Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Atlanticists mobilise to salvage NATO as Russia toughens its stance

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | November 28, 2024

The American film maker and philanthropist who created the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises, George Lucas, once said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” Within a week of Russia “testing” the Oreshnik hypersonic missile in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, against which the NATO has no defence, the Western alliance is already transiting through the Dark Side from fear to hatred and hurtling toward unspeakable suffering. 

The Russian Defence Ministry has disclosed that since the Oreshnik’s appearance in the war zone, Ukraine carried out two more attacks on Russian territory with ATACMS missiles. In the first attack on November 23, five ATACMS missiles were fired at an S-400 anti-aircraft missile division near the village of Lotarevka in Kursk Region. The Pantsir missile defense system, which provided cover for this division, destroyed three of them while two missiles reached the target damaging the radar. There are casualties among the personnel. 

In the second attack by 8 ATACMS missiles at the Kursk-Vostochny airfield on Monday, seven were shot down while one missile reached the target. The falling debris slightly damaged the infrastructure facilities and two servicemen suffered minor injuries. The Russian MOD stated that “retaliatory actions are being prepared.” 

The Russian military experts estimate that the attacks were planned for some time and the Americans handled the targeting. On November 25, the White House acknowledged for the first time the shift in policy allowing the use of ATACMS to attack Russian territory. Admiral John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council, revealed during a press gaggle on Monday, inter alia, saying that “well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them [Kiev] guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.”

Following the attack on Monday, Ukraine sought an emergency meeting of the NATO–Ukraine Council in Brussels at the level of permanent representatives. Oreshnik was the main topic, and the need to strengthen the air defence system. The NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said later, “Our support for Ukraine helps it fight, but we need to go further to change the trajectory of this conflict.”    

No doubt, NATO is very concerned about the emergent situation but still won’t accept a Russian victory. Hotheads in the West are once again talking about the deployment of troops by NATO countries to Ukraine for combat operations, which was originally mooted by French President Emmanuel Macron in February.

But plainly put, unless the US is willing to put boots on the ground, the rest of NATO will simply run around like a headless chicken. The UK with an 80,000-strong army has very few combat units; the 175,000-strong German army has forgotten how to fight; and France is in deep political and economic crisis. As for the US, public opinion opposes wars and president-elect Donald Trump cannot ignore it. 

However, petrified that Trump may turn his back on the war, there is a school of thought in Europe that they could offer something interesting to incentivise him other than the carrot of Ukraine’s vast stores of critical minerals that Americans lack — eg., more trading incentives for America; greater spending on NATO; more pressure on Iran; “peacekeeping boots on the ground” inside Ukraine; help in Trump’s upcoming economic skirmishes with China and so on. Meanwhile, much brainstorming is going on in the US too as to how to save NATO from Trump’s scalpel. 

A Guardian columnist wrote, “If the EU and UK seize the $300bn of Russian state assets sitting in Euroclear, money Putin has long written off, we can bring serious funding to the table. Trump does not need to spend any more money on Ukraine – we can buy the weapons. America can even make a profit while securing peace in Europe. Trump would be able to show how he got those parasitic Europeans to cough up, prove his detractors wrong by rebooting America’s most traditional alliances – all while putting “America first”.” 

All this testifies to the angst in the European mind that Oreshnik has forced a paradigm shift in the Ukraine war. The triumphalist betting that Russia would be bluffing on nuclear deterrence has given way to fear, since Russia now may not need nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks on its territory. Oreshnik is a non-nuclear weapon, it is by no means a weapon of mass destruction but is a high-precision weapon of immense destructive power that annihilates its targets — and Europeans have no means to defend against it. 

Succinctly put, if Biden’s plan to “Trump-proof” the Ukraine war has put Europe and Ukraine in a royal fix making them a punch bag for Russia. Make no mistake, Oreshnik will soon make sure that there won’t even be a proxy regime in Ukraine for the West to “support”. It is humiliating to watch the proxy’s nose being rubbed in the dust. 

A punishing Russian retaliation is imminent for the two latest ATACMS attacks. The sharp deterioration in Russia’s ties with the UK suggests a high probability that Britain could be in Moscow’s crosshairs. The station chief of the British intelligence in the embassy in Moscow has been expelled; western reports cite significant supplies of Storm Shadow missiles (numbering 150) to Ukraine lately after the election of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 

The top Russian military expert Alexei Leonkov told Izvestia newspaper, “Here is the fact of the US targeting, here are the fragments of the ATACMS missile, by which it can be clearly identified. We have the right to strike back. Where and how will be decided by the Ministry of Defence and the Supreme Commander—in-Chief. He [Putin] said that they would be warned about the impact. Our enemies must prepare for an answer.

