Why We Can’t Stop the Genocide (Part 1)

The answer is simple, but scary.

It’s been over a year of bearing witness to the unthinkable. A child, alive, in a car surrounded by death and bullets, begging to be saved. A man, whose joy at having miracle twins quickly turned into a lifetime of impossible grief. A boy with hopes and a future burned alive, while connected to an IV in a tent next to a hospital. The little girl with the pink rollerblades blown away while skating. How I remember the simple joy of skating at her age. I will remember her. We’ve all witnessed criminal acts of horror that choked our hearts, and broke us to pieces. Each horror increasingly awakens the question, why can’t we stop this genocide? How can this be done in front of the world to see? Why are our screams muffled to whispers? 

Vice President Kamala Harris appears tone-deaf to the crisis, and we’re left wondering how is it possible that she can be “speaking” about groceries while thousands of innocent humans are being massacred, amidst an ethnic cleansing born out of racism and hate? How could 75 years of human rights laws, building of trust and struggling for peace be shredded? How can we call ourselves a democracy when we are powerless to effect change?

The answer is simple, but perhaps hard to digest: AIPAC. The reason this simple answer seems impossible is that campaign finance numbers only tell a small part of the story. It's impossible for most of us to believe that a genocide could be bought so cheaply. Vice President Harris, for instance, has received approximately $5.4 million in pro-Israel donations over her entire political career—a sum that, in the context of presidential politics, seems tiny. But, this contribution is part of an ecosystem that exerts outsized influence on U.S. policy. So, how, exactly, does such a relatively small amount wield such sweeping control?

The answer lies in the opaque strategic structure of the pro-Israel lobby, led prominently by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has built a network of influence in Washington so thorough that it has effectively created an ideological closed loop within Congress. Through layers of financial bundling, indirect support from affiliated super PACs, and substantial lobbying resources, AIPAC has achieved something truly remarkable—an environment where questioning U.S. policy toward Israel is politically and socially untenable. Candidates who align with pro-Israel stances not only secure campaign funds but also gain access to a vast network of support that influences media narratives, mobilizes grassroots advocacy, and curates a legislative environment friendly to Israel’s interests.

This closed system is self-reinforcing. Beyond direct donations, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, spent over $100 million in recent election cycles to support pro-Israel candidates and counter those deemed insufficiently loyal. By backing supportive down-ballot candidates early in their careers, AIPAC ensures that when these officials eventually ascend to higher office, they carry with them not just financial backing but years of ingrained loyalty. This approach has nurtured a political landscape in which U.S. policy regarding Israel remains virtually untouchable, despite significant public and international pressure to reassess the status quo, especially during crises like the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The pro-Israel lobby’s influence is further cemented by an interconnected network of PR agencies, media affiliations, and research institutions that cultivate public sentiment. Through partnerships with think tanks and targeted media campaigns, AIPAC and its allies shape not just policy but the very discourse around Israel and Palestine, insulating Congress from the kind of critical debate that defines other foreign policy issues. In this article, I’ll explore the mechanics of this influence—from campaign contributions to media manipulation—and examine why these tactics have prevented meaningful shifts in U.S. policy, even as the situation in the Middle East escalates. Ultimately, the reason we can’t stop the genocide is that AIPAC has successfully captured our government and our public discourse, creating a system where power lies not in the hands of the people, but within an ideologically controlled network.

I. Hide in Plain Sight

Most Americans are aware that AIPAC is at the heart of pro-Israel influence in Washington. However, most Americans are unaware that AIPAC doesn’t actually make direct donations to candidates. Instead, AIPAC operates as a facilitating powerhouse, connecting candidates with a vast network of aligned PACs (Political Action Committees) and influential donors who provide financial backing in exchange for support pf pro-Israel stances. By working through this indirect network, AIPAC exerts massive influence without ever having to directly fund a campaign, thus maintaining a strategic distance that makes its role less visible to the public.

Opaque, difficult to track

AIPAC’s influence is wielded through multiple layers of PACs and funding channels, creating an opaque financing system that even the most dedicated campaign finance watchdogs struggle to trace. For example, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), spent over $100 million in recent election cycles, strategically backing pro-Israel candidates and countering those who voiced even moderate criticisms of Israeli policy. UDP frequently targets politicians perceived as insufficiently loyal to AIPAC’s objectives, signaling to other candidates the risks associated with dissenting on U.S.-Israel policy. This approach ensures that candidates who align with pro-Israel policies have the resources they need, while those who diverge face well-funded opposition, effectively discouraging criticism and securing lasting policy loyalty.

Beyond super PACs like UDP, AIPAC leverages networked donations through a tactic known as “bundling” to further consolidate support. Bundling is a process through which individual donations are pooled together to maximize impact. AIPAC encourages its supporters to donate directly to candidates who align with pro-Israel policies, and then collects these donations through organized events and outreach. Each individual adheres to federal donation caps (currently $3,300 per election), but by coordinating hundreds or thousands of donations this way, AIPAC’s support for a candidate can add up to substantial sums, all while technically complying with campaign finance laws that limit organizational donations. Although these donations appear to be from individual supporters, they are typically coordinated through AIPAC’s network, amplifying its influence while keeping direct connections obscured. This process has a powerful ripple effect: candidates quickly become aware that continued financial support is contingent upon their adherence to pro-Israel policies, shaping their stances to maintain this crucial backing.

No public transparency

The true scope of AIPAC’s influence remains difficult to capture, however, because its structure allows significant funding flows without public transparency. Unlike PACs or super PACs, AIPAC itself is a 501(c)(4) organization, a tax designation that allows it to operate as a “social welfare” organization rather than as a political action committee. This classification means AIPAC doesn’t have to disclose its funding sources or report detailed financial information on where its money is directed, keeping much of its activity legally shielded from scrutiny. And so the public does not have access to specific details on where funding for its operations actually comes from.

In addition, tools like OpenSecrets or Federal Election Commission (FEC) records may track some direct contributions from individuals or PACs, but they don’t reveal the coordinated nature of bundled donations or the full chain of influence AIPAC exerts. And following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, AIPAC-related groups can also channel significant funds into elections through super PACs and “dark money” nonprofits, which accept unlimited donations without needing to disclose their donors. This process makes tracking the total amounts almost impossible; experts agree that we likely see only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to AIPAC’s financial influence.

Meanwhile, AIPAC supplements these financial networks with direct lobbying, high-profile conferences, and policy briefings that establish it as a trusted authority on Middle Eastern issues in the eyes of lawmakers. With layered influence over candidates, media narratives, and public opinion, AIPAC has built a structure that shapes policy directly while obscuring the financial roots of its power. This strategy of influence “hidden in plain sight” allows AIPAC to exert control over U.S. policy on Israel through a complex, indirect financial web that avoids the public scrutiny typically associated with such substantial political influence.

II. Start at the Bottom, Begin at the Beginning

AIPAC’s influence doesn’t start in Congress. It begins at the local and state levels, where the organization identifies and supports politicians early in their careers, helping to shape a pipeline of pro-Israel advocates long before they reach national office. By working with up-and-coming city council members, state representatives, and mayors, AIPAC secures a foundation of political allies who carry pro-Israel stances with them as they advance. This strategy establishes pro-Israel policy as the expected, bipartisan “default” across the political spectrum, making dissent rare and politically impossible. This produces an ongoing inner conflict for politicians: do some good or none at all. You can lower the price of groceries, but at the cost of complete alignment with Israel - no matter what. This forecloses our political horizon as “the art of the possible,” or lesser of evils.

Rites-of-passage

One of AIPAC’s most effective tools for creating early loyalty is the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), an affiliate of AIPAC that sponsors all-expenses-paid trips to Israel for politicians. These “rite-of-passage” trips for aspiring leaders are highly curated visits to introduce participants to Israel’s geopolitical concerns, alleged “democratic” values, and strategic significance from a pro-Israel perspective. Participants are guided by Israeli officials, exposed to Israel’s narrative of regional security, and encouraged to see Israel as a crucial ally. For young politicians, these experiences foster personal connections to pro-Israel positions, creating a foundation of loyalty that they carry forward into their careers. These trips are structured to give emerging leaders not just a favorable view of Israel but a vested interest in supporting pro-Israel policy as they rise through political ranks.

Beyond organized trips, AIPAC often extends its influence through mentorship and networking opportunities, pairing young politicians with established pro-Israel leaders. These mentorship connections offer young politicians access to an influential network of policymakers, advisors, and donors who can shape their perspectives and open career opportunities. By embedding these young leaders within a network that values pro-Israel stances, AIPAC builds a loyalty reinforced through sustained relationships, positioning itself as a career-long ally.

Addressing AIPAC’s annual conference has also become an unspoken rite-of-passage for politicians with national ambitions. Speaking at AIPAC’s conference is an opportunity for young politicians to demonstrate alignment with pro-Israel stances, effectively “securing their credentials” within AIPAC’s network. By establishing participation in AIPAC events as a career milestone, AIPAC signals its role as a gatekeeper in U.S. politics, conditioning political success on support for pro-Israel policies. This expectation is reinforced as young politicians who build relationships with AIPAC allies discover that pro-Israel stances are not only safe but are necessary to gain long-term support.

Symbolic local, city and state legislation

Once young politicians are ideologically aligned with pro-Israel policies, AIPAC further consolidates its influence by encouraging them to support pro-Israel legislation at the state and local levels. A prime example of this is the wave of anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) laws that have swept across more than 30 U.S. states. These laws prevent state entities from contracting with businesses that boycott Israel and are often passed with significant support from AIPAC-backed officials. While largely symbolic at the state level, these laws carry considerable weight by positioning opposition to BDS—and support for Israel—as foundational, bipartisan American values. Once a handful of states pass such legislation, others feel pressured to follow, creating a domino effect that normalizes pro-Israel positions across the country and makes opposition increasingly risky.

A new definition of anti-Semitism

To further insulate pro-Israel positions from critique, AIPAC and allied groups have promoted the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism. Adopted in 2016, the IHRA definition broadened the understanding of anti-Semitism to include certain criticisms of Israel and Zionism, blurring the line between anti-Jewish hate and political opposition to Israel’s policies. Recognizing its potential as a tool to stifle dissent, AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations worked to embed the IHRA definition at local and state levels before expanding it nationally. States like Florida, South Carolina, and Iowa were among the first to adopt it, incorporating the definition into resolutions, university codes, and public institution policies, especially where pro-Palestinian activism was strong.

The definition’s widespread adoption in these settings established it as a “best practice” for combating anti-Semitism, creating a framework that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in public and educational institutions. This legal and ideological groundwork laid the foundation for national-level adoption, with both Republican and Democratic administrations incorporating the IHRA definition in federal guidelines and foreign policy approaches. Today, this definition is even applied in some corporate anti-discrimination policies and workplace training, creating a subtle but pervasive framework where criticism of Israel can be labeled as hate speech, further discouraging dissent and limiting acceptable discourse.

Curated Framing of Middle East Issues

AIPAC also plays a role in teaching young politicians how to frame Middle Eastern issues in ways that support pro-Israel narratives. Through policy briefings, workshops, and talking points, AIPAC provides emerging leaders with language that emphasizes security, mutual democratic values, and U.S.-Israel solidarity. By training politicians to use this specific framing, AIPAC ensures that the pro-Israel narrative becomes part of how they speak about foreign policy.

Participation in AIPAC events provides another key benefit: early media exposure and public visibility. Many AIPAC events are well-covered by media outlets, giving young politicians an opportunity to publicly speak on issues related to Israel and U.S. foreign policy. This exposure builds public credibility while signaling to AIPAC’s network—and their own constituents—that they are committed to supporting pro-Israel policies. By giving early-stage politicians a platform and visibility, AIPAC strengthens the public perception of pro-Israel alignment as a mark of seriousness and loyalty, making it a desirable association for those seeking higher office.

By creating an ideological foundation at the local level, AIPAC ensures that support for Israel isn’t just a national policy but a position deeply embedded in the political culture at every level of government. In practice, this strategy has normalized pro-Israel stances so thoroughly that dissent, even when public opinion shifts, is impossible to maintain. For politicians, alignment with AIPAC from the outset translates into a reliable path to higher office, reinforcing the pro-Israel stance as an essential component of a successful political career. Through early relationships, organized experiences, mentorship, symbolic legislative backing, and media visibility, AIPAC shapes a political landscape where pro-Israel positions are woven into the fabric of American governance, preemptively closing off space for debate before politicians even reach Congress.

III. Build Your Own Echo Chamber

AIPAC’s roots trace back to 1951, when it began as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, an organization explicitly focused on promoting Zionist goals in U.S. policy. The term "Zionist," however, became less marketable over time as it signaled a specific ideology rather than simply support for the state of Israel. So, in 1959, the organization rebranded as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), shifting its focus to so-called “pro-Israel” advocacy—a term viewed as more palatable and widely acceptable in U.S. politics. This strategic rebranding allowed AIPAC to promote support for Israel as an enduring national interest rather than an ideological stance, making it easier to align both Republicans and Democrats under a unified pro-Israel banner.

The distinction was essential: Zionism prioritizes Jewish statehood at the expense of Palestinian human rights and sovereignty, whereas “pro-Israel” framing positions Israel’s interests as synonymous with American interests, concealing the implications of territorial expansion and the ethnic cleansing embedded in Zionist aims. Over the decades, AIPAC has grown into a formidable political force by steering the discourse away from Zionism’s ideological roots and toward Israel as a strategic ally and “democratic” presence in the Middle East. In pursuing these “pro-Israel” policies, AIPAC has successfully aligned U.S. support with the Zionist endgame: the creation of Greater Israel, which can only be achieved through ethnic cleansing and erasure of the Palestinian people and sovereignty.

Today, AIPAC has constructed an echo chamber that reinforces pro-Zionist stances as inseparable from pro-Israel stances across nearly every facet of American political, academic, and media life. This self-reinforcing network effectively normalizes pro-Zionist policies and discourages dissent by embedding ideological support for Israel as a bipartisan and culturally accepted “norm.” Through partnerships with media organizations, alignment with think tanks, strategic cultural outreach, and alliances with influential religious groups, AIPAC has created an ideological hegemony that actively shapes American public opinion and political priorities regarding Israel—and, by extension, Zionist ideology.

Media Partnerships and PR Influence

By the 1970s, AIPAC had begun expanding its ideological echo chamber by actively seeking influence within the U.S. media landscape, working to establish pro-Israel perspectives as the default narrative in coverage of Middle Eastern affairs. Recognizing the media’s role in shaping public opinion, AIPAC and its allies cultivated close relationships with influential journalists, media executives, and public relations firms to influence how stories related to Israel and Palestine were presented. This effort included fostering ties with pro-Israel watchdog groups such as CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), which monitors and pressures news outlets to align with pro-Israel perspectives. CAMERA and similar groups have long supported AIPAC’s broader media strategy by challenging narratives perceived as critical of Israel, often framing such critiques as biased or anti-Semitic to suppress dissenting voices.

AIPAC has also formed partnerships with PR firms that provide news outlets with pro-Israel talking points, curated press releases, and “experts” to comment on Middle Eastern issues. By positioning these experts as objective authorities, AIPAC reinforces a favorable portrayal of Israel, presenting its interests as synonymous with U.S. strategic goals. These partnerships ensure that news coverage—especially during periods of conflict—emphasizes Israel as a vital U.S. ally, downplays narratives critical of Israeli policies, and casts Israeli actions in a sympathetic light.

This influence became especially pronounced during key moments of tension in the region, such as during conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, when AIPAC’s coordinated media efforts helped secure coverage that framed Israel as acting in self-defense. Through these efforts, AIPAC has successfully positioned pro-Zionist stances as normative within mainstream media, creating an environment where support for Israel appears universally accepted and critical voices are marginalized. This early and sustained focus on shaping media narratives was crucial to AIPAC’s long-term strategy of embedding pro-Israel views as a bipartisan and culturally normative stance within American society.

One example is CNN’s reported practice of vetting sensitive Middle Eastern stories through its Jerusalem bureau, where coverage is sometimes checked by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) before publication. Similarly, The New York Times has been reported to use internal guidelines that limit language deemed “too harsh” on Israel, advising journalists to avoid terms like “occupation” or “ethnic cleansing” when describing Israeli actions in Palestinian territories. Leaked documents from the NY Times reveal how this curation of language results in a softened portrayal of Israel’s role, minimizing Palestinian perspectives. By influencing the language used in news coverage, AIPAC and its allies frame public discourse. And AIPAC’s influence extends beyond traditional media to online platforms, where pro-Israel groups utilize social media campaigns and digital PR firms to flood public forums with favorable perspectives on Israel, shaping public opinion in real-time.

To maintain dominance in the media, AIPAC and its allies have also targeted critics on social media platforms, using a mix of coordinated reporting and digital campaigns to silence dissenting views. Pro-Israel groups actively monitor and report accounts critical of Israel, often accusing critics of anti-Semitism as a way to discredit and isolate them. This tactic has a chilling effect on journalists, activists, and even academics, who risk reputational and professional damage if they challenge the pro-Israel narrative. Even public figures who raise concerns about Palestinian rights frequently face backlash labeled as anti-Semitic, which not only isolates critics but also makes others wary of speaking out. 

Strategic Alignment with Think Tanks and Research Institutions

While media partnerships shape immediate public perceptions, AIPAC has also invested strategically in think tanks to establish a “scholarly” foundation for pro-Israel policy as intellectually sound and widely accepted. Think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and the Hudson Institute provide the intellectual framework for many pro-Israel policy positions. These organizations, often funded by pro-Israel donors, produce research, policy recommendations, and expert opinions that are cited in both media reports and congressional briefings, giving pro-Israel perspectives an “objective” appearance that often goes unchallenged.

WINEP for instance, was initially founded by AIPAC as a separate entity to shape public discourse on Israel while maintaining a veneer of independence. WINEP regularly publishes studies and holds panels that emphasize Israel’s security needs, the strategic alignment between the U.S. and Israel, and the dangers posed by Israel’s regional adversaries. This “independent” research is frequently referenced in policy discussions, lending AIPAC’s pro-Israel stances credibility that appears apolitical. Similarly, FDD promotes hawkish positions on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, often justifying military and economic support for Israel by framing it as essential to U.S. security. Many FDD board members and advisors are well-known pro-Israel advocates, and the organization’s research frequently informs congressional testimony, media coverage, and foreign policy decisions.

These think tanks provide academic backing, and create a feedback loop that shapes public opinion, media coverage, and congressional discourse. Media outlets cite think tank reports as credible, independent analyses, and politicians rely on these reports to support pro-Israel legislation, creating an impression of broad intellectual agreement on U.S.-Israel alignment. This “research” is then recycled in media and policy discussions, reinforcing pro-Israel positions across platforms and discouraging dissent. The result is an ideological monopoly on Middle Eastern policy that appears objective but is deeply tied to AIPAC’s interests.

The Role of Astroturfing, Evangelical Partnerships, and Cross-Industry Alliances

AIPAC has also strategically partnered with grassroots organizations, the evangelical Christian Right, and other influential industries to create the illusion of widespread public support. A key partner in this effort is Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an evangelical organization with millions of members, which mobilizes Christian support for pro-Israel policies. For many evangelical Christians, support for Israel is a religious imperative, aligning with biblical beliefs about Israel’s role in end-times prophecy. CUFI leverages this deeply held conviction to organize rallies, petitions, and campaigns that generate large public demonstrations of support for Israel.

This relationship has historical roots. Evangelical support for Israel gained momentum in the late 20th century as leaders within the evangelical community aligned Zionism with religious prophecy. Recognizing this natural alignment, AIPAC actively cultivated partnerships with evangelical leaders, helping CUFI grow into a powerful pro-Israel organization with grassroots reach. By the early 2000s, CUFI’s events, messaging, and educational initiatives had become integral to AIPAC’s strategy, broadening the pro-Israel coalition beyond the Jewish community and establishing a reliable voter base with religious motivations.

