top of page
Search

Johnny Harris Youtube Videos, Ranked Reviewed Explained

  • th1sandth8tcom
  • Jan 26
  • 42 min read

Expertise: Investigative Journalism, Geopolitics, Deep State, History

***

T&T x Johnny Harris Features: 

T&T x Johnny Harris Reels


Top 10 Vids


  1. The "Deep State" Explained – With all the allegations about a group of unelected men making decisions that impact the rest of the country, we wanted to dig into the documents and talk to experts to find the truth. Is there a Deep State? And if so, how deep does it go? –  Trump was Right, the Deep State is Real

-- VIDEO CHAPTERS – 0:00 Intro, 7:26 Origins of the Deep State , 13:55 Rise of the CIA, 19:58 The Church Hearings , 25:41 Post 9/11


“The hand that mixes the Georgetown martini is time and again the hand that guides the destiny of the Western world” … and we’re off.  


In one of the most elegant and significant youtube videos ever created, the Youtube Wizard Johnny Harris delves into the concept of the deep state, its historical origins, and its significant impact on American democracy, unambiguously demonstrating that the deep state is not just a conspiracy theory, but a real phenomenon that has shaped U.S. history and continues to influence our political landscape. The video traces the roots of the deep state back to the formation of the CIA in the early 1950s as Harris highlights a vast trove of the CIA's covert operations throughout: Operation Ajax in Iran, the coups in Guatemala and the Congo, MK Ultra, Mockingbird, Church Committee hearings targeting MLK, the case of Edward Snowden, the Phoenix Program, Operation Chaos, and the Watergate scandal – through a rigorous analysis of the mentioned ops (amongst MANY other seemingly impossible operations that weren’t mentioned), Harris discerns that they set a precedent for secret, unaccountable government actions. Granted, each of the mentioned operations/scandals each warrants a This and That essay/Johnny Harris analysis of their own, the video is so powerful because it connects some of the most profound covert operations over the last few decades and synthesizes them based on their timeline. These operations, shrouded in secrecy, clearly reveal a pattern of the CIA's involvement in foreign and domestic affairs, often with questionable ethical implications, illustrating the deep state's pervasive influence and the lack of accountability that often accompanies such secrecy; he emphasizes the dangers of secrecy, quoting the powerful statement, "Secrecy keeps mistakes secret. Secrecy is a disease. It causes a hardening of the arteries of the mind”, a central idea to the video's argument that the deep state operates in the shadows, away from public scrutiny and accountability, detrimental to the functioning of a transparent and accountable government.


Throughout the video we learn not only did the CIA facilitate countless coups and overthrow democratically elected leaders in the name of profits, but they manipulated the free press through Mockingbird, which involved paying hundreds of journalists to promote the agency's agenda. They illegally surveilled MLK and other civil rights activists and ran a smear campaign and tried to negate the revelations of Edward Snowden, who exposed the NSA's massive surveillance program. They conducted illegal human experiments to develop procedures and identify drugs that could be used during interrogations to weaken people and force confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture via MK Ultra. James Angleton and co illegally spied on the anti-war movement in Operation CHAOS, intimidating and bribing their way to successfully counteracting the increasingly popular anti-vietnam war sentiments. And we would’ve never known about the targeting of Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights activists if it weren’t for Frank Church’s efforts to showcase the deep state's attempts to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion.


Harris highlights a critical historical moment when President Truman, one month after Kennedy's assassination, published a paper suggesting the CIA should be abolished, casting a shadow on the historical representation of the United States. He powerfully notes that even the president often finds he has no control over these entrenched secretive institutions and that we are “trading our freedom for security, feeding a new kind of government, one that operates outside of the elegant triangle”. With this notion, he illustrates the tension between democratic ideals and the operations of the deep state  – a sobering reminder of the deep state's long standing influence.


The video is a compelling examination of the deep state, blending historical analysis with contemporary relevance; by tracing the origins and actions of the CIA and other secretive entities, Harris paints a picture of a government operating in the shadows, often at odds with democratic values. Harris's video is a call to action of sorts, urging viewers to recognize the dangers of unchecked secrecy, the need for vigilance in preserving democratic principles advocating for greater transparency and oversight. By exposing the deep state's activities and their impact on democracy, Harris encourages a deeper understanding of the complexities and ethical considerations of governance in the modern world. With regards to the severe problem of overclassification, he posits that the concentration of power in the hands of a few unelected individuals pose a serious threat to democracy and accountability, ascertaining that this kind of infiltration undermines the very foundation of a free and independent media, which is essential for a healthy democracy. He emphasizes that secrets degrade democracy and accountability, suggesting that unless society can resist the seductive pull of secrecy, the deep state will continue to undermine democratic principles, “Secrets keep us safe but secrets also degrade this delicate thing that we have called democracy and accountability. That is until we save ourselves from their everlasting seductive pull”...


  1. Is the US Government Hiding Aliens?! – The Pentagon is studying UFOs and I wanted to understand why. What I learned convinced me that we can learn a lot from studying these things – Sources + Video Timeline


Harris explores the recent shift in the U.S. government's stance on unidentified flying objects (UFOs), delving into the historical context, recent revelations, and the implications of these developments, providing a comprehensive overview of why UFOs are now being taken seriously. He veers away from the stories of Bob Lazar and the Ariel School Zimbabwe sighting, which admittedly could be true, in an effort to display only what the US government has openly confessed up to this point.  


He begins by highlighting a pivotal moment at the 6:30 mark when The New York Times broke the groundbreaking news that the Pentagon had been secretly researching UFOs for decades via Project Bluebook. This revelation included a confirmed sighting and testimony by Navy pilot David Fravor, who reported an object descending from 60,000 feet to 50 feet in a second. The profound speed and maneuverability of this object, iconically described as the "Tic Tac" UFO, defied conventional understanding of physics and aviation. At 10:30, Harris introduces the account of Ryan Graves, another Navy pilot who reported seeing UFOs on a daily basis –  sightings so frequent that pilots initially thought their instruments were malfunctioning. Graves emphasizes the regularity of these sightings, which were often dismissed by superiors who were likely briefed to dissolve the spread of this world-changing phenomena to the public. Despite the lack of emphasis on these sightings by the Navy higher ups, the persistent frequency of sightings, coupled with the varying types of objects observed, suggest that the phenomena were not merely technical glitches but warranted serious investigation. One of the most intriguing aspects of these countless sightings is the lack of a heat signature and any discernible means of propulsion, despite the objects' incredible speeds. Harris also mentions the existence of patents claiming to revolutionize propulsion technology, suggesting that advanced theoretical tech may already exist; he notes that the credibility to the pilots' testimonies is strong as these objects were clearly observed consistently on numerous accounts over an extended period.


At 14:00, Harris demonstrates that the U.S. government publicly acknowledged its study of UFOs, marking a significant shift in official stance, and by 14:55, Harris underscores the importance of the evidence gathered: 144 instances of UFO sightings, with 80 cases corroborated by multiple sensors, compelling reason for the government to take these reports seriously. Harris also mentions the 2022 annual report, which includes 366 reports, 171 of which remain completely unidentifiable and exhibit unusual flight characteristics said to be ‘inconsistent with what we know as physics and science more broadly’; “This is the evidence. We know that it’s true. 144 of these instances. 80 gathered from multiple sensors and that makes all the difference for me and for the US government to be taking this phenomena seriously”. This official report underscores the ongoing nature of UFO investigations and the need for international cooperation, as the U.S. is actively consulting with its allies to share and gather information and findings. Harris urges viewers (22:40) to decouple the study of UFOs from the automatic assumption that they are extraterrestrial as he highlights the importance of acknowledging the existence of unexplained aerial phenomena without immediately attributing them to aliens. The focus, instead, should be on understanding these occurrences through rigorous scientific inquiry, “I’m not saying they are 100 percent alien spacecrafts, I’m just saying there is 100 percent evidence of weird unidentified things flying around behaving in ways beyond mainstream understanding of physics”.


By 24:30, Harris poses the provocative question: "Are we the aliens?" as he reflects on humanity's rapid technological evolution and suggests that studying UFOs could yield valuable insights into advanced physics and propulsion technologies, “we need to study these things because we can learn from them”. By questioning whether humanity could be the aliens, Harris invites viewers to consider broader implications of technological progress and the potential for learning from these unexplained phenomena. His emphasis on scientific inquiry and international collaboration underscores the importance of a measured and collective approach to understanding UFOs. The video provides a detailed and thought-provoking examination of why the U.S. government has shifted its stance on UFOs highlighting the transition from dismissing UFO sightings as fringe theories to acknowledging them as legitimate phenomena worthy of scientific investigation, and that the turning point came with credible reports from military personnel and the corroboration of sightings by multiple sensors. Overall, Harris's video serves as a compelling call to take UFOs seriously, not as a source of fear or conspiracy, but as an opportunity for scientific discovery and technological advancement. His balanced perspective encourages viewers to remain curious and open-minded, recognizing the profound possibilities that lie within the unexplained skies.


  1. American-Backed Coups, Mapped – The US perfected the art of the coup to push out leaders it didn’t like and install leaders it did. In this story I go through some of the major US-led coups to explore how the US rose to power and stayed there – The Evil Empire At Work 

In this eye-opening video Harris delves into the troubling history of U.S. involvement in overthrowing foreign governments, particularly during the Cold War era. The video provides a comprehensive overview of the coups that the U.S. government supported or orchestrated, highlighting the far-reaching consequences of these actions. Harris describes his criteria for the mentioned coups; firstly they must’ve been successful (there’s dozens of other failed coups), there must be at least a few US government officials directly involved and there must be concrete evidence the US govt was actually involved, not just speculation, “While the US has been involved in tons of regime changes around the world, we landed on a much shorter list, these are the coups that best exemplify how this tool has been used for international power over the years” –  and the number of countries involved even with this stringent criteria is mind-boggling: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile, Libya, Chad, Congo, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Hawaii, Vietnam, Philippines. 


Harris begins by discussing the concept of a coup d'état, which involves the sudden and illegal seizure of power from a government and then introduces the map that serves as the visual centerpiece of the video, showcasing the countries where American-backed coups have taken place; through detailed mapping and historical analysis, Harris highlights the geopolitical motives and consequences of these interventions, providing a comprehensive overview of America's covert operations to influence foreign governments. He sets the stage with a historical context of American-backed coups, explaining how these interventions have been a significant aspect of U.S. foreign policy since World War II, emphasizing that these actions are driven by a desire to promote U.S. interests abroad, often at the expense of local sovereignty and stability.


The video proceeds to explore several notable examples of U.S.-backed coups, starting with Hawaii in 1893. Led by American businessmen and plantation owners, the U.S. military supported the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, leading to the annexation of Hawaii. Next the Philippines in 1898; following the Spanish-American War, the U.S. suppressed Filipino independence movements, establishing control over the archipelago as the U.S. supported the overthrow of Spanish colonial rule and subsequently fought a war to suppress Philippine independence, leading to American colonization of the islands.


He then leaps into the 1950s with the 1953 coup in Iran AKA Operation Ajax. Harris explains how the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown by the CIA and British intelligence, leading to the installation of the Shah, a U.S.-friendly dictator which set the stage for decades of political instability and anti-American sentiment in the region; The coup was driven by Mossadegh's move to nationalize Iran's oil industry, which threatened Western oil interests. Harris illustrates how this intervention set a precedent for future U.S. actions in other countries. He then discusses the 1954 coup in Guatemala, where the CIA orchestrated the removal of President Jacobo Árbenz. Árbenz's land reforms, which affected the interests of the United Fruit Company, prompted the U.S. to intervene under the pretext of combating communism – a coup that led to decades of political instability, violence, civil war and human rights abuses in Guatemala. He touches on Puerto Rico in the 1950s, where the U.S. suppressed a nationalist uprising, maintaining control over the territory.


Moving to the 1960s, Harris covers the Congo crisis, where the CIA played a role in the assassination of democratically elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba (no, not by Jason Bourne) and supported the rise of Mobutu Sese Seko. This intervention aimed to counter Soviet influence in Africa but resulted in long-term authoritarian rule and economic decline in the Congo. And then onto Cuba… a coup so significant in shaping the geopolitics of the world in the early 60s that Harris had to include it despite not meeting his criteria of a successful coup. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion alongside Operation Mongoose aimed to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist government and destabilize the regime but instead solidified his rule. We stay in Central America with the Dominican Republic (1961 and 1965) where the CIA supported the assassination of dictator Rafael Trujillo, leading to years of political instability in ‘61 and then U.S. intervention supported a coup to prevent the return of leftist President Juan Bosch in ‘65, leading to the establishment of a pro-American government. Then in Vietnam (1963) the U.S. supported a coup that led to the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem, escalating American involvement in Vietnam… one of the few coups the US had to pay the price for as they became locked in the infamous war for another decade thereafter. In 1963 in Iraq, the U.S. supported the Baathist coup that overthrew the government of Abd al-Karim Qasim (bonus points for the 2003 coup in which the U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, citing weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism, resulting in long-term conflict and instability). Then in Brazil in ‘64 the U.S. supported a military coup that overthrew President João Goulart, fearing his leftist policies and instead installed a right-wing dictatorship. In 1963 Honduras the U.S. supported a military coup that ousted democratically elected President Ramón Villeda Morales (and again in 2009 Honduras, the US ousted President Manuel Zelaya, who had moved towards leftist policies). 


Finally we move into the 70s in 1973 Chile which outed the democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende and installed the brutal military dictator Augusto Pinochet, a particularly malevolent bloke whose regime tortured, killed and disappeared 3,065 people in the name of fighting communism. One of the most infamous is the decade-long coup in the 80s in Nicaragua in which the U.S. funded and trained the Contras, a right wing rebel group to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government led by Daniel Ortega. In Chad (1982) the U.S. supported Hissène Habré's coup against President Goukouni Oueddei, leading to yet another brutal dictatorship. Things continued to get cheeky in the Middle East as the U.S. funded and armed the mujahideen rebels (Afghanistan 1979-1989) to fight against the Soviet-backed government, contributing to the rise of the Taliban and then the US sought to destroy their own product in 2001 when they invaded to overthrow the Taliban regime following the September 11 attacks, leading to the notoriously prolonged conflict – everyone knows about the ‘war on terror’ in recent decades, but not many understand that the US was responsible for overthrowing the previous regime that allowed for the Taliban to come to power. Finally in Libya (2011) NATO intervention, with significant U.S. involvement, contributed to the overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi, leading to ongoing instability. Harris also touches on Operation Condor in South America, where the U.S. supported right-wing dictatorships to counter leftist movements, resulting in widespread repression, torture, and extrajudicial killings across the continent, “this collaboration had a devastating impact on countries like Argentina, where Condor exacerbated existing political violence and contributed to the "Dirty War" that left an estimated 30,000 people dead or disappeared. Others estimate the toll at 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared, and 400,000 imprisoned”. 


Throughout the video, Harris emphasizes the pattern of the U.S. government supporting coups against democratically elected leaders who were perceived as threats to American interests, often due to their leftist or socialist leanings, arguing that these actions were driven by a combination of anti-communist ideology and the desire to protect American corporate interests abroad. The video also highlights the hypocrisy of the U.S. government's actions, as it frequently espoused the virtues of democracy and freedom while actively undermining democratic governments in other countries – Harris points out that many of these coups led to the installation of brutal dictatorships and political instability, littered with horrific human rights abuses and long-term resentment towards the United States. Harris calls for greater transparency and accountability in U.S. actions abroad, advocating for a foreign policy that prioritizes stability, democracy, and respect for sovereignty as the video serves as a reminder of the unintended consequences of foreign meddling and the importance of critically examining the actions of one's own government. The video underscores the complexities and ethical dilemmas of U.S. foreign policy; these coups were superficially justified as necessary to combat communism, terrorism or protect American interests while causing significant human and political costs. The destabilization, authoritarianism, and anti-American sentiment resulting from these interventions highlight the need for a more principled and transparent approach to foreign policy. Harris's call for accountability and learning from past mistakes is particularly compelling. He encourages viewers to critically reflect on the legacy of American interventions and consider how future policies can align more closely with democratic values and international stability. Harris's thorough research and engaging presentation make this video an essential resource for understanding the complexities of U.S. interventions and their global impact.


These examples of American-backed coups reveal a disturbing pattern of the United States acting as an "Evil Empire," prioritizing its own economic and strategic interests over the democratic will and well-being of people in other nations. While the U.S. government often justified these interventions under the guise of fighting communism or terrorism, the reality is that many of these coups were driven by a desire to protect American corporate profits and maintain U.S. hegemony in various regions of the world. By overthrowing democratically elected leaders and supporting brutal dictatorships, the U.S. has contributed to countless human rights abuses, political instability, and economic hardship in these countries. The hypocrisy of the U.S. government's actions is striking, as it has repeatedly violated the very principles of democracy and self-determination that it claims to uphold. These coups demonstrate that the U.S. has often prioritized short-term economic gains and geopolitical control over the long-term stability and prosperity of other nations. The legacy of these interventions continues to haunt many of these countries, as they struggle with the aftermath of dictatorships, civil wars, and economic exploitation. Ultimately, the history of American-backed coups paints a picture of a nation that has repeatedly used its military and economic might to shape the world in its own image, often at the expense of the freedom and well-being of people in other countries. It is a sobering reminder of the dark side of American foreign policy and the need for greater accountability and respect for international law.

  1. The US Government vs Julian Assange – Julian Assange has a long, complicated past. But regardless of what you think of him and what he did, you should care about what happens to him. Here’s why – Before Snowden, There Was WikiLeaks


    Check out two very solid documentaries on Assange for a deeper understanding of him as a person - Risk (2016), by Laura Poitras (we used a little footage from that doc in the intro) We Steal Secrets (2013), by Alex Gibney


Let's dive into the complex case of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and the implications of his actions for press freedom, government transparency and whistleblowing. Harris explores Assange's motivations, the significant leaks published by WikiLeaks, and the legal and ethical implications of his actions. He begins by providing context on Assange's background and the creation of WikiLeaks, a platform designed to allow whistleblowers to anonymously leak classified information, highlighting some of the most significant leaks facilitated by WikiLeaks, including the "Collateral Murder" video, which showed a U.S. Apache helicopter firing on and killing civilians and journalists in Iraq.


Harris begins by outlining the creation of WikiLeaks in 2006, emphasizing Assange's mission to expose corruption and promote transparency. WikiLeaks quickly gained notoriety for publishing classified documents and revealing government secrets, challenging the traditional media's role and shaking the foundations of political and corporate power. The video then explores the controversy surrounding Assange and WikiLeaks, particularly their role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Harris discusses how WikiLeaks released emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, which many believe contributed to Clinton's defeat; one of my favorite parts of the video is when Trump praises WikiLeaks as “great independent journalism” for exposing Clinton’s emails and then reframes when under scrutiny for overseeing illegal covert operations claiming Assange to be “a hostile, terrorist organization”. At 6:30/7:00, Harris discusses the New York Times breaking the news about the Pentagon's secret research on UFOs, a story that gained significant attention thanks to WikiLeaks – just one example of how WikiLeaks brought hidden information to public awareness.


Harris also delves into the legal challenges faced by Assange, including allegations of sexual assault in Sweden and his eventual seeking of asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2012-2019. The video highlights the complex web of legal and political factors at play, with the U.S. government seeking Assange's extradition to face charges related to the WikiLeaks releases. Harris notes the broader context of these allegations, suggesting that many believe they were merely a pretext to eventually extradite Assange to the United States. At 14:00, Harris discusses the U.S. government's charges against Assange under the Espionage Act, accusing him of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to obtain and publish classified documents, marking a significant escalation in the legal battle, raising concerns about press freedom and the criminalization of investigative journalism. Julian Assange's case is particularly unprecedented as he is the first person to be charged under the Espionage Act without ever having been a U.S. government employee or contractor, setting a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching implications for press freedom and the ability of journalists to publish classified information in the public interest.


Harris then highlights some of WikiLeaks' most impactful releases, including (but not limited to): https://x.com/thepolllady/status/1805912910687793244?s=46&t=fB2gq21h6f4nPN1Dkcr51g

  • Collateral Murder (2010): A video showing a U.S. military helicopter attack in Baghdad, killing civilians and journalists. This leak sparked global outrage and highlighted the brutality of war.

  • Afghan War Diary (2010): A collection of over 75,000 documents detailing the war in Afghanistan, revealing previously unknown civilian casualties and corruption.

  • Iraq War Logs (2010): Another massive leak of documents that exposed human rights abuses and civilian deaths in Iraq.

  • U.S. Diplomatic Cables (2010): Over 250,000 cables from U.S. embassies worldwide, revealing candid assessments of foreign leaders and exposing diplomatic secrets.

  • Guantanamo Bay Files (2011): Hundreds of classified documents detailing the conditions and treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

  • Syria Files (2012): More than 2 million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries, and companies, providing insight into the Syrian government's actions during the early stages of the civil war.

  • Global Intelligence Files (2012): Over 5 million emails from the private intelligence company Stratfor, revealing the company's surveillance activities and ties to government agencies.

  • DNC Leaks (2016): Thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee, which exposed bias against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 U.S. presidential primary and led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

  • Podesta Emails (2016): Over 20,000 emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta, which revealed internal campaign strategies and controversies.

  • The Yemen Files (2016): Over 500 documents from the United States embassy in Sana'a, Yemen.The documents provided insights into U.S. operations in Yemen, including military support and drone strikes. This release shed light on the U.S.'s covert involvement in the Yemen conflict and the broader implications for Middle Eastern geopolitics.

  • Vault 7 (2017): A massive collection of documents detailing the CIA's hacking tools and capabilities, including the agency's ability to hack smartphones, smart TVs, and other devices.

  • CIA Hacking Tools (2017): A series of leaks codenamed "Year Zero," "Dark Matter," "Marble," and "Grasshopper," which further exposed the CIA's hacking capabilities and cyber weapons.

  • ICE Patrol (2018): A database containing personal information of over 9,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees, released as part of WikiLeaks' ongoing coverage of immigration issues.

  • OPCW Douma Docs (2019): A collection of documents and emails from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which raised questions about the organization's investigation into an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria.

Central to the video's analysis is the question of whether Assange and WikiLeaks should be considered journalists and afforded the same protections as traditional media outlets. Harris presents arguments from both sides, with some viewing Assange as a champion of transparency and press freedom, while others see him as a reckless actor who endangers national security and individuals' privacy. The video also raises important questions about the role of whistleblowers in a democracy and the balance between government secrecy and the public's right to know. At 21:30, Harris expands the discussion to the broader fight for transparency in the digital age. He emphasizes the role of whistleblowers and independent media in exposing corruption and abuses of power, arguing that Assange's case could set a dangerous precedent for future whistleblowers and journalists and lead to abuses of power and erosion of public trust. Harris's discussion of the broader implications for press freedom is particularly compelling as he raises critical questions about the future of investigative journalism and the potential repercussions of prosecuting individuals who expose uncomfortable truths. By situating Assange's case within the larger context of the fight for transparency, Harris encourages a deeper understanding of the stakes involved.  The video provides a nuanced and thought-provoking look at a complex and polarizing figure. By exploring the various legal, political, and ethical dimensions of the Assange case, Harris encourages viewers to grapple with the difficult questions surrounding press freedom, government transparency, and the role of whistleblowers in a democratic society. The video serves as a reminder of the high stakes involved in these issues and the ongoing need for public discourse and debate.


What Harris fails to mention is The CIA's plot to assassinate Assange (led by Mike Pompeo). The CIA's alleged plot to assassinate Assange is a chilling reminder of the lengths to which the U.S. government is willing to go to silence whistleblowers and journalists who expose its secrets. This revelation is deeply undemocratic and antithetical to the values of a free press and open society, underscoring the urgent need for greater transparency, accountability, and protection for those who have the courage to speak truth to power, even in the face of grave personal risk. The fact that such a plot could even be considered by a government agency tasked with upholding the law is a disturbing indictment of the erosion of democratic norms and the unchecked power of the national security state. It is a stark warning of the dangers posed by government secrecy and the importance of defending the rights of journalists and whistleblowers in an age of increasing surveillance and repression.


  1. Did COVID Escape a Lab? – The Question Isn't Whether It Came From a Lab, the question is why was it being covered up?


Harris investigates the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and explores the likelihood of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), presenting evidence and arguments supporting the lab leak hypothesis. From expert opinions to political implications surrounding this theory, Harris provides compelling evidence for the theory while acknowledging the ongoing debate and uncertainty surrounding the issue, aiming to provide a balanced perspective on a highly debated topic. The video begins by discussing the initial narrative that the pandemic originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, however, Harris points out that the first known cases had no direct connection to the market, suggesting that it may not have been the source of the outbreak. He starts by outlining the origins of the lab leak theory, noting that it initially emerged as a fringe idea but has gained more attention over time and is now unanimously regarded as probable. He explains that the theory suggests the virus accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research facility not only known for studying coronaviruses, but THE BIGGEST COVID LAB IN THE WORLD. Harris then delves into the proximity of the WIV to the outbreak's epicenter and its research on bat coronaviruses, highlighting the fact that the WIV had been studying RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), and that the lab had engaged in gain-of-function research, which involves manipulating viruses to make them more transmissible or virulent.


At around the 11-minute mark, Harris admits the lab leak hypothesis is valid as this Wuhan lab was quite literally the epicenter of Covid samples, “If the outbreak had happened in some other city where there was no lab with a freezer full of COVID samples, we wouldn't be having this conversation but Wuhan is literally the epicenter of coronavirus samples on Earth”. He then introduces a quote likening the situation to chocolate and Hershey Park, “Oh my god, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened? Like, oh, I don't know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean, or maybe it's the fucking chocolate factory”, suggesting that if you find chocolate near Hershey Park, it probably came from the chocolate factory. This analogy is used to illustrate the logical reasoning behind considering the lab leak theory given the Wuhan Institute of Virology focus on coronaviruses and its location. He then gets into the expert opinion of Shi Zhengli AKA The Batwoman who made her career going into caves and getting COVID samples from bats so she can study them… and she works in the Wuhan lab, “From the batwoman’s extensive study in this, she knows that it’s actually Southern China where all the bats are (and where SARS broke out in the early 2000s), not Wuhan, where COVID is most likely to jump from animals to humans''. He notes that Shi never expected an animal to human transmission to happen in central China and that her first thought was that the health officials got it wrong – “could it have came from our lab? It’s either not coronavirus, or if it is, it probably came from our lab. Not that it jumped from animals”. 


Harris delves deeper into the evidence and expert opinions at 23:30, discussing various pieces of circumstantial evidence that support the lab leak theory. He points out that while there is no definitive proof, several factors make the theory more than just plausible: A - The Wuhan Institute of Virology's close proximity to the outbreak's epicenter and its research on bat coronaviruses raise legitimate questions. B - Reports of safety concerns and previous incidents at the lab add to the suspicion. C - Despite extensive searches, a direct animal source for the virus has not been identified. Then he moves onto the utterly biased opinion of ‘expert’ Peter Daszak, a key figure in the WHO's investigation into the pandemic's origin who had been framing the lab leak hypothesis as a ‘conspiracy’ from the very beginning, “but here’s the thing, this guy has skin in the game. His NGO gets loads of funding to perform research at, wait for it, the Wuhan lab”. Which makes it all the more obvious that “Members of the scientific community have said that Daszak has a conflict of interest due to his close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its leading scientist, Shi Zhengli…” Harris analyzes straightforwardly, “Yes of course, he doesn't want the Wuhan lab or gain of function research to be smeared, like this is his home turf where his livelihood and his life's work comes from. And he's the guy we're listening to? Like we're letting this guy lead out on the inquiry??” But it gets even worse… the WHO sent a team to investigate it and Daszak was literally the one leading the team and of course he concludes what he had already predetermined, but eventually a journalist calls him out, “Given that this report rules out the leak, isn't your credibility on that a little undermined by the fact that you've been saying that even before you came here?” At 23 and a half minutes, Harris highlights the lack of scientific credibility and objectivity given that it was Daszak leading the charge, “you can't go into an investigation with your mind already made up. Especially when millions of dollars of funding for your organization is on the line, that's not science that's self-interest and tribalism”. Even more significantly, Harris points out that the literal head of the WHO who commissioned the study admitted that the investigation into the lab leak theory “wasn’t extensive enough and too hasty” essentially conceding the fact that they didn’t actually even look into it. Harris discusses the US State Department's claims about the WIV's research on bat coronaviruses and the lab's alleged lack of transparency, mentioning that the US intelligence community's assessment that a lab leak is a plausible scenario. So yeah, it’s crystal clear that the main investigation by the WHO is eery of the Warren Commission's report on the JFK assassination – they had their mind made up before conducting the investigation because of the self serving biases and politics at stake, labeling the not just possible but probable hypothesis as a ‘conspiracy’ and then trying to cover their tracks. 


At the end of the video, Harris argues that while there is no definitive proof, the evidence suggests that a lab leak is more likely than the initial narrative of a natural spillover event, highlighting the need for an impartial investigation and transparency to uncover the truth about the pandemic's origins. Throughout the video, Harris presents a well-researched and balanced perspective on the lab leak hypothesis acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the lack of conclusive evidence while making a compelling case for the probability of a lab leak. He emphasizes the importance of an unbiased and thorough investigation to determine the true origins of the pandemic, as understanding how it began is crucial for preventing future outbreaks.


In summary… the narrative that COVID-19 originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, quickly became the prevailing explanation disseminated by mainstream media and public health officials in the early days of the pandemic positing that the virus jumped from animals to humans in the crowded conditions of the wet market. However as time has passed and more analysis has occurred it’s clear that this narrative was a strategic media cover-up to divert attention from more controversial possibilities, particularly the lab leak theory. From the outset, there was a conspicuous absence of direct evidence supporting the wet market origin as no definitive animal host was identified despite extensive searches, and the earliest cases of COVID-19 included individuals with no direct links to the wet market. Conversely, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located near the outbreak's epicenter, was conducting research on bat coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2; this proximity and the nature of the research undertaken at WIV made the lab leak theory a plausible alternative that warranted serious consideration, however, instead of investigating this possibility rigorously, media outlets and some public health officials quickly coalesced around the wet market narrative, framing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy. The swift and uncritical acceptance of the wet market origin by the media can be seen as a deliberate attempt to control the narrative. By focusing on the wet market, media coverage effectively deflected scrutiny from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the potential implications of a lab leak serving multiple interests: it alleviated immediate geopolitical tensions, avoided public panic over the safety of scientific research facilities, and prevented backlash against the Chinese government and international scientific collaborations. Furthermore, the alignment of this narrative with official statements from Chinese authorities and international health organizations further entrenched the wet market story. The coordinated messaging created a consensus that was hard to challenge, despite the glaring gaps in evidence. As a result, any mention of the lab leak theory was often dismissed as fringe speculation or conspiracy, stifling legitimate scientific inquiry and debate. Over time, as more information surfaced and independent investigations gained traction, the lab leak theory has regained massive credibility as reports of safety concerns at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with the discovery that early cases of COVID-19 had no connection to the wet market, have fueled calls for a thorough, unbiased investigation into the virus's origins. The fact that the wet market theory was accepted so readily and promoted so widely, despite initial evidence, underscores the role of the media in shaping public perception and covering up the inconvenient truths.


So… let’s get things straight. When you combine the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was quite literally the biggest covid lab in the world with prior reports of safety concerns and previous incidents at the lab, alongside the fact that the main WHO investigation led by the unambiguously biased Peter Daszak was completely fraudulent with the head of the WHO admitting they didn’t even look into the lab leak hypothesis AND the head researcher at Wuhan (the Batwoman) claiming that her instinct was that it came from their lab and that an animal-human transmission would occur in Southern China, not Wuhan, the answer is self evident – Covid came from the lab. The real question now shifts from the virus's origin to the reasons behind the cover-up. The media's initial dismissal and censorship of the lab leak theory as misinformation raise alarming concerns about the narrative surrounding the pandemic. Drawing parallels to the opioid crisis, where pharmaceutical companies played a significant role in creating and profiting from the epidemic, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that Big Pharma may have had a hand in creating the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for intentional creation or manipulation of the virus for financial gain and/or increased government control cannot be ignored. As we delve deeper into this issue, it becomes crucial to investigate the motivations behind the suppression of the lab leak theory and to determine the extent of any potential involvement by pharmaceutical corporations. The striking similarities between the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of media manipulation and corporate influence, demand a thorough and transparent examination. Only by unraveling the truth behind the origins of this global health crisis can we hope to prevent future catastrophes and hold those responsible accountable for their actions.


  1. Why People Think The Government Killed JFK  – How The Government Covered Up the JFK Assassination – Sources

    In light of the newly released documents, we wanted to go back and look into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to see what the evidence was, how the narrative was shaped by the government immediately following, and all of the information we’ve learned from government agencies since that day in Dallas in 1963.

    0:00 INTRO, 3:31 JOHN F. KENNEDY, 5:20 THE ASSASSINATION, 6:35 THE INVESTIGATION, 15:28 THE COVER-UP, 17:34 THE CONSPIRACY THEORY


For an in depth analysis on this subject, I point you to the extensive paper I’ve written –  CIA vs JFK: If You’re Not Already Aware, The Central Intelligence Agency Orchestrated The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy 

***

***


  1. Operation Northwoods Explained – How the US Military Planned to Attack the US and Blame Cuba – Intelligence Agencies Would’ve Launched Terrorist Attacks on US Soil if it wasn’t for JFK – Sources

    In this episode, we explore an insane plan to conduct false flag attacks against American targets, perpetrated by the US military. Before the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US came dangerously close to going to war with Cuba. The US military was intent on invading the island and removing Fidel Castro from power, and their plan to do it was called Operation Northwoods.


Harris delves into the shocking historical event that highlights the lengths to which U.S. military and intelligence agencies were willing to go to justify an invasion of Cuba during the Cold War era. The video exposes the disturbing details of Operation Northwoods, a plan proposed by top U.S. military officials in 1962 that involved staging a series of false flag terrorist attacks on American soil and blaming them on the Cuban government, “A plan to lob mortar shells into their own military bases with some damage to installations. And then to make hijacking attempts against civilian air and surface craft. They're proposing to blow up a US ship in the US naval base, Guantanamo Bay and even to conduct a terror campaign on American soil exploding a few plastic explosives in carefully chosen spots. We're looking at a plan to blow things up on American soil and then to blame it all on Cuba for reasons to intrude. But why would America's leaders plan to terrorize the country?” 


He begins by providing context for the U.S. government's obsession with removing Fidel Castro from power in Cuba, discussing the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (Operation Zapata) and the subsequent Operation Mongoose, which involved multiple unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Castro and sabotage Cuba's infrastructure – extreme failures which led to an increasingly desperate and reckless approach by U.S. officials. The crux of the video focuses on the details of Operation Northwoods, which included plans to hijack planes, sink boats, and stage shootings on American soil. The goal was to create a false narrative that would justify a U.S. military invasion of Cuba. Harris emphasizes the shocking nature of this plan, which was proposed by top military leaders and would have involved deliberately harming and killing American citizens.


Harris then highlights the crucial role played by President John F. Kennedy in rejecting Operation Northwoods. Despite the immense pressure from military and intelligence agencies, JFK refused to authorize the plan, understanding the grave consequences it could have, including the potential for a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union; a decision that demonstrates the importance of checks and balances in the U.S. political system – “Operation Northwoods was a reckless plan to lie and hurt people proposed by top government leaders who were more and more desperate to invade Cuba, and they wanted to move fast. They say in just a few months, they needed to do this so that this attack wouldn't involve the Soviet Union who still hadn't established any defense packed or military bases in Cuba. So what we're looking at here is the increasing desperation of the US military to achieve its goal to solve the Cuba problem. If JFK would just approve this plan, then the military would get to work blowing things up, attacking their bases and terrorizing the American people. But he rejected it. Operation Northwoods never happened. JFK's rejection of this plan is one reason that there was a rift between him and the military”. The video also touches on the use of propaganda to manipulate public opinion and the growing rift between JFK and the military/intelligence establishment, suggesting that if Richard Nixon had won the presidency instead of JFK, Operation Northwoods might have been carried out, underscoring the significance of leadership in preventing such reckless actions.


Harris continues on the rift between JFK and the military / intelligence agencies with regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis; even more significant than Northwoods, he points out that there would have been a nuclear exchange if Kennedy gave them the seal of approval, “The rift between JFK and the military continued during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs hoped to deploy nuclear missiles against the Soviets and invade Cuba. But JFK stood up to the military once again and said no. JFK eventually went on to deny General Lyman Lemnitzer another term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Likely because of his leading role in planning Operation Northwoods”. In conclusion, Harris warns that while Operation Northwoods was ultimately rejected, the underlying issues that led to its proposal have not fundamentally changed arguing that similar scenarios could potentially happen again, emphasizing the need for ongoing vigilance and accountability in U.S. foreign policy and military decision-making, “nothing fundamentally has changed in our government. The political military machine still runs on the same software it did in the '60s. If the US government felt like it and had a big enough enemy, a big enough threat to American interests, it could happen again”. 


The revelation of Operation Northwoods raises profound questions about the motivations and priorities of U.S. military and intelligence agencies during the Cold War era. The fact that top officials were willing to contemplate such a heinous plan, risking the lives of innocent American citizens and potentially triggering a nuclear war, underscores the depth of their obsession with overthrowing Fidel Castro and the Cuban government. This obsession was rooted in a complex web of ideological, political, and economic factors. From an ideological standpoint, the U.S. government viewed Castro's communist regime as a direct threat to American values and the capitalist system. The fear of communism spreading throughout Latin America and beyond drove a fervent desire to eliminate the Castro government and install a U.S.-friendly regime in its place. Politically, the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the ongoing Operation Mongoose had left U.S. officials increasingly frustrated and desperate to achieve their objectives. The pressure to take decisive action and demonstrate U.S. power and resolve in the face of communist expansion was immense. Economically, the nationalization of U.S. businesses and properties in Cuba following the revolution had angered American corporate interests, who sought to regain their lost assets and profits. These factors combined to create a toxic environment in which extreme measures, such as those proposed in Operation Northwoods, could be seriously considered by top military and intelligence officials. The willingness to sacrifice American lives and risk global war for the sake of overthrowing a small island nation reveals a disturbing set of priorities and a lack of moral boundaries. It demonstrates the extent to which anti-communist ideology and the pursuit of U.S. hegemony in the region had eclipsed considerations of ethics, international law, and the fundamental principles of democracy. The story of Operation Northwoods serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of maintaining a robust system of checks and balances within the U.S. government. It underscores the need for ongoing vigilance and scrutiny of military and intelligence activities to ensure that such reckless and immoral plans are never again seriously considered or carried out. The fact that such a plan could be proposed at the highest levels of government is a sobering testament to the potential for abuse of power and the importance of upholding the principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for human life in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.


  1. Our New Global Economy – The global economy is changing. Countries are realizing that while economic interdependence has brought significant peace to the world, it can also mean supplying the military rise of your biggest rivals – The End of Globalization? Source

    3:48 Global Trade Explodes, 11:32 Trade Barriers, 14:35 Why is this happening, 19:57 Conclusion

Here, Harris explores the changing dynamics of the global economy and the potential end of globalization as we know it. He argues that while economic interdependence has been a major force for peace and prosperity in recent decades, it has also led to unintended consequences like fueling the military rise of geopolitical rivals. The video begins by discussing the concept of globalization and its benefits, including increased trade, economic growth, and the lifting of millions out of poverty, explaining how the post-World War II era saw the creation of international institutions and agreements that fostered global economic integration, such as the World Trade Organization and the European Union. By outlining the traditional narrative of globalization, where the integration of economies fostered peace by creating mutual dependencies, he highlights that this interconnectedness meant that countries had a vested interest in maintaining stable and cooperative international relations to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity. 


After the obvious intro about the natural inclination for countries to globalize, Harris then delves into the drawbacks and challenges of globalization and how this same interdependence can also lead to vulnerabilities – particularly in the context of the United States and China. He argues that by outsourcing manufacturing to China and other countries with lower labor costs, the U.S. has inadvertently helped to build up the economic and military power of its main geopolitical competitor – a realization that has prompted a re-evaluation of globalization and its implications for national security and economic sovereignty… a realization that has prompted the U.S. to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains, especially for critical technologies and materials. China, on the other hand, is pursuing a strategy of economic self-sufficiency while continuing to expand its influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, an approach aimed to secure supply chains and reduce reliance on Western markets, ensuring that China can withstand potential economic pressures or sanctions. He gets into the impact of recent trade wars and sanctions between the two global powerhouses, ascertaining that these economic conflicts have disrupted global supply chains and highlighting the risks of over-reliance on any single country for essential goods and services; the imposition of tariffs and export controls has led to increased costs for businesses and consumers, as well as heightened geopolitical tensions.


Harris also discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains and the risks of overreliance on foreign countries for essential goods, such as medical supplies and semiconductors, suggesting that the pandemic has accelerated the trend towards economic nationalism and the reshoring of critical industries. The video then explores the concept of "friend-shoring," where countries seek to build supply chains with trusted allies and partners rather than with geopolitical rivals, arguing that this trend is likely to continue as countries prioritize national security and economic resilience over the pursuit of the lowest costs. The video also touches on the role of technology in the new global economy as Harris explains how technological advancements are a source of both competition and collaboration, and countries are racing to develop + control emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and 5G – critical to future economic and military power. Towards the end of the video, Harris contemplates whether we are witnessing the end of globalization or simply its transformation. He suggests that while the era of unfettered economic interdependence may be coming to a close, a new form of globalization could emerge. This new paradigm would be characterized by selective decoupling, where countries maintain strategic autonomy in certain sectors while continuing to engage in global trade and investment in others. Clearly, there’s a need for a balanced approach, where countries can protect their national interests without resorting to outright protectionism which is why he advocates for policies that promote resilience and self-sufficiency in critical industries while maintaining open markets and international cooperation in other areas.


By highlighting the changing economic strategies of major powers and the impact of geopolitical tensions on global trade, Harris effectively illustrates the complexities and challenges of the current global economy. The video underscores the importance of understanding the dual nature of economic interdependence, arguing that while the end of globalization may not be inevitable, the world is likely to see a rebalancing of economic relationships and a greater emphasis on national security and self-sufficiency. The potential end of globalization represents a troubling shift in the world order. From a philosophical standpoint, the move away from economic interdependence and international cooperation signifies a regression in human progress. The rise of economic nationalism and the prioritization of self-sufficiency over collaboration indicate a growing mistrust among nations and a retreat into tribal mentalities – a trend that threatens to undermine the hard-won gains of the post-World War II era, where countries came together to build institutions and frameworks that promoted peace, stability, and shared prosperity. The pursuit of narrow self-interest and the erosion of global cooperation could lead to a more fragmented and hostile world, with more rivalries and less partners. This mindset not only hinders economic growth and innovation but also undermines our ability to tackle global challenges that require collective action, such as climate change, pandemics, and poverty. The end of globalization, in this sense, represents a failure of the human spirit to transcend national boundaries and work together for the common good. It is a retreat from the ideals of unity, understanding, and mutual benefit that have driven human progress throughout history. As we navigate the complexities of the new global economy, it is crucial that we resist the temptation to turn inward and instead strive to find ways to maintain and strengthen the bonds of international cooperation. Only by recognizing our shared humanity and working together can we hope to build a more peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world for all.


Overall Johnny Harris Synopsis 


Blogger Case Study – Johnny Harris 

***

When I saw one of my favorite current independent journalists, Johnny Harris, on the list, my decision of who to pick became less of a choice and more of a duty; I jumped at the bit to critique and analyze the work of the blogger/writer for the New York Times & Vox who has built a massive following, reaching the immortal status as a ‘Youtube God’ with over 5 million subscribers. After falling down the Johnny Harris rabbit hole last year, I can safely say that there hasn't been many other creators that have meshed ultra important information into deliverable + entertaining videos with captivating visuals the way Johnny Harris has; and although Harris is known for his audio-visual journalism, it’s worth noting that his videos are a direct reflection of his writing, hidden in verbal form. Throughout the course of my content creation for my website + media brand, I have ranked and reviewed some of my favorite social media accounts, brands, sites, creators, etc, which includes an in depth analysis on ‘Johnny Harris Top 10 Youtube videos’, but this essay will focus more on his writing, namely on his articles published on Vox, ‘How America Became a Superpower’ and  "Why Colombia is Losing the Cocaine War’. 


The visual journalist, filmmaker and writer for Vox, has carved out a unique niche in the world of digital journalism with his engaging and deeply researched video essays and articles. Harris’ work often explores geopolitical issues and cultural phenomena as he delves into certain topics (IE – The Deep State) or fascinating case studies (IE – the case of Julian Assange) and turns them into entertaining stories with a narrative arc. His narrative voice is a defining feature of his blog and media brand as it is authoritative yet approachable, blending journalistic rigor with a personal, almost conversational tone. This academic yet conversational duality in his voice is one of the reasons readers are drawn to his work—he successfully manages to discuss complex, often weighty topics without alienating his audience. This duality is apparent in "Why Colombia is losing the cocaine war," as he deftly navigates the intricate history of Colombia's drug trade, using clear language and vivid analogies to explain complex concepts. For instance, he likens the government's eradication efforts to "playing whack-a-mole," a relatable image that immediately conveys the futility of current anti-drug policies. Oftentimes Harris begins his articles + videos with a straightforward, no-nonsense tone in order to establish that his work is centered around hard truths / serious topics that should not be shrugged off or degraded by satire. But as the deliverable develops, and after Harris has successfully established his themes + thesis, he will often use quips to build the entertainment aspect of the videos and masterfully weave satire and comedy into topics that normally wouldn’t seem conducive to this type of playfulness. In "How America Became a Superpower," Harris’s tone is more narrative and historical as he takes readers on a journey through time, detailing the key events that led to America’s rise to power. His use of phrases like "Let me take you back to the late 1800s" invites the reader to imagine the past as though they are experiencing it firsthand, naturally enhancing engagement. This ability to shift tone while maintaining a consistent voice is a testament to Harris’s skill as a writer and narrator. Harris establishes his credibility not through academic jargon, but through on-the-ground reporting and visual storytelling (in addition to listing his sources in an attached document for every article/video). In both articles, he uses a combination of historical footage, maps, and his own on-location video to create a rich, multifaceted narrative. This approach lends authenticity to his voice, as readers (and viewers) feel they're getting firsthand insights rather than just rehashed information.


Harris’s content exemplifies some techniques discussed in The Huffington Post Guide to Blogging as he successfully transcends the limitations of traditional print media by leveraging the unique advantages of digital platforms. His blogs are richly layered with multimedia elements—maps, charts, and embedded videos—that enhance the storytelling experience. This integration of visual aids is not just a stylistic choice but a functional one, as it helps to break down complex subjects into more digestible pieces of information. For instance, in the blog on Colombia’s cocaine war, Harris includes maps showing the regions most affected by coca cultivation. These visuals serve as more than just decorations; they are integral to the reader's understanding of the geographical and political dynamics at play. The use of interactive elements, such as video segments where Harris narrates key points, also contributes to the blog's "blogginess" by making the content more accessible and engaging than a traditional article. Moreover, Harris’s blogs are well-suited to the digital format because of their episodic nature. Each post can stand alone but also fits into a larger narrative or theme that he is exploring (specifics of which I will discern in the last paragraph). This episodic approach encourages readers to return for more, much like a serial drama, which is a hallmark of effective blogging. Harris also employs a more personal, direct style of address than one might find in a traditional print publication. Whether on camera or through his writing diction, he appears to be speaking directly to the viewer, creating a sense of intimacy and connection. This personal touch, combined with his clear, jargon-free explanations, embodies the best aspects of blogging: accessibility, personality, and engagement.


Harris’s audience is diverse, comprising individuals who are interested in global politics/phenomenon, history, and cultural studies. His ability to appeal to both casual readers and those with more specialized knowledge is one of his strengths. He accomplishes this by striking a balance between providing detailed, factual content and ensuring that it remains accessible, which ties back to his authoritative yet approachable narrative voice blending journalistic rigor with a personal, conversational tone. Essentially, his target audience is anyone that is curious about world affairs but may not have extensive background knowledge as his content appeals to viewers who appreciate nuanced explanations of complex issues but prefer them delivered in an engaging, visually rich format. In  ‘How America Became a Superpower’, Harris reaches out to a broad audience by framing the narrative in a way that is both informative and engaging as he does not assume prior knowledge of historical events, making the blog suitable for someone new to the topic; this is exemplified in the beginning of the blog as he thoroughly explains seemingly simple context like why “expansionism was always in America’s DNA” (because of the Trail of Tears) and how the Industrial Revolution is what tipped the scale for expansionism in the post Civil War era. Harris also indirectly appeals to his audience by addressing contemporary issues through the lens of history or geopolitics. This approach not only educates his readers but also encourages them to think critically about current events. For example, by examining Colombia's struggle to limit cocaine production, Harris prompts readers to consider broader questions about the efficacy of international drug policies and the socio-economic factors that perpetuate these issues. He takes it even a step further and allows for the first hand perspective of the families in rural Colombia that rely on the coca leaf as their only means of income in order to go deeper into the cocaine economy to discover why the issues surrounding the drug are so complex. He reaches beyond his core audience by tackling topics with broad appeal – like the war on drugs or American power – and presenting them in a fresh, visually compelling way. The use of eye-catching thumbnails and provocative titles (like "Why Colombia is losing the cocaine war") helps draw in casual browsers who might not typically seek out geopolitical content. At the same time that he’s able to draw in a more casual audience, the depth of his research and the inclusion of lesser-known facts and analyses make it appealing to readers with a more advanced understanding of the subject; for example in his narrative of how America became a global superpower, he speaks to how the post ww2 global financial system, Bretton Woods, aimed at coordinating the global economy and preventing another Great Depression — and the United Nations, created to preserve the postwar peace. Again, it is this academic yet conversational duality that allows Harris to draw in such a broad audience of amateurs and connoisseurs alike.  


The thematic thread that connects Harris’s blogs is his exploration of power dynamics—whether it be in the context of international relations, as seen in "How America became a superpower," or in the socio-economic struggles of a nation like Colombia. Harris consistently delves into how historical events shape the present and influence the future, making this the overarching purpose of his work. Both blogs I analyzed in this essay are indicative of Harris’ ability to effectively tie individual events to larger patterns and trends, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. The overarching theme connecting Harris's work is a desire to unpack complex global issues and reveal the often-overlooked historical contexts that shape our world today. In both the Colombia and America pieces, he delves into the historical roots of current situations, challenging simplistic narratives. In "Why Colombia is losing the cocaine war," Harris goes beyond the typical drug war narrative to explore the economic and social factors that perpetuate coca cultivation. He argues that the issue is more complex than a simple law enforcement problem, tying it to broader themes of rural development and global demand for cocaine. Similarly, in "How America became a superpower," Harris traces the long arc of American expansionism, connecting it to current foreign policy debates. By drawing these connections, he encourages viewers to think critically about the historical forces shaping contemporary geopolitics.


Overall, Harris’s blogs stand out for their strong voice, effective use of digital media, and ability to engage a wide audience. His focus on power dynamics provides a consistent thematic foundation, making his work both relevant and resonant in today’s complex global landscape. Whether discussing the failures of Colombia’s drug policies or the historical roots of America’s global dominance, Harris’s blogs are exemplary in their ability to inform, engage, and provoke thoughtful reflection. By combining rigorous research with engaging multimedia storytelling, he creates content that is both informative and highly shareable. His approach demonstrates how digital platforms can be leveraged to make complex global issues accessible to a broad audience, potentially inspiring viewers to seek out even more in-depth information on these topics. Harris's work serves as an effective gateway to understanding the complexities of our interconnected world.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

© 2025 by This & That. All Rights Reserved. Designed with passion & powered by creativity. A Guide to Superior Media Consumption

bottom of page