The big question is at what point Russia may strike the NATO military hubs in Romania and Poland. The former Russian President and Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said yesterday that all bets are off. “If the conflict develops by the escalation scenario, it is impossible to rule out anything, because the NATO member states have effectively got fully involved in this conflict,” he said in an interview with Al Arabiya.

Medvedev added in chilling words, “The Western states must realise that they fight on Ukraine’s side… Meanwhile, they fight not only by shipping weapons and providing money. They fight directly, because they provide targets on Russian territory and control American and European missiles. They fight with the Russian Federation. And if this is the case, nothing could be ruled out… even the most difficult and sad scenario is possible.

“We would not want such scenario, we have all said that repeatedly. We want peace, but this peace must take Russia’s interest into consideration in full.”

Indeed, the only logical explanation for Biden’s brinkmanship in collusion with the Atlanticists in Europe in the lame duck phase of his presidency is that Oreshnik has upstaged his best-laid plans. Saner voices in Europe are speaking up. In a hugely symbolic act of defiance, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico disclosed on Wednesday that he has accepted an official invitation from Putin to the events in Moscow in May commemorating the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II. Slovakia is a member country of both EU and NATO.

Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer in a telephone conversation with Trump, reaffirmed Austria’s readiness to serve as a platform for international peace talks on Ukraine. During the conversation, Trump reportedly evinced interest in Nehammer’s previous exchanges with Putin on Ukraine.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Rumble Sues California Over Censorship Law That Impacts Satire

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | November 27, 2024

A new legal challenge, spearheaded by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, has thrust the state of California into the spotlight once again over allegations of infringing on free speech rights. This federal lawsuit, lodged on behalf of video-sharing platform Rumble, argues that two new California statutes unconstitutionally restrict users’ ability to share political content online.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Under these controversial laws, specifically AB 2655, platforms like Rumble are coerced into policing and removing content that the state deems harmful. These regulations have been criticized for compelling platforms to censor speech, thereby becoming unwilling agents of government censorship. According to ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, in a press release sent to Reclaim The Net, “California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates.” He emphasized the importance of platforms like Rumble, which resist governmental pressures to curtail free expression.

The complaint details the operational challenges: “The law forces Rumble to undertake the impossible task of training its team to recognize and then remove and label content based on inherently vague and subjective terms on which even pollsters and government officials cannot agree, such as what content may be ‘likely to harm’ electoral prospects or may likely undermine confidence in an election.”

Further, Rumble contends that AB 2655 oversteps by altering and compelling the speech of private entities, thus infringing upon their rights to free speech. It argues that neither the Constitution nor Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows California to “alter and compel Rumble’s speech while also mandating that it censor its users’ speech. As such, this Court should enjoin AB 2655 and declare it unlawful.”

The genesis of these laws can be traced back to July when a parody video targeting Vice President Kamala Harris spurred Gov. Gavin Newsom to advocate for making such content illegal. Subsequently, the California Legislature expedited the passage of these laws, which Gov. Newsom signed into action on September 17. AB 2839, in particular, imposes vague criteria to penalize individuals for sharing content related to elections, such as political memes and parodies.

In the detailed legal challenge, attorneys argue that AB 2655 forces Rumble to alter its own speech and police its users’ speech based on arbitrary criteria that even experts cannot uniformly interpret. The law imposes a duty on Rumble to train staff to identify and mitigate content that could potentially damage a politician’s reputation or undermine confidence in elections — criteria seen as inherently subjective.

This lawsuit follows a similar successful defense of free speech by ADF on behalf of The Babylon Bee and attorney Kelly Chang Rickert, leading to a temporary halt on enforcing AB 2839 against them while their legal battle continues.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

US Republicans Condemn UK’s Online Censorship Law as a “Tsunami… Heading Towards America”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 26, 2024

UK’s “censorship law” – Online Safety Act – has gained in notoriety, as it has now become the subject of interest of the US House Judiciary Committee, which has for years tried to shed light on the censorship on the internet, and its actors and factors.

So much so that the committee’s members have coined the expression, the Censorship Industrial Complex.

While most of the body’s activities are centered around US social media and allegations of the Biden-Harris administration’s involvement in pressuring them to censor speech, no “complex” is considered to be on an industrial scale for no reason.

A flurry of third parties – such as “fact-checkers” and “raters” – have been involved and investigated, including those based abroad – notably, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

A member of the Republican-majority committee, Congressman Darrell Issa, now strongly criticized the trends concerning censorship-enabling legislation in the EU and in the UK, singling out the Online Safety Act, and warning that “a tsunami of censorship is heading towards America” from abroad.

And that’s just to add to what is already there – Issa called that situation, “malign actors here at home.” As for the UK law, the congressman is unimpressed by its authors and supporters promoting it as a way to protect against hate speech and other online ills.

According to Issa, what it does is give regulators a tool to censor free speech, and as such is viewed by Republicans as part of “a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex.”

Issa in full, from The Spectator:

“The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.

“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

The congressman had no problem counting the UK and the EU (with its Digital Services Act) among the places this push emanates from, while also vowing that the second Trump administration, alongside Congress Republicans, intends to “fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

In the UK itself, there are those like Reform Party leader Nigel Farage who couldn’t agree more. Farage, who has close ties with Trump, has made comments about a free speech crackdown in his country.

The UK branch of the Alliance Defending Freedom advocacy group also agrees. Executive Director Paul Coleman said that the Judiciary Committee’s criticism and stance on a number of issues “shows that the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.”

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Vienna police ban mass protest supporting excluded Freedom Party’s ‘People’s Chancellor’ Herbert Kickl

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | November 28, 2024

A massive protest planned for Saturday in Vienna to support Freedom Party (FPÖ) leader Herbert Kickl, who was excluded from ongoing government negotiations despite winning the most votes in the recent election, has been banned by the police.

Heute reported that the rally was expected to draw 1.4 million participants and was organized by the group Fair Thinking, which gained notoriety among the Austrian establishment for its demonstrations during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The protest, promoted as a show of support for “People’s Chancellor Kickl,” sought to challenge the so-called “sugar coalition” of parties negotiating to form the government. The FPÖ and Kickl, despite their electoral success, were left out of talks, fueling outrage among his supporters.

Kickl, who previously appeared at Fair Thinking’s protests, has become a popular figure among many Austrians, representing opposition to Covid policies, insisting on neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and expressing dissatisfaction with Austria’s political elite over its commitment to mass immigration.

The initial protest date of Nov. 9, which coincided with the anniversary of the 1938 Nazi pogroms, drew condemnation from political leaders, including Chancellor Karl Nehammer, who called the timing a “slap in the face to victims’ relatives.”

President Alexander Van der Bellen also expressed strong disapproval, leading to organizers postponing the event to Nov. 30.

On Thursday, however, Vienna police announced the prohibition of the protests under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of Austria’s Assembly Act. The justification cited potential disruptions to businesses in Vienna’s shopping districts and the flow of traffic.

A statement from the police warned: “Holding an unannounced or prohibited meeting constitutes an administrative violation. Such meetings can be dissolved, and participants must disperse immediately.”

Organizers have not backed down, hinting at plans to proceed informally or under different guises. A statement on their Telegram channel invited supporters to “take a walk” in Vienna during Advent and visit Christmas markets, particularly the one at Marien-Theresien-Platz.

Critics have argued that prioritizing undisturbed shopping and traffic flow over freedom of assembly sets a dangerous precedent amid fear this rationale could be used to justify arbitrary bans on protests, limiting democratic expression.

The ban has further inflamed tensions in Austria’s political landscape, highlighting deep divisions over Kickl’s exclusion from government negotiations.

Kickl’s FPÖ has gained support since topping the September federal elections but being sidelined by other parties in coalition talks, winning Sunday’s state election in Styria with 35.6 percent of the vote.

The legacy Social Democrats (SPÖ) and Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) saw their vote shares drop in what is considered to be punishment for its anti-democratic cordon sanitaire imposed around the FPO.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Free speech crackdown: Expect more house raids as Germany’s left moves to supercharge law on ‘insulting’ politicians

Remix News | November 28, 2024

Following a wave of house raids and arrests against those who “insult” politicians in the German government, the ruling far-left Social Democrats (SPD) are doubling down and moving to make it even easier to target speech violations and insults while also increasing punishments — despite growing criticism.

Lower Saxony’s Justice Minister Kathrin Wahlmann (SPD) has submitted a proposed resolution to the Conference of Justice Ministers of the German states to allow prosecutors more extensive options to prosecute “insults to politicians,” as reported by German newspaper Welt.

The new proposal would drop the threshold required to prosecute individuals who “insult” politicians. Currently, the act indicates that insults that “significantly impede” the politician’s “public work” can be charged. However, the new proposal would delete this section, which would then allow for prosecutors to more easily pursue a variety of offenses that do not necessarily “significantly” impede a politician’s work.

Lower Saxony’s Justice Minister Wahlmann (SPD) said she found it “unbearable” to see “the disgusting hate comments” that politicians are exposed to, which is why she is launching this proposal.

“Anyone who is particularly committed to the community should also benefit from the community’s special protection,” she said, adding that current rules had “proven to be insufficiently effective.”

Currently, the maximum prison sentence is three years in prison for “insulting” a politician, but this could increase further. The new proposal would also allow authorities to more easily pursue cases in instances where no report or complaint has been filed.

It must be underlined that these cases are being weaponized against the German populace at a tremendous rate. For example, police recently raided a retired soldier’s house for calling Economic Miniister Robert Habeck, of the Green Party, an “idiot” in a meme posted to X. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, also of the Green Party, won her criminal case against a woman who called her the “worst foreign minster ever.” In the case of CDU leader Friedrich Merz, a woman is being prosecuted for calling him a “drunkard.”

It is unclear how these cases “significantly hindered” the public lives of these two major politicians, but a wave of such cases have been launched in recent years, primarily by left-wing parties. In fact, Habeck has filed criminal charges against 805 people, while Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has launched 513 criminal complaints.

Merz himself has also launched such cases, but he is not disclosing how many. However, the specific law, which is section 188 of the German criminal code, was passed by Merz’s party, the Christian Democrats (CDU), under the leadership of former Chancellor Angela Merkel. With this law in hand, thousands of criminal cases have been launched against citizens for speech “insults.”

Augsburg constitutional lawyer Josef Franz Lindner is critical of the new law proposal, telling Welt : “If the element of significantly hindering public activity were removed from Section 188 of the Criminal Code, it would actually be easier for public prosecutors to investigate an insult to a politician ex officio and come to a conviction… However, I see problems with the principle of proportionality and, above all, with the principle of equal treatment.”

He notes that the law is designed to protect the “public work” of politicians, but “if the element of public work were removed, however, this reason for the unequal treatment of politicians and other people would no longer apply. The argument would then be that the honor of politicians is worth more than that of normal citizens. I see this as a violation of the Basic Law (the German constitution).”

The move to make this speech law even harsher comes at a time when a prominent Green Party MP Renate Künast calls critics of such “insult” arrests supporters of the extreme right, saying “anyone who criticizes this is supporting right-wing extremism.”

Notably, she is currently spearheading an effort to ban the rival Alternative for Germany (AfD) entirely from the democratic process.

These “insult” cases also do not only apply to politicians, but even judges as well, as seen in one case where a German man criticized a judge’s sentence for a Syrian man who was convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. The man who “insulted” the judge in an email ended up being fined at a higher rate than the Syrian rapist in the case, who was given no prison time — only probation.

Notably, these house raids and prosecutions are having the desired effect: a population terrified of criticizing the government.

As Remix News reported earlier today, freedom of expression in Germany is being increasingly constrained, with 74 percent of citizens believing people are holding back their opinions out of fear of repercussions, according to a new survey by Insa.

This growing trend is illustrated by recent high-profile cases, such as individuals facing criminal convictions for insulting politicians on social media and even pensioners receiving police visits over internet memes.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Berlin confirms sanctions against Russian news crew

RT | November 28, 2024

A news crew working for Russia’s public broadcaster Channel 1 has been expelled from Germany due to sanctions arising from the Ukraine conflict, local authorities in Berlin confirmed on Wednesday evening.

Officials have told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper that correspondent Ivan Blagoy and cameraman Dmitry Volkov have been denied residency permits.

According to the immigration office for the state of Berlin, the decision to punish the news crew was taken because Channel 1’s co-owner, National Media Group, has been blacklisted under the EU’s ninth sanctions package.

The permits were, therefore, denied under a law applying to foreigners who “impair or endanger the interests” of Germany, Berliner Zeitung said. Overall, five people were targeted under anti-Russia sanctions in Berlin “in recent months,” according to the newspaper.

Channel 1 reported on Wednesday morning that the German authorities had ordered the closure of its bureau in the EU country’s capital. The German Foreign Ministry quickly rejected these claims as “false,” insisting that “Russian journalists can, as before, broadcast freely and unhindered in Germany.”

The broadcaster said the journalists were, in fact, singled out because of their employer. “Yes, our press credentials have not been revoked. However, we were barred from being physically present in the country, which means we were effectively barred from working in accordance with our credentials,” Blagoy said in his news report.

According to the journalist, he received a notice from the Berlin authorities claiming that Channel 1 is spreading “propaganda and disinformation” about the conflict in Ukraine and poses “a significant and direct threat to public order and security of Germany and the European Union.”

Blagoy has denied the allegations, saying his reporting has been truthful. The broadcaster similarly described the expulsion of its staff as “punishment for truth and professionalism.”

Russia has responded in kind, expelling correspondent for Germany’s state broadcaster ARD, Frank Aischmann, and technical employee Sven Feller. ARD Foreign Coordinator Joerg Schoenenborn condemned the decision, accusing Moscow of “intimidation and restrictions” on the channel’s reporting.

The EU has banned multiple Russian news organizations since 2022, citing “disinformation.” Russia has responded by blacklisting dozens Western media outlets.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

UK, US intended to move Palestinians out of Palestine through UNRWA, British documents reveal

By Amer Sultan | MEMO | November 27, 2024

The UK and the US intended to resettle Palestinians in the neighbouring countries, after they were forced to flee their homes in Palestine in 1947 and 1948 due to the terrorist actions of Zionist forces, British documents reveal.

The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also show that the British government viewed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as a tool to achieve this goal.

UNRWA was established by a UN General Assembly resolution on 8 December 1949, and officially began operations on 1 May 1950, with its headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon. Since its inception, the agency’s main mission was to transfer Palestinian refugees from direct relief to work programmes while awaiting a political solution to their plight. By mid-June 1950, the UN reiterated that the agency “has no mandate to deal with political settlement of the problem of the Palestinian refugees”.

In December 1949, the UN adopted Resolution 194, which recognised the Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes in Palestine. The resolution called for refugees who wished to return and live peacefully with their neighbours to “be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” It was adopted with 35 votes in favour, including from the United Kingdom and the United States, 15 votes against and 8 abstentions.

The resolution also stipulated that compensation should be provided to those “choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

However, in August 1949, 13 months after the announcement establishing Israel, the British government decided that the “final solution” of the problem lies in “resettlement not in relief”.

Prime Minister Clement Attlee, in a memo on the “Palestinian Arab refugees” problem, instructed his foreign, treasury and economic ministers to “discuss what further provision should be made” for addressing the problem. “The emphasis should lie heavily on resettlement,” he wrote.

When UNRWA’s operations began in 1950, the agency was assisting around 750,000 Palestinian refugees residing in 58 recognised refugee camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Attlee’s memo further instructed that no financial support should be given to the governments of countries hosting the refugees unless they contributed to the resettlement effort. “Any further specific contributions from British funds should be conditional on the recognition by the local government concerned, to a greater extent than hitherto, of responsibilities in the matter,” the memo added.

This followed deliberations among various British governmental departments to establish an official British stance on the refugee problem. The ministers recommended that the governments of the neighbouring countries should “make a substantial contribution to the relief and resettlement” of the Palestinian refugees. They stressed that the British government should prioritise resettlement over relief efforts, and that “the major emphasis should be on the framing of the scheme for resettlement in preference to relief.”

At the time it was estimated that the combined costs of relief and resettlement efforts from both Western and non-Western governments amounted to around $24 million. The ministers recommended waiting to see what contributions other governments would make before committing further British funds. “We should also expect them to contribute a larger proportion to any future fund than their share,” they wrote.

In a letter to the prime minister, Lord Jay, the British economic minister, expressed his belief that “the only radical solution of the relief problem is by way of resettlement and not relief.”

“The prime responsibility for these Arab (Palestinian) refugees rests with the local governments concerned,” he wrote. While acknowledging that Britain had a “special position in the Middle East,” Lord Jay suggested that Britain had a “substantial interest” in the refugee question. However, he also argued that the British contribution to the relief fund was already “more than our appropriate share.”

Lord Jay’s letter was sent to the prime minister after a request from Ernest Bevin, the then foreign minister, who proposed that “further funds should be provided for relief and/or resettlement” of the Palestinian Arab refugees. In his response, Lord Jay again emphasised that the main focus “should be on resettlement”.

The British government viewed the refugee issue as “a direct responsibility” shared not only by Israel but also by the neighbouring Arab states and the international community.

In his letter, Lord Jay reminded his colleagues that the Arab states “inhabit an area so important from the political and strategic aspect” and noted that the Arabs “tend to consider that British policy over the last thirty years has been responsible for the setting up of a Jewish state and, in some degree, for the displacement of these Arab refugees.”

The documents also reveal that the UK and the US were in frequent contact to discuss how best to resettle the Palestinian refugees in host countries through ongoing relief activities.

The British “have been considering both in London and with the Americas how best to stimulate the local governments to continue the work of relief and turn it into resettlement,”Lord Joy’s letter explained. The British and the Americans believed that the resettlement “would provide the only long-term solution of the problem.”

The documents reveal that less than a year later, a number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon appealed to Britain and human rights defenders for the right to return to Palestine, their homeland. In a letter to the British prime minister, sent through the British consul in Beirut, they wrote in Arabic: “We truly believe that you could send us back to our homes by using your powers if you wished.”

The letter was written by Ali Ahmed El-Abed, who had been forced to leave his village, Shafa Amr, in northern Palestine. He had to live as a refugee in the Wavel Camp, located in Baalbek, east of Beirut.

The letter placed the responsibility for the Palestinian refugees’ plight squarely on the UK. It reminded the British government that Palestinians had been under British protection for 30 years and noted: “As a result, we are scattered away far from our homes, our country, and our people.” The situation of the refugees was deteriorating, the letter explained, stating that “the situation goes from bad to worse,” and warning that “death is nearer to us than life.”

The letter, dated 21 June 1950, reminded the British government that the refugees still considered themselves “under British protection, and carry passports bearing the British crown.”

On 18 July, the British government rejected the petition. In its response, the government expressed “sympathy” for the refugees, but clarified that “it is not possible for His Majesty’s government to take any action in this matter except through the medium of the United Nations.” The response, sent to El-Abed, affirmed the British government’s “full and unqualified support” for the UN in addressing the issue.

A few weeks later, the former Soviet Union’s ambassador received a similar letter, signed by 10,000 refugees, requesting support for the Palestinians’ return to their homes. This letter rejected UNRWA as a project that “aimed to prevent the implementation of the decisions of the United Nations.” The signatories viewed this project as a “pursuit of an imperialist policy.”

The letter, written in Arabic with an English translation, was sent to the British government and insisted on the implementation of UN Resolution 194, which affirmed the Palestinians’ right to return to their homes in Palestine.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can Europe Return to Reason & Reverse Its Decline?

Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | Nov 27, 2024

I had a conversation with Jeffrey Sachs and Alexander Mercouris about the political changes in Europe. The optimism of the European project as a region of peace and prosperity is long gone. The objective had been to resolve conflicts on the continent peacefully and use collective bargaining power to establish greater economic and political independence. Instead, the continent is experiencing war, de-industrialisation, socio-economic and political instability, excessive dependence on the US, and growing irrelevance in the wider world. What went wrong and can the decline be reversed?

The rest of the world adjusts to the emerging multipolarity with a multivector foreign policy by diversifying economic connectivity to improve economic competitiveness and enhance political autonomy. In contrast, the Europeans have subordinated themselves completely to the US and thus suffer from economic decline and political subordination. Declining rationality is also a clear problem as the Europeans pursued policies towards Russia that they knew would put them on a collision course with Russia. Instead of pursuing course correction, the proxy war with Russia increased the security dependence on the US, which enabled Washington to impose bloc discipline. The recovery of Europe requires reversing the militarisation of dividing lines in Europe, and diversifying economic ties to avoid excessive dependence on any one state or region.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Corporate Media Meltdown Over Trump’s CDC Director Pick Dr. Dave Weldon

A look a the possible changes ahead for the CDC under his leadership

By Jefferey Jaxen | November 25, 2024

Former seven-term congressman Dr. David Weldon was chosen by President-elect Donald Trump going into this past weekend to serve as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Amidst the flurry of possible appointments grabbing headlines, Dr. Weldon has the opportunity to change the way America has handled public health for decades.

The Washington Post described Dr. Weldon in the second sentence of its breaking news article as “… a strong critic of the CDC, especially its vaccine program.” The reporting meant the sentence to be a negative, ironically, it’s probably now a breath of fresh air for most Americans post-COVID.

“… increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves” wrote Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, less than a month ago when admitting most people don’t believe corporate/legacy media anymore. It’s like WAPO’s recent reporting on Weldon already forgot this warning.

The New York Times claimed that Dr. Weldon was “skeptical of vaccine safety,” a designation that would have worked to neutralize his voice in years past when the outlet still garnered attention and respect.

STAT News wrote, “The former Florida congressman sponsored legislation that would have carved out the CDC’s vaccine safety research…”

The Vaccine Safety Bill to ‘carve out research’ Dr. Weldon introduced in 2007 wanted to establish an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services to handle the nation’s vaccine safety. His reasoning at the time was that the CDC had an inherent conflict of interest being responsible for both vaccine safety and promotion—an issue unchanged to this day.

In Weldon, the public also finds a rare leader who has been willing to ask politically forbidden questions about links between vaccines and autism along with the greater questions about health outcomes of children receiving HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule compared with children who had not been vaccinated. In addition to why there’s been limited investigation to determine what children may be as risk of being harmed by vaccines.

“The thing I continue to find extremely disturbing is the fact that the CDC still does not allow researchers access to the vaccine safety data… The best way to get answers on the vaccine safety data is to open it up and let objective scientists come in and look at it.” – Rep. Dave Weldon at the Vaccines & Autism House Government Reform Committee 2002

One of the key data tranches Weldon is referring is vaccine safety datalink or VSD. A monitoring system using electronic health record data from health sites around the country to assess vaccine safety and detect adverse events in near-real time. Also a system that the public and independent researchers are blocked from accessing.

Besides the possibility of allowing the sunlight of independent researchers to comb through once-hidden vaccine data while dedicating resources to health-affirming tools outside of one-size-fits-all shots, Dr. Weldon will have veto power over the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

ACIP makes recommendations about which vaccines are added to the U.S. schedule, among other decisions. The committee needs final approval from the director of the CDC to implement their calls. Dr. Weldon would hold a power position over a committee who unanimously rubber-stamped every COVID vaccine and booster from infants to the elderly, among other questionable call throughout the years leading to reduced public trust.

Another approach long-called for, and even once implemented by the CDC, would be to automate their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to instantly detect and report potential safety issues with the shots they promote.

In 2006 this was attempted through a $1M HHS grant to create a spontaneous reporting system to VAERS at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. The researchers found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” yet predictably, the CDC never followed up.

As many new to this conversation are rushing the gates to further their careers or gain influence and power on the back of the rapid political change we find ourselves at the beginning of, there have been those holding a strong space with little fanfare. Dr. Dave Weldon is one such individual.

His decades-long hopes to reform the CDC and, more importantly, protect American children and families from unrestrained harms brought upon so many by liability-free injectable pharmaceutical products which have enjoyed a privileged position away from full public and scientific scrutiny may soon see the light of day.

To the readers, is the CDC even salvageable at this point?

What other major areas of reform could help rapidly transform public consciousness around health and healing?

November 27, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Sputnik Investigates: Why Doesn’t the US Ban Water Fluoridation?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 27.11.2024

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump as health and human services secretary, has vowed to remove fluoride from public water systems in the US if his appointment is approved by the Senate.

“Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease,” tweeted RFK Jr.

What is Water Fluoridation and Who is Peddling the Practice?

Community water fluoridation was introduced in the US in 1945 and envisages adjusting the amount of fluoride in drinking water to a current recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter of water, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  • CDC is part of the US Department of Health and the major agency that has led water fluoridation since 1975. Its declared goal is to increase the proportion of US people using fluoridated water.
  • CDC claims that water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves $6.5 billion in dental treatment costs for the nation annually.
  • Over 209 million Americans have access to fluoridated drinking water, as per CDC.
  • It’s up to state and local governments to decide whether to fluoridate their community water. According to some estimates, US communities spend over $300 million annually on water fluoridation.
  • For its part, CDC: actively propagates water fluoridation across the US; supports infrastructure in states to promote water fluoridation; monitors coverage and quality of fluoridation; provides technical assistance to state fluoridation programs
  • CDC’s FY2025 budget, requested by President Joe Biden, amounted to $19.7 billion, whereas CDC’s department overseeing water fluoridation (Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion) was assigned $1.5 billion, a 9% increase compared to FY2024.

Despite the CDC propagating community water fluoridation, the measure is surrounded in controversies with critics referring to numerous alleged health risks.

  • While the CDC claims community fluoridation led to a 25% reduction in cavities in children, international oral health data shows almost the same level of reduction in cavities in the countries which have not fluoridated their water over the past decades.
  • According to the WHO, prolonged exposure to high concentrations of fluoride (over 1.5 mg/L) could cause tooth enamel and skeletal fluorosis.
  • 2024 studies indicated that high exposure to fluoride for pregnant women could be associated with lower IQ in children as well as neurobehavioral problems.
  • Scientists warn that it is impossible to control the dose of fluoride each individual receives when consuming fluoridated water: first, water consumption varies; second, an average person also receives fluoride from sources other than the water supply.

Moreover, to fluoridate its water systems, the US uses technically-grade chemicals:

fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6; also referred to as hydro fluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS), a by-product of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, which is used by most US water systems; sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6); and sodium fluoride (NaF)

A 2014 study showed that HFS contains arsenic (As) – that could be responsible for lung and bladder cancer cases – whereas both HFS and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb).
On November 22, Florida surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, issued guidance calling to stop adding fluoride to the water supply

On September 24, a federal district court in California ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate fluoridation of drinking water to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to health.

Axios noted that even if RFK Jr assumes the position of health and human services secretary, he wouldn’t be able to prohibit fluoridation. However, if the EPA recognizes it as a toxic substance, it could stop the practice.

November 27, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | 3 Comments

Trump Picks Russia Hawk as Envoy to Ukraine Conflict

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 27, 2024

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump tapped retired General Keith Kellogg as his envoy to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Kellogg advocated for the Joe Biden administration strategy in Ukraine and even called for implementing a no-fly zone over the war-torn country.

“I am very pleased to nominate General Keith Kellogg to serve as Assistant to the President and Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Keith has led a distinguished Military and Business career, including serving in highly sensitive National Security roles in my first Administration,” Trump posted on TruthSocial, adding, “Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!”

While Kellogg served in the first Trump administration, his views on Ukraine are starkly different from what Trump said on the campaign trail. As a candidate, Trump promised, on day one, to end the Ukraine war. Though, he never explained how he would accomplish that ambitious goal.

In March of 2022, in an interview on Fox News, Kellogg suggested that Biden and NATO leadership were wrong to dismiss the idea of a no-fly zone over Ukraine. If implemented, that policy would have required the US to shoot down Russian planes over Ukraine, a major escalation that would have meant direct war with Russia.

A year later, in March of 2023, Kellogg endorsed Biden’s Ukraine policy to Congress. “I believe that if you can defeat a strategic adversary without using any US troops, you are at the acme of professionalism.” He continued, “Because letting Ukraine defeat [Russia] it takes a strategic adversary off the table. And we can focus where we should be focusing against, our primary adversary, which is China.”

In a paper published by the America First Policy Institute in April, Kellogg and coauthor Fred Flietz argue that Putin invaded Ukraine because Biden was not aggressive enough in his approach towards Moscow. Kellogg highlighted Trump’s willingness to kill Russian mercenary troops in Syria in 2018, that he “revitalized the NATO alliance,” and sanctioned the Nord Stream 2 Pipelines as examples of his aggressive policies.

“Trump also had a Russia policy that demonstrated American strength. For example, in 2018, after the Russian mercenary Wagner Group advanced on U.S. bases in Syria, they were met with immediate and decisive action when President Trump authorized punitive airstrikes against them,” they wrote. “Russia never retaliated against the United States over that attack—which reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries—likely because Putin did not know how Trump would respond.”

Kellogg and Fleitz go on to explain that Biden’s crucial failure in the war was not giving enough support to Kiev at the start of the conflict. “Nevertheless, Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia ran out of steam by the fall of 2022 because the United States and its allies failed to provide the country with the weapons it needed to continue the fight to reclaim its territory.” They add, “Biden failed to recognize until it was too late, however, that it was in America’s interests and the interests of global security for the United States to do everything possible short of direct US military involvement to help Ukraine.”

The authors propose no workable plan to end the war as they are only willing to offer the Kremlin a postponement regarding Kiev’s prospective NATO membership. Putin was opposed to Washington’s plans seeking Ukraine’s NATO membership when they were announced in 2008, and it is unlikely that taking the issue off the table for a few decades will appease the Kremlin.

November 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | 2 Comments

Provoking Nuclear War Over Something Americans Do Not See as a Major Threat

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | November 27, 2024

New polling conducted this month by the Pew Research Center indicates that only 30 percent of Americans believe that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a “major threat to U.S. interests.” That perception was at its highest of 50 percent of Americans shortly after the invasion. It has in successive polling consistently come in much lower, until reaching this new low.

Nevertheless, the United States government over the past nearly three years has kept ramping up its support for Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia — including via money, intelligence, and weapons. So involved in the war has the US become that it is seems a stretch to claim that the US is not at war directly with Russia. Thus we reach the point where nuclear war between the US and Russia has become a possible outgrowth of the ongoing conflict.

When Russian troops entered Ukraine on February 24, 2022, US President Joe Biden rushed to present a speech to stir up public support for the US government helping Ukraine and punishing Russia. He presented the US as acting to advance democracy in these endeavors. However, even at the height of stirred up war fever, an American majority did not see Russia’s action as a major threat to US interests. Now, that view is held by less than a third of Americans. Yet, the US government remains relentless in its war effort. In reality, it is all about power to the politicians, not power to the people.

Biden’s appeal to democracy was intended to stir up an overwhelming support among Americans for the US going all in on aiding Ukraine and harming Russia. He largely failed in the effort. Democracy in America has said “no” to war. Nonetheless, Biden, along with many other politicians, have continued pursuing war anyway. And now it seems they may keep doing so to the point of nuclear annihilation.

November 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »