Google DeepMind workers push for unionization over company’s Israeli ties
Press TV – April 27, 2025
Employees at Google DeepMind’s London office have initiated efforts to unionize in response to the tech giant’s decision to provide its artificial intelligence (AI) technology to defense entities and maintain connections with the Israeli regime.
Reports on Saturday indicated that around 300 workers at DeepMind, the AI division of Google in London, have sought membership with the Communication Workers Union in recent weeks.
DeepMind employees’ decision began when Google updated its approach to AI technology and dropped its militarization clause from its ethical pledge (AI Principles).
In its previous version of AI Principles, Google had included a commitment clause to not pursue AI technologies that “cause or are likely to cause overall harm”, especially in weapons and surveillance that violate “internationally accepted norms.”
The revised version of AI Principles, states that the company pursues AI “responsibly” and in line with “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights”, but does not include the previous language about weapons and surveillance.
The tension between DeepMind and its parent company further increased when a whistle-blower revealed that Israel had been using their technology to generate targets for assassinations and attacks in Gaza, where close to 51,500 Palestinians have been killed so far.
After the revelation about the Israeli regime’s use of DeepMind AI in the Gaza war, several employees quit the company.
“We’re putting two and two together and think the technology we’re developing is being used in the [Gaza war],” said one engineer involved in the unionization effort.
“This is basically cutting-edge AI that we’re providing to an ongoing [war]. People don’t want their work used like this,” he added.
The effort to unionize needs to be recognized by the company through a vote among DeepMind employees in the UK. The company has around 2,000 staff in London.
If the unionization effort succeeds, the employees will demand that Google nullify its military contracts.
If Google still decides to sell its technologies for military purposes, then the employees have the right to go on strike.
“What I hope and what people who are active are hoping is that we stay away from any military contracts,” said one of the organizers of the unionization effort.
The Israeli regime already has a $1.2bn cloud computing agreement with Google and Amazon, called Project Nimbus.
‘Israel’ continues war on Palestinian journalism: 343 attacks in 2025
Al Mayadeen | April 27, 2025
The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate disclosed on Sunday alarming findings on the condition of press freedom in Palestine, documenting widespread violations committed by the Israeli occupation during the first three months of 2025.
The report highlights a brutal and systematic campaign against Palestinian journalists, marked by lethal attacks, arrests, and the destruction of property.
According to data from the syndicate’s Freedom Committee, 15 journalists were martyred in the Gaza Strip as a result of direct targeting by the Israeli occupation forces: Seven in January and Eight in March 2025. Alongside the targeting of media workers, 17 family members and relatives of journalists were also killed. Additionally, 12 journalists’ homes were destroyed in missile and artillery strikes, while 11 journalists sustained severe injuries.
The targeting of journalists did not stop at physical attacks. The report documented 49 incidents in which press crews came under live fire, with death narrowly avoided. These attacks were often carried out under the pretext of issuing warnings or clearing journalists from specific areas, underscoring the deliberate nature of the occupation’s strategy to silence media voices.
The wave of detentions also persisted during the first quarter of 2025, with 15 journalists detained either during home raids or while reporting in the field. While some remain imprisoned, others were released after hours or days in custody. These arrests form part of a broader campaign to stifle media coverage of ongoing events in occupied Palestine.
Repression of journalistic freedoms
The report outlines further forms of repression faced by Palestinian journalists, including systematic obstruction and targeted persecution. Approximately 117 journalists endured various measures designed to prevent them from performing their duties, particularly in al-Quds and Jenin. These included arbitrary detention, intimidation, and physical assaults.
In al-Quds and Jenin, 14 journalists were subjected to violent attacks involving gunstock blows and kicking. The destruction and seizure of equipment were also widespread, with 16 cases recorded. Moreover, 31 journalists suffered from respiratory trauma after exposure to poisonous tear gas, forcing some to seek emergency medical care.
Legal harassment and administrative restrictions also increased. Around 13 journalists in al-Quds were summoned for interrogation and subsequently banned from reporting in the vicinity of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Old City. These measures are part of a broader effort by the occupation to control narratives and suppress the Palestinian media, according to the Syndicate.
In total, the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate documented approximately 343 violations, which included verbal abuse, threats, incitement, deletion of footage, legal prosecutions, and financial penalties. Given the scale and intensity of these violations, the syndicate has urged field teams to exercise extreme vigilance and adhere to strict safety protocols.
The syndicate concluded by reaffirming its commitment to documenting these crimes and presenting them to international institutions. It emphasized the importance of exposing the Israeli occupation’s actions and pursuing accountability to put an end to the aggression against Palestinian journalists and media freedom.
Macron snubbed during Trump–Zelensky meeting in Vatican
RT | April 27, 2025
French President Emmanuel Macron was sidelined when his US counterpart Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky met before the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday. Footage from the Vatican showed him being left out despite the Ukrainian leader’s apparent expectations that he would join.
Trump and Zelensky last met in February in the Oval Office. The meeting, where they’d intended to finalize a US-Ukraine minerals agreement and discuss a potential ceasefire with Russia, ended abruptly amid a heated exchange involving Vice President JD Vance, which led to the Ukrainian leader’s early departure from the White House.
Video footage from the Vatican showed Zelensky walking toward the seating area with Trump. He glanced back several times, reportedly expecting Macron to join. Three chairs were set up, suggesting plans for a three-way discussion. As the French president approached, Zelensky greeted him warmly with a smile and a hand gesture, inviting him to join.
However, just moments later, a staff member discreetly removed the third chair before the meeting began. Footage shows Trump gesturing openly while maintaining a firm posture, signaling the conversation would be strictly between him and Zelensky. Macron eventually stepped back as the two engaged directly.
Visuals captured Zelensky’s expression changing from confident to visibly tense upon realizing he would face Trump alone. The 15-minute meeting took place against a backdrop of growing tensions; the US president has pressured Kiev to accept what media outlets have termed his “final offer” to end hostilities. Reports suggest that Washington’s proposal involves freezing the conflict along the existing front lines and recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, a condition the Ukrainian leader has firmly rejected.
Trump stated in an interview with Time magazine on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia.” Before 2014, the peninsula was part of Ukraine, but it joined Russia after a referendum which followed a Western-backed coup in Kiev. Trump also recently reiterated that Zelensky “has no cards to play,” echoing what he told him during their last White House meeting.
Macron has been among Zelensky’s most steadfast supporters, and has consistently emphasized that any peace agreement must ensure Ukraine retains its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Russia has stressed, however, that any deal to end hostilities must not only acknowledge territorial reality but also address the conflict’s root causes, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations.
Trump voiced satisfaction with negotiations between Washington and Moscow after Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday.
Trump’s diplomacy gains traction, silences sceptics
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 27, 2025
The US President Donald Trump is a lone ranger in the international arena and a self-confessed practitioner of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absolute maxim that ours is not an era of wars no matter the ‘casus belli’. He sets a high benchmark for himself and makes himself open to attack by hawkish opinion makers at home, although a staunch nationalist who puts American interests first regardless of their legitimacy.
Trump’s cabinet ministers do not necessarily subscribe to his bottom line, as the vitriolic, intrusive remark by the US’ Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, regarding the cascading tensions in India-Pakistan relations would suggest.
The stunning thing about Trump’s mindset is that he is also a man of convictions. Not many would know or choose to recall that this extraordinary person, decades before he actually waded into American politics and threw his hat on the presidential ring as an outlier, paid to New York Times a princely sum of $98,000 out of his (businessman’s) pocket to feature a one-page supplement at the dawn of the Ronald Reagan presidency espousing the hidden charms of a détente with the Soviet Union and offered his services as special envoy dedicated to that task.
The run-of-the-mill politicians may pontificate noble thoughts but do not practice them when the crunch time comes. On the contrary, strong convictions have a multiplier effect on Trump’s actions, which is what distinguishes his diplomacy so far. The image of his one-on-one with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky at the Vatican on Saturday will remain etched in memory for a very long time to come.
In the chaotic international situation today as the world order is transitioning from one epochal era — nearly five centuries of western dominance — to another that is inchoate still, the temptation is always there for the US, as by far the single biggest military power on the planet, to leverage its prowess and coercive means to have its way. In fact, globalism and the neocon ideology of interventionism are still very much the principal current in the stream of consciousness of American elites, civilian and military, and is a bipartisan consensus too.
Tulsi Gabbard is not an exception; today’s papers have reported that another neocon well-known in South Asia as a long-time specialist on the South Asian region, Christine Fair, has echoed the very same “free hand to India” chorus — and, unlike Gabbard, she has actually done extensive work on the region and is credited with insights into Pakistan’s use of terrorists as state policy. “That’s the right message to send even if by accident. Why should the US bail out Pakistan by trying to restrain India? Pakistan has to be taught a lesson… by India,” Fair posted on X.
Suffice to say, on all three major vectors of the present international situation, Trump is reining in the US’ natural instincts for use of force — the Ukraine crisis, the situation around Iran and the Indo-Pacific devolving upon US-China relations. And that is already having a calming effect on international security.
Credit goes entirely to Trump for the backtracking by Russian President Vladimir Putin from the high horse he mounted on June 14 last year in his landmark speech at the foreign ministry in Moscow where he set forth conditions for commencing dialogue with Ukraine, which included, amazingly enough, a summary withdrawal by Ukrainian forces from the territories they still held in Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts in the southeastern regions of their country!
Of course, Putin is a pragmatist but if he felt emboldened to make concessions it is at the astonishing sight of the smart power that Trump deployed to whittle down Zelensky’s obdurate stance by holding in front of the latter to sip from a chalice of poison accepting that Crimea is an integral part of Russia!
On the other hand, Trump has scattered the hare-brained scheme of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron for the creation of a ‘coalition of the willing’ for deployment in Ukraine as a bulwark against Russia. In political terms, Trump crushed at one stroke the resistance from Europe to his peace plans for Ukraine and asserted the US’ leadership.
Most important, Trump forced Zelensky (and his European backers) to see the writing on the wall that the choice is between travelling on the pathway that he is opening through peace talks or inviting his country’s annexation by Russia. And in this entire enterprise, not a volley of shots was fired by the Pentagon.
When it comes to the Iran nuclear issue and China, Trump is quintessentially adopting the same approach. Although in the case of Iran, high-pitched rhetorical flourishes continue — which Iran habitually ignores as bluster — all reports suggest that the negotiations have gained traction.
This is reflected in the remark by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi after the third round of negotiations with the US special envoy Steve Witkoff in Muscat on Saturday. Araqchi said, “I am satisfied with the progress of the negotiations and their pace. They are proceeding well and remain satisfactory.” Importantly, he weighed in that “It was quite evident that both sides were serious and entered the talks with determination. This creates an atmosphere that gives us hope for progress in the negotiations.”
Nuclear experts from two sides and the IAEA are likely attending the next round of talks. Araqchi acknowledged that some “very serious” differences and some other not-so-serious differences still exist but, the point is, “The past experiences help us to make our progress easier and faster, but I believe that so far, our progress has been good.”
Equally, the US and China are tiptoeing toward the negotiating table. The paradox is, the dramatic standoff on tariffs helped the two sides to peer into the abyss and realise that they don’t like what they are seeing. Trump has conceded that high tariffs are not to the advantage of either side and has exuded confidence that a balanced deal is within realms of possibility. Meanwhile, notably, there has been no belligerent display of assertion of ‘freedom of navigation’ in the waters around Taiwan by the US Navy since Trump returned to the Oval Office.
In all three cases — Ukraine, Iran and China — Trump is also looking for generating business opportunities for the US economy. In fact, Russia and Iran have already voiced at the highest level of leadership their interest and openness to developing mutually beneficial economic partnerships with the US if only the relations are normalised. Indeed, China can’t be far behind, either, once the dust settles down.
The most profound outcome of Trump’s diplomatic odyssey could be its impact on the global situation. While it is too early to speak of a ‘butterfly effect’, eventually, such a phenomenon is to be expected. Arguably, Trump’s intervention must be a welcome thing. There should be no false pride over third party mediation when protagonists are patently unable to settle their differences and resultant tensions threaten international security.
If Putin can see the reasonableness of Trump’s mediation, can Modi be far behind? In the 21st century, it is unrealistic to try to impose solutions unilaterally. Conversely, if the ‘lone superpower’ and an ancient ‘civilisation power’ can show the humility to take the mediation of a small country like Oman, it only underscores their self-confidence and order of national priorities.
The negotiations over Ukraine and the Iran nuclear issue testify to the correctness of Modi’s prophecy that ours is not an era of wars. Equally, its natural corollary is that solutions cannot be unilaterally imposed by nation states in the emerging world order in the 21st century .
Rhetorical deterrence at the heart of US foreign policy
By Mohamed Lamine KABA | New Eastern Outlook | April 27, 2025
Weakened by its role in the proxy conflict in Ukraine and hampered by its trade war against China, the United States is moving toward purely rhetorical deterrence without any real evidence of its power.
This strategy proves not to be a lever of intimidation, but an implicit admission of powerlessness on the international stage.
As global dynamics are characterized by the return of the military state, implying the return of the state of war, Michael Kratsios’s declaration of a mysterious and overpowering weapon raises questions about the United States’ communication strategy regarding deterrence. This three-part, interrelated analysis highlights the dangers of deterrence lacking evidence and likely to undermine Washington’s international credibility. While effective deterrence relies on material displays of power, the evasive communication of the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is a sign of weakness that incites provocations and calls into question American supremacy.
This strategy – consisting of reassuring oneself that this or that adversary is fearful –can generate diplomatic tensions, shake the confidence of allies, particularly within NATO, and potentially provoke an escalation in the Cold War-style arms race of 1947-1991. If the goal of Kratsios‘s statement is to intimidate actors such as China or Russia, the lack of tangible evidence could be interpreted as an attempt at manipulation that could lead to a surge in their military capabilities in response. Rhetorical deterrence without concrete support is therefore a perilous strategy. It risks compromising the United States’ strategic position and generating unpredictable geopolitical dynamics. This highlights the importance of clear and informed communication in maintaining a stable balance of power on the international stage.
Incidentally, in a context of major geopolitical transformation, we are witnessing an erosion of the once unchallenged American hegemony. This development is the result of the rise of the BRICS, a questioning of American leadership, and the growing ineffectiveness of traditional deterrence strategies.
The United States, faced with a challenge to its supremacy, is confronting the emergence of powers such as China and Russia, which are developing alternatives to Western structures and reshaping strategic alliances. The adoption of rhetorical deterrence by the United States, without tangible evidence of its military strength, raises concerns about its equally strategic credibility. At the same time, the reshaping of international alliances, with blocs such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, is reducing American influence and encouraging many countries to diversify their diplomatic and economic relations. This is undoubtedly the era of the shift of global power towards the Global South. Neither Washington, nor Brussels, and certainly not London, can stop this global power transition.
Deterrence without evidence is a risky bet for the United States
Historically, deterrence has relied on a palpable show of force, ranging from nuclear weapons to cyber capabilities to dis-constrained military superiority. However, the current US tendency to favor a rhetorical deterrence strategy, preferring statements over tangible actions, raises questions about the credibility of its power and the repercussions on its geopolitical positioning as indicated above in the introduction.
This once unshakeable credibility is crumbling on the international stage, with strategic dominance compromised by rhetoric unsupported by verifiable evidence. Kratsios’ mention of a weapon, without concrete evidence, already diminishes the perception of American strength, especially in the face of formidable adversaries such as China and Russia, who might see it as a sign of weakness and call into question the robustness of American deterrence. This strategy also impacts diplomatic relations, particularly with U.S. NATO allies, who may question Washington’s transparency and the reality of this alleged weapon, creating diplomatic tensions and eroding the trust of strategic partners.
Furthermore, such communication could stimulate an arms race, pushing other nations to develop military technologies in the face of an ambiguous threat. If the intention is to intimidate adversaries, as mentioned above, this strategy could backfire on the United States. In the absence of material evidence, powers such as China or Russia, as well as many others in the Global South, could perceive this announcement as a bluff and strengthen their military capabilities in response. Moreover, the media and analysts could seize on this rhetoric to criticize U.S. defense policy, highlighting a strategy perceived as uncertain and unreliable. Bluntly put, rhetorical deterrence is a high-risk strategy that, without strong evidence, could not only weaken the United States’ international stature but also generate unpredictable geopolitical dynamics.
A strategy that weakens the United States and impacts its alliances and diplomacy
At the heart of contemporary geopolitics undergoing a complete reshaping, the United States’ rhetorical deterrence strategy, recently highlighted by statements from the director of the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, raises questions about the robustness of international alliances and Washington’s diplomatic credibility. This tactic, characterized by evasive and unsubstantiated statements, threatens to profoundly disrupt America’s geopolitical stature.
Allied trust, essential to collective security, is being tested by ambiguous announcements about hypothetical weapons. This sows doubt and potentially weakens transatlantic cooperation. Partners could be encouraged to diversify their alliances and strengthen their defensive autonomy. At the same time, American diplomacy, traditionally anchored in the projection of force and leadership, is being shaken. Rival powers, such as Russia, China, and a host of others, could take advantage of this uncertainty to further challenge the reliability of the United States while consolidating their regional influence and presenting themselves as stable alternatives.
Moreover, this uncertainty could fuel an arms race, exacerbating global tensions and increasing the risk of conflict, while eroding alliance cohesion. This purely rhetorical US deterrence strategy is a dangerous game with potentially far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for diplomacy and international relations.
The dangers of rhetorical deterrence, a strategy that can backfire on the United States
The rhetorical deterrence strategy put forward by figures such as Michael Kratsios is proving to be a bold gamble with potentially destabilizing repercussions for the American superpower. By relying on evasive statements lacking solid foundations, the United States is exposing itself to highly complex geopolitical issues that could undermine its global supremacy. This tactic risks having a boomerang effect on its international credibility, as historical geopolitical adversaries such as China and Russia, as well as the growing number of emerging adversaries in the European Union, NATO, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, may perceive this rhetoric as a lack of firmness or an attempt at disinformation.
The absence of concrete evidence could encourage these adversaries to challenge the resilience of American deterrence, potentially leading to an escalation of tensions internationally. Moreover, this approach could be interpreted as strategic arrogance, generating hostility among both emerging nations and historic allies. The policy of rhetorical deterrence also runs the risk of losing control of geopolitical dynamics. Faced with uncertainty about the true scope of this strategy, US rivals could intensify the development of their military and technological capabilities, increasing the risk of armed conflict. China, for example, could redouble its efforts in technological innovation, while Russia could seek to consolidate its alliances with countries in the Global South. This armed escalation, fueled by unverifiable rhetoric, is likely to further weaken global stability and diminish US influence in major international negotiations.
Furthermore, Kratsios’s remarks could negatively affect public and media perceptions of the United States. Critical media coverage could erode the United States’ image as a global leader and raise questions about the validity of its defensive policy and geopolitical strategy. This altered perception could influence public opinion in allied countries, diminishing their support for American initiatives and weakening established alliances. Verbal deterrence practiced by the United States therefore proves to be a risky strategy that, in the absence of material evidence, could reverse its international credibility, compromise its alliances, and fuel unpredictable geopolitical dynamics. This approach, far from consolidating the American position, could paradoxically precipitate its decline on the global stage.
The lesson to be learned is that the illusion of supremacy is crumbling as the United States reels in the face of a world that no longer dances to its rhythm. In this new order in the making, history no longer bends to old dominations, but to the realities of a power that eludes those who believed it was eternally acquired.
Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
Russia’s Unconditional Talks Offer Exposes Zelensky’s Diplomatic Machinations — Ex-Pentagon Analyst
Sputnik – 26.04.2025
The Kremlin has again reiterated Russia’s readiness for peace negotiations with Ukraine to US special envoy Steve Witkoff.
“The unconditional nature offered by Russia is smart, and it places the onus on Zelensky to come forward similarly — but because Zelensky cannot do this and remain in power, he increasingly appears weak and not interested in peace,” Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force, told Sputnik.
“If this continues, US aid to Ukraine will dry up completely, including intelligence support — and Zelensky understands this, but politically he is in a vise. Because not to engage directly in the face of an unconditional peace talk is to sabotage the chance of peace for Ukraine,” Kwiatkowski said.
Zelensky has previously stated that Ukraine will not engage in peace talks unless a ceasefire deal is first reached.
“The Ukrainian conditions are unrealistic given the balance of power between Russia and the NATO alliance over the case of Ukraine. But to save face among the remaining few Ukrainians who trust Zelensky and Zelensky’s own government backers who are driven by emotion rather than reality, to talk peace unconditionally is in fact very similar to an unconditional surrender,” Kwiatkowski added.
Gaza’s Missing
TRT World | March 1, 2025
In Gaza, where loss is immeasurable and grief beyond expression, families search for their missing children—some lost in the rubble, others in the silence of war. TRT World’s new documentary Gaza’s Missing uncovers their stories, revealing a generation slipping away and the fight to keep their memory alive.
Subscribe:
http://trt.world/subscribe
Livestream: http://trt.world/ytlive
Facebook: http://trt.world/facebook
Twitter: http://trt.world/twitter
Instagram: http://trt.world/instagram
Visit our website: http://trt.world
That Fluoride Added to Your Town Water to ‘Prevent Cavities?’ The EPA Says It’s Hazardous Waste
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 24, 2025
After Utah last month became the first state to ban water fluoridation, local water managers now face a dilemma: How should they dispose of the remaining fluoride?
Mainstream media, dental associations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other proponents of water fluoridation repeatedly state that the “miracle mineral” fluoride is a “naturally occurring” mineral.
But the fluoride added to town water supplies is far from natural.
Naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride. The fluoride added to water is the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production, sold off by chemical companies to local water departments across the country.
The byproduct comes in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is used by most large cities to fluoridate their water.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is considered a hazardous substance and must be disposed of following strict environmental regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Scott Paxman, general manager of the Weber Basin Conservancy District, which provides water to over 700,000 Utah residents, told The Defender that he reached out to the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to inquire about fluoride disposal.
DEQ told Paxman that once the May 7 deadline to end fluoridation in Utah kicks in, any water districts that still have fluoride in their facilities will be subject to regulation as generators of hazardous waste — requiring them to follow an expensive and time-consuming set of regulatory requirements to get rid of their hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Paxman said he was outraged that his water conservancy district would be classified as a hazardous waste generator. “We aren’t hazardous waste generators,” he said. “We are just middlemen.”
He said that for years, water operators in Utah had been raising concerns about the hazards of the acid that they saw firsthand in their facilities and the health risks they and the public faced from fluoride exposure.
Water operators like Paxman were active in the campaign to end fluoridation in Utah, he said. Now they were not getting the guidance they needed to dispose of the chemicals.
‘They have no idea how toxic this stuff is’
Paxman said DEQ’s first suggestion was that the water districts run out the fluoride by stepping up the feed rates of fluoride into the water. The agency pointed out that they could go as high as 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) — which is the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The 4 mg/L maximum contaminant level was challenged in the recent landmark lawsuit against the EPA for failing to appropriately regulate the chemical. The EPA lost, and the judge in the case directed the agency to enact new regulations. The EPA is appealing the ruling.
Four mg/L is the level at which fluoride causes skeletal fluorosis, a debilitating condition that causes skeletal deformities. The judge in the federal lawsuit ruled that at 0.7 mg/L, water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to children’s health, because evidence shows it leads to reduced IQ.
Paxman said when he saw that suggestion, he realized, “Oh my God, they have no idea what they are talking about. They have no idea how toxic this stuff is.”
Other ideas floated by DEQ included selling the leftover hazardous waste to other states still fluoridating, or returning it to Thatcher Chemical, the industrial chemical distributor that sold them the so-called miracle mineral.
Better guidelines needed for handling, disposing fluoride as hazardous chemical
Paxman has worked with input from fluoride toxicity expert Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and DEQ to develop better guidelines that have since been shared with water operators.
“Since this is a hazardous chemical, with elevated levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and chromium, it must be handled and disposed of as a hazardous chemical, as state and federal regulations require,” Paxman wrote in an email to colleagues.
Operators must legally continue fluoridation until May 7, when they will “mothball” all systems — disconnecting them, shutting down power and winterizing them.
Then they will hire a hazardous waste cleanup company like Clean Harbors to clean up the rest — pumping out their tanks and disposing of the hydrofluorosilicic acid at a hazardous waste facility. He anticipates it will cost his facility alone about $125,000.
Paxman said that at Weber Basin, they have lowered the levels from the recommended 0.7 mg/L to the minimum requirement of 0.5 mg/L out of concern for public safety.
Paxman’s concerns about the hazardous chemical reflect concerns long raised by scientists, even within the regulatory agencies.
In 2000, Dr. William Hirzy, the senior vice president of the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists and Professionals, said:
“If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant … There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.”
Other cities, including Branson, Missouri, that voted to end water fluoridation have raised similar concerns that disposing of fluoride will be expensive, because it is hazardous waste.
So-called ‘miracle mineral’ also contains other heavy metals
Unlike the fluoride in toothpaste, fluoridation chemicals are not of pharmaceutical-grade quality. They are unpurified industrial byproducts collected in the air pollution control systems of fertilizer production systems.
The industry formerly allowed these byproducts to vent into the air until it was compelled to mitigate them.
The phosphate industry collects the fluoride gas in a “wet scrubber,” and the resulting hydrofluorosilicic acid liquid is put into storage tanks and shipped to water departments.
In declarations made as part of the fluoride lawsuit, all three major producers of fluorosilicic acid, Mosaic, Solvay and Simplot confirmed that they have never done safety or effectiveness studies on the FDA chemicals they sell for water fluoridation.
Mosaic also noted that the market for their chemicals is “in large part based on the endorsement of fluoridation of public drinking water sources by the American Dental Association and other human health, professional or scientific groups.”
The chemicals are known to contain elevated levels of certain contaminants, including arsenic.
Recently, Mullenix said, producers of water fluoridation compounds have moved their operations to China, where there is even less regulation — which means more dangerous conditions for workers and more contaminated material.
According to the EPA, by 2019, well over half of the water fluoridation chemicals were imported from China.
Mullenix said she has been frustrated for years by the fact that public health policy makers and public health departments “have totally turned a blind eye to the chemical.”
“They gave no attention to what’s going to happen if you have an overfeed, how do you dispose of the chemical if it’s spilled or leaked? They paid no attention to that or to what the chemical really was,” she said.
This posed a serious problem for water operators. She has worked for years advising workers injured at work handling hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride, which smaller communities sometimes use to fluoridate their water.
Mullenix said regulations control only the contaminant level for fluoride itself — which extensive research, including her own, has shown to be a neurotoxicant. The regulations don’t account for other heavy metals present in the acid. “What about the arsenic MCL?” she asked, “What about the lead?”
Unseen risks in the technical process of fluoridating water
Paxman said fluoridating water isn’t as simple as turning a switch on or off, and it’s not cheap, despite what the regulatory agencies told water operators in Utah when they began fluoridating the water in the early 2000s.
Davis County spent tens of millions of dollars to build ten water fluoridation stations, he said. “And we found out very quickly that you don’t fool around with the fluorosilicic acid that we feed into the tanks. It’s super, super corrosive and it off-gases, even from the sealed polyethylene tanks.”
He said the gases etch the glass, corrode the door frames and all of the electronics. It also impacts the health of the operators, he said, who complain of migraines and other health issues when they have to enter the fluoride facilities on a regular basis.
After one of their operators in 2012 was hospitalized when he inhaled fumes during the delivery of hydrofluorosilicic acid from Thatcher, Weber Basin began periodically contracting a state-certified external lab to analyze the chemicals provided, so they could check the contaminant levels themselves and compare them to the company’s claims.
The certificates of analysis show that the shipments of fluoride that then go into the water system regularly have extremely high levels of arsenic and sometimes lead or other metals.
A comparison of the certificates of analysis provided by Thatcher and those done by an independent lab also showed discrepancies between what the company certified and what was in the fluoride that Weber received, which had higher levels of antimony, arsenic, cadmium and other metals.
He also said that the systems have a complex technology in place to measure the amount of fluoride going into the water, but that the dose of fluoride in water inevitably varies. “We have maintained the 0.7 level, but that’s an average,” he said. The actual levels are always “bouncing all over the place,” depending on water flow rates.
He said this is a challenge for fluoridation systems all across the country, and it means that sometimes fluoride levels in drinking water are over the 0.7 mg/L recommended dosage — which is the level that already poses a risk to children’s health.
Accidents, cover-ups, corruption and lack of accountability ‘happening everywhere’
Fluoride accidents and overfeeds happen regularly, according to the Fluoride Action Network, which tracks publicly recorded accidents on a webpage. Accidents range from a small, 10-gallon spill in 2012 in Connecticut to an incident in New Orleans in 2008, where the fluorosilicic acid ate through its storage tanks and then through a concrete containment tank.
To avoid a “catastrophic mix of toxic chemicals,” the environment department discharged nearly half a million gallons of the toxic acid into the Mississippi River.
In the city of Sandy, Utah, in 2019, a malfunctioning pump in the water fluoridation system released undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid into the water in 2019, affecting 1,500 households, institutions and businesses and sickening over 200 people.
An investigation revealed that officials failed to notify the public for 10 days and that fluoride was detected in the drinking water at 40 times the recommended levels.
Fifth-grader Max Widmaier drank that over-fluoridated water in school and soon after spiked a high fever, developed tics, had severe emotional swings, and had developmental regression so severe that at one point he lost the ability to put together sentences, his mother, Jenny Widmaier, told The Defender.
Medical records shared with The Defender showed that after Max was exposed to the over-fluoridated water, he had high levels of several heavy metals in his blood. Several months of intense therapies and strict dietary changes eventually helped Max to recover.
However, Jenny said, Max has essentially no memory of the entire year and to this day cannot be exposed to any fluoride — even food cooked in fluoridated water — without a severe reaction.
The family received no compensation from the city.
Lorna Rosenstein, executive director of Waterwatch of Utah, told The Defender that Sandy was just one of the accidents in Utah in recent years.
In 2007, an estimated 1,500 gallons of hydrofluorosilicic acid was released in a tank rupture at a treatment plant in Salt Lake County, Deseret News reported.
In North Salt Lake in 2014, a feeder pump malfunctioned, and 140 gallons of hydrofluorosilicic acid spilled from the drinking water well house out to the curb and gutter and into the storm drain, according to documents Rosenstein obtained via public records requests.
She has been holding water officials, politicians, and health agency officials accountable for their actions regarding fluoride for years through her public records requests and public advocacy.
Rosenstein said the rules, violations, accidents, cover-ups, corruption and general lack of accountability that kept fluoridation going in Utah are happening everywhere.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
FDA Says ‘Meat Glue’ Used in Many Processed Foods Is ‘Safe.’ Scientists Have Another Theory.
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 25, 2025
Gluten and genetics may not be the only culprits behind skyrocketing cases of celiac disease and related inflammatory digestive autoimmune conditions. Scientists now believe the “meat glue” widely used in processed foods from chicken nuggets to veggie burgers may also play a role.
Recent research shows that an enzyme called microbial transglutaminase induces celiac disease and related inflammatory digestive diseases such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, writer Linda Bonvie reported on her Substack, Badditives.
Also known as “food glue,” transglutaminase is an enzyme widely used as a food additive to help foods stick together and look more appealing.
Meat glue is “beneficial for the food industry,” researchers Dr. Aaron Lerner and Torsten Matthias, Ph.D., said in one of several research papers they’ve published on the topic. But apparently, it’s not so good for public health.
Meat glue, Bonvie wrote:
“is the darling of Big Food for lots of reasons: it can glue together scraps of fish, chicken and meat into whole-looking cuts (often called ‘Frankenmeats’); extend the shelf life of processed foods (even pasta); improve ‘texture,’ especially in low-salt, low-fat products; make bread and pastries (particularly gluten-free ones) rise better, and, as one manufacturer puts it, allow for use of things that would ordinarily be tossed out — unappetizing leftovers and scraps of food that would ‘otherwise be considered waste ingredients, creating an added-value product.’”
According to Lerner and Matthias, meat glue can change the nature of gluten and make the immune system more reactive to them, which can cause conditions like “intestinal junction leakage” and set the stage for a variety of health issues.
Japanese ‘meat glue’ maker uses propaganda strategies developed for MSG
Japanese global food company Ajinomoto is one of the major producers of transglutaminase, Bonvie reported. The company also makes MSG and uses the same methods from “its long-running propaganda campaign claiming that MSG is a safe ingredient” to promote its meat glue.
The company advertises both ingredients as “found in food naturally” and promotes them as considered safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Transglutaminase is found naturally in the body, but the natural form has a completely different structure from the microbial transglutaminase additive the company makes and adds to food.
Despite years of research showing the link between transglutaminase and celiac and other digestive disorders, the FDA considers all uses of the enzyme to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), Bonvie reported.
The GRAS classification has been widely condemned by food industry watchdog organizations, who say it allows Big Food to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight, according to Consumer Reports.
Companies seeking to have their product granted GRAS status simply submit paperwork, and the status is granted, Bonvie wrote. Ajinomoto has been doing that for over 20 years with its transglutaminase.
Ajinmoto first got the FDA to recognize the product as GRAS in 1998 for use in seafood. The following year, the company expanded the use to hard and soft cheeses, yogurt, and vegetable proteins and meat substitutes.
In 2000, the company notified the FDA it would expand the use to “pasta, bread, pastries, ready-to-eat cereal, pizza dough, and ‘grain mixtures.’” By 2002, it told the FDA it would be using it for “food in general.”
The FDA didn’t object to any of these uses.
The FDA didn’t object — even though Ajinomoto submitted the results of a 30-day toxicity study of the food glue in beagles. Dogs in the study experienced serious side effects — a pituitary gland cyst, lung discoloration and more — but the company said all the effects were unrelated to its transglutaminase.
Bonvie wrote:
“Why they bothered to include a study that shows that their product causes harm to the animals studied can only be understood if you know how Ajinomoto operates. Having done a study, they can later refer to the study that they did as though it proved that their product was ‘safe,’ knowing that no one will challenge them.
“Such claims have great propaganda value.”
Animal rights organization PETA has condemned Ajinomoto’s practice of conducting “horrific tests on dogs.”
Researchers warned that transglutaminase often goes unlabeled in processed foods. Anjinmoto says that it is a “processing aid” rather than an ingredient in most foods that use the product and is therefore exempted from labeling requirements in Europe and the U.S.
The product is also listed as an allowed enzyme in organic food and farming on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.”
Worse, it is often used in gluten-free bakery products to improve their appearance, even though it causes a reaction in people suffering from celiac disease.
Bonvie said the only way to completely avoid the enzyme is to avoid processed foods altogether.
Given how challenging that can be for most people, she provides a list of foods to avoid, including: low-fat and low-salt dairy products and dairy substitutes, formed meat products like chicken nuggets, expensive cuts of meat sold cheaply, sushi from unreliable sources and farmed fish products, veggie burgers, and cheaply produced pasta.
Leading microbial transglutaminase researcher Lerner told Bonvie he thought the FDA should reconsider its classification of the enzyme as GRAS.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Former Biden “Disinfo” Board Chief Urges EU to Resist Criticism on Censorship Laws
In Strasbourg, Jankowicz rewrites the script, casting Washington as the villain in Europe’s censorship push.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 24, 2025
Former head of former President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, has found a new audience for her political and ideological narratives – and it’s EU institutions.
Jankowicz – known by her critics as “Biden’s disinformation czar” (or at least, would have been one, had the Disinformation Governance Board not been so short lived) – this week spoke at a meeting of a European Parliament committee dedicated to EU Commission’s latest censorship initiative, “the European Democracy Shield.”
The meeting was called to discuss risks to democracy, in this case, what the bloc considers to be Russian disinformation campaigns, but Jankowicz focused on the US administration, referring to her country as “another autocracy” that she wants the EU to “stand firm against.”
Jankowicz took the opportunity to warn that the US administration is “undoubtedly preparing a pressure campaign” to make the EU abandon (censorship) rules like the Digital Services Act (DSA). In the same breath, she also claimed that Washington will pressure Brussels to “end support for Ukraine, to stop holding Russia to account.”
Jankowicz had trouble keeping to the theme of the meeting, namely, “Russian hybrid threats,” and kept returning to her anti-Trump agenda, stating that just as Russia, China, Iran, and others are busy with their “interference campaigns” – in the US, “homegrown anti-democratic forces have launched a coordinated campaign to undermine researchers, journalists, advocates and civil servants who work to expose their lies.”
She was also critical of US tech giants accusing them of being complicit in creating “global instability” and again went back to Trump, his administration’s supposed “capture” of major social networks, only to conclude that neither are interested “in preserving democracy.”
Jankowicz singled out US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his decision to shut down the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) Hub, which was a rebrand of the also disbanded Global Engagement Center (GEC), a State Department entity involved in flagging social media posts for censorship.
But to Jankowicz, the steps the current administration has been taking to dismantle the intricate and documented system of online censorship is done merely “under the guise of protecting free speech.”
Jankowicz also told the EP commission that she supported 51 former intelligence officials who penned a letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop story was “disinformation” – a claim that has since been debunked, but at the time, just before the 2020 election, led to widespread censorship of the New York Post article on the subject.
“A valid expression of free speech,” is how Jankowicz views the letter.
The case of Raffi Berg and BBC: Zionist infiltration of the mainstream media
By David Miller | Press TV | April 26, 2025
British journalist Owen Jones recently wrote at length about the background, commitments, and active role that Raffi Berg plays in enforcing the pro-Zionist line at the BBC.
Berg is the Middle East (West Asia) editor at BBC Online, but he appears to have a much greater gatekeeping role in practice.
Jones’ research amply bears out the view that anti-Zionists have been encouraging for some time now, which is that Zionist infiltration of the media and other public institutions is a significant problem and amounts to colonization of public space on behalf of a genocidal foreign entity.
But this is not how Jones sees things, with the result that he markedly pulls his punches.
It is clear from what Jones writes that Berg is a fanatical, genocidal Jewish supremacist. Jones also makes it clear that Berg plays a pivotal enforcement role inside the corporation, such that all stories about the ‘Middle East’ have to be checked with him. Jones writes:
In addition to what they see as a collective management failure, journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC News website. Several allege that Berg “micromanages” this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality. “Many of us have raised concerns that Raffi has the power to reframe every story, and we are ignored,” one told me… “Almost every correspondent you know has an issue with him,” one said. “He has been named in multiple meetings, but they just ignore it.”… Berg’s influence has a ripple effect, the journalists say. While BBC broadcasters write and produce their own reports, editors and reporters across the organization frequently draw on web articles such as those edited by Berg to flesh out their stories.
Jones also notes the fact that Berg had written a book on the notorious Israeli spy agency Mossad, which is simply a propaganda tract for the agency.
In 2013, Berg became Middle East editor for BBC News Online. It was in this role that he encountered material that would form the basis for his book, “Red Sea Spies: The True Story of Mossad’s Fake Diving Resort,” an account of the Israeli spy services’ efforts to evacuate Jews from Ethiopia between 1979 and 1983. In the book, Berg describes Mossad in glowing terms, calling the agency “much vaunted.” Berg received extensive cooperation from Mossad for the book, including “over 100 hours of interviews” of “past and present agents and Navy and Air Force personnel.” It was published in 2020. In an interview to promote the book, Berg said he collaborated on the project with “Dani,” a former senior Mossad commander he described as a “legend” who later became “a very close friend.”
Berg, gushingly, tweeted in 2020 about the book being sighted on the bookshelf of Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu.
Jones was unsurprisingly attacked by the genocidal Zionist enforcer Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust for writing about how a ‘Jewish editor’ is ‘secretly manipulating’ the BBC’s output.
In response, Jones wrote that ‘The fact he’s Jewish isn’t mentioned.’ This is correct. But we might ask, why not?
Nor does Jones state that Berg is a Zionist. In fact, the ‘Z word’ is only used twice in the whole piece: once (‘Zionist’) to describe the ‘right wing’ Zionism of Likud-Herut (an organization with whom Berg’s lawyer Mark Lewis is strongly affiliated); and once (‘Zionism’) in a quotation from Mark Lewis emphasizing the importance of “unapologetic Zionism.”
But surely Berg’s Zionism and the fact that he is Jewish — a Jewish supremacist no less — are in fact relevant to this discussion? And surely pretending they are not only undermines the punches that Jones appears to be trying to throw?
How is it that Berg occupies this pivotal location within the BBC? Can we imagine a Catholic, a Hindu, or a Sikh (let’s not even mention a Muslim) being in such a pivotal role on coverage of Palestine? Of course not.
Berg has not been granted or put in that position by the BBC because he is a Zionist. It’s, subconsciously at least, because he is a Jew that he is deferred to. Of course, if he were an anti-Zionist Jew, he would never get into such a position.
Identity politics runs deep in British public institutions — the idea that a Jewish person (or at least the correct type of Jewish person) is the appropriate arbiter of how to cover the occupation of Palestine is seen as common sense.
It is worth extending this analysis to other conflicts. Would a Hindu be asked to adjudicate in BBC HQ on the reporting of Hindutva crimes or a Protestant on Loyalist death squads in the north of Ireland?
We need not even ask about the prospects of the BBC appointing a Palestinian (Muslim, or Christian) to adjudicate coverage of the genocide in Gaza. Extending the analysis says something about the selective implementation of identity politics in the forcefield created by Western official sources and Zionist movement intimidation and bullying of the media.
Recognition that Berg is a genocidal Zionist is crucial to naming the problem and beginning to push back against this kind of Zionist infiltration and subversion of our public institutions.
Of course, Owen Jones appears to want no part of that struggle.
Zionist infiltration at the BBC
There are, of course, many other Zionists (whether Jewish or not) in the BBC, especially in news and current affairs. John Mitchell listed a few very senior employees some years ago:
● James Harding – Director of News & Current Affairs, BBC News (2013–2018) and past editor of the Times, was a hardline Zionist. At a Jewish Chronicle event in 2011, he declared:
“I am pro-Israel. I believe in the state of Israel. I would have had a real problem if I had been coming to a paper with a history of being anti-Israel. And, of course, Rupert Murdoch is pro-Israel.”
● Danny Cohen – Controller of BBC 1, 3, and Director of BBC Television (2007-2015) wrote a letter while still a BBC executive condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement, which campaigns to end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza.
● James Purnell – BBC Director of Radio and BBC’s Director of Strategy (2013-2020) was the chairman of Labour Friends of Israel during his parliamentary career.
We can add to that list some further issues with the most senior management at the BBC.
● Richard Sharp, the former Chairman of the BBC, is a hardline Zionist, former Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan banker, director of the International Rescue Committee, an organization set up with the aid of the CIA, and donor to the British intelligence-created and Zionist-funded Quilliam Foundation.
● Robbie Gibb is reportedly not Jewish, but his brother, the minister, reportedly spent time on a Kibbutz in the Zionist entity when he was young. Both brothers were also part of a Western intelligence operation in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Gibb went on to lead the consortium to buy out the failing Jewish Chronicle and became the sole director of the company that runs it. He did take a step back from that after concerted pressure was applied over his continuing role at the BBC on the editorial standards committee.
Also on that committee is the CEO of BBC News, the Director General, and the Chair of the BBC (which was Richard Sharp from February 2021 to June 2023 — it is now Samir Shah) and an ‘independent’ member who is currently Nicholas Serota.
Serota has had a long career in the art world and is also a Zionist and opponent of BDS. The ‘CEO’ of the BBC news division, Deborah Turness, is also cited by the BBC as “standing in the way of change” on the question of coverage of Palestine.
Of the five members, either 2 (or 3 when Sharp was in position) are Zionists, and one has blocked complaints on Zionist bias. Given that Director General, Tim Davie, is a former Conservative candidate who has worked for a CIA-supported front group, it is little surprise that the BBC is completely unwilling to cover the genocide properly.
Structural discrimination against Muslims in the BBC
The context of the dominance of Zionism is not just that there are Jewish Zionists in key positions exercising a gatekeeping function, as well as non-Jewish Zionists who provide cover and support for them (such as Robbie Gibb or James Purnell), but that overall there is in the BBC a notable over-representation of Jews and a notable under-representation of Muslims (in relation to their proportion in the population).
Research conducted by the BBC in 2022 shows the corporation at that time employed some 1% of staff who are Jewish, which is twice their proportion in the population, and 3.1% of staff who are Muslim, which is 48% of their proportion in the population.
The differences are more marked when we turn to the News and Current Affairs division of the BBC where Jews make up 2.2% of all staff and 2.5% of leadership staff (proportionally 4.4 times and five times more than their proportion in the population).
By contrast, Muslims are 3% of all News and Current Affairs staff (which is 46% of their proportion in the population) and at the leadership level, there are simply no Muslims at all.
This is itself a problem of structural discrimination, quite apart from what impact it might have on coverage of the genocide. And that impact is not inconsequential. It’s perfectly clear that the Zionists among the BBC News and Current Affairs staff are an aid, as opposed to a hindrance, to the enforcement of Zionist rationality across the BBC.
The gatekeeper
The scandal at the BBC on which Jones reported, is a scandal of Zionist infiltration and gatekeeping. And it’s a scandal that appears to exist in varying ways throughout the media landscape. As the journalist Rivkah Brown has put it:
“I have seen this trend in almost every mainstream media outlet I’ve worked at or reported on: One hardline Zionist who either has decision-making power or aggressively lobbies decision-makers, often with threats of antisemitism. Fearful of scandal, editors cave.”
Brown was reacting to the case of Sky News, which was one of the few media outlets to properly report the violence of Israeli fans in Amsterdam in 2024. Sky then promptly reversed itself. The role of Sandy Rashty as News Editor at Sky was then noted. Rashty is a committed Zionist and writes for the Jewish Chronicle.
It may, as Brown says, take only one advantageously placed Zionist to act as a gatekeeper, but in many news organizations, there are many such placeholders at all levels of the organization, as we have seen with the BBC.
But are these gatekeepers an incidental feature of accidentally employing genocidal Zionists in the newsroom, or is there a wider strategy of infiltration by the Zionist movement?
The strategy of infiltration — The Jerusalem Program
The reality is that the Zionist movement has been involved in a massive push to infiltrate public life in the UK at least since the 1950s, when the movement determined, having reached its objectives in creating a state in 1948, that it would not dissolve itself.
Instead, it adopted the so-called Jerusalem Program, which remains its aim to this day and was most recently revised in 2004. The “foundations” of Zionism, it states, include: the “bond” of the Jewish people to “Eretz Yisrael” which should be settled “as an expression of practical Zionism.”
Every Zionist organization that signs up to the WZO thus supports settler colonialism in “Eretz Israel” (a term usually meaning land far beyond the current occupation, spreading into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt); to support a “Jewish” state and “defend” the “right of Jews… as a nation” — meaning structural privileges for Jews — a clearly racist proposition.
Individuals are no longer able (since 1960) to join the WZO directly and must join one of its member organisations. But membership in any Zionist organisation also requires certain “Duties of the individual Zionist”, adopted in 1978. These enjoin Zionists:
“To implement Aliyah [the Zionist term for settler colonialism] to Israel”; and “bring [children] up towards Aliyah”; to “be an active member of the [Zionist Federation]”; “contribute to … Zionist Funds”; and “strengthen Zionist influence within the community.”
In other words, individual Zionists are required to affirm the racist settler colonial ideology and to practically support it. What’s more, they are required to help popularise it in the community.
How this works today can be seen in the approach of the United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA), the largest Zionist “charity” group in the UK. UJIA is an anodyne-sounding “charity” which is actually the UK branch of one of the Zionist regime’s four “national institutions,” all based in the same building in King George Street in occupied Jerusalem/Al-Quds.
A 1997 Institute for Jewish Policy Research report, “The Attachment of British Jews to ‘Israel’”, raised an alarm:
“If current trends prevail, attachment to Zionism and the Jewish state could become the concern of only a minority with a mostly Traditional or Orthodox religious outlook.”
As a result, the UJIA refers to their approach as building a ‘lifelong connection’ to “Israel.”
Ruth Wisse: the Army of words
This strategy was memorably enunciated by Harvard professor Ruth Wisse, an open supporter of genocide. The clip on YouTube is just over two minutes long and it’s worth watching in full. For our purposes, the following excerpt is germane:
“American Jews, what do you have to worry about? Your job is to make us [Israel] look good and here’s how you do it: Every one of us has to serve three years in the Army … and then for the rest of our lives you have got to serve two or three years in the army of words you’ve got to learn to fight the political battle which is even more important at this point than the military battle… We’ll fight the military battle we’re not asking you necessarily to come and be lone soldiers although some of you can you’ve got to learn how to fight back on the campuses how to make the arguments now … Don’t let the war of words ever be fought about Israel’s nature, let it be fought about why you can’t accept Israel? Why you have to single out this tiny people? … Push them, teach them how to defend by attacking… You’ve got to make demands on them. They’ve got to serve for three years in the army of words.”
Enrolling all Jews in the ‘army of words’ is the aim of the Zionist movement. They don’t get everyone. But it seems plain they get more than enough to be effective in very many circumstances.
Are You Tired of Hearing About Antisemitism?
Simply stop killing Gazans and the anger directed at Jews might end
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • April 26, 2025
One might well ask how a group composed of little more than 3% of the US population has managed to gain control of the nation’s foreign policy, its legislature and executive branches, its media, its entertainment industry, its financial institutions, and its elite universities while also making the United States subservient to the wishes of a monstrous small state located seven thousand miles away and composed of its coreligionists? Well, it helps to have a great deal of money liberally applied to corrupt the existing political and economic systems, but that is not necessarily a good place to start as one might reflexively be accused of wielding a trope much favored by antisemites when discussing Zionist Jews, the group of which we are speaking. Alternatively perhaps, one might take an oblique approach by observing how the highly privileged and protected Zionists in question get rich living in America while having true loyalty to apartheid Israel, something that normally might be considered untenable if not borderline treasonous.
Recent reports suggest that there are upwards of 23,000 Americans serving in the Israeli Army (IDF), most of whom are presumably dual nationals with Israeli citizenship. Under existing law, they should all lose their US citizenship but that will not happen as Congress and the White House have both been bought. Indeed, they are being given a golden handshake by the US Congress with a new bill currently in Congress which would extend some US military benefits to the notional American citizens who are currently carrying out the Gaza genocide as members of the IDF. One such clown Congressman Brian Mast, who served in the IDF, even parades around Congress in his Israeli military uniform and no one says squat.
Beyond the Americans in the IDF, there have been several odd appointments at high levels in the US civilian bureaucracy, including the latest naming of a former Israeli Defense Department and UN Israeli Embassy employee whose husband still works at the embassy to a top position on the National Security Council. Merav Ceren will be the Director for the development of the relationship between Israel, Iran and the US. It is a highly sensitive position and one can only speculate on how she got a clearance, though it is presumed that she is a dual national, which in and of itself should have been a warning sign. Her appointment gives Israel an unusual advantage in internal policy discussions just as the Israeli government has launched a new campaign to pressure the American government to start a war with Iran rather than continue with negotiations toward a nuclear deal. Ceren previously worked at Senator Ted Cruz’s office in Washington, which may have been her stepping stone to the job as Cruz’s loyalty to Israel and all that pertains to it should be unquestioned and he is the recipient of millions of dollars in pro-Israel political “donations.” She also worked for the neocon Iran-hating Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. How she was named to the position she now holds should be considered in itself a huge security breach, one of many already experienced in Trump’s first hundred days, where loyalty to Israel trumps all other factors, as the expression might go.
The trajectory of Meyav Ceren reminds one of another Israeli woman dual national who truly stood out when it came to serving Israeli interests from inside the United States government. Sigal Pearl Mandelker might be worthy of the nickname “Queen of Sanctions” because she was the Department of the Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) under the first Trump administration. She handed out the punishment and cranked up the economic pain up for countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia during her time in office from June 2017 until October 2019 when she finally resigned after being under pressure from people like me.
OFTI’s website proclaims that it is responsible for “safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats,” but it has from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel’s perceived interests. Grant Smith notes how “the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons complex.”
To be sure most of the Jews with whom I am in touch are appalled by that activism of the Mandelkers and the Cerens and even more so by what is happening in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon at the hands of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist enablers, but what we are talking about here is institutional and tribal Jewry which together have the distinction of being referred to as the Israel Lobby, which an increasing number of observers have to come to believe to be something like all powerful and the unofficial government of the United States in many relevant areas.
Ron Unz’s recent article recent article Trump vs. Harvard in a Political Wrestling Match examines the issue of Jewish supremacism and, among other factors, identifies the various mechanisms used by Jews to enhance their enrollment at top universities. He mentions in passing how Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner got into Harvard without having the level of academic achievement that normally would have been a prerequisite. It was possibly accomplished through an institutionalized “Harvard Price,” an under the table donation of several million dollars from the wealthy Kushner family. I personally recall attending an elite university in the 1960s and hearing Jewish classmates boast of how “they” comprised 40% of the first-year students. A friend of mine at Yale told me of similar boasting among the “Sons of Eli.” Forty per cent participation for 3 per cent of the population is certainly an astonishing rate of success.
Unz uses available educational data bases to demonstrate that the disparity was not due to greater intelligence or academic performance among the Jewish applicants. He concludes that “Based on these figures, Jewish students were roughly 1,000% more likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white Gentiles of similar ability. This was an absolutely astonishing result given that under-representation in the range of 20% or 30% is often treated by courts as powerful prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.”
Based on my own contact with Jews in the academic world and in government, I would prefer to describe the Jewish success with universities as a product of gaming the system, i.e. producing incentives outside academia itself to make the candidates more attractive. Whether such maneuvering might be described as corruption of the process depends pretty much on where someone stands outside the system, but the fact is that it is far easier for a Jewish high school graduate to get into an elite university than it is for a comparably educated and intelligent white Christian. And if you throw into the hopper all the “minority” other applicant groups that get preferential treatment, white males who are not Jews are definitely at the bottom of list when acceptance time comes around.
Beyond cash incentives, one might also conclude that Jews are exceptionally good at self-promoting and on translating their largely fictional collective victimhood into a sympathy vote that gives them a considerable edge as they move through education and high-profile careers. The problem is that that aggressive self-promotion does not stop at the level of personal aggrandizement and opens the door to large scale group interference in both foreign and domestic government policies that run strongly contrary to the interests of most Americans. I am of course referring to groups like the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which serve as lobbies and support structures for the apartheid Jewish state Israel, which is currently carrying out a genocide in Gaza, without any accountability or consequences as required by current US law under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). President John F. Kennedy was trying to get such groups to register when he was assassinated in 1963.
Other Jewish national organizations are also on board in supporting Israel as are the numerous Christian Zionists, which means that killing tens of thousands of people in the Middle East is a matter of no consequence, except that once more the Israeli Jews must be and are widely portrayed as the victims. The US is complicit in the arming of Israel and the killing and actually condones it even though a majority of American voters do not support the Jewish state. Likewise, the Jewish dominated press and other media looks the other way as the slaughter goes on, as it no doubt will, and one expects that upwards of 2 million Palestinians will eventually be deported to whatever shithole is willing to accept them under pressure from the US. Otherwise, the “Justice” recommended by Israel’s Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is now in the United States on a “visit,” will likely be pursued, i.e. a bullet to the back of the head of every Palestinian.
And then there is the issue of the “crime” of antisemitism, which is the only thing that the Justice Department seems to think is worth addressing, to the point where people who have done nothing beyond expressing their concern over what is going on in the Middle East are being arrested without any charges being filed and detained while being processed for deportation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly announced that he has authorized the arrest and deportation of 300 students for their criticism of Israel. The US House of Representatives has obligingly passed a measure equating criticism of the racist, Jewish supremacist ideology of Zionism with what they describe as a hate crime “antisemitism.” Meanwhile the Israel Lobby and its politician choral society are constantly using the Jew-controlled media to sing about how Hebrew students fear going to school due to the presence of all the “antisemites.”
This is, of course, largely a convenient fiction largely created by the media, and it is rather Jews who have been beating up peaceful demonstrators. And it is extremist Jewish-funded groups that have been stirring the pot, going after anyone who is perceived as anti-Israeli. One of the groups, Canary Mission, has run a massive disinformation operation for years, publishing the names and photos of thousands of alleged pro-Palestine activists, while another group, Betar, openly encourages targeting of student activists and brags that it has “provided names of hundreds of terror supporters” to the Trump administration. Ross Glick, the head of Betar’s US branch, believes that “Foreign students on visas in the US shouldn’t have the right to free speech.” Jews, however, should be allowed