Ali Abunimah, the director of the Electronic Intifada, an independent pro-Palestine news website, was recently arrested in Switzerland and later deported.
One man was identified as the proximate cause – the Zurich security minister, Mario Fehr. It was also revealed that Fehr is a fanatical Zionist.
As the Grayzone website reported at a “rally in solidarity with Israel” on Oct. 10, 2023, Fehr openly stated that “the fate of Israel and its inhabitants is close to my heart.”
He also stated that the Gaza-based resistance movement Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran have always called for the “destruction of Israel and the Jews.”
“Anyone who rapes women, kills old people, kidnaps children, dehumanizes the dead, takes countless peaceful people hostage is not a negotiating partner – he is a rapist, a murderer, a terrorist,” Fehr was quoted as saying.
“Golda Meir was right: ‘You cannot negotiate peace with somebody who has come to kill you.’ Peace will not be possible with Hamas and its accomplices!”
But, is the influence of Zionism in Switzerland greater than just one corrupt official?
Let’s have a deeper look.
The Zionist movement is led by the World Zionist Organisation based in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds along with three key allied bodies collectively called the “Israeli national institutions.”
In every country where the Zionist movement is organized, there are local branches of these four groups.
Switzerland is no different.
The Swiss Zionist Federation is the local branch of the WZO, which brings together all Swiss Zionist identifying groups.
In addition, there is a branch of the so-called “Jewish National Fund” which is the pre-eminent land theft agency of the Zionist movement.
It has been called a “colonialist agency of ethnic cleansing” by noted Israeli scholar and historian Ilan Pappe. The Swiss branch is called the KKL-JNF Switzerland and it states that it “works closely with the head office in Israel.”
There is also a department of the Jewish Agency the Zionist regime-controlled institution that recruits settlers to come and live on the land stolen by the JNF.
Lastly, there is a branch of the Keren Hayesod known as the Foundation Fund since it raises money to pay for the illegal settlers and their settlements.
Gesellschaft Schweiz-Israel (GIS) [Switzerland-Israel Society] is an organization that aims to strengthen relations between the Israeli regime and Switzerland. Founded in 1957, with ten local branches throughout the country, the GSI has called on the Federal Council to outlaw Hamas. Its president, ambitious Swiss politician Corina Eichenberger-Walther, is also president of the European Alliance for Israel, formed in 2015. In May 2024 GSI’s partner organization in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Swiss-Israel Society, sent an email to its roughly 2,000 members calling on them to spy on “opponents of Israel.” In the email, Walter L. Blum, the central secretary of the society, called for “opposing actors to be systematically monitored.”
European Council of Jewish Communities was founded in 1968. It forms a network consisting of over 50 Jewish communities, institutions and organizations from more than 30 countries in Europe including Switzerland.
Foundation for Contemporary Jewish History is an ostensibly academic repository on Jewish history which has, however, been penetrated by Zionist groups such as the SIG.
Interreligious Dialogue is an interfaith initiative to normalize Zionism. As they themselves admit it is “an effective and sustainable response to insecurity, tensions and, specifically, antisemitism.”
A new group called NAIN (Never Again Is Now) was created in the past year. It claims to “defend Israel against anti-Zionist agendas.” It spread lies about Abunimah’s arrest, reposting a statement calling him “an Islamist Jew-hater”.
No wonder Abunimah, a Palestinian-American journalist who has been a vocal advocate of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of the Zionist regime’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, was arrested in Switzerland.
Switzerland has also had a long and close historical relationship with the Zionist movement.
The first-ever conference of the Zionist Organisation was held in Basel, Switzerland in August 1897.
In fact, no city outside occupied Palestine has hosted the World Zionist Congress so often. Ten of the gatherings of a total of 22 up until 1946 were held in Basel.
The World Zionist Organisation returned to Basel in 2022 for what it called the ‘most significant Zionist gathering of the decade’. It was celebrating the 125th anniversary of the inaugural Zionist Congress.
There are also other connections between Zionism and Switzerland.
In August 1936, the founding plenary of the World Jewish Congress was held in Geneva. The WJC today is led by Ronald S Lauder, the heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune.
He led the Jewish National Fund from 1997 to 2007 and has been its board chair ever since. The World Jewish Congress elected Lauder as its president in 2007, a position he continues to occupy.
He was named seventh amongst the 50 most influential Jews in the world by the Jerusalem Post in 2024. Lauder is an extreme Zionist, supporter of the racist Birthright programme.
As Alan McLeod has written, Lauder is a “close confidant and supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu, who was appointed a negotiator for Israel with the government of Syria in 1998.
His presence at a One Jerusalem rally in front of religious extremists in 2001 led to a boycott of the Estée Lauder brand across the Muslim world.”
In 1982, the Lubavitcher Rebbe sent an emissary to Zurich which is home to a significant ultra-orthodox Jewish community. Today the genocidal cult that is Chabad-Lubavitch has nine separate branches in Switzerland.
In recent years there have been efforts to proscribe Hamas as a terrorist group and to cut funding to UNRWA. Amongst other groups, the pressure has been applied by NGO Monitor which attempted to undermine pro-Palestine groups and by the Geneva-based UN Watch which poses as independent but is actually a front group for the American Jewish Committee as was reported by Press TV’s Palestine Declassified show in 2024.
In late 2023 the Members of the Israel-Switzerland Parliamentary Friendship Group conducted an official visit to Bern. The visitors were two members of the Knesset, MK Yosef Taieb and MK Hamad Amar, belonging to the extremist Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu parties respectively.
It is no surprise then to learn that the Federal Council of Switzerland adopted the IHRA working definition in June 2021 and added it to the existing armory for weaponizing antisemitism in the country.
The Zionist movement in Switzerland makes sure to keep up the pressure to maintain the fake definition of antisemitism by inventing a supposed epidemic of racism against the Jews.
There are several groups doing this including Intercommunity Coordination against Anti-Semitism and Defamation (CICAD) which is run by a lifelong Zionist Johanne Gurfinkiel.
In addition, the main Israel lobby group the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities co-published a report in 2023 claiming that antisemitism “nearly tripled” after the launch of al Aqsa Flood.
Scandalously the lobby groups are financially supported by the Swiss governmental body, the Service for Combatting Racism.
Like many other European countries, the Zionists are firmly embedded in Swiss society.
Uprooting them and consigning Zionism to the dustbin of history will not be easy, but it is a necessary task wherever the racist ideology is found.
David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – an incorporated agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – earmarked $2.6 million to fund a “war on misinformation” contract in 2023, according to data on the usaspending.gov website.
The blanket purchase agreement note lists “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation analysis” as the subjects of the order, with $1.2 million spent, and as much currently listed as the obligated amount.
Screenshot of a USAspending.gov contract summary detailing a completed Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call awarded by the DHS to Guidehouse Inc., located in McLean, VA.
As noticed by Foundation For Freedom Online, the recipient is the consultancy firm Guildehouse, a government contractor owned by Bain Capital. A post on the company’s website that has since been deleted spoke about Guildehouse engaging with social media platforms to report misinformation (including flagging posts for removal).
Guildehouse also “maintained a proprietary internal database” to track content designated as “misinformation,” and a list of “higher risks” sites that might have published such content.
The case looks like another piece in the puzzle that has been the Big Government-Big Tech collusion to suppress speech in the US, unfolding over the last four years.
“$ Award Amounts” chart shows $1.2 million as the outlayed amount, $1.2 million as the obligated amount, and $1.2 million as the current award amount, with a potential award amount of $2.6 million.
This one features some recurring, and some new “characters” – but also, sheds more light on what appears to be the former authorities’ painstaking efforts to obfuscate the ties that bound those actors together.
For example, FEMA is not one of the usual entities brought up in Congressional investigations and lawsuits delving deep into that collusion; but it is a sub-agency of the DHS, notorious for things like the failed attempt to set up the Disinformation Governance Board, and even work, in roundabout ways, with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP).
In 2023, the House Committee on Homeland Security referred to the practice of “delegating” what’s unconstitutional censorship of speech to third parties as, “censorship laundering.”
A group that does often crop up in these probes is the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship group of the “Kill Musk’s Twitter” infamy, which in 2024 organized what reports say was an “exclusive, invite-only” gala.
One of those invited was Erica Mindel – a former member of the Israeli military, a contractor to the US State Department’s envoy monitoring and combating antisemitism – but also, one of Guildehouse’s senior consultants.
You can’t make this up. Initially the Montreal police accused me of harassing an anti-Palestinian media personality because I posted about Israel’s genocide. Now they are charging me for harassing the police for writing about the charges levelled against me.
At 9:30 AM tomorrow the Montreal police are set to arrest me. Today an officer told me they will detain me overnight or until I’m brought before a judge.
On Tuesday police investigator Crivello said they were charging me at the behest of anti-Palestinian activist Dahlia Kurtz. The police officer said I had described Kurtz as a “genocide” supporter and “fascist” on Twitter, which is true.
I promptly wrote about the charges and the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute organized an email letter campaign, which saw 2,500 outraged people call on the cops to drop the Kurtz-sponsored charges. Angry at receiving emails and my article — the police were seeking release conditions barring me from discussing the charges levelled against me — the police are now claiming I’m victimizing them. Today a new investigator called to say investigator Crivello feels threatened by my writing about the charges levelled against me. The Montreal police will be charging me with intimidation, harassment, harassing communication and “entrave” (interference) towards Crivello.
The police investigator also announced that they will be holding me overnight out of fear that I may “recidive” (relapse). In other words, I might once again write about the absurd charges levelled against me. Guilty as charged.
Over the past 24 hours I’ve received multiple messages about frivolous cases brought against others for opposing genocide. The abuse of police and legal system to target opponents of genocide is a greater problem than I realized.
I’m trying to make sense of Kurtz’s bizarre bid not to block me on X but claim I am harassing her. Perhaps she is trying to monetize her status as a victim of hate. On her site Kurtz writes: “If you want to help save Canada from hate and extremism please donate by e-transfer to: [email]. After years of working for media outlets, I am now independent, so I can say the truth. This also means my personal security is under constant threat. You can make a difference. My work is funded solely by your support.”
A lawyer is looking into pursuing legal action against Kurtz. But it’s the police that really need to be held accountable. The initial charges were an abuse of state authority and adding new charges for criticizing them is beyond absurd.
The Montreal police apparently have no qualms about acting in service of Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. More than 100,000 have been killed and almost everyone has been displaced. About 70% of buildings are destroyed and most agricultural land damaged.
The police targeting opposition to Israel’s crimes is an embarrassment. The particular charges are ridiculous. The notion that someone can publicly attack Palestinians, repeatedly call Canada’s prime minister an antisemite and a supporter of terror, engage a Conservative Party candidate as a lawyer to convince police to lay charges and authorities go along with it — simply incredible. Then for the police to claim they are being victimized by emails critical of the ridiculous charges — I’m at a loss for words. What parallel universe have we slipped into?
Please email the Montreal police chief and mayor to demand they drop the charges against Yves Engler.
Video streaming platform Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, have filed a lawsuit against controversial Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of unconstitutional censorship that violates US law.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims that Moraes has engaged in “ultra vires” (beyond his legal authority) actions to silence political dissent and force American companies to comply with extraterritorial gag orders.
At the center of the case are alleged secret directives from Moraes, ordering Rumble to suspend accounts belonging to a US-based Brazilian political dissident, identified in the lawsuit as “Political Dissident A.” Moraes’ orders also prohibit Rumble from allowing the dissident to create new accounts and impose strict penalties for noncompliance, including daily fines and a potential shutdown of the platform in Brazil.
According to the complaint, the orders are an attempt to enforce Brazilian speech restrictions on American soil. “Justice Moraes has issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple US-based accounts… ensuring no person in the United States can see [Political Dissident A’s] content,” the plaintiffs state.
The lawsuit further argues that these orders “censor legitimate political discourse in the United States, undermining fundamental constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment.”
Impact on American Free Speech
Rumble, a Florida-based video platform, and Truth Social argue that complying with the gag orders would set a dangerous precedent for foreign censorship influencing American platforms.
“Allowing Justice Moraes to muzzle a vocal user on an American digital outlet would jeopardize our country’s bedrock commitment to open and robust debate,” the lawsuit states.
The companies also allege that Moraes has ignored international legal frameworks, such as the US-Brazil Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which provides a formal process for cross-border legal actions. Instead, they argue, he has resorted to coercive tactics.
“Rather than submitting a formal request through proper channels, Justice Moraes issued orders compelling Rumble, a US-based company with no presence or operations in Brazil, to appoint local attorneys solely for the purpose of accepting service of his censorship mandates,” the complaint states.
Broader Concerns Over Free Speech
Moraes, who has been at the forefront of Brazil’s controversial “Fake News Inquiry,” has drawn international criticism for his aggressive measures against political speech. The lawsuit cites reports that he has ordered the suspension of nearly 150 accounts belonging to journalists, legislators, and other critics of Brazil’s government.
The complaint also references comments made by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, where he denounced global trends of judicial censorship. “We know very well in America that you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail,” Vance stated. The plaintiffs argue that Moraes’s actions are an example of such overreach.
Rumble and TMTG are asking the court to declare Moraes’s orders unenforceable in the United States, citing violations of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The lawsuit argues that enforcing the Brazilian orders would “compel the suspension of accounts and block entire categories of political speech,” in direct conflict with US laws protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
They are also seeking an injunction to prevent companies like Google and Apple from removing the Rumble app due to the Brazilian orders. The complaint warns that if tech giants comply with Moraes’s demands, “the shutdown could intensify, depriving American service providers like Rumble and platforms like Truth Social of lawful expression and shutting off millions of US users from robust political debate.”
The case raises significant questions about the ability of foreign governments to impose censorship rules on US-based platforms. If successful, the lawsuit could set a legal precedent reaffirming the limits of international judicial overreach.
Moraes has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and it remains unclear whether the Brazilian government will intervene. However, the plaintiffs argue that this case is about more than just one dissident—it is about safeguarding American free speech from foreign interference.
As the complaint puts it: “Only American law—rooted in the First Amendment—should regulate and govern these US-based companies and their American operations.”
Justice Alexandre de Moraes has become a central figure in Brazil’s escalating crackdown on political dissent, leveraging his position on the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) to implement sweeping censorship measures. Since assuming his post in 2017, following the death of Justice Teori Zavascki, Moraes has increasingly used his judicial power to suppress speech he deems “anti-democratic” or “misinformation.”
His aggressive stance on censorship gained global attention in 2019 when he spearheaded Brazil’s controversial Fake News Inquiry, an unprecedented investigation that allowed the STF to unilaterally open cases, bypassing the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This move drew widespread criticism, with legal scholars and human rights organizations warning that the STF was acting as both judge and prosecutor, effectively eroding due process and the separation of powers.
Under Moraes’s watch, censorship in Brazil has reached alarming new heights. He has issued secret takedown orders against journalists, conservative politicians, and social media influencers, forcing platforms like X, YouTube, and Facebook to remove accounts critical of the Brazilian government. In a 2020 purge, he mandated the removal of 16 X accounts and 12 Facebook accounts linked to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, using vague claims of “disinformation” as justification. By 2022, his censorship efforts had expanded to include nearly 150 targeted account suspensions, effectively silencing opposition voices. Moraes has even gone beyond digital suppression—he has ordered asset freezes, passport revocations, and arrests of individuals accused of spreading so-called “fake news.”
Over the past year, a significant conflict has unfolded between Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, and Justice Moraes. The dispute began when X refused to comply with Brazilian court orders to block accounts accused of disseminating misinformation and hate speech, many of which were supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes responded by imposing substantial daily fines and, in August 2024, ordered the suspension of X’s operations in Brazil. Musk publicly criticized Moraes, labeling him an “evil dictator” and accusing him of undermining democracy.
Despite initial resistance, X eventually complied with the court’s demands, including removing specified accounts and paying accumulated fines totaling approximately $4 million. In October 2024, Justice de Moraes lifted the suspension, allowing X to resume operations in Brazil.
Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY) are once again championing censorship under the guise of election security, objecting to the Trump administration’s decision to sideline several officials within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These lawmakers, both strong advocates for government intervention in online discourse, are alarmed that employees who previously played a role in monitoring and flagging speech for suppression have been placed on administrative leave.
Padilla, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Morelle, the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, are demanding explanations from senior CISA officials, asserting that the removal of these employees threatens election security. However, their concerns conveniently ignore the broader issue — CISA’s troubling involvement in suppressing free speech under the pretext of combating so-called “misinformation.”
In a formal letter, the lawmakers stated, “Election-related mis- and disinformation from domestic and foreign actors continues to threaten the strength and integrity of our democracy by weakening trust in our elections and promoting falsehoods about election officials that have resulted in threats against them and their families.” This rhetoric is a familiar justification for empowering government agencies to police online speech, often silencing dissenting voices and alternative perspectives in the process.
The removals at CISA are part of a course correction to ensure that federal agencies are not overstepping their bounds in surveilling and controlling public discourse. The Trump administration’s actions follow other moves aimed at restoring balance, such as dismantling an FBI task force that engaged in similar activities and removing Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Ellen Weintraub. Senator Padilla has responded by rallying fellow Democrats to demand the reinstatement of such figures, further exposing their commitment to government-controlled narratives.
Padilla and Morelle also question how CISA determined which employees to place on leave, suggesting that even those who had moved away from overt censorship operations remain essential to their agenda. They also bemoan CISA’s absence from recent election security conferences — gatherings that often serve as echo chambers for expanding government control over online speech.
The lawmakers’ letter demands a range of responses from CISA, seeking details on employee removals, directives from the Department of Homeland Security, and ongoing election security efforts. However, their real aim appears to be ensuring that CISA remains a stronghold for pro-censorship policies.
They have set a deadline of February 28, 2025, for CISA to respond, pushing for continued interference in election-related discourse. As they stated in their letter, “Regardless of party affiliation, all Americans deserve and expect free and fair elections.” Ironically, their persistent advocacy for government-regulated speech only undermines that very principle.
US journalist Candace Owens has claimed that Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, “is in fact a man.” Owens shared an investigation on her podcast this week, insisting she would stake her “entire professional reputation” on Brigitte Macron being transgender.
Brigitte Macron, born Brigitte Marie-Claude Trogneux in 1953, is a former literature teacher and has been married to Emmanuel Macron since 2007. They are said to have met when Macron was 15 and she was teaching at Lycée la Providence in Amiens. Brigitte Macron is 24 years older than her husband.
In her latest episode of ‘Becoming Brigitte’ released on Monday, Owens spoke to French journalist Xavier Poussard, who claims to have obtained a photo supposedly proving that the French first lady used to be a man.
Poussard has alleged that Brigitte Macron is actually the transgender identity of her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, who supposedly transitioned at the age of 30. In the interview with Owens, the journalist claimed that he had obtained a photo depicting Trogneux when he was 18 years old.
The French president "Emmanuel Macron" is married to Brigitte Macron, who has turned out to be a trans woman, who has also turned out to be Emmanuel's OWN BIOLOGICAL FATHER… @RealCandaceO has done extensive research for over a year for a detailed breakdown of the evidence to… pic.twitter.com/OOPUwI2uJN
“There’s no room for doubts, we have the directory, we have the list which certifies, it is indeed the same individual,” Poussard told Owens. He pointed to the similarities of key facial features and other “distinctive signs” such as areas below the mouth and a mole shared by both Macron and Trogneux.
In the interview, Poussard claimed that the French media have manipulated the public for years in an attempt to hide the truth, and accused the Elysee of trying to achieve the journalist’s “professional, economic and perhaps even physical death.”
The claims regarding Brigitte Macron date back to 2020, when her husband was running for his second term in office. The president, his wife and their immediate family have repeatedly denied the allegations and have tried to sue journalists pushing the narrative for defamation and invasion of privacy.
Earlier this month, one such journalist, Natacha Rey, revealed that she had asked for political asylum in Russia, citing “persecution” in France. Her lawyer, Francois Danglehant, has insisted that the charges against Rey have been “fabricated” and that false testimony has been given by Brigitte Macron’s former family, including her ex-husband, Jean-Louis Auziere.
Owens’ latest episode highlighting the allegations against the French first lady have sparked controversy online, with many dismissing the claims as bogus.
However, the journalist has insisted that she would continue pushing this story, writing on X: “I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.”
“Any journalist or publication that is trying to dismiss this plausibility is immediately identifiable as establishment,” Owens wrote, adding that “the implications here are terrifying.”
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes featured tyrannical German prosecutors boasting about persecuting private citizens who made comments that officialdom disapproved. Three prosecutors explained how the government was entitled to launch pre-dawn raids and lock up individuals who criticized politicians, complained about immigrant crime waves, or otherwise crossed the latest revised boundary lines of acceptable thoughts.
In a craven slant that would have cheered any mid-twentieth century European dictator, 60 Minutes glorified the crackdown: “Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine in an effort to protect discourse.” Nothing “protects discourse” like a jackboot kick aside the head of someone who insulted a German politician on Facebook, right? Mocking German leaders is punished like heresy was punished 500 years ago—though no one has been publicly torched yet.
Do the priggish German prosecutors realize that they are the latest incarnation of nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel? Hegel declared: “Men are as foolish as to forget, in their enthusiasm for liberty of conscience and political freedom, the truth which lies in power.” Hegel bluntly equated government and truth: “For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements.” Hegel probably did more to propel modern totalitarianism than perhaps any other philosopher.
Unfortunately, many Americans favor the US government becoming a Ministry of Truth like the German government. Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information,” according to a 2023 poll. But other polls show that only 20 percent trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. So why would people trust dishonest officials to forcibly eradicate “false information”? Did some people skip logic class, or what? A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances”—perhaps only when a rascally Republican is president?
Hegelian notions of “Government = Truth” propelled censorship here in recent years. Three years ago, Americans learned they lived under a Disinformation Governance Board with a ditzy Disinformation Czar who boasted of graduating from Bryn Mawr University. A public backlash led to the board’s termination but federal censors quickly and secretly resumed their sway over the internet.
Though American censors rarely invoke Hegel, their schemes tacitly presume that political power is divine, if not in origin, at least in its effect. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), created in 2018, has relied on “censorship by surrogate,” subcontracting the destruction of freedom. CISA partnered with federal grantees to form the Election Integrity Partnership a hundred days before the 2020 presidential election. That project, along with the efforts of other federal agencies, created an “unrelenting pressure” with “the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” according to a 2023 ruling by Federal Judge Terry Doughty.
What standard did CISA use to determine whether Americans should be muzzled? CISA settled controversies by contacting government employees and “apparently always assumed the government official was a reliable source,” Judge Doughty noted. Any assertion by officialdom could suffice to justify suppression of comments or posts by private citizens. But when did government I.D. badges become the Oracle of Delphi?
During the 2020 presidential election campaign, CISA established a “Rumor Control” webpage to deal with threats to the election—including rumors that the feds were censoring Americans. CISA targeted for suppression assertions by Americans such as “mail-in voting is insecure”—despite the long history of absentee ballot fraud. Biden won the presidency in part thanks to Democrats exploiting the covid pandemic to open the floodgates to unverified mail-in ballots. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared, “Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over.”
Censors act as if truth and lies are both self-evident. But as an investigative journalist hounding federal agencies, I have seen how government minimizes disclosures of its outrageous conduct. On April 19, 1993, 80 people died in a massive fire during an FBI tank assault on the home of the Branch Davidians. On that day, the FBI was adamant that they had nothing to do with the fire and also claimed to possess audiotapes proving the Davidians intentionally committed mass suicide. They never disclosed that proof. But anyone who suggested that the FBI was connected to the fatal fire was derided as an anti-government nut case, if not a public menace. A Los Angeles Times book reviewer practically blamed my criticism of the feds on Waco and other cases for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But year by year, the FBI’s Waco storyline fell apart. Six years after the fire, a private investigator found proof that the FBI fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians’ home before the fire, obliterating the FBI cover-up.
The same pattern of delayed disclosures or leaks annihilated the US government’s credibility on the epidemic of Gulf War syndrome cases in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the glorious triumph for democracy and women’s rights after the US invaded Afghanistan. The “trickle down” version of truth was also stark in the notorious Duke Lacrosse case. With his persistent, savvy analysis and investigations, Mises editor Bill Anderson heroically helped vanquish a media and prosecutorial lynch mob.
Unfortunately, in Germany, and at least sporadically in the United States, “truth” is whatever the government proclaims. “Disinformation” is whatever contradicts the latest government pronouncements. It is irrelevant how many false statements politicians or bureaucrats make. Government retains a monopoly on truth and on the right to deceive.
Recent censorship schemes vivify how democracy is being turned into a parody: voters choose politicians who then dictate what citizens are permitted to think and say. Censors destroy freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech. Censorship seeks to force each person to live in mental isolation, with no sparks for their thoughts from fellow citizens. Shortly before Hegel’s rise to prominence, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The external power that deprives man of the freedom to communicate his thoughts publicly, deprives him at the same time of his freedom to think.” By barricading individuals from each other, censors create millions of intellectual Robinson Crusoes, stranded on islands and trying to figure out everything for themselves. Prohibiting citizens from sharing facts of government abuses spawns a bastardized form of sovereign immunity. It minimizes opposition to political power grabs—often until it is too late to resist.
Other European nations are as bad or worse than Germany. Britain is notorious for raiding the homes and arresting anyone who makes allegations about immigrants and crime. According to Irish Senator Pauline O’Reilly, government must “restrict freedoms for the common good” when “a person’s views on other people’s identities” makes them “insecure.”Can I demand that government censor anyone who makes me insecure about my identity by mocking my vintage railroad engineer cap? By vastly expanding the definition of “hate speech,” politicians justify suppressing any views they disapprove.
Faith in officialdom to decree truth and punish error exemplifies growing political illiteracy. In earlier eras, Americans were renowned for heartily disdaining politicians who rose to power by making endless bogus promises.
Why would any prudent person expect bureaucrats to deliver “the truth, and nothing but the truth” like FEMA officials coming to the rescue after a flood? If the government can’t be trusted for reliable mail delivery, why in Hades would anyone trust government to judge and safeguard any thoughts citizens choose to share? Do people honestly expect that turning politicians into censors will evoke their inner sainthood? How can freedom of speech or any other freedom survive if so many people fall for so much BS from Washington?
In an incendiary post on X, Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt called U.S. President Donald Trump the “greatest threat” to NATO, marking a sharp escalation in rhetoric, and potentially a threat to Trump himself.
“Trump is Putin’s puppet, and he’s making it clear: NATO’s greatest threat isn’t abroad, it’s sitting in the White House. Blaming Zelensky for Russia’s war is outright Kremlin’s propaganda. He’s not just betraying the Atlantic alliance—he’s working to dismantle it. Europe, wake up NOW before it’s too late,” wrote Verhofstadt.
The remarks come after an increasing war of words between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who Trump has now labeled a “dictator.” The U.S. president is seeking a peace deal to end the war in Russia and has sharply turned against Zelensky. Trump said he had “4% support” in the country and needed to call new elections. He has also raised questions about what he says is $350 billion in missing funds.
Zelensky was known to keep offshore accounts before the war and was named in the Pandora Papers. Accusations have swirled about Zelensky’s assets but much of it remains hidden in offshore bank accounts. Officially, he has approximately $4 million in assets.
As for Verhofstadt, the very wealthy left-liberal politician is known for his deep hatred of politicians who oppose his agenda, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán one of his top targets.
In 2022, for instance, Verhofstadt called Orbán a “traitor” for his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
However, labeling Trump the “biggest threat” of NATO has borderline militaristic implications and calls into question what Verhofstadt thinks Europe should do about what he believes to be the biggest “threat” to the largest military alliance in history.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly rejected Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s help in brokering a ceasefire or mediating with the new American leadership. However, as Donald Trump now calls Zelensky a “dictator” and demands he step down and hold elections, it looks more and more like Zelensky should’ve taken up Orban’s offer, writes Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has no influence over Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine does not need his mediation in its relations with the United States,” Zelensky said in a speech delivered in December at a session of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Local and Regional Governments.
“Ukraine is a strong country and has proven it on the battlefield throughout Putin’s aggression. Does anyone else in Europe have this experience now? No. Does Orbán have such an army? No. How will he put pressure on Putin? With a joke, a smile? Let him keep it,” added the Ukrainian president.
When Viktor Orbán tried to reach a Christmas ceasefire with the warring parties in December, while Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed open to it, Zelensky flatly refused to help. He did so in a very disrespectful tone.
“We all hope Viktor Orban at least won’t call Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well. It’s absolutely clear that achieving real peace and guaranteed security requires America’s determination, Europe’s unity, and the unwavering commitment of all partners to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky wrote on social media.
Zelensky has consistently maintained that he has an excellent relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and that everything is in place to ensure they can cooperate well in implementing the Ukrainian president’s so-called “victory plan.”
“I think we agree that the war in Ukraine must end. Putin cannot win, Ukraine must win,” he said after their September meeting.
At a press conference in late January, the Ukrainian president said he supported President Trump’s desire to achieve success in creating a just peace. He added, however, that this could only be achieved together with Ukraine because Russia did not want to end the war. He also noted that Europe should also have a place at the negotiating table.
“I would like the European voice to be present. This is important for us because we will be members of the EU. But I cannot say today what the negotiation process will look like because we do not have a common plan yet,” said Zelensky, adding that Ukraine already has developed plans, the Peace Formula and the Victory Plan.
Now, with Trump in power, it appears Zelensky’s claims that they share the same vision for Ukraine was far from reality. In fact, Trump is now openly calling Zelensky a “dictator” and is looking to settle the conflict as soon as possible, without Zelensky even having a seat at the table.
Russian forces conducted long-range strikes targeting Ukraine’s military-linked gas infrastructure overnight, the Defense Ministry in Moscow confirmed on Thursday. Earlier, Kiev claimed the targets were civilian.
The ministry stated that the operation involved missiles launched from air, naval, and ground platforms, along with drones. The strikes targeted “elements of gas and energy infrastructure crucial for the Ukrainian military industrial complex,” all of which were successfully hit, according to the official statement.
Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko confirmed the damage to the facilities, alleging that the Russian objective was to “halt the extraction of gas essential for civilian use.” The Russian military maintains that it does not target civilian facilities.
The Ukrainian military reported that Russia launched at least 14 cruise and ballistic missiles, alongside over 160 drones. The statement refrained from detailing how many missiles were intercepted, a departure from Kiev’s typical communications strategy. Previously, the Ukrainian air defense force showcased claimed interceptions through graphics depicting Russian weapons; however, Thursday’s report focused solely on drones, stating that 80 were neutralized.
Earlier this week, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky expressed concern over dwindling supplies of interceptor missiles for US-provided MIM-104 Patriot systems. He had previously lauded them as superior to other air defense technologies supplied by Western arms donors.
Ukraine has reportedly received six full batteries, including three from the US and three from Germany, as well as individual launchers from the Netherlands. During a press conference on Wednesday, Zelensky requested 20 more Patriot systems to bolster his country’s defenses.
Moscow is concerned by reports that NATO member states are considering deploying troops to Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, reiterating that such a scenario would be unacceptable to Russia.
On Wednesday, The Telegraph and Bloomberg cited anonymous Western officials as saying that the UK and France were preparing to present US President Donald Trump with plans for the establishment of a “reassurance force” for Ukraine, should Kiev and Moscow agree a peace deal.
In an interview with Fox News the same day, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirmed that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron would visit Washington next week.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Peskov said Moscow is “certainly following all these reports most closely.” Claims about the potential arrival of service members from NATO states in Ukraine “are causing concern,” he added, citing the ramifications this would have for Russia’s national security.
“This is a very important topic to us,” Peskov said. He noted that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had stressed on Tuesday that the “presence of armed forces from NATO countries [in Ukraine]… is completely unacceptable to us.” The remark followed high-level Russia-US talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the two nations agreed to work toward normalizing bilateral relations.
According to The Telegraph and Bloomberg, the Anglo-French plan would involve around 30,000 troops being stationed in key Ukrainian cities and ports, as well as at nuclear power plants. The scheme purportedly envisages equipping the contingent with surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft as well as patrol vessels to monitor a potential peace agreement between Kiev and Moscow, with the US providing air cover in case of escalation.
In an article for The Telegraph on Sunday, Starmer proclaimed that the “UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine,” including by “putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, warned earlier this month that Western troops operating in Ukraine without Moscow’s consent would be seen as legitimate targets.
A number of EU leaders, most notably French President Emmanuel Macron, have been floating the idea of sending military personnel to Ukraine since at least last February.
Deliberations over such a move have reportedly intensified in recent months. Since Trump assumed office in January, his administration has signaled its willingness to scale down American involvement in Ukraine.
Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.
While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.
Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:
Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.
Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”
If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).
Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.
Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.
Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.
It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:
Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
Energy and Sanctions Group.
Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.
Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.
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.
On Tuesday police investigator Crivello said they were charging me at the behest of anti-Palestinian activist Dahlia Kurtz. The police officer said I had described Kurtz as a “genocide” supporter and “fascist” on Twitter, which is true.
Aletho News 