While these rallies and campaigns appear to be grassroots movements, they are largely cultivated by CUFI’s partnership with AIPAC, creating what is known as “astroturfing.” By staging high-profile, vocal events in support of Israel, CUFI and AIPAC create a feedback loop in which the visibility and size of these gatherings give lawmakers the impression that support for Israel is broad-based, organic, and unwavering among American voters. This perceived consensus, reinforced by media coverage of these events, makes lawmakers believe they have a strong public mandate to support pro-Zionist policies, regardless of dissenting views within other demographics.

Additionally, CUFI’s extensive presence on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter allows it to amplify pro-Zionist messaging to millions, reinforcing the idea that supporting Israel aligns with core American values. This digital presence bolsters the “grassroots” appearance of CUFI’s support for Israel, reaching younger evangelical followers and broadening the pro-Israel narrative to new audiences. 

AIPAC and CUFI’s partnership also includes coordinated messaging in religious media, sermons, and educational materials. Many evangelical churches and faith-based schools teach pro-Zionist perspectives directly, aligning religious education with AIPAC’s political goals. In doing so, AIPAC and CUFI instill support for Israel within the evangelical community’s core beliefs, making pro-Israel policies more than a political stance—they are seen as a moral and religious duty.

AIPAC’s alliances also extend to other major lobbying groups, including those in the defense and technology sectors. These cross-industry partnerships allow AIPAC to frame pro-Israel policies as beneficial to national security and economic interests, bringing broader support from sectors outside the Jewish and Christian communities. By aligning itself with defense and tech, AIPAC positions Israel’s success as synonymous with American security, ensuring a reliable coalition of support for military aid and technology-sharing initiatives.

Conclusion: Facing the Reality of an Ideological Wall

Over decades, AIPAC has constructed a powerful, multi-layered network of influence, reaching far beyond the halls of Congress and directly into the minds of Americans. Through financial backing, media influence, strategic alliances with evangelical groups, think tanks, and targeted PR, AIPAC has embedded pro-Zionist stances deeply within American political, social, and cultural institutions. This network goes far beyond traditional lobbying by establishing a closed ideological loop. 

This system of influence has cultivated an environment where pro-Zionist policies are woven into the very fabric of American political identity. The extensive reach of AIPAC’s influence raises real questions about the nature of our democracy itself and how much agency voters and even elected officials actually have. With this web of influence in place our representatives are bound to the agendas of those with the resources to guide and shape their careers.

Public opinion surveys show that a majority of Americans—including nearly half of all Democrats—oppose unconditional support for Israel, especially in light of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. Yet, despite this public sentiment, Congress has remained resolute. In spite of a razor close election, Democrats have even double-downed on their pro-Zionist, pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-genocide rhetoric. This dissonance raises a troubling question: how can U.S. policy in the Middle East become aligned with the public’s values, and how can we rid ourselves of this anti-democratic, systematic, ideologically motivated specter of influence?

And so the reason that we can’t stop the genocide is that we are up against an ideological wall, where our politics, our media and our social norms have been captured by AIPAC. And in capturing the levers of power, they have twisted our societal moral compass into a vortex of religious ideology so dense and dissonant that it justifies genocide in plain view, creating an topsy-turvy world where the truth has been distorted beyond recognition. This is why the majority of Americans, who have the power to stop this with our voices and with our votes, will vote for lower grocery prices and lower taxes. This is why we, Americans, find ourselves carrying protest signs on Sunday and going back to work at the proverbial napalm lab on Monday. We will do so, because we actually have no real choice. There will be no general strike. There will be no “no” in any real sense that can stop this genocide. We will have to sit in darkness, and move through the dark night that has befallen us.

Those of us who oppose what we see, dissent only because we see through the cracks. This suggests that the ideological control AIPAC has constructed is not unbreakable. We can’t unsee. Our job now is to keep hammering at the cracks, and eventually break them open. The reality is that this won’t come at the election booth, this won’t come at any single protest, and this won’t be due to any article—no matter how informative or persuasive.

In Part 2 of this series, I will explore how people have successfully resisted even far darker forms of ideological hegemony, how they have resisted with their whole lives, peacefully creating change and hope for humanity.

Thank you for subscribing to my Substack! These articles take a lot of time to research and write, so if you’d like to support my work, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription.