Most Europeans know the United States provoked the conflict in Ukraine, profits from banning Russian oil and gas, and remain uneasy about the mysterious destruction of the Nordstream pipelines. The American government promoted a mindless NATO expansion strategy that caused a disastrous war and weakened NATO nations, who were pressured to donate billions of dollars and much of their military equipment to Ukraine, even though it isn’t a member of the NATO alliance.
Eastern European states were excited to join NATO and the European Union economic block, called the EU, but were soon pressured to boost military spending to buy American weaponry, accept foreign migrants, host foreign troops, and donate money and arms to a lost cause in Ukraine. Profitable trade and tourism with Russia sharply declined while energy costs soared, causing economic decline.
The people of some European nations have already decided that joining NATO and the EU was a bad idea. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban openly states his dislike of EU mandates to allow mass immigration and continued trade sanctions on Russia. EU leaders denounce Orban and threaten sanctions because they can abuse Hungary since it is landlocked and surrounded by Ukraine and EU members.
But if Russian troops reach Ukraine’s western border, Hungary may defect. Conquered Ukraine would become a close Russian ally and allow access to energy pipelines to import cheap Russian oil and gas, and permit rail and road access to Russia and all of Asia. There are several neighboring nations who may also defect from the American empire. This explains why NATO is considering sending forces to secure western Ukraine to keep its vassal states captive.
“Kyiv Will Face Retaliation”; EU nation Slovakia has issued an open threat to Ukraine amid war with Russia. Slovakia said it would take retaliatory measures against Ukraine if Kyiv continues to stop Russian oil transiting via the Druzhba pipeline.; “Times of India”; July 25, 2024; • ‘Kyiv Will Face Retaliation…’: NATO…
“MEPs call to strip Hungary’s EU voting rights amid Orbán’s ‘peace missions’”; Steb Starcevic; Politico; July 16, 2024; https://www.politico.eu/article/lette…
ISTANBUL – The Hamas senior official Sami Abu Zuhri said the US administration adopts the Israeli position, which is disrupting ceasefire negotiations, noting that Washington is not serious about obliging Israel to stop its war on the Gaza Strip.
This came in his interview with Aljazeera Net in Istanbul on the sidelines of his participation in a conference held by the “Al-Quds International Foundation”.
Abu Zuhri told Aljazeera Net that the US administration does not show serious intention to obligate Israel to conclude an agreement.
He explained that the Hamas Movement “accepted the proposal of the brokers – Egypt, Qatar and the United States – on July 2, but Israel kept imposing new conditions, although the offer is outlined by the US President Joe Biden’s speech and the UN Security Council resolution.”
On the prospects for the negotiations in the future, Abu Zuhri said, “In all cases, there is an ongoing Israeli war of extermination in Gaza, and all international parties have to assume their responsibilities to stop the Israeli aggression and crimes.”
Abu Zuhri added, “the ball is now in the Israeli and the US court. If the Us administration is serious to reach an agreement, it must intervene to compel the Israeli occupation authority to stop this aggression against the Palestinian people and respect the previously reached agreements.”
With regard to the ongoing developments in the occupied West Bank, and the expansion of the Israeli occupation army’s military operations, Abu Zuhri said that the Israeli occupation army exploits the US cover to expand its aggression in the West Bank, stressing that the Israeli aggression is not limited to Gaza but extends to all the occupied Palestinian territories, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem.
UNITED NATIONS – The deputy representatives of the US and Russian missions to the United Nations engaged in an argument at the UN Security Council meeting over which of their countries is doing a better job at trying to resolve the conflict in Gaza, a Sputnik correspondent reported.
“I don’t need to sit here and explain to you why the US did what it did with regard to these resolutions. You know quite well and I think everybody in this room does,” US Deputy Envoy Robert Wood said in response to his Russian counterpart Dmitry Polyanskiy.
The Russian diplomat remarked earlier that the United States has been blocking a ceasefire in Gaza by supporting Israel and vetoing UN Security Council resolutions concerning the Palestinian enclave.
“One delegation, shielding their main Middle Eastern ally, as we are well aware, for ten months has been blocking any real steps to that end, essentially compelling all members of this council to become complicit in the collective punishment of Palestinians,” Polyanskiy said, adding that the US falsely claimed that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire deal.
“However, it turned out – and no one is surprised about this- that these calls were far from a reality as was the US so-called Biden-plan which was [adopted by the Security Council on June 10 as Resolution 2735],” Polyanskiy continued. “Israel did not agree to that deal then, nor has it agreed now to end its operations… [The US is] modifying the parameters for a ceasefire in Gaza for the benefit of Western Jerusalem. Let us recall that the Security Council did not consent to any reformatting of the parameters of agreements that were set out in Resolution 2735.”
Wood pointed out that the United States is now focusing on its efforts together with Egypt and Qatar to implement a framework that was agreed to by the Israeli government and Hamas.
Wood also emphasized that Hamas has been changing its position on the proposed ceasefire and hostage release deal.
“So my recommendations to you and your government would be, if you are going to contribute something positively, then contribute it. If not, you should be quiet,” Wood said.
Polyanskiy replied that that Wood should keep his recommendations about him or the Russian government to himself and the United States should stop getting in the way of the UN Security Council discussing the Palestinian dossier.
The United States bears the responsibility of what is happening now in Gaza, where more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023. “If my other colleagues don’t have the courage to tell you this to your face, I have no problem doing so,” Polyanskiy said.
British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah was vindicated this week after a complaint by a notorious pro-Israel lobby group was rejected by the General Medical Council. UK Lawyers for Israel sought to have the distinguished plastic and reconstructive surgeon suspended and banned from practising medicine.
The so-called “lawfare” organisation is widely known for filing vexatious complaints and litigation to silence critics of Israel and its apartheid policies. The lobby group was behind a complaint to remove art work by children from Gaza which was on display at a London hospital. In another case, UKLFI was slapped down by the chairman of an English football club for allegedly threatening behaviour.
UKLFI claimed that alleged social media posts by Abu-Sittah impaired his fitness to practise medicine and sought for his medical licence to be suspended. This smear is said to have been designed to bring Abu-Sittah’s distinguished reputation into disrepute, and undermine his prominent profile as a public figure in the British Palestinian community. It also sought to undermine Abu-Sittah’s rights to freedom of expression.
Dr Abu-Sittah is known for his humanitarian work in conflict zones, particularly Gaza. He argued that the complaint was politically motivated. He clarified that he was not the author of several posts in question, while others had been translated inaccurately. The tribunal expressed concern over UKLFI’s inability to provide verified translations of the Arabic language posts.
The tribunal also dismissed UKLFI’s arguments that Abu-Sittah’s alleged social media activity posed a risk to patients or the public. No evidence was found to suggest any compromise to patient safety. On the contrary, several compelling testimonies, including one from a British-Israeli colleague, attested to Abu-Sittah’s fair and professional treatment of all patients.
The move by one of the key arms of Israel’s lobby in the UK was seen widely as a smear campaign designed to tarnish Abu-Sittah’s reputation. Nevertheless, in April, he was elected as rector of the University of Glasgow, winning an overwhelming 80 per cent of the vote following a campaign that resonated deeply with students.
Abu Sittah’s successful legal team was comprised of experts from Bindmans LLP, 11KBW and Furnival Chambers. The team included Tayab Ali, who is also the Director of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP); Axel Landin, Zac Sammour and Soraya Bauwens.
The surgeon’s humanitarian efforts in Gaza have been praised widely. He volunteered his medical services for forty-three days from 9 October 2023, when Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has called a plausible genocidal campaign in the besieged enclave.
Upon his return to London, Abu-Sittah spoke at an ICJP press conference, recounting the harrowing experience in Gaza, including performing multiple amputations on children and working with severely limited medical supplies.
The vindication of Abu-Sittah is the second legal victory for the British Palestinian doctor since his return from Gaza. In May, he successfully overturned a Schengen-wide travel ban imposed on him by the German government, in what appeared to be yet another vexatious legal campaign to silence the 55-year-old.
This vindication is seen as a major victory not only for Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, but also for all medical professionals engaged in humanitarian work in conflict zones.
Students at New York University (NYU) who speak out against Zionism will risk violating the school’s newly adopted non-discrimination policies. New speech codes unveiled by the university places anyone who identifies as a “Zionist” under the category of a protected class of person, shielding the ideology and its followers from being subject to “discriminatory comments”.
The new guidelines places Zionism — an ethno-nationalist political ideology founded in the late 19th century — in the same category as a person’s race and gender, making it the only political ideology to be granted such status.
“Using code words such as ‘Zionist’ does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH Policy,” said NYU in its new guidelines, referring to the university’s updated non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy (NDAH). “Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists.”
Pro-Palestinian groups responded to the news with alarm. “The new guidance sets a dangerous precedent by extending Title VI protections to anyone who adheres to Zionism, a nationalist political ideology, and troublingly equates criticism of Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people,” said the NYU chapter of Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (NYU FSJP), referring to the US law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin.
“The new guidance implies that any nationalist political ideology (Hindu nationalism, Christian nationalism, etc.) that is integrated into some members of that group’s understanding of their own racial or ethnic identity should be entitled to civil rights protections.”
The student group went on to warn that, “This is a disturbing development that will legitimise far-right and ethnonationalist ideologies under the guise of protecting students from racial discrimination.” It accused NYU of “weaponising” Title VI.
The updated guidelines from NYU come as the new school semester is set to begin next week. The university witnessed pro-Palestinian protests throughout last year. Protesters called for an end to the school’s investments in companies profiting from Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza.
Critics took to social media to slam the move. “At NYU, it’s ‘discrimination’ to criticise a genocidal ethno-state,” said one popular commentator on X.
Masafer Yatta – On Wednesday, August 21, following a long overdue court order, the families of Zanuta, in Masafer Yatta, returned to their village for the first time in 10 months after being forcibly displaced, determined to rebuild their home from the rubble of their village that remained.
Families returning to Zanuta
At the end of October 2023, the residents of Zanuta were told by settlers that if they didn’t leave in 24 hours, they would kill every last one of them. All of the residents of Zanuta – who had already been enduring unending violence from these settlers, from making it impossible to shepherd, to property damage, to physical attacks, to home invasions and assault – were forcibly displaced from their land and homes.
On Wednesday, the families and flocks returned to their land. Palestinians triumphantly drove their flocks over their land and camped out in the ruins of their homes and propped up the destroyed roof of the school using pieces of scrap metal.
After families left Zanuta in October, settlers came into the village and removed the roofs of the buildings. It was winter, so this meant it was impossible for the families to return. In November, they briefly went back to try to work their land. When they tried to rebuild the roofs, they were stopped by army who said that it was unauthorised building.
Later on settlers returned to destroy everything. The homes and school had their walls and contents destroyed. Trees were cut down and solar panels destroyed. While they would not allow Palestinians to return and tend to their lands, the settlers ploughed the land themselves. Plowing Palestinian land while making it impossible to return to is a legal tactic used by settlers to increase their “claim” to the land under Israeli law.
A supreme court order issued a few weeks ago says that villagers can return to Zanuta (and the smaller village opposite Zanuta). The order also defines Zanuta as a firing zone, meaning that no new building is authorized. With this court order, the Israeli army are required to support the safe return of the villagers, however army and police only made perfunctory visits.
Zanuta is close to Havant Meitarim (“Strings farm”) outpost, whose settlers Yinon Levi and Ilay Federman (son of renowned right wing Kahanist terrorist Noam Federman) were amongst those sanctioned by the US.
If you know anything about 48, you know that supposed court orders hold little to no meaning in ensuring the safety of the Zanuta residents as they come home. They are still legally unable to transform Zanuta into home again due to “unauthorized building” restrictions.
If you know anything about the people of Palestine, you know that sumud will carry on regardless.
Therein lies the reason behind the media hype over this new weapon. Although Kiev claims that it was an entirely indigenous creation, it’s difficult to believe that NATO countries didn’t contribute to it. More than likely, Western military-technical specialists participated in its production, though this might have been done without their political leadership being aware. The goal appears to have been to pressure them into lifting restrictions by Ukraine on the use of their weapons after this fait accompli.
Chinese Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs Li strongly implied as much after he warned earlier this week that Western “super hawks” and members of the military-industrial complex are behind the push for letting Ukraine use their weapons to hit deep inside of Russian territory. About that scenario, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also chimed in and accused Zelensky of “blackmailing” the West, which he said would amount to “playing with fire” if they end up going through with it.
The US still doesn’t let Ukraine strike targets deep inside of Russia, even though the precedent is for it to always give Kiev whatever it demands after some time. This delay is attributable both to a desire to control escalation with Russia and to simple pragmatism. After all, if the best weapons were given and deployed right away (after training was completed of course) but didn’t make much of a difference, then there’d be nothing better to give them once they ran out and defeat would soon follow.
It therefore makes sense to start small and exercise restraint before scaling up and easing restrictions. As regards the Palianytsia, while it might have an important tactical purpose if its claimed range is accurate, its real significance is to justify the easing of those aforesaid restrictions on the use of American arms. Ukraine wants policymakers and the public to believe that the Palianytsia was already used and Russia didn’t “overreact” like some expected, so it also won’t “overreact” if ATACMS restrictions are soon lifted.
While this ploy might prove successful, two of the implied points contained within the preceding narrative are counterproductive to Ukraine’s soft power cause. For example, some might question the need for more American arms and financing if Ukraine is already able to supposedly create long-range missiles on its own without any help like it claims just happened. There’s also the question of why the lifting of restrictions is so urgent if Ukraine is winning like it also claims is the case too.
If its military-industrial complex is carrying on just fine without any Western support and its invasion of Kursk has truly been the game-changer that some have presented it as being, then it follows that foreign aid could be curtailed and there’s no reason to risk an escalation with Russia by easing restrictions. Neither is obviously true, but the fact that Ukraine is still pushing this narrative shows how much more desperate it’s becoming as well as the importance of elite and public opinion on this sensitive issue.
The Palianytsia is therefore more of a psychological weapon than a tactical one due to its envisaged role in reshaping perceptions and getting America to lift its restrictions on using the ATACMS to strike deep inside Russian territory. Even if it succeeds, however, that probably won’t change the military-strategic dynamics of this conflict in Kiev’s favor since Russia continues to gradually gain ground in Donbass, and its impending capture of Pokrovsk could lead to a chain reaction of victories in the near future.
As China rises, Asia rises with it. The Southeast Asian state of the Philippines stood to rise alongside the rest of the region until relatively recently as the United States successfully convinces the Philippines to do otherwise.
Before the current administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office, China was working with the Philippines to build badly needed modern infrastructure. Now, rather than working and trading together with China, the Philippines is pointing missiles at China. It has “invited” the United States, the Philippines’ former colonial master, to build new military facilities across its territory, using semantics and legal loopholes to sidestep the Philippines own constitution and undermine its sovereignty in the process.
Instead of rising with the rest of Asia, the Philippines continues to escalate toward a conflict that could set the entire region back decades or more.
Just as the United States politically captured Ukraine in Eastern Europe in 2014 and transformed it into a geopolitical battering ram against neighboring Russia at the expense of Ukraine’s population, economy, sovereignty, and possibly even its existence, it is repeating the same process with the Philippines vis-à-vis China.
How has the United States convinced a nation of over 115 million people to forego economic progress and development in exchange for an escalating confrontation with its own largest trade partner? What are the mechanisms Washington uses to convince an entire nation to race toward conflict and self-destruction?
A Vast Network of Propaganda
There is growing awareness of the means by which the US interferes politically in targeted nations through the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and adjacent organizations, agencies, and foundations, compromising a nation’s leadership and reshaping national policies to serve Washington at the expense of the targeted nation.
The NED does this through targeting every aspect of a nation-state, from its political system, to academia, from its courts and legal system to a nation’s information space.
Philippine information space, like many nations around the globe, has been targeted by a vast media network built up by the US government as well as corporate money funneled through intermediaries including foundations and endowments, to poison the Philippine people not only against China specifically, but against the Philippines’ own best interests in general.
Part of this vast network are so-called “fact-checking” projects the US government together with the largest names in Western media as well as US-based tech giants like Google uses to paradoxically reinforce US government disinformation and attack and undermine people and organizations working to inform the public – including the Philippine public – of what the US is really doing and why.
In the Philippines, this network includes PressOne. Its “fact-checking” activities have repeatedly targeted those exposing US interference in the Philippines’ internal political affairs and undermining Philippine sovereignty.
PressOne has falsely “fact-checked” claims regarding the building of US military bases across the Philippines using semantics to argue that while the US is certainly building military facilities for its own use in the Philippines, technically the Philippines retains ownership over these facilities.
PressOne outright lied claiming, “President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. has denied that the facilities were intended to be military bases.” The Reutersreport PressOne cites does not deny the facilities are indeed military bases, it simply claims the bases are not meant for “offensive action” against any country – another example of semantics.
In another example, PressOne conducted a smear against this author citing US and Philippine government claims, as well as through the use of a number of logical fallacies including guilt by association.
PressOne’s task is to convince those reading its content that a US-led effort to transform the Philippines into a Ukraine-style proxy against its largest trading partner, China, is not taking place, but if it were, it is somehow in the Philippines’ best interests.
It should then come as no surprise that PressOne’s “fact-checking” activities are the result of US government funding to stand-up such projects. At the bottom of each “fact-check” article on PressOne it claims, “PressOne.PH is a verified signatory of the Code of Principles of the International Fact -Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter.”
Poynter in turn discloses it is funded by the US government through the NED along with corporate-funded foundations connected to the Omidyar Network as well as the Google News Initiative, itself a partner of the US State Department as well as other US-allied governments.
All of this, in turn, is part of an influence operation targeting China the US spends hundreds of millions of dollars on every year.
Funding Disinformation Hundreds of Millions a Year
In 2021 the US Congress introduced the “Countering Chinese Communist Party Malign Influence Act.” It, along with other legislation and funds, seeks to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to, “counter the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party globally.”
In practice, however, such legislation only seeks to reinforce the US’ actual malign influence.
As Reuters revealed earlier this year in an investigative report, “Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic,” the US government“aimed to sow doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and other life-saving aid that was being supplied by China.” Reuters, quoting a senior US military official, wrote, “we weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective. We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.”
The same Reuters report admitted that, far from an isolated instance, the US has a myriad of such programs run out of “psychological operations” centers engaged in systematic propaganda. Thus, while the US government was certainly “countering” China, it wasn’t because China was wielding “malign influence,” it was because China was undermining America’s own malign influence.
A Long-Run Policy to Contain China
In addition to lying about public health, the US seeks to convince the Philippine public to give up trade, economic development, and infrastructure projects with China and instead invest public funds into military spending ahead of what will likely be a Ukraine-style proxy war against China.
The centerpiece of Washington’s political capture and exploitation of the Philippines is the “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement” (EDCA) it uses to build military facilities across Philippine territory it uses to base troops, equipment, weapons, and ammunition. The facilities contribute toward a wider regional strategy of militarily encircling and containing China, a foreign policy objective pursued by Washington since the end of World War 2.
Published by the US State Department’s own Office of the Historian is a 1965 memorandum from then US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to then US President Lyndon B. Johnson titled, “Courses of Action in Vietnam” which admitted that US military operations in Southeast Asia only“made sense” if they were “in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.” The same memorandum identified 3 fronts along which the US sought to contain China, including East Asia, Pakistan and India, as well as Southeast Asia where the Philippines is located.
Today, this policy of encirclement continues through mechanisms like the EDCA. Despite clearly running in contradiction to the Philippine people’s best interests, the well-funded propaganda campaign the US runs worldwide including in the Philippines (including the above mentioned PressOne) is attempting to convince the Philippine people that China is a threat, that the Philippines’ former colonial masters are their“allies,” and that buying US weapons and fighting Washington’s wars alongside US troops is the path forward toward a brighter future.
Considering the pile of ashes and bones the US is transforming Ukraine into even as this same process gains momentum in the Philippines, it is clear that along this path, there is no future at all for the Philippines. This unfortunate transformation and the deep socio-political scars it is creating within the Philippines serves as yet another warning about the importance of treating a nation’s information space as it does its physical domains and the importance of protecting this domain as well or better than a nation protects its land borders, shores, and air space. Only time will tell if other nations heed this warning, or simply follow Ukraine and the Philippines into self-destruction.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.
Brazil’s Supreme Court has escalated the country’s retaliation against Elon Musk by freezing the financial assets of Starlink Holding, a subsidiary of Musk’s. This action is in response to another Musk company, X, which has refused to censor posts and designate a legal representative in Brazil.
This decision was part of a broader action taken by the controversial Justice Alexandre Moraes of the Supreme Court, who targeted an economic entity led by Musk. According to Brazilian media, on August 18, Moraes mandated the freezing of all financial assets of Starlink within Brazil to secure the payment of penalties levied against X by Brazilian courts.
Justice Moraes’ decision stems from the ongoing dispute involving X’s operations in Brazil. The company, under Musk’s direction, had recently shut down its Brazilian office on August 17, citing disagreements with the Supreme Court’s fines and content censorship mandates. This closure followed the court’s demand, made the day before, for X to appoint a legal representative to address these issues formally.
The lack of a legal representative prompted Justice Moraes to issue an ultimatum to the social network, giving them 24 hours to comply under threat of service suspension in Brazil. The urgency and consequences of these legal actions were communicated via a post on the Supreme Court’s X profile, directly responding to X’s announcement about the office closure to protect employees and the withdrawal of their representative.
Aside from X, Musk’s Starlink operates within Brazil, providing satellite internet services, particularly in the Northern region. The leadership of Starlink in Brazil has been informed and summoned to respond to the financial obligations imposed on X by the Brazilian judiciary.
Starlink, the satellite internet service by SpaceX, is particularly significant in Brazil for enhancing connectivity in remote and underserved regions, such as the vast Amazon rainforest where traditional broadband is impractical. This technology provides reliable internet access, supporting educational resources, digital commerce, and connectivity during natural disasters, which are frequent in regions prone to floods and landslides.
Additionally, improved internet access aids environmental monitoring efforts in the Amazon, facilitating better resource deployment against illegal activities such as deforestation and wildlife trafficking.
According to CISA, it would be to combat election misinformation and secure “election infrastructure” – while according to critics, it is to continue with the mission of censoring lawful speech “disfavored” by the current authorities seeking to remain where they are after November – by hook or crook.
CISA doesn’t feel the need to hide this activity that has been taking place since 2018 through a program called the Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council (SCC). It is here that US government entities – federal, state, and local – meet private groups (“partners” as CISA calls them).
What’s coordinated here, according to the agency, and as was reported by The Federalist, is the reduction of “cyber, physical, and operational security risks to election infrastructure.” The coordination is done to the point where government and private sector have adopted “a unified approach.”
Information sharing ahead of the presidential election is also happening as SCC works with the Government Coordinating Council (GCC).
According to CISA, this collaboration is now “unprecedented” while what is referred to as “private sector owners and operators” sit, as part of SCC, in meetings with the FBI and election officials.
But CISA has other partners – the Election Integrity Project (EIP), formed months before the 2020 election, which has been blasted by the House Judiciary Committee as a tool for the government to bypass the First Amendment and censor speech.
The CISA site has a document, “Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation: Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials,” put together by CISA/GCC Joint Mis/Disinformation Working Group.
In it, CISA “defines” what each of its targets is supposed to be, and ends up doing what all “misinformation warriors” do – offer subjective and broad descriptions susceptible to interpretation, instead of clear definitions.
For example, “malinformation” is said to be information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
The document mentions “delegitimization of election results” as one form of mis, dis, and mal information.
It’s unclear if CISA has both 2016 and 2020 elections in mind – or only one – but this is how the activity is described: “Narratives or content that delegitimizes election results or sows distrust in the integrity of the process based on false or misleading claims.”
The Biden-Harris White House looks determined to justify and normalize the practice of the government colluding with private companies, in this instance Big Tech, to censor speech.
After Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, admitting that his company came under pressure from the current administration to conduct censorship and that he “believes” that was wrong – the White House doubled down on the controversial, and quite possibly, unconstitutional, policy.
In his letter, Zuckerberg chose to focus on Meta censoring content related to COVID-19, and in response, a White House spokesman revealed the government does not share Zuckerberg’s stance that the policy of pressure was wrong.
“Encouragement” is how that’s phrased. “When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety,” stated the White House spokesman to media requests.
He further justified the actions described by Zuckerberg as needed because the White House believes private companies, including those from the tech industry, “should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people.”
And with the stage set in this way – the spokesman concluded that these companies are then free to make “independent choices about the information they present.”
But Zuckerberg’s letter to the Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan does a pretty good job of explaining how these “independent choices” get made. Senior figures from the Biden administration, Zuckerberg stated, in 2021 “repeatedly pressured our (Facebook, Instagram) teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire.”
The decision on content removal, and introduction of new rules into platform policies to facilitate censorship, Zuckerberg concedes, was “ultimately ours” – but made under pressure.
If Meta tried to defy these “suggestions” – the administration showed “a lot of frustration.”
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” the letter, sent in response to the Committee’s subpoena first issued in early 2023, reads.
The Committee has been investigating how the government may have colluded with private companies to suppress speech it disapproves of, and whether those actions constitute First Amendment violations.
Even before the current Biden-Harris administration came to power, Facebook was being steered in a desired direction, one example being the notorious case of the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop news story, the Zuckerberg letter reveals.
The FBI contacted the social media giant with a “warning” that there could be an anti-Biden family “Russian disinformation” campaign – and Facebook heeded it by “fact-checking and temporarily demoting (links to the article).”
Telegram founder Pavel Durov has been formally indicted by a French court, accused of being an accomplice in several crimes allegedly committed by users of his messaging app. After paying a fine of five million euros, Durov was released from prison, but he is banned from leaving France and could be arrested again in the future.
Durov was arrested in Paris after arriving at the local airport from Azerbaijan. The charges against him could lead to a sentence of up to ten years in prison, but a series of diplomatic pressures appear to be hampering the authoritarian plans of French officials. Durov, despite being Russian by birth, holds several passports and is a citizen of different countries, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Durov lived in Dubai for many years and developed deep economic and strategic ties with the UAE government. For this reason, the pressure from the Arab country for France to release him was massive. The UAE threatened to end military and economic cooperation agreements, which certainly raised concerns in the French government. In practice, it can be said that the UAE used its international position as an important commercial and diplomatic hub to help Durov face the tyranny of the French authorities.
It must be said that there is no solid argument to condemn Durov. Social media creators cannot be held responsible for what other users do on their platforms. If Durov provided the French authorities the keys to access Telegram’s internal codes, he would not only be helping to punish the criminals who use the app, but also violating the private data of millions of innocent users – in addition to giving the French government access to data shared by state officials, businessmen and military personnel who use Telegram.
If France were truly committed to values such as freedom and democracy, Durov’s arrest would never have happened. However, contemporary France is anything but democratic. Paris is becoming a dictatorship under Emmanuel Macron, who has repeatedly refused to recognize the electoral defeat of his party coalition, taking authoritarian measures similar to those of some autocratic regimes around the world.
Durov himself is a French citizen. If France were a democracy, it would be concerned about guaranteeing the individual freedoms of its citizens. However, even Middle Eastern Islamic countries such as the UAE, which are often described as “autocratic” by the West, are more respectful of democratic values than France – as seen in the UAE’s efforts to have Durov released from prison.
The most interesting fact about Durov’s case, however, is that some Western media outlets are trying to describe him as a kind of Russian “agent.” There is a narrative that Telegram is a Russian tool of “hybrid warfare.” Western propagandists are trying to mislead the public into believing the fallacy that Durov refuses to share data with the French authorities in order to supposedly “protect the Russians.” However, the truth is quite different.
Despite being born in Russia, Durov has always been an opponent of the Russian government. Ideologically libertarian, Durov has always had a Westernized view of his country’s politics, seeing Moscow as an enemy of individual freedom. He left his homeland in search of greater freedom in the West—and is now being persecuted by France, the country where Durov sought citizenship in the hope of finding greater freedom than in Russia.
Durov is now learning in the worst possible way that the “freedom” advocated by the West is just rhetoric. In France, where he expected to be “free,” Durov is being persecuted simply for upholding his libertarian values and refusing to share sensitive data with state authorities. Durov has never faced such brutal persecution in his own country, which shows that the level of violation of individual freedoms in the West is higher than in Russia.
It is not yet known what Durov’s future will be. He is not “free” yet, since Paris has ordered him to remain on French territory. The local authorities are trying to intimidate him, using psychological terror to make him reveal the Telegram’s codes. Banned from leaving France, Durov’s only hope may be to seek asylum in the French-based diplomatic facilities of a country of which he has citizenship.
Only one thing is certain for Durov: he is not safe in France, the country where he once believed he would find freedom.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 