history
systemic
dismantle
decolonise
the conversation
reimagining
so this never happens again
a lot to unpack
whiteness
social construct
part of the problem
it’s not who we are
opening a dialog
come together
tolerant
open and inclusive
undocumented
on both sides
deplatform
the ___ community
global goals
our shared values
hetero-normative
women and people of color
———
independent fact checkers
verified
sources reveal
experts agree
scholars agree
psychologist says
the science says
scientists predict
research suggests
studies suggest
it’s settled science
seems to suggest
officials warn
authorities advise
critics claim
according to the experts
sources familiar say
sources familiar with his thinking
according to insiders
according to new polls
appears to show
what appears to be
evidence-based
scientific consensus
studies show
new figures show
new indicators
a new start-up
in a press release
told reporters
announced today
most people agree
after investigation
valid concerns
widely seen as
widely recognised as
overwhelming
believed to be
this is where we stand
there is no debate
this is what we know
it’s irrefutable
———
misinformation
disinformation
unfounded
debunked
rumours
baseless
nonsense
blatantly false
widely disputed
roundly dismissed
falsely claims
the false claim
makes inaccurate claims about
claims without evidence
alleged
spreading conspiracy theories
a crackpot notion
taking root
his obsession with
sprung up online
propagated by
pushing the belief
advancing the idea
peddling
it’s unclear if
———
controversial
objectionable
not normal
bizarre
strange
problematic
deeply concerning
disturbing
gross
dark
shocking
sickening
dangerous
horrific
unnerving
disquieting
scary
terrifying
pervasive
divisive
———
conspiracy theorist
truther
anti-
anti-vaxxer
Qanon
fringe beliefs
fringe groups
privileged
toxic
far right
hard right
extreme right
alt right
radicalized
white supremacist
neo-nazi
fascist
denier
science denier
climate denier
hesitant
hateful
hate-filled
insurrectionist
extremist
radical
racist
anti-semitic
homophobic
transphobic
islamophobic
———
his/her rhetoric
blasts
targets
stokes
attacks
slams
rips
opens fire
lashes out
spewing
amplified
give oxygen to
provoking
bombshell
trope
canard
dog whistle
emboldened
a culture of
has a habit of
a familiar tactic
sparks outrage
catches flak
rant
a vile screed
loses his temper
ill-tempered
incites
inciting violence
attempting to undermine
is very confused about
hate speech
spreading hate
rings hollow
in bad faith
tone deaf
has no place in a ___ society
———
oppressive regimes
Russia collusion
Russian disinformation
Russian oligarchs
Russian hackers
Russian bots
Russian trolls
didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment
The Guardian kicks off the mainstream media censorship campaign against Substack
They go on to name Substack’s payment processor in a bid to get things shut down.

Opposing experimental vaccines is “hate” now, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate will come after you. Who funds this censorship advocacy group? They won’t say. But the corrupt media sure does love them.
They made a bizarre 1 minute video trying to make scientific debate seem ominous:
Fact from Fiction
MSNBC claims lies are just opinions, Federal Judge agrees
After jihad bombing, Cosmo pretends a kind Sikh is a Muslim
BBC journalists are obsessed with going viral on Twitter, says BBC’s Head of Editorial Policy and Standards
The United Nations has decided it can censor entire websites
Most Climate Science Doesn’t Follow the Scientific Method
FAKE SCIENCE: 90% of Researchers agreed that ‘there is a crisis of reproducibility’ in their field
NPR reversing victim and criminal
Results from half of psychology studies cannot be replicated
FRAUD: How much of Science is fake? Scientists don’t know and don’t care
Notes from the Awakening #6









![Email screenshot from the Domain Registrar Tucows, sent to a customer.
Tucows GDPR Team (Tucows Inc - Compliance)
Dear Jonathan: Thank you for contacting Enom. The domain name americanfuturist[.]xyz was reported to Enom by the United Nations Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (UN CTED). As such, Enom took action to ensure that the domain does not resolve, in accordance with our commitments under the Framework to Address Abuse. Because of this, the hold cannot be removed at this time.
Sincerely, the Tucows Compliance Team](https://mediatricks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/united-nations-censoring-domain-names.png)

![Breitbart article screenshot. The headline reads: "J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method".
Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.
Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.
“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.”
Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.
Criteria for compliance with science.
Eight well-established criteria for judging whether a paper complies with the scientific method (for policy making) based on definitions of science over the ages are:
1. Objective: Tests multiple reasonable hypotheses
2. Useful findings (effect size is important for decision making)
3. Full disclosure of methods, data and other relevant information
4. Comprehensive review of prior knowledge
5. Valid and reliable data
6. Valid and simple methods
7. Experimental evidence provided
8. Conclusions consistent with the evidence
According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”
According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.](https://mediatricks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/science-doesnt-follow-the-scientific-method.png)
![Article screenshot: "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: ‘No One Asks’ Researchers To Follow Scientific Method".
Earlier in the week, we covered a study from Wharton School professor J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green which claims that only a fraction of 1 percent of the papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method. Professor Armstrong appeared on Breitbart News Daily today to discuss his research with editor-in-chief Alex Marlow.
“The problem in journals, with government research, and with universities is that nobody asks them to follow [it]. I’ve been publishing for 55 years and can’t ever recall anyone saying ‘you should follow the scientific method.'”
Armstrong, along with Dr Kesten Green developed a checklist of eight criteria to assess whether a paper or a study follows the scientific method. According to the checklist, scientific studies must (1) test multiple reasonable hypotheses, (2) provide useful findings, (3) fully disclose methods, data, and other relevant information, (4) conduct a comprehensive review of prior knowledge, (5) use valid and comparable data, (6) use valid and simple methods, (7) provide any experimental evidence, (8) reach conclusions consistent with the evidence.
“So, [Dr.] Kesten Green and I got involved with this to develop a simple checklist that would help people to say ‘are you following the scientific method?’ If you’re going to fly a plane, if you’re going to be a doctor and operate, you have to use a checklist, and if you use a checklist you are much more effective. Nothing like that exists right now.”
“There is one exception, and that is PLOS One, Public Library of Science One actually provides a checklist. I think it took them about five years before they became the largest scientific journal in the world, so they’ve really revolutionized things.”
“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, you do, you keep getting paid.”
“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies, and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”
Armstrong said that the problem of ideologically-driven research had been a problem since at least the 1920s, but that it has intensified in recent years with the “vast growth of government funding for research.”
“I agree with many of the greats of the past when I say that the government should not be involved in research.”
Armstrong reiterated his argument that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violates all eight of his checklist for following the scientific method. “If you don’t believe me, you can go and look at their work and you can use that checklist.”](https://mediatricks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Published-Science-Lacking-the-Scientific-Method.png)










