Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

New study reveals Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km2 from 2009-2019

Global Warming Policy Foundation | June 3, 2023

A new study by a team of climate scientists and published by the European Geosciences Union reveals that the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km2 from 2009-2019, gaining 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade.

The new observations confirm the findings of eminent meteorologist Professor J. Ray Bates whose research has shown that trends in polar sea-ice levels give little cause for alarm.

In a paper published just over a year ago by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Bates contrasted climate model simulations – which predict significantly decreasing sea ice levels in both hemispheres – with empirical data and observed trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

Professor Bates said:

“In 2007, Al Gore told us that Arctic sea ice levels were ‘falling off a cliff’. It’s clear now that he was completely wrong. In fact, the trends in sea-ice are an antidote to climate alarm.”

Professor Bates also says that little reliance should be placed on model simulations of future sea-ice decline:

“Climate models failed to predict the growth in Antarctic sea ice, and they missed the recent marked slowdown of sea-ice decline in the Arctic. It would be unwarranted to think they are going to get things right over the next 30 years.”

Professor Bates’ paper can be downloaded here (pdf)

June 5, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

‘Give War a Chance’ – A ‘War That Even Pacifists Can Get Behind’

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 5, 2023

More than a year into Russia’s Special Operation, the initial burst of European excitement at western push-back on Russia has dissipated. The mood instead has turned to “existential dread, a nagging suspicion that [western] civilisation may destroy itself”, Professor Helen Thompson writes.

For an instant, a euphoria had coalesced around the putative projection of the EU as a world power; as a key actor, about to compete on a world scale. Initially, events seemed to play to Europe’s conviction of its market powers: Europe was going to bring down a major power – Russia – by financial coup d’état alone. The EU felt ‘six feet tall’.

It seemed at the time a galvanising moment: “The war re-forged a long-dormant Manichaean framing of existential conflict between Russia and the West, assuming ontological, apocalyptic dimensions. In the spiritual fires of the war, the myth of the ‘West’ was rebaptised”, Arta Moeini suggests.

After the initial disappointment at the lack of a ‘quick kill’, the hope persisted – that if only the sanctions were given more time, and made more all-embracing, then Russia surely would ultimately collapse. That hope has turned to dust. And the reality of what Europe has done to itself has begun to dawn – hence Professor Thomson’s dire warning:

“Those who assume that the political world can be reconstructed by the efforts of human Will, have never before had to bet so heavily on technology over [fossil] energy – as the driver of our material advancement”.

For the Euro-Atlanticists however, what Ukraine seemed to offer – finally – was validation for their yearning to centralise power in the EU, sufficiently, to merit a place at the ‘top table’ with the U.S., as partners in playing the Great Game.

Ukraine, for better or worse, underlined Europe’s profound military dependence on Washington – and on NATO.

More particularly, the Ukraine conflict seemed to open the prospect for consolidating the strange metamorphosis of NATO from military alliance to an enlightened, Progressive, peace alliance! As Timothy Garton Ash effused in the Guardian in 2002, “NATO has become a European peace movement” where one could watch “John Lennon meet George Bush”.

The Ukraine war is portrayed, in this vein, as the “war­ that even former pacifists can get behind. All its proponents seemed to be singing is “Give War a Chance””.

Lily Lynch, a Belgrade-based writer, argues that,

“… especially in the past 12 months, telegenic female leaders such as the Finnish Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, German Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, and Estonian Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas, have increasingly served as the spokespersons of enlightened militarism in Europe … ”

“No political party in Europe better exemplifies the shift from militant pacifism to ardent pro-war Atlanticism than the German Greens. Most of the original Greens had been radicals during the student protests of 1968 … But as the founding members entered middle age, fissures began to appear in the party – that would one day tear it apart”.

“Kosovo then changed everything: The 78-day NATO bombing of what remained of Yugoslavia in 1999, ostensibly to halt war crimes committed by Serbian security forces in Kosovo, would forever transform the German Greens. NATO for the Greens became an active military compact concerned with spreading and defending values such as human rights, democracy, peace, and freedom – well beyond the borders of its member states”.

A few years later, in 2002, an EU functionary (Robert Cooper) could envisage Europe as a new ‘liberal imperialism’. The ‘new’ was that Europe eschewed hard military power, in favour of weaponising both a controlled ‘narrative’ and controlled participation in its market. He advocated for ‘a new age of empire’, in which Western powers no longer would have to follow international law in their dealings with ‘old fashioned’ states; they could use military force independently of the United Nations; and could impose protectorates to replace regimes which ‘misgovern’.

The German Greens’ Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, has continued with this metamorphosis, scolding countries with traditions of military neutrality, and imploring them to join NATO. She has invoked Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s line: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. And the European Left has been utterly captivated. Major parties have abandoned military neutrality and opposition to war – and now champion NATO. It is a stunning reversal.

All this may have been music to the ears of the Euro-élites anxious for the EU to rise to Great Power status, but this soft-power European Leviathan was wholly underpinned by the unstated (but essential) assumption that NATO ‘had Europe’s back’. This naturally implied that the EU had to tie itself ever closer to NATO – and therefore to the U.S. which controls NATO.

But the flip-side to this Atlanticist aspiration – as President Emmanuel Macron noted – is its inexorable logic that Europeans simply end by becoming American vassals. Macron was trying rather, to rally Europe towards the coming ‘age of empires’, hoping to position Europe as a ‘third pole’ in a concert of empires.

The Atlanticists were duly enraged by Macron’s remarks (which nonetheless drew support of other EU states). It could even seem (to furious Atlanticists) that Macron actually was channelling General de Gaulle who had called NATO a “false pretence” designed to “disguise America’s chokehold over Europe”.

There are however, two related schisms that flowed out from this ‘re-imagined’ NATO: Firstly, it exposed the reality of internal European rivalries and divergent interests, precisely because the NATO lead in the Ukraine conflict sets the interests of the Central East European hawks wanting ‘more America, and more war on Russia’ up and against that of the original EU western axis which wants wanting strategic autonomy (i.e. less ‘America’, and a quick end to the conflict).

Secondly, it would be predominantly the western economies that would have to bankroll the costs and divert their manufacturing capacity towards military logistic chains. The economic price, non-military de-industrialisation and high inflation, potentially, could be enough to break Europe – economically.

The prospect of a pan-European cohesive identity might be both ontologically appealing – and be seen to be an ‘appropriate accessory’ to an aspiring ‘world actor’ – yet such identity becomes caricature when mosaic Europe is transformed into an abstract de-territorialised identity that reduces people to their most abstract.

Paradoxically, the Ukraine war – far from consolidating the EU ‘identity’, as first imagined – has fractured it under the stresses of the concerted effort to weaken and collapse Russia.

Secondly, as Arta Moeini, the director of the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, has observed:

“The American push for NATO expansion since 1991 has enlarged the alliance by adding a host of faultline states from Central and Eastern Europe. The strategy, which began with the Clinton administration but was fully championed by the George W. Bush administration, was to create a decidedly pro-American pillar on the continent, centred on Warsaw – which would force an eastward shift in the alliance’s centre of gravity away from the traditional Franco-German axis”.

“By using NATO enlargement to weaken the old power centres in Europe that might have occasionally stood up to [Washington] such as in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Washington ensured a more compliant Europe in the short-term. The upshot, however, was the formation of a 31-member behemoth with deep asymmetries of power and low compatibility of interests” – that is much weaker and more vulnerable – than it believes itself to be”.

Here is the key: “the EU is much weaker than it believes itself to be”. The outset of the conflict was defined by a cast of mind entranced by the notion of Europe as a ‘mover and shaker’ in world affairs, and mesmerised by Europe’s post-war prosperity.

EU leaders convinced themselves that this prosperity had bequeathed it the clout and the economic depth to contemplate war – and to weather its reversals – with panglossian sanguinity. It has produced rather, the converse: It has put its project in jeopardy.

In John Raply and Peter Heather’s The Imperial Life Cycle, the authors explain the cycle:

“Empires grow rich and powerful and attain supremacy through the economic exploitation of their colonial periphery. But in the process, they inadvertently spur the economic development of that same periphery, until it can roll back and ultimately displace its overlord”.

Europe’s prosperity in this post-war era, thus was not so much one of its own making, but drew benefit from the tail-end of accumulations hewn from an earlier cycle – now reversed.

“The fastest-growing economies in the world are now all in the old periphery; the worst-performing economies are disproportionately in the West. These are the economic trends that have created our present landscape of superpower conflict — most saliently between America and China”.

America may think of itself as exempt from the European colonial mould, yet fundamentally, its model is

“an updated cultural-political glue that we might call “neoliberalism, NATO and denim”, which follows in the timeless imperial mould: The great wave of decolonisation that followed WW2 was meant to end that. But the Bretton Woods system, which created a trading regime that favoured industrial over primary producers and enshrined the dollar as the global reserve currency – ensured that the net flow of financial resources continued to move from developing countries to developed ones. Even when the economies of the newly-independent states grew, those of the G7 economies and their partners grew more”.

A once-mighty empire is now challenged and feels embattled. Taken aback by the refusal of so many developing countries to join with isolating Russia, the West is now waking up to the reality of the emerging, polycentric and fluid global order. These trends are set to continue. The danger is that economically weakened and in crisis, western countries attempt to re-appropriate western triumphalism, yet lack the economic strength and depth, so to do:

“In the Roman Empire, peripheral states developed the political and military capacity to end Roman domination by force… The Roman Empire might have survived – had it not weakened itself with wars of choice – on its ascendant Persian rival”.

The final ‘transgressive’ thought goes to Tom Luongo: “Allowing the West to keep thinking they can win – is the ultimate form of grinding out a superior opponent”.

June 5, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Your Speech is Violence”: How the Mob is Using a New Mantra to Justify Campus Violence

By Jonathan Turley | The Hill | June 4, 2023

“Silence is violence.” When those words became a popular mantra years ago on college campuses, I wrote that the anti-free speech movement was moving toward compelled speech while declaring dissenting views to be harmful.

Today, it isn’t just silence that is considered violence on college campuses. It is also speech, as both faculty and students are actively shutting down opposing views on subjects ranging from abortion to climate change to transgender issues.

Recently, many people were shocked by a videotape of Hunter College professor Shellyne Rodríguez trashing a pro-life student display in New York. Most were focused on her profanity and vandalism, but there were familiar phrases that appeared in her diatribe to the clearly shocked students.

Before trashing the table, she told the students, “You’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

The videotape revealed one other thing. At Hunter College, and at other colleges, it seems that trashing a pro-life student display and abusing pro-life students is not considered a firing offense. Hunter College refused to fire Rodríguez.

The PSC Graduate Center, the labor organization of graduate and professional schools at the City University of New York, supported that decision and said Rodríguez was “justified” in trashing the display, which the organization described as “dangerously false propaganda” and “disinformation.”

Rodríguez later put a machete to the neck of a reporter, threatened to chop him up and then chased a news crew down a street with the machete in hand. Somewhere between the machete to the neck and chasing the reporters down the street, Hunter College finally decided that Rodríguez had to go.

Rodríguez denounced the school for having “capitulated” to “racists, white nationalists, and misogynists.” She explained that her firing was just a continuation of “attacks on women, trans people, black people, Latinx people, migrants, and beyond.”

The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views.  As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

As one antifa member explained, free speech is a “nonargument… you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”

When people criticized antifa for its violent philosophy, MSNBC’s Joy Reid responded to the critics that “you might be the fascist.”

Faculty members have followed this sense of license to silence others. Former CUNY law dean Mary Lu Bilek even insisted that disrupting a speech on free speech was free speech. (Hunter is part of the CUNY system.)

The same week as the Rodríguez attack at the State University of New York at Albany, sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then allegedly resisted arrest.

Just last week, the Pride Office website at the University of Colorado (Boulder) declared that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”

This week, University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers declared that some of those boycotting the store Target over its line of Pride Month clothing were engaging in “literal terrorism.” (He insists that he was referring to those confronting Target employees.)

Faculty have also justified attacks on pro-life figures. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. 

She pleaded guilty to criminal assault, but the university refused to fire her. Instead, some faculty and students defended her, including claiming that pro-life displays constitute terrorism. The University of Oregon later honored Miller-Young as a model for women advocates.

Likewise, at Fresno State University, public health professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher recruited students to destroy pro-life messages.

Other faculty have called for or countenanced violence against Republicans and conservatives. Professors have shouted down speakers, destroyed property, participated in riots and verbally attacked students.

University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. He was later elevated to the position of director of graduate studies of history.

As faculty commit or support violence, students are assured that others are the violent ones. Recently, at the University of Texas at Austin, Professor Kirsten Bradbury tested her students on psychology by asking them “which sociodemographic group is most likely to repeatedly violate the rights of others in a pattern of behavior that includes violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse?” Of course, the answer was wealthy white men.

The lesson took with students. A recent poll shows that 41 percent of college students now believe violence is justified to fight hate speech. At Cornell, a conservative speaker was shouted down, met with the common mantra that “your words are violence.” At Case Western, the student newspaper editorialized against university recognition of a pro-life group because its pro-life views are “inherently violent” and “a danger to the student body.” At Wellesley, student editors declared that it was time to shut down conservative speakers and that “hostility may be warranted.” They added, “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.”

Those views did not spontaneously appear in the minds of these students. At one time, tolerance for free speech was the very touchstone of higher education and a common article of faith for students. These students are the product of years of being told that free speech is dangerous and harmful if left unregulated. From elementary school to college, they were taught that they did not have to be “triggered” by the speech of others.

We are still (thankfully) drawing the line at machete attacks. But it is the underlying views of Rodríguez that are the true threat, and they are being replicated throughout the country. We are raising a generation of censors and speech-phobics.

If we want to stop or reverse this trend, Congress must act. I have proposed legislation that would deny federal funding to schools that do not protect core free speech principles. We are funding schools that are taking a machete to the defining right of our democracy.

It is akin to the recent resolution of the case of an antifa member who took an axe to Sen. John Hoeven’s (R-N.D.) office in Fargo. Thomas “Tas” Alexander Starks, 31, was given probation… and his axe back.

We may not be able to deter people from speaking through machetes and axes, but we can at least stop subsidizing the hardware.

June 5, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Israel simulates Iran war after Tehran cleared of nuclear allegations

The Cradle | June 5, 2023

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu renewed his threats of military action against Iran and its nuclear facilities on 4 June while holding an underground mock assessment with the security cabinet in coordination with Israel’s ongoing military drill, dubbed Firm Hand.

The security cabinet meeting, held in a military command bunker in Tel Aviv, aims to “simulate decision-making by the political echelon during a potential multi-front war,” Times of Israel reported.

“We are committed to acting against Iran’s nuclear program, against missile attacks on Israel, and the possibility of these fronts joining up,” Netanyahu said in a video statement from the bunker.

“The reality in our region is changing rapidly. We are not stagnating. We are adjusting our war doctrine and our options of action in accordance with these changes, in accordance with our goals which do not change,” the prime minister said.

He went on to say that Israel is confident that “we can handle any threat on our own,” slamming efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Netanyahu’s comments come just days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decided to shut down one of its major probes into Iran’s nuclear program, ruling that near-weapons grade uranium found in Iran was merely residual and cannot be used to build a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA’s decision has left Israel “on edge,” an unnamed official told Israeli media last week. The Israeli security cabinet meeting also comes as reports have been suggesting that Washington may be looking to restart nuclear talks.

In August last year, a deal was close to materializing, however, an Israeli pressure campaign and anti-Iran protests stalled efforts once again.

The ongoing drill program began at the end of last month, and aims to simulate the type of conflict which Israel has been concerned most about lately, a ‘multi-front war.’

These concerns were exacerbated in Israeli media in the past two days, after a lone Egyptian officer infiltrated Israel through the border and carried out a rare and daring operation, killing three Israeli soldiers.

June 5, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

MEPs demand Hungarian opposition take over EU presidency and not Orban

By Ahmed Adel | June 5, 2023

The non-binding resolution for Hungary not to preside over the European Council is another attack on Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban by the European Parliament. Five of the seven parliamentary groups of the European Parliament support the proposal for Hungary not to take over the presidency of the European Council in the second half of next year, as the country supposedly systematically violates the principles and values ​​of the EU.

According to the text of the resolution, the EU legislature “questions how Hungary will be able to credibly fulfil this task in 2024, in view of its non-compliance with EU law.” The nonbinding statement calls on member states to “find a proper solution as soon as possible.” It also warns that “Parliament could take appropriate measures if such a solution is not found.”

Dutch MEP Sophie In’t Veld said in the debate that the presidency of the EU Council is an opportunity for the presiding country to put its political priorities first, and therefore the stage should not be left to Orban, and rather “a podium to those who have been silenced in Hungary” should be given instead.

Effectively, Veld is demanding that the opposition represents Hungary, and thus she is interfering in the internal processes of the country.

“It’s about time we start to play hardball,” added the Dutch MEP, who belongs to the liberal Renew Europe group. She explained that the proposal includes ways to “reduce cooperation to the bare minimum” during the Hungarian presidency.

The European Parliament cannot influence the order of the presidency of the European Council because that is the exclusive competence of the member states. All member states preside over the Council for six months in a predetermined order. This was last done in 2016 when the order of the presidency until 2030 was determined.

This provocation by Brussels towards Hungary will not harm Orban’s government in the slightest. In fact, it will only confirm the correctness of his policy among his voters. Although the resolution is motivated by Hungary’s position on Ukraine because Orban is not aligned with Brussels, he is also targeted because of value issues.

The resolution raises “serious threats” against LGBT+ rights in relation to a new amendment to the Whistleblower Protection Act that MEPs say will “legitimise open discrimination.” Targeting Hungary for its values is contradictory given that Eastern Europe generally resists the Istanbul Declaration, a human rights treaty of the European Council opposing violence against women and domestic violence but which many say is now hijacked by the homosexual lobby. However, many of these countries, such as Poland, are tolerated because they are involved in the war effort against Russia.

Because Hungary does not comply with the war propaganda and war efforts against Russia, in addition to not aligning with the liberal value criteria, thereby setting a bad example for member states, a vicious attack is being orchestrated at the EU parliamentary level. This move is overly audacious and will only further destroy the already shaken foundations of the EU, which Orban does not mind at all.

By talking about “silenced” voices, the EU Parliament is making a direct call for interference in Hungary’s internal affairs, and this only confirms what Orban and other Hungarian officials are saying.

With the resolution, Brussels irritated the Hungarians and the political forces of other countries, which could be potential targets of similar resolutions in the future. This primarily applies to Eastern European countries with strong conservative forces, where ideological struggle and cultural wars exist.

In 2022, the EU Parliament passed a non-binding resolution declaring that Hungary was no longer a fully-functioning democracy and should instead be considered a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy.” At the same time, the European Commission is withholding nearly €28 billion in EU funds from Hungary over unresolved rule-of-law concerns like those raised by MEPs.

Although the aforementioned actions are provocative, they do not compare to the attempts to stop Orban’s Hungary from taking over the European Council presidency, even though such a move has no basis anywhere in European history. It also raises the question of whether the European Parliament could interfere with a process that is decided exclusively by member states.

In this way, Hungary is virtually a solitary voice in the EU. Although other Eastern European countries might share Hungary’s conservative values, they differ in positions regarding Ukraine and Russia. This is why Orban will continually be targeted, even with unprecedented attempts to stop Hungary from taking over the presidency of the European Council next year.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

June 5, 2023 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

“IT’S JUST A VITAMIN” (VITAMIN K)

Candace Owens | May 19, 2023

From the 1980s to the early 1990s, the incidence of cancer in American children under 10 years of age rose 37 percent. Candace investigates whether there is a correlation between increased vaccines and shots like Vitamin K and this increased cancer rate. The CDC and FDA have conflicting claims regarding Vitamin K’s safety. But by analyzing synthetic Vitamin K’s ingredients, Candace questions whether it’s more than “just a vitamin.”

It’s time for a black exit. Buy my book “Blackout” to read why: https://utm.io/ueSdT

LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos. https://www.youtube.com/c/Candaceshow

June 5, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Judge finds Australian war hero to be a war criminal

By Graham Hryce | RT | June 2, 2023

Yesterday Justice Anthony Besanko handed down his ruling in Afghanistan war hero Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation case in the Federal Court in Sydney.

Justice Besanko released a summary of the judgment, agreeing to delay releasing his full reasons until next week, so that it could be vetted by the federal government to ensure that it did not contain any sensitive national security material.

Justice Besanko dismissed Roberts-Smith’s case against Australian media – on the basis that the most serious defamatory allegations made by the press, namely that the soldier was a war criminal and murderer, were substantially true.

The trial – dubbed “the defamation case of the century” – ran for over 100 days, and the legal costs are thought to exceed $15 million for each side. Roberts-Smith will now have to pay the costs of both parties. This was an absolutely disastrous result for the war hero – or, perhaps more accurately, former war hero.

Roberts-Smith, an SAS soldier who won a Victoria Cross fighting in Afghanistan, sued The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times, and three journalists, over articles published in 2018 alleging that he was a war criminal and complicit in the murder of six innocent Afghan civilians.

The newspapers and journalists raised a defense of truth, and Roberts-Smith and witnesses called by the defendants, including three Afghan villagers and some of Roberts-Smith’s fellow soldiers, gave conflicting evidence about what happened on various combat missions involving Roberts-Smith in Afghanistan. The trial judge disbelieved Roberts-Smith and accepted the evidence of the witnesses called by the newspapers, which will make it very difficult for any appeal that may be brought by Roberts-Smith to succeed.

Roberts-Smith’s comprehensive loss in his defamation action will have dire consequences for him personally, the Australian Defence Force (ADF), and the military top brass.

A judge, albeit in civil proceedings, has now effectively ruled that Roberts-Smith is a war criminal. Civil cases require a lower standard of proof than criminal ones, but in the circumstances, it appears inevitable that he will face criminal charges in respect to his conduct in Afghanistan and in accordance with the protracted inquiry process into Afghanistan war crimes established by the former Morrison government some years ago. Roberts-Smith will no doubt be stripped of his Victoria Cross and other medals.

Besanko’s branding of Roberts-Smith as a war criminal and murderer makes it virtually impossible now to credibly maintain that Australian soldiers did not commit war crimes in Afghanistan. After all, if Australia’s most decorated war hero in Afghanistan was murdering innocent civilians with impunity, it seems certain that other SAS soldiers were engaging in similar conduct.

The Roberts-Smith defamation case result can only exacerbate the severe damage done to the reputation of the ADF since allegations of Afghanistan war crimes first emerged publically almost five years ago.

As for the military top brass, the result of the Roberts-Smith defamation case confirms that either they knew what was going on in Afghanistan and permitted it to happen, in which case they were complicit in war crimes. Alternatively, they had no idea what was happening, in which case their negligence facilitated such war crimes. After all, those SAS soldiers who told the journalists who wrote the articles what was actually occurring in Afghanistan, only did so because they knew that the military top brass would do nothing to rein in such conduct.

The trial’s result also confirms that ADF leadership has mishandled the entire Afghanistan war crimes issue right from the beginning. No wonder ordinary Australian soldiers have lost all respect for their leaders.

Coincidentally, this week the Chief of the ADF, General Angus Campbell – who was the commander of Australian forces in Afghanistan in 2011 – appeared before a Senate Estimates Committee in the federal parliament. Campbell had a difficult time coping with being grilled by a few independent Senators.

Earlier this week, Campbell admitted that in March 2021 the United States defense attaché in Canberra had written to him, advising that the allegations of war crimes outlined in the 2020 Brereton Report, could prevent the US military from cooperating with Australian SAS forces in the future. The seriousness of this situation seemed lost on Campbell and he just shrugged the letter and warning off – as was the irony of the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib atrocities lecturing him on the ethics of modern warfare.

Campbell also testified that he now intends to strip a few Australian military commanders in Afghanistan of their war medals, while keeping the medals that he was personally awarded for his own distinguished service during the Afghanistan war. This did not impress independent Senator Jacqui Lambie, who demanded that Campbell “lead by example and hand back his medals.” Campbell refused to do so.

Earlier in the week, the ADF announced that alcohol consumption by Australian soldiers would be banned in “warlike operations.” The ban is to be enforced via random breath testing, with soldiers who refuse to be tested being sent home.  This is a typically misguided Campbell policy initiative. The war crimes committed in Afghanistan were not committed because Australian soldiers had a few beers.

The fact is that the Australian military is in a state of crisis as a result of the inept handling of the entire Afghanistan war crimes matter. Once the allegations surfaced, instead of dealing with them promptly, and court-martialling the offenders, the military top brass set up a protracted investigation, beginning with the Brereton Inquiry, that only focused on the alleged misconduct of ordinary soldiers.

This fundamentally flawed process has continued for more than five years, and now involves criminal charges being brought against alleged war criminals in the courts. One SAS soldier, Oliver Schulz, has already been charged and others, including Roberts-Smith, no doubt will be. These criminal cases, which will attract ongoing adverse publicity, will take years to conclude.

This endless demonstration of public self-flagellation, together with the random stripping of service medals from ordinary soldiers against whom no allegations of war crimes had been made, and the egregious and ongoing failure to provide proper support services for soldiers who served in Afghanistan, has reduced morale within the ADF to an all-time low. The Roberts-Smith defamation case will result in it plummeting even further.

Campbell and his top-brass colleagues should be sacked for presiding over this appalling state of affairs, and an inquiry should be established into what precisely the military top brass knew about war crimes committed in Afghanistan at the time. Answers need to be provided for why they did nothing to put an end to such conduct, why the ADF were sent to fight in Afghanistan in the first place, and what benefits generally accrue to the military from blindly following the US into utterly misguided wars of aggression that cannot be won.

That will not happen, of course, because, as the recent AUKUS agreement has shown, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government has wholeheartedly adopted the same Cold War worldview fervently adhered to by the military top brass.

Albanese will most likely leave Campbell and his mates in their current comfortable sinecures – where they will further demoralize and weaken the ADF, while at the same time maintaining that Australia should be ready to go to war with China over Taiwan at the drop of Uncle Sam’s top hat.

Defamation actions are strange and unpredictable things, but they sometimes provide instructive insights into the dysfunctional operations of powerful organizations that are in need of root and branch reform. Ben Roberts-Smith inadvertently did Australia a service by bringing defamation proceedings against those newspapers and journalists who dared to tell the truth about what was really happening in Afghanistan.

Graham Hryce is an Australian journalist and former media lawyer, whose work has been published in The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Sunday Mail, the Spectator and Quadrant.

June 4, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

CHD Scientists Call for Investigation Into CDC, FDA for Suppressing Evidence Linking COVID Shots and Myocarditis

The Defender | June 2, 2023

In a letter to the editor published today in Medical Research Archives, two Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientists called for an investigation into how U.S. public health officials suppressed evidence linking myocarditis and COVID-19 vaccines until after more than half the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the shots.

In their letter, Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl David Jablonowski, Ph.D., outlined the timeline of events showing how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lied to the public.

The letter examines who knew what and when during the early days of the epidemic of vaccine-induced myocarditis from FDA-authorized and CDC-recommended COVID-19 shots.

Myocarditis is a debilitating and often fatal cardiac condition. COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis primarily afflicts children, although the CDC and FDA did not reveal the vaccine’s risk until after the agencies had approved it for use in this age group.

According to Hooker and Jablonowski, well before May 27, 2021, when the CDC revealed its report, “Myocarditis and Pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination,” the CDC, FDA, U.S. Department of Defense, Pfizer and the Israel Ministry of Health had documented evidence of myocarditis shortly after vaccination, predominantly among 16- to 24-year-old males.

“The CDC and FDA willfully chose to hide this information from the U.S. public,” Hooker said. “The dereliction of duty to serve public health interests is clear. We are now calling for an interagency investigation of the CDC and FDA modeled on the external investigation of NASA in the wake of the Columbia Disaster.”

The CDC and FDA ignored warnings from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a government-maintained database, during one of the most highly anticipated and consequential pharmaceutical rollouts in human history.

During the week of Feb. 19, while Americans were desperately waiting in line for the “safe and effective” cure to what government officials and the media portrayed as a global doomsday plague, VAERS received enough serious adverse event reports to show myocarditis is causally connected to the COVID-19 vaccine in young males, according to the letter.

The CDC and FDA continued to conceal the risk from the public, even after being directly asked by the Israel Ministry of Health about a link between myocarditis “in young individuals soon after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.”

On April 26, 2021, the CDC and FDA denied “safety signals” existed for myocarditis following COVID-19 jabs.

It was not until after the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization and the CDC recommended the vaccination of children ages 12-15 that on May 27, 2021, the CDC revealed, “Since April 2021, there have been increased reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of cases of inflammation of the heart…”.

“The CDC and FDA neglected to uphold public health interests and obstructed informed consent,” Hooker said.

“The erosion of trust runs so deep that the remedy must originate from an entity external to the CDC and FDA. We demand an immediate interagency investigation in order to fully inform and protect the American public.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

June 4, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccinated Veterans MORE Likely to Die from COVID, VA Study Proves

It’s Even Worse to Be Boosted

BY IGOR CHUDOV | JUNE 2, 2023

The U.S. Veterans Administration oversees the medical care of the United States Armed Forces veterans. It has complete medical records of every veteran, including their hospitalizations, vaccinations, deaths, and more.

Therefore, studies of veterans that include sub-populations broken down by vaccination status provide accurate data about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines. I already reported on two such studies: one shows that COVID and flu vaccines are useless at preventing hospitalization due to COVID or flu, and another (posted on Feb 2022) proves that Covid vaccines cause myocarditis in veterans.

A new study was published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases and is worth a look.

The study is very straightforward: it looked at 1,459 veterans receiving Merck’s Molnupiravir and compared them with 63,281 veterans NOT receiving it. Its objective was to see if Molnupiravir was helpful (drumroll, it was not). The period covered was from Jan 1 to August 21, 2022.

The study has the breakdown of the Molnupiravir group and the standard-treatment group by vaccination status.

Such a breakdown allows us to check which veterans did better: the COVID-vaccinated or the unvaccinated.

Look at the “control group”: veterans who did NOT receive Molnupiravir and received standard care instead (circled above). Let’s make a nice table out of that:

Each category above contains only US veterans, mostly older males, so they are roughly the same age category. Therefore, age confounding can change the picture somewhat but should not change too much. They all have access to the same VA medical resources, so no medical disparities exist. The only difference between them is their vaccination status.

You would think that right in the midst of the deadly COVID pandemic, many lives of those older persons would be saved by safe, effective, science-backed COVID vaccines, right? Every TV program told us this last year, so it must be true! (note my sarcasm)

Guess what? It was the opposite! The category in the above table with the least hospitalizations and deaths is the veterans who refused COVID vaccines and remained unvaccinated. Those had only 15.86 veterans per 1,000 hospitalized or dead. The more vaccines the veterans received, the worse their outcome: double-dosed veterans had 24.90 hospitalizations/deaths per thousand and boosted veterans had 27 hospitalizations per thousand.

These ratios are derived from a population with precisely known vaccination status of each participant. They show that the Covid vaccine does not work – when vaccination statuses are known, and when outcomes are counted properly.

This finding is based on a plain reading of numbers provided (but not discussed) by the study authors. They only looked at the effectiveness of Molnupiravir. By the way, they found Monupiravir ineffective and harmful.

Had they looked, or were allowed to look at, the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines, based on their own data, their findings would be much more explosive.

If I may guess, had they tried to bring our attention to the ineffectiveness of COVID vaccines, the article would not have been published to maintain “scientific consensus,” nicely described by El Gato Malo. Despite all that, I am thankful to the authors who gave us the numbers we can properly interpret ourselves.

So, to recap, the unvaccinated veterans had the LOWEST rate of hospitalizations and deaths.

June 4, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Occurrence of Convulsions and Death After DTP Childhood Vaccination

Data Published Over 20 Years Ago Signaled Concern

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | May 27, 2023

When the CDC ACIP Panel added the unsafe, ineffective, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to the routine pediatric childhood schedule without full FDA licensure and with no assurances on long-term safety, the entire schedule was called into question from the perspectives of clinical indication, medical necessity, safety, and efficacy. Is it possible since the release of older vaccines that the medical community and CDC ACIP panel ignored solid data and safety concerns with established vaccines? I was participating in the Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee deliberations in the Arizona Senate building, when a paper published over 20 years ago was presented on the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines. The results were astonishing.

Geier and Geier published a massive study and one of the first of its kind at the time using the CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. The hypothesis was that febrile convulsions were more likely to occur with combined vaccine products that in some cases it would lead to death. Here is what they did: “The incidence rates calculated in this study are based on the estimates by the CDC of the number of doses administered during the study period: 121,954,137 doses of whole-cell DTP; 54,611,651 doses of acellular DTP (DTaP); and 9,335,142 doses of DT were administered. The background rate of development of convulsions by children is based on the estimates of the 1991 report by the Institute of Medicine of 0.2 per million children per day.”

Geier DA, Geier MR. An analysis of the occurrence of convulsions and death after childhood vaccination. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2002;12(1):71-8. doi: 10.1080/15376510209167937. PMID: 20597817.

They found more cases (occurrence/million) of febrile seizures and death after whole-cell DTP, DTaP, DT alone, in a descending, nonlinear graded fashion, and the risks were in a tight temporal relationship. This is concerning because of the associations between post-vaccine febrile seizures and childhood/adult epilepsy requiring medications and with the development of neuropsychiatric conditions including autism.

In summary, no vaccine is perfectly safe. Combining multiple products into single shots increases the reactogenicity and the risk of a catastrophic outcome. As parents and doctors begin to make more discerning choices they may consider going to less complex products, spreading them out, and giving them at later ages.

Alternatively, some parents and doctors may choose for a child to “go natural” or completely unvaccinated, which has the best overall outcomes in contemporary studies at this time. Diphtheria and pertussis are easily treated with antibiotics, so prompt recognition and treatment if such a rare infection occurs is always an option for parents. Tetanus is avoided with good wound care and antibiotics for deep tissue lacerations and puncture wounds.

Geier DA, Geier MR. An analysis of the occurrence of convulsions and death after childhood vaccination. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2002;12(1):71-8. doi: 10.1080/15376510209167937. PMID: 20597817.

McCullough PA. Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders “Going Natural” in First Year of Life Resulted in Better Health Outcomes, 2023

June 4, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

THE DURHAM REPORT, THE SPYGATE AND THE INEXTRICABLE TIE WITH THE ITALIAN DEEP STATE

By Cesare Sacchetti | The Eye Of The Needle | June 2, 2023

Fraud and treason. These are the first two words that come up to our mind when we read the Durham report.

In the report written by the special prosecutor appointed in 2019 by the then AG William Barr is narrated the plot to overthrow the Trump presidency.

When President Trump claims that this was the most subversive plot in the history of America, he’s certainly right.

An institution like the FBI, which was supposed to guard the regularity of the election, was the one who instead conspired to frame one of the candidates.

After the publication of the Durham report, the image of the FBI is definitely tainted.

And the most outrageous thing that shows how the FBI is a politicized institution is the fact that the latter acted on the orders of Hillary Clinton.

At page 98 of the report, we find the beginning of this conspiracy against Donald Trump.

Everything dates back to April 2016 when a legal firm that was working for the Clinton campaign was assigned a specific task.

Find, or better cook up, dirt to discredit Donald Trump. The legal firm hired Perkins Coie, a Washington based investigative agency.

Perkins Coie was tasked to find compromising information about Donald Trump in order to show that the Republican candidate was a sort of “Putin’s agent”.

This is the birth of the infamous Steele’s dossier named after his creator, Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele was a former agent of the British secret services, which apparently did not want to do anything with him.

Steel wrote a bogus dossier where he claims that Trump had intercourse in a Moscow hotel with Russian prostitutes whom were asked also to pee on the bed where Obama had supposedly slept years before.

This is the kind of outlandish garbage that was put into the dossier and this shows us, once again, the stunning proportions of this farce.

However, this “material” was the basis that allowed the FBI to launch the infamous Crossfire Hurricane probe.

Crossfire Hurricane is the beginning of the investigation where Trump was suspected of “Russian collusion”.

After the probe started, the FBI illegally wiretapped Carter Page, Trump’s former foreign consultant, and Paul Manafort, former director of Trump’s campaign.

And the Special Prosecutor is very clear in pointing out how their surveillance would have not been authorized without the Steele report.

The FBI and the intelligence community failed to do the proper due diligence of this information and the report, at page 96 of his report, points out this as well.

Durham writes that “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

Evidence against Trump could not be founded because it was simply not there. And the institutions that were supposed to check Steele’s claims basically took his allegations at face value.

However, Crossfire Hurricane was launched also through the involvement of a foreign actor, which is Italy in this case.

In May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a former Trump consultant made some incautious revelations to Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat close to the Clintons.

Papadopoulos said to Downer that he had received some compromising information about Hillary Clinton from Joseph Mifsud when he had met him in Italy two months before.

Joseph Mifsud is an enigmatic character. He is a Maltese professor at the Link Campus University in Rome, which is a university known to be quite close to the Anglosphere environment.

Actually, Papadopoulos took the bait of Mifsud who is close to the American Democratic party as well.

The Maltese professor has disappeared ever since. Some sources claim that the Italian secret service are hiding him because of his crucial role in the conspiracy against Trump.

However, we will come back later on the role played by the Italian deep state.

Now we must go back to Crossfire Hurricane.

Obama green lighted Spygate

Once the investigation against Trump was launched, President Obama was immediately informed about it.

In the summer of 2016 the word was spread in the intelligence community about the “Clinton Intelligence plan”.

Obama was briefed by then CIA director, Joseph Brennan, who said to the President how the Clinton campaign was working to frame Trump by falsely associating him with the Russian government.

Obama did not stop the plot nor he tried to halt the illegal FBI investigation. On the contrary, he gave a green light to it.

The conspiracy against Donald Trump had the blessing of Barack Obama who chose to help Hillary Clinton in her plan.

Some months later after this summit, in October, former Italian PM, Matteo Renzi, paid a visit to Obama in the White House.

In that period, Renzi was busy in supporting his failed Yes referendum campaign to reform the Italian constitution and he was also seeking endorsements from international relevant figures, like Obama.

Obama backed Renzi’s constitutional reform with a public statement that it clearly looked a meddling into Italy’s political affairs.

However, according to Papadopoulos, when Obama hosted Renzi at the White House asked him to play a part in the conspiracy against Donald Trump.

And here we have to meet new characters, who are the Occhioneros siblings, Giulio and Francesca Maria.

In that period, the Occhioneros were accused of illegal espionage against Italian institutional figures. The probe launched by the DA of Rome is called “EyePyramid” and it floods the pages of the Italian media.

The two were arrested and they later started denouncing a plot against them.

Giulio Occhionero is a nuclear engineer with advanced IT skills. He wrote to the then US Ambassador, Lewis Eisenberg, and to the US Congress.

Mr. Occhionero in his letters reveals the plot of the Italian authorities against him. According to him, his servers were hacked by the Italian postal police along with their respective IT division, the CNPAIC.

The goal of this operation was to plant some of Clinton’s email on the servers of his firm in the United States and then trying to associate these emails to Trump because of Occhionero’s relations with the Republican party.

So Occhionero in this story played the role of the classical patsy, chosen to frame someone else.

If his version is correct, the plot against Trump proceeded on two parallel ways: on the one hand, there was the American side of the FBI that was illegally spying on Trump campaign; on the other, there were the Italian authorities that were acting jointly with the US institutions to associate Trump with the Russian government.

In the first months of the conspiracy, we find tangible trace of this collaboration between the US and Italian authorities.

In April 2016, Kieran Ramsey, former legal attaché of the US embassy, wrote a letter to Nunzia Ciardi, director of the Italian postal police.

Ramsey’s letter to the Italian postal police

Ciardi is an interesting character because her name surfaced in the Italian mainstream media in 2021 when she was interviewed about the surveillance of the “no vax” activists.

It is still not clear to this day what was the extent of this surveillance and who authorized it considering the fact that the “no vax” activists were not committing any crime.

However, Ramsey wrote to Ciardi and he thanked her for the collaboration of her office in identifying the location of Occhionero’s emails.

It was April and Occhionero was still not investigated by the DA of Rome. Nevertheless, his name was in an official letter signed by the legal attaché of the American embassy and addressed to the Italian authorities.

The Italian engineer thinks that the kind of cybernetic attack that was enforced against his servers could not be operated without an ISP, Internet Service Provider, TIM, in this case.

And only a government could force to participate an ISP in this kind of hacking operation.

This also explains the visit paid by William Barr in Rome. Barr came to Italy to investigate Italy’s role in the Spygate case.

And here we can see once again the deep tie between the American and the Italian deep state. A “special relationship” that dates back to 1945 when after the loss of WW2, Italy has been living in a condition of limited sovereignity.

Italy has not been enjoying an autonomous foreign policy like the other countries who joined NATO. Italy’s foreign policy was mostly dictated by Washington and when Rome did not want to comply was threatened and harassed like what happened to former Italy’s PM, Aldo Moro, who was warned by Henry Kissinger to halt his policy.

Therefore, the Italian deep state finds itself in a condition of subordination to Washington. US governments used Italy as a strategic platform to keep up the old unipolar order of the past century.

This probably explains why Washington chose Italy to carry out its subversive plans against Trump. The Italian deep state is a sort of rogue agent, or just muscle for the US side to use in these kinds of “tricky” situations.

This also explains why Italy, once again, played a fundamental role in another subversive plot against Trump whose name is “Italygate”, which we exposed in this blog in December 2020.

After all, the Italian establishment can rule Italy only with the protection of the Washington guarantor and it must execute the orders of the latter.

When Trump stepped into the political arena, both sides saw a lethal treat. Trump had no interest in pursuing that relationship with the Italian establishment.

His mission was to free America from the rule of the Washington lobbies, which had been controlling Italy for decades.

Trump ended this axis. He severed the umbilical cord that tied the Italian deep state to the American one.

This is why the Durham report closed a cycle. A cycle where the walls were closed in on those who committed treason against the President of the United States.

Although the report does not explicitly mention Italy’s role, Trump has probably the proof about the involvement of everyone in this coup d’état. And this not only haunts the nights of the several people in Washington.

It haunts the nights of several people in Rome too.

June 4, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe’s Digital Services Act Puts Free Speech at the Mercy of Eurocrats

BY DAVID THUNDER | THE FREEDOM BLOG | JUNE 3, 2023

The European Union’s Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, was apparently miffed that Elon Musk withdrew Twitter from the EU’s “voluntary code of practice against disinformation.” He was sufficiently put out by Twitter’s withdrawal from the “voluntary code” that he felt the need to publicly reprimand Twitter for not gratefully submitting to the European Union’s expert guidance: “You can run but you can’t hide… Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under Digital Services Act as of August 25th.”

The declared aim of the new Digital Service Act is “to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market for intermediary services by setting out harmonised rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment that facilitates innovation and in which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, including the principle of consumer protection, are effectively protected.”

Who can argue against a “safe, predictable and trusted online environment”? Who would argue against “consumer protection”? And who would argue against Mr Breton’s commitment to the fight against “disinformation”? I certainly would, because when a person or institution in a position of great power endorses values like “predictability,” rails against “disinformation,” and promises to keep us all “safe” on the internet, you can be sure that it will be “safety,” “predictability,” and “disinformation,” as viewed from their self-serving ideological and political perspective.

I am just as worried as Mr Breton about “disinformation,” but my chief concern is with disinformation coming from official sources, which can do an extraordinary amount of harm due to the extraordinary reach and prestige of official organisations. It is these same organisations that Mr Breton would like to put in charge of policing “disinformation”: organisations like national governments, that have been among the most frequent perpetrators of false and misleading information, on matters of no small moment, from the efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines, masks and lockdowns to the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the true standing of climate “science,” and the potential harms to the economy and food supply chain of aggressive climate interventions such as the expropriation of farmland.

The Digital Services Act is an endless maze of complicated regulations worthy of a team of lawyers. Seeing as I don’t have a budget to hire a team of lawyers, I decided to skim through the Act for myself. It does not make for pleasant bedtime reading, not only because it is a morass of complicated legalese, but also, because what hides behind this legalese is an attempt by EU politicians to get social media platforms under their thumb, through

  • the obligation on the part of social media companies to periodically submit content moderation and “risk mitigation” reports to EU bureacrats
  • EU supervision of social media platforms’ policing of “harmful” information, which could potentially include health misinformation as well as “illegal hate speech”
  • the creation of new emergency powers in the European Commission to “require” social media platforms to take actions to “prevent, eliminate or limit” any use of their services that might “contribute” to a “threat” to public security or public health

… and all backed up by crippling fines of up to 6% of a company’s worldwide turnover for non-compliance. Yes, you heard that right: up to six percent of a company’s worldwide turnover.

At bottom, the Digital Services Act is an attempt to ramp up the level of control that EU bureacrats have over the flow of information on social media platforms. You would have to have a very short historical memory to think that broad powers of censorship will generally be used to advance the cause of truth and justice. Whether Mr Thierry Breton and his colleagues will be successful in forcing social media companies to do their bidding, this much is clear: the Digital Services Act creates a European legal environment that is increasingly hostile to free speech.

June 4, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »