Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

FBI raids Scott Ritter’s house

RT | August 7, 2024

Federal agents and state police have searched the house of former US Marine and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter in New York state on Wednesday.

State Police and FBI agents descended on the street of Bethlehem township, south of Albany, around noon, according to the local outlet Times-Union. They carried “more than two dozen boxes” out of the house just before 5pm local time.

The law enforcement executed a search warrant “related to concerns apparently the US government has about violations of the Foreign Agent Restriction Act (FARA)” Ritter told reporters gathered outside the house after the agents left.

He denied any allegations of wrongdoing and said the federal government was trying to intimidate him.

An FBI spokesperson confirmed “law enforcement activity in connection with an ongoing federal investigation,” but would say nothing further.

Ritter is a former US Marine Corps major who served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq during the 1990s. He opposed the 2003 US invasion, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s government did not have weapons of mass destruction, as Washington claimed at the time.

He has also been an RT contributor and saw his passport seized by the US government when he tried to attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in June.

Jim Hoffman, Ritter’s neighbor across the street for two decades, told the Times-Union that the former inspector has kept a low profile.

“When he came out against the Iraq War back in early 2000s, he was vilified everywhere,” Hoffman said. “Honestly, he was right. He said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Ritter himself has not posted anything about the raid on social media. His most recent post on X was from Tuesday’s meeting with independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The administrators of his Telegram channel posted photos of the raid and said they have not heard from him either.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 1 Comment

Pharma, WHO Team Up to Create Permanent ‘Pandemic’ Market for Mandated, Experimental Vaccines

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 6, 2024

Big Pharma and its key investors are rolling out a new strategy — “the full takeover of the public sector, specifically the World Health Organization (WHO), and the regulatory system that now holds the entire market hostage” — according to a new investigative report by Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones.

What’s behind the new strategy? The pharmaceutical industry is facing a “patent cliff” by 2030, as many of its blockbuster drugs are set to lose their patent protection, placing $180 billion in sales at risk and threatening to topple the industry.

According to Jones, for years, when patents expired on profitable drugs, pharmaceutical giants deployed a “mergers and acquisitions” strategy, buying up smaller drug companies to add to their product portfolios.

As a result, the industry is now dominated by a handful of companies, conventional chemical drugs exist for most health issues, and the regulatory process for new ones has become onerous.

Big Pharma has now pivoted to acquiring biotech and biologic companies, whose products are “more complex, unpredictable and difficult and expensive to make,” than chemical-based medicine, Jones wrote.

Conventional drugs are chemically synthesized and have a known structure according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biologics come from living humans, animal or microorganism cells, and are technologically altered to target particular proteins or cells in the immune system. The FDA calls biologics “complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.”

As a drug class, biologics offer an appealing solution to the patent cliff problem, because they can’t be easily replicated like generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, producers make “biosimilars,” which unlike genetics can’t simply be interchanged with the original drug during a course of treatment without serious safety risks, according to Jones. And while generics are cheap, biosimilars are still expensive to produce. There also are regulatory hurdles to getting biosimilars to market.

However, Jones wrote, the serious safety issues associated with biologics — the high risk of serious adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, for example — make it difficult for drugmakers to find commercial success in a conventional regulatory environment.

“Luckily for Big Pharma,” Jones wrote, the WHO and its private backers “are pursuing an unprecedented legal process that would cement loopholes that could solve these significant market challenges of at least some biotechnologies.”

Such loopholes made Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — the paradigmatic example of this new strategy — Big Pharma’s highest-selling annual market success ever.

Distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines to approximately 70% of people globally was possible only because of the “fast-tracked, deregulated development and mandated consumption of the experimental drugs,” Jones wrote.

The industry hopes to replicate that model with other drugs. And it has already begun — last month the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, gave Moderna $176 million to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine.

Stakeholders behind the WHO have turned it into an arm of Big Pharma

According to Jones, the process of rapidly developed and mandated experimental drugs was first adopted by the U.S. military for bioweapons threats. Now, it is being internationally legitimized by the WHO through the agency’s revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and its continued attempt to push its pandemic treaty.

The amendments were watered down and the treaty was partially thwarted at the last meeting of the World Health Assembly, which ended on June 1. However, the powers added to the amendments and the language in the treaty WHO and its backers are still hoping to advance next year show the type of biotech pandemic market Big Pharma has in the works.

According to Jones, this market:

“Will not be one that depends on the free will of consumers to opt in and out of products — but instead relies on tactics of forced consumption and manipulation of regulatory paradigms.

“At the forefront of this push are the WHO’s public-private-partners/private stakeholders, who directly shape and benefit from this policy. Their influence has, in effect, turned the WHO into an arm of Big Pharma, one so powerful that it already demonstrated its ability to morph the entire international regulatory process for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

These stakeholders can wield this power in part because the WHO receives 80% of its funding from private stakeholders.

Those stakeholders include private-sector giants like Bill Gates, his public-private partnership organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and public-sector bureaucrats, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright, Ph.D., of BARDA and the Rockefeller Foundation, who have been working for years to create a new system that would speed up vaccine production.

During the COVID-19 pandemic period, even states that lacked legal structures to provide emergency authorization for new drugs created them, using the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EUL) as justification, and aided by the WHO’s COVAX vaccine distribution system. COVAX was co-led by the WHO, Gavi, CEPI and Unicef, which are all backed by Gates.

The goal now, Jones wrote, is to institutionalize the procedures that were put in place globally for COVID-19 to pave the way for a new pandemic market.

The One Health agenda, which requires “full-scale surveillance of the human-animal environment,” both before and during pandemics, is central to this plan, he wrote.

The four pillars of the emerging pandemic market

There are four pillars to the plan for securing this market. The pillars are embodied in the WHO’s recently passed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty.

1. Biosurveillance of “pathogens with pandemic potential”: The WHO is calling on member states to create infrastructure to conduct biosurveillance on entire populations.

WHO private stakeholders, like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been funding such initiatives for years and continue to be at the forefront of similar initiatives today, Jones wrote.

2. Rapid sharing of data and research: Under the IHR amendments, the WHO’s director-general must provide support for member states’ research and development. In the pending treaty, that would include helping them rapidly share data during a pandemic.

Such sharing should help coordinate global pandemic responses and also “pandemic prevention.” That means building a globally coordinated effort to research and share data on diseases that don’t currently pose a public health threat but are allegedly “likely to cause epidemics in the future.”

The WHO’s announcement last week that it is facilitating data-sharing for a new mRNA bird flu vaccine from Argentina is one example.

Experts have raised concerns that incentivizing such “preventive R&D” could incentivize risky gain-of-function research, Jones wrote.

Jones also noted that it is “highly likely” that the same global organizations that partner with the WHO and are funded by its largest private donors will be the ones doing this research and development on vaccines for “future pathogens with pandemic potential” — and also the ones profiting from it.

3. New regulatory pathways: The WHO is developing new regulatory pathways for unapproved medical products to get to market during pandemic emergencies. The IHR amendments are vague on this, Jones wrote, but the proposed language of the treaty aims to speed up emergency authorizations of WHO-recommended investigational “relevant health products.”

The proposed treaty also seeks to compel member countries to take steps to ensure they have the “legal, administrative and financial frameworks in place to support emergency regulatory authorizations for the effective and timely approval of pandemic-related health products during a pandemic.”

4. Global mandates of unapproved products: The final key element in the Big Pharma-WHO plan to pave the way for a new pandemic market is shoring up the global capacity to mandate unapproved medical products.

According to Jones, in July 2023, the WHO adopted the European Union’s (EU) digital COVID-19 passport system, or the “immunity pass” which recorded people’s vaccination records, negative test results or records of previous infections.

“While a digital vaccine passport does not function as a hard mandate in which every citizen of a given population is forced to take a vaccine, it acts as a conditional mandate — one which offers the illusion of choice, but — in reality — restricts the civil liberties of those who do not comply,” Jones wrote.

The 2005 version of the IHR allowed for travel-based mandates that required proof of vaccination to enter countries when there was a public health risk. The new IHR, Jones wrote, expands on this by detailing the kinds of technology that can be used to check such information during future pandemics.

The WHO also is developing its Global Digital Health Certification Network, which expands the EU digital passport system to a global scale. It will digitize vaccination records and health records and will be “interoperable” with existing networks.

While interoperability makes it possible for decentralized data to be shared globally, Jones wrote, “The UN is seeking to impose digital identification as a ‘human right,’ or rather as a condition for accessing other human rights, for the entire global citizenry by 2030, as established in its Sustainable Development Goal 16.9.”

The initiative seeks to provide people with a “trusted, verifiable way” to prove who they are in the physical world and online.

Jones wrote:

“Verification systems of this size will place the right of citizens to do basic activities — like traveling, eating at a restaurant or working their job — in the hands of governments and potentially employers.

“The rights of civilians will be conditional, dictated by data stored in a massive digital hub that is global in its sharing abilities. Not only will domestic governments have access to the health information of their own citizens under this system, but an entire global bureaucracy will as well.”

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.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

US spying on Tulsi Gabbard – whistleblowers

RT | August 7, 2024

The US government has put former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard on a special air traffic surveillance list, according to a group of Air Marshal whistleblowers.

Gabbard served in Congress for eight years (2013-2021) and ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, but left the party in 2022 over ideological differences. She is also a lieutenant-colonel in the US Army reserve.

For the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), however, Gabbard appears to be a security risk. Last month, she was placed into the ‘Quiet Skies’ program and monitored wherever she flies, according to the Air Marshal National Council (AMNC).

The outlet UncoverDC reported this week that Gabbard has “two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist (explosives), one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals [FAMs] on every flight she boards,” citing AMNC director Sonya LaBosco.

AMNC posted on X that the claim came from their whistleblowers, who are ready to go on the record with the appropriate documentation.

The group has also claimed that the TSA and FAMS have “initiated armed government surveillance on high level conservative politicians,” and that the information they intend to reveal will “horrify and sicken you as Americans.”

LaBosco has accused the TSA and its parent department, Homeland Security, of engaging in a “big domestic surveillance grab” that seems to be targeting conservatives. According to the group, Quiet Skies has been used against several people who attended the January 6, 2021 protest at the US Capitol – and their family members, including infants.

According to LaBosco, Gabbard was placed on the list on July 23, a day after she criticized President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in a Fox News interview. FAMs were mobilized the very next day and followed her on a July 25 flight, LaBosco said.

Gabbard famously rattled Harris during the 2020 Democratic primary debates, bringing up her prosecutorial record. She also denounced Hillary Clinton as “the queen of warmongers,” after the former presidential candidate accused her of being a “Russian asset.”

Most recently, Gabbard told podcaster Lex Fridman that “all the statements and comments that the [Biden-Harris White House] has made from the beginning of this war essentially point to their objective being to basically destroy Russia.”

Gabbard has not yet commented on the whistleblower revelations. She has just returned from Oklahoma, where she took command of a drill sergeant battalion that runs the US Army basic training program.

According to the TSA, ‘Quiet Skies’ is a tool that allows the FAMS to “focus on travelers who may present an elevated risk to aviation security.” The agency claims to have developed “a set of risk-based, intelligence-driven scenario rules,” under strict DHS oversight and respect for privacy and civil rights.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

Debunking the debunkers on the “myths” of antidepressants

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | August 5, 2024

Recently, The Conversation ran an article which claimed to “debunk” a range of myths about antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Natalina Salmaso, a clinical psychologist at Carleton University in Canada, highlighted five common myths that make people hesitant to take antidepressants.

Salmaso said hesitancy is often “unfounded” and “may not be grounded in science” and that “debunking the myths surrounding antidepressants is critical to permitting educated treatment decisions for those who suffer.”

However, Salmaso’s article was full of omissions and falsehoods, so we decided to debunk the debunker.

Myth 1 – I am stronger if I do this without meds

Salmaso says that a person with depression is like an athlete with a broken leg.

An athlete cannot compete effectively with a broken leg, in the same way a person with depression cannot function effectively, because their brain “is no longer responding to everyday life.”

She adds that a person’s brain needs to “heal” before they can expect it to function like they did pre-depression and implied antidepressants can help.

This is grossly misguided. This feeds into the false narrative that depression is a brain disease that can be cured by antidepressants.

Antidepressants don’t cure people with depression and their symptomatic effects are so small that they lack clinical relevance.

Studies show that patients actually do better with psychotherapy, which has enduring effects. Further, psychotherapy halves the risk of suicide whereas antidepressants double this risk, in people of all ages.

Myth 2 – I will be dependent on antidepressants to be happy

Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t make people ‘happy’ per se, but they “allow people to experience all emotions in an appropriate and balanced way.”

However, this is not what patients report. SSRIs tend to make people feel “numb” and unable to experience emotions. Some describe it as an inability to feel love, attachment or sexual excitement.

Some experience sexual dysfunction, which can continue long after the drug is discontinued.

Salmaso says that antidepressants “are a long-term (typically at a minimum for a year) and (hopefully) curative treatment, much like chemotherapy for certain types of cancer.”

This is also misguided. Most people become depressed because they have stressful or depressing circumstances, which no drug can cure.

People have been misled to believe that antidepressants can “correct” a chemical imbalance in the brain. A systematic review in 2022 thoroughly debunked the hypothesis that depression is caused a serotonin imbalance.

Salmaso even says that “most studies show that if you take antidepressant medications for a year before coming off of them, the majority of people will not relapse.”

This is also incorrect. The majority of studies on relapse are flawed because they involve subjects already on antidepressants and when they suddenly stop them for the trial they experience withdrawals, which interferes with the assessment of relapse.

Also, the longer someone takes an antidepressant, the higher the probability of that person experiencing withdrawal effects.

Myth 3 – Meds will change who I am, I will be different or feel high

Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t change you, but rather “allow you to view things from a more balanced perspective.”

However, Danish psychiatrists have reported that half of the patients on antidepressants agreed that the treatment could alter their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings.

Far from rebalancing the brain, antidepressants alter the normal functioning of the brain and disrupt biological processes with potentially devastating consequences.

As far as “changing who you are,” there have been ample reports of out-of-body experiences (including akathisia) where people became suicidal or homicidal on antidepressants, even in people with no history of this behaviour.

A systematic review found that taking antidepressants increased aggression three times more than taking a placebo, in children and adolescents.

Myth 4: I will become addicted

Salmaso says that antidepressants “are generally not addictive and have a low potential for misuse.”

This is not correct. Antidepressants can lead to dependency. Many people experience withdrawal symptoms, which are very similar to those that people experience when they try to come off benzodiazepines.

Salmaso claims that some patients get headaches and other withdrawal symptoms when the stop taking antidepressants “suddenly” but says they are “generally short-lived and can be minimised by tapering off treatment slowly.”

However, it is well-documented that about half of patients on antidepressants cannot stop them without experiencing withdrawals symptoms, which for some, can persist for many years. These symptoms are very difficult to “minimise” even with slow tapering.

Myth 5: Meds should only be used as a last resort

Salmaso disagrees that antidepressants should be used as a last resort.

She says that reserving antidepressants only for extreme cases “doesn’t make sense” because depression can reduce “work productivity and has immense societal consequences.”

“The financial repercussions that can be attributed to depression in terms of the number of workdays missed, jobs lost, accidents caused, etc. are enormous,” she added.

However, studies examining the efficacy of antidepressants have not shown any meaningful effects, such as improvements in quality of life, and they make it more difficult for people to function.

In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the increased use of antidepressants has been accompanied by an increase in disability pensions for mental health reasons.

Salmaso argues that, “Depression significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, respiratory disease and Parkinson’s disease, to name a few. It also seems to worsen the outcomes for cancer.”

Antidepressants do not improve these conditions either. Overall, it is our view that Salmaso’s evidence and arguments are flawed and misguided.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

UK High Court upholds Tory emergency order protecting minors from puberty blockers

By Susan Berry, Ph.D. | CatholicVote | July 29, 2024

A High Court judge in the United Kingdom (UK) ruled Monday that the previous conservative British government’s emergency order safeguarding children and teens from experimental puberty blockers is lawful.

The LGBT activist group TransActual and an unnamed young person brought a challenge to the Tory order issued in May in the wake of the release of a report detailing a comprehensive independent review led by British pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass.

Cass and her team conducted a systematic examination of studies and guidelines related to the use of puberty blockers and other procedures associated with so-called “gender-affirming care” for children suffering with gender dysphoria.

They concluded the so-called “gender-affirming care” model of medical intervention for young people is based on “remarkably weak evidence.”

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass wrote, observing that puberty blockers were found in “multiple studies” to compromise bone density and fertility and lead to other harmful effects. The majority of minors who receive prescriptions for puberty blockers move on to cross-sex hormones, the study also found.

Justice Beverly Lang noted in her decision that she is “satisfied that the decision to make the emergency Order on 29 May 2024, was a rational one”:

Parliament has entrusted the Ministers to exercise the powers in section 62 MA 1968, in the exercise of their discretionary judgment. This decision required a complex and multi-factored predictive assessment, involving the application of clinical judgment and the weighing of competing risks and dangers, with which the Court should be slow to interfere.

Lang also observed, “There was cross-party support for this approach as the then Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Wes Streeting) said in response to the Statement: ‘I also welcome what she said about the justifiably cautious and responsible approach she is taking in relation to puberty blockers in the light of the Cass report.’”

The Labour Party’s Streeting said he planned to safeguard children against the controversial drugs “via any means, subject to the outcome of a legal hearing.”

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), told CatholicVote the High Court’s decision is “very encouraging news.”

“Governments have the right and responsibility to protect citizens from danger and from crime,” Orient observed, adding:

Giving minors drugs that will interfere with their normal development and likely sterilize them is criminal. It is not possible for minors to give informed consent, even if a judge or counselor asserts that they are “mature.” Puberty blockers keep them from becoming mature, and it is deceptive to claim that the effects are reversible. The drugs have a long list of very severe adverse effects, including osteoporosis with frequent fractures.

In a statement reflecting TransActual’s reaction to the High Court’s ruling, the group said it “condemns” the decision and will decide whether to appeal it.

Chay Brown, TransActual’s director for healthcare, called the ruling “disappointing,” noting that it “leans heavily” on what the group calls “the widely discredited Cass review”:

We are seriously concerned about the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK. Over the last few years, they have come to view the UK medical establishment as paying lip service to their needs; and all too happy to weaponise their very existence in pursuit of a now discredited culture war. It is essential that NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care now take urgent steps to reverse this perception.

In its statement, the group cited a white paper published in July by Professor Anne Alstott of Yale Law School and Dr. Meredithe McNamara, assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine – both co-founders of Yale’s activist Integrity Project, which tracks and attempts to “correct” and “oppose” efforts to protect children from life-altering transgender medical activists throughout America.

According to the Integrity Project:

Underserved and marginalized people are harmed most by the absence of sound science in law. U.S. states recently have adopted a number of measures based on scientific misinformation, in reproductive health, gender-affirming care and HIV prevention. The Integrity Project acts quickly to correct the scientific record and oppose these harmful measures.

The white paper that attempted to discredit the Cass report is co-authored by other transgender activist medical professionals such as Johanna Olson-Kennedy, M.D., professor of clinical pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and Jack Turban, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.

In a May 2018 paper, Olson-Kennedy recommended that girls as young as 13 with gender dysphoria be subjected to top surgeries (elective double mastectomies). Drawing that conclusion only from 136 “completed surveys” at her gender clinic, she and her colleagues determined:

Chest dysphoria was high among presurgical transmasculine youth, and surgical intervention positively affected both minors and young adults. Given these findings, professional guidelines and clinical practice should consider patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.

Turban was found in January 2022 by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) to have authored a controversial study at Stanford University that concluded childhood hormone treatment was associated with “favorable mental health outcomes.”

The study was funded by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), which opposes restrictions on gender-affirming care for children. AACAP, in turn, is supported financially by pharmaceutical companies Arbor and Pfizer, both of which manufacture hormonal drugs used for gender transitions, DCNF reported.

“This study is particularly relevant now because many state legislatures are introducing bills that would outlaw this kind of care for transgender youth,” said Turban in the press release about his study. “We are adding to the evidence base that shows why gender-affirming care is beneficial from a mental health perspective.”

Orient underscored in her comments to CatholicVote that “one effect” of hormone drugs to treat gender dysphoria “is to make the recipients life-long patients for a very lucrative industry.”

“Puberty itself is probably the best treatment for ‘gender dysphoria,’” she added. “After experiencing normal puberty, the vast majority of teens will accept their biological sex and escape from the pipeline leading to harmful cross-sex hormones, mutilating surgery, and life-long psychiatric care.”

In the UK, James Esses, co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists and co-ordinator of Declaration for Biological Reality, posted to X that the High Court’s ruling was “seismic.”

“We must never allow children to be irreversibly harmed in the name of an ideology again,” he added.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

UK Police Blame Social Media for Unrest

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 7, 2024

While some observers explain the chaos that has erupted in the UK in the wake of an attack that resulted in the murder of three children as an outburst based on societal issues that have been bubbling beneath the surface for a long time – the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) sees”disinformation” as the main culprit.

Inaccurate or misleading posts on social media could serve as the trigger for protests and riots, and the NPCC, which is coordinating law enforcement in the UK, is focusing on “silenc(ing) those intent on spreading false news” – suggesting that this institution’s stance is that the unrest has no other meaningful deep underlying causes.

This is clear from the tone NPCC has taken, referring to “so-called protests” and, “criminals pretending to be protesters.” In other words, the crisis is simply down to “criminals” reading “fake news” on social media.

And so, it is disinformation that is “a huge driver” behind the violence, and, “we know a lot of those attending these so-called protests are doing so in direct response to what they’ve read online,” said a report on the NPCC site, quoting its public order lead, B.J. Harrington.

Harrington also revealed that the police acted “swiftly” across the country to make 147 arrests in connection to the clashes – adding that he expects that number to increase.

Regarding posts NPCC considers to be fake news and disinformation, this official noted that “high profile accounts” are to blame for their proliferation.

And, NPCC – but not only – is “working hard” to “silence those intent on spreading false news.”

Harrington said that law enforcement is achieving this together with communities and “our partners” – without naming the latter. But he did inform the public that both police officers and intelligence teams are engaged in identifying people involved.

As soon as the protests, which in places turned violent, erupted, a number of former and current government and intelligence officials immediately blamed “foreign meddling” and “misinformation” for the turn the events took after the fatal Southgate stabbing attack.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

State AGs Criticize Janet Yellen for “Fearmongering” on De-Banking Bans

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 6, 2024

20 attorney-generals from Republican states have penned a letter addressed to US Treasury Department Secretary Janet Yellen, in protest of the Treasury’s apparent push to stigmatize anti-de-banking laws as “harmful to national security.”

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The signatories, led by Florida AG Ashley Moody, cited the Treasury’s recent letter that went after those states that either have or are preparing to enact laws aimed at protecting clients from de-banking.

The Treasury’s letter (sent by Undersecretary Brian Nelson), they write, was critical of laws like Florida’s HB 989, designed to prevent banks from denying financial services “based on factors that are not grounded in measurable risks.”

Previously, the Treasury prohibited banks from doing this, except in cases when a client was documented as unable to meet quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.

“Importing political activism into financial regulation” is how the Republican AGs now describe this marked shift in policy.

The AGs see opposition to said legislation as the Treasury ignoring its statutory role and serving instead to promote the Biden-Harris Administration’s campaign described as radical and fearmongering and meant to advance “activists’ extreme agendas” while sowing confusion about the purpose and nature of those state laws.

According to the letter, that purpose is to promote “responsible money management and protecting consumers from discrimination.”

But the Treasury’s meddling – bringing up national security in this context in order to allow large financial institutions and banks to abuse power – is advancing the political goals of “activists,” the AGs claim.

The activists here would be anti-conservative ones, those trying to remove access to bank services to gun manufacturers, among others.

Undersecretary Nelson’s letter made the assertion that state laws to prevent such policies by financial institutions are “interfering” with the ability to “comply with national security requirements.”

Nelson went on to claim that the legislation he singled out meant “heightened risk” of international drug traffickers, transnational organized criminals, terrorists, and corrupt foreign officials using the US financial system to not only threaten national security but also “launder money, evade sanctions.”

The Treasury has since said that this was a reaction to a “bipartisan letter from members of Congress” who expressed these concerns and that this department agrees with their stance on the issue.

But the AGs say that Nelson’s letter “deliberately misleads financial institutions about these state laws, for example, by falsely suggesting that laws such as Florida’s HB 989 would prohibit financial institutions from considering whether a consumer is associated with designated terrorist groups.”

The letter concludes that the signatories “join with the majority of Americans in looking forward to the day when federal regulators will focus on their statutory duties, rather than on advancing radical political causes and stoking unfounded fear about state laws.”

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Russia decries ‘routine repression’ of dissidents in EU states

RT | August 7, 2024

The West is turning into a “neoliberal dictatorship” that is intolerant of any form of dissent, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed on Wednesday. She was commenting on the prosecution of journalist Svetlana Burtseva by EU member Estonia.

Burtseva, a 57-year-old naturalized Estonian citizen, was charged this week under an article of the Estonian penal code that prohibits relations with a foreign entity with the intention of committing treason.

Specifically, Burtseva was accused of writing under a pen name for a Baltic-focused Russian-language news outlet that belongs to the Russian media group Rossiya Segodnya, which is sanctioned by the EU.

Estonian officials have claimed Burtseva committed subversive activities such as writing a book that “belittles” the Baltic country, as claimed by public prosecutor Eneli Laurits.

Commenting on the case, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova said that “similar to other ‘advanced democracies’ of the Baltics, Estonia continues to systematically use repression as a routine tool for quashing dissent.”

She described the allegations against Burtseva as “obviously fabricated” and claimed that they reflect Tallin’s “flawed and absolutely irreconcilable” attitude to opposition.

Moscow perceives the prosecution as an attempt to punish Burtseva for journalism and voicing opinions critical of the Estonian government. International bodies that should defend freedom of speech share the blame, since they have neglected their duties and have long turned a blind eye to the stifling of critical press by the Baltic states, the diplomat argued.

The entire situation “showcases the deep crisis and the deterioration of the Western-style democracy, how it is morphing into a neoliberal dictatorship,” Zakharova concluded.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

NY county bans masks used to hide identities in Pro-Palestine protests

Al Mayadeen | August 7, 2024

A bill banning people from wearing masks to shield their identity during pro-Palestine protests against the US support for “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza was passed in Nassau County in New York state on Monday, with 12 Republicans in the legislature voting in favor of the new law, while seven Democrats abstained.

Republican lawmakers claim that the bill applies to any form of public demonstrations to prevent protesters engaging in “violence and hate crimes” from hiding their identities and eluding responsibility. Civil rights advocates and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) have criticized this new legislation, deeming it a violation of the right to free speech.

“Masks protect people who express political opinions that are unpopular,” Susan Gottehrer, Nassau County regional director of NYCLU, said. “Making anonymous protest illegal chills political action and is ripe for selective enforcement.”

If demonstrators break the newly passed law, they would be charged with a misdemeanor where they can face up to a year in imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the bill exempts wearing masks for medical and religious reasons.

“Unless someone has a medical condition or a religious imperative, people should not be allowed to cover their face in a manner that hides their identity when in public,” Republic Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said.

“Nassau County police offers are not health professionals or religious experts capable of deciding who needs a mask and who doesn’t,” Gottehrer said, highlighting the inadequacy of the exceptions.

Germany convicts pro-Palestine activist for ‘From river to sea’ chant

The restriction of freedom of speech when it comes to protesting in solidarity for Palestinians while condemning the ongoing aggression in Gaza is not limited to the United States, and is a common theme with governments complicit in the genocide.

A Berlin court has convicted pro-Palestine activist Ava Moayeri, a 22-year-old German-Iranian national, for the “crime” of leading the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” back in October.

The presiding judge, Birgit Balzer, ordered Moayeri to pay a 600 euro fine. While the 22-year-old’s defense team argued that the conviction was a violation of free speech.

Balzer argued that precedents documented in different courts that describe the slogan as “ambiguous” were incomprehensible, considering the chant a declaration against the “right of the State of Israel to exist.”

Moayeri co-organized an October 11 protest in Berlin’s Neukölln district, allegedly to condemn school violence after a teacher smacked a pro-Palestinian student protesting. Police claimed the protest featured Palestinian flags and Kouffiyehs, disputing her testimony.

Moayeri’s legal team defended the slogan as part of the Palestine solidarity movement and denied any antisemitism.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s admission that it targeted a journalist exposes crude attempt to control war narrative

By Tim Dawson | MEMO | August 7, 2024

Ismail Al-Ghoul and his cameraman Rami Al-Refee were observing the conflict-zone-reporting best practice, as they motored back from their assignment on the last day of July. Having reported issues facing the displaced people of northern Gaza, they were leaving the scene of greatest danger. Blast vests bearing the insignia “PRESS” protected their bodies. Minutes earlier they had updated the Al Jazeera newsroom with their location.

None of this would save their lives when an Israeli drone strike blasted their car. The explosion blew off Al-Ghoul’s head – an image subsequently shared on social media. Al-Refee and Khalid Shawa, a boy who happened to be passing by on a bicycle, also died instantly.

Unusually, we know that the killing was deliberate – because the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has admitted as much.

The occupation army justified the assassination, arguing that the journalist’s name appears on a list of “senior Hamas officers” that it captured earlier in the conflict. This allegation is strenuously denied by Al-Ghoul’s family, his employer and his union. And Israeli “evidence” in similar cases has appeared questionable. Indeed, Al-Ghoul spent enough time “on camera” that his capacity outside journalism would have been limited.

Critically, however, he was arrested by Israeli soldiers in March and held for 12 hours before being released without a charge. Surely, if the evidence of his Hamas membership justified his killing, there must have been sufficient basis for his prosecution?

This admission of targeting confirms much of what have for months been swirling allegations about Israeli operations. We know that it has software – Pegasus – that secretly invades mobile phones and shares its user’s locations, communications and the identities of those who they meet.

We know that the Israeli army uses software called “Lavender” that deploys AI to sort operational intelligence and suggest targets for assassination. A further tool, “The Gospel”, uploads targets’ geo locations to killer drones dramatically faster than had been possible with manual programming.

More than 12% of Gaza’s journalists killed

Alongside this technological capability is the extraordinary number of journalists who have been killed in Gaza since 7 October. The most conservative tally is around 120, some believe that as many as 165 Gazan reporters have perished since 7 October. This is dwarfed by the total death toll in Gaza, now somewhere around 40,000 victims. It is the mortality rate among journalists that is really striking. There were approximately 1,000 journalists in Gaza at the start of the conflict – more than 12 per cent have now lost their lives.

This extraordinary rate of killing, and the precision targeting to which the Israeli occupation forces have admitted, points to a simple and awful conclusion. But there is more.

Since the outset of the conflict the Israeli government has barred international reporters from entering Gaza – despite hundreds petitioning to be admitted. It has also threatened to remove funding from newspapers such as Haaretz, shut down Al Jazeera’s operation in Israel, and disabled the internet at key moments.

And, following the law is not the army’s way either. When the United Nations investigated the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, its report concluded: “The Israeli security forces used lethal force without justification under international human rights law and intentionally or recklessly violated the right to life of Shireen Abu Akleh.”

But why target journalists in this way? The only plausible explanation is that this is an attempt to control the war narrative.

In international law, journalists are considered civilians; combatants are obliged to ensure their safety. The Israeli army’s bloody campaign is in clear contravention of this – but whether the institutions of international law will bring anyone to justice remains to be seen. The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, displayed bravery in May when he issued arrest warrants for the Israeli and Hamas leadership. If he sees these cases through to satisfactory conclusions he will have shown himself as one of the greatest jurists of our age.

Justice, if it comes, will be no comfort to Al-Ghoul and Al-Refee. They have distinguished themselves, however, by standing up to the most horrific force ever visited upon journalists and continuing to act as the world’s eyes and ears. There is no consolation for them – but they deserve celebration; their colleagues, who continue this work, deserve our support.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Jordan, Qatar, KSA balk at US-led ‘peacekeeping force’ for post-war Gaza: Report

The Cradle | August 7, 2024

Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have reportedly refused requests to take part in a US-led “peacekeeping force” for Gaza once Israel’s genocide of Palestinians comes to a stop, according to informed sources who spoke with the Times of Israel.

One of the sources told the Israeli outlet that troops from the Arab nations would be seen to be “protecting Israel from the Palestinians.”

The reported positions of Aman, Doha, and Riyadh contrast starkly with those of the UAE and Egypt, which have reportedly expressed willingness to participate in the effort.

Abu Dhabi made this position public last month when Lana Nusseibeh, the country’s Permanent Representative to the UN and special envoy of the Emirati Foreign Ministry, penned an op-ed for the Financial Times (FT) in which she called for the establishment of a “temporary international mission” in Gaza.

“Any ‘day after’ effort must fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict towards the establishment of a Palestinian state that lives in peace and security with the state of Israel … A first step in such an effort is to deploy a temporary international mission that responds to the humanitarian crisis, establishes law and order, lays the groundwork for governance and paves the way to reuniting Gaza and the occupied West Bank under a single, legitimate Palestinian Authority (PA),” Nusseibeh declared.

The UAE in June hosted a secret gathering with US and Israeli officials to discuss plans for Gaza after the genocidal war ends. Abu Dhabi has also stepped up joint efforts with Tel Aviv since 7 October to construct military and intelligence infrastructure on the Socotra Archipelago off the coast of Yemen.

During trips to Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel in June, US State Secretary Anthony Blinken reportedly informed officials that Washington had received “support from Cairo and Abu Dhabi for the creation of a force that would work alongside local Palestinian officers” in Gaza, the Times of Israel reports.

“Blinken told counterparts that the US would help establish and train the security force and ensure that it would have a temporary mandate so that it could eventually be replaced by a fully Palestinian body, the third source said, adding that the goal is for the PA to eventually take over full control of Gaza. Blinken clarified, though, that the US would not be contributing troops of its own, the officials said,” the report adds.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US weaponizing Australia for geopolitical interests requires Canberra’s vigilance

Global Times | August 7, 2024

In geopolitics, it appears that countries that frequently mention “coercion” are often the ones most skilled at using it. This has been proven again during the recent Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

The US and Australia convened for AUSMIN on Tuesday. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin highlighted that the bilateral discussions covered several contentious topics, including China’s “coercive behavior.” Additionally, he announced the US’ plan to enhance “the presence of rotational US Forces in Australia” and increase “more frequent rotational bomber deployments” to the country.

These moves, under the banner of “security cooperation,” are aimed at positioning Canberra at the forefront of Washington’s geopolitical strategy and constitute a provocation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The term “concern” appeared approximately 14 times in the joint statement after the US-Australia meeting, intending to portray a tense and volatile atmosphere in the region. While the US blatantly alleged China’s “coercive behavior,” this narrative serves to advance its ultimate goal of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. By portraying China as a threat, the US aims to justify its provocative actions in the region. Such tactics, reminiscent of the crying wolf, are characteristic of hegemonic nation manipulating its allied states.

Using the label of China’s “coercive behavior” to prompt Australia into the forefront of the US overseas military deployments is a typical illustration of US Indo-Pacific strategy. In addition to the hype of the “China threat” during the AUSMIN, it was reported by Reuters that the Cocos Islands of Australia, a remote island close to an Indian Ocean chokepoint for Chinese oil shipments, is on a list of possible locations for US military construction aimed at deterring China.

“The US’ military deployment in the Cocos Islands serves two primary purposes,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center at East China Normal University, told the Global Times. “It aims to monitor the Chinese navy, particularly submarines, and intends to present a deterrence against China,” the expert said. The role of these islands already illustrates the US’ hidden agenda in militarizing Australia, positioning it as a frontline against China, whether for surveillance or in preparation for potential conflicts.

The US military build-up in Australia is undeniable evidence of its use of the country as a geopolitical pawn. These deployments are not motivated by concern for Australia’s security needs but by US’ pursuit of global strategic interests. This approach places Canberra in a precarious position of competing blindly for Washington’s interests, potentially compromising its neutrality and independence in international affairs.

“Following increased US military deployment in Australia, its role has shifted from being a ‘southern anchor’ to a ‘southern spear,'” said Chen. The first pillar of AUKUS, the construction of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, aims to enhance the country’s military capability for long-range strikes, which means US bases in Australia are no longer confined to defensive purposes.

The US harbors sinister intentions in militarizing Australia, luring allies like Australia to spearhead its hegemonic interests, which poses grave financial and security risks for the country, Chen added.

US instigation will only heighten Australia’s security risks, fostering excessive reliance on external military power. By leveraging supposed “regional threats” to coerce Australia into accepting military deployments, the US’ true objective is to manipulate Australia as a tool against China. This deserves Australia’s vigilance.

Australia’s natural geographic advantages could enable it to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability through an independent foreign policy. With significant geographical distance from China and no historical or territorial disputes, Australia faces no inherent threat from China.

Notably, Austin’s direct accusation of “Chinese coercion” did not feature prominently in the US-Australia joint statement. This suggests Australia acknowledges the importance of not fully aligning with US’ confrontational approach toward China at the expense of cooperation and friendship with China.

The recent thaw in China-Australia relations is a positive development. The Australian government should maintain rationality and composure, resisting the pressure to forsake its independent strategy and diplomacy.

Only by doing so can Australia effectively protect its national interests and sovereignty, preventing it from becoming a pawn in US geopolitical strategies and ensuring that its relationship with China is not sacrificed to US hegemonic ambitions.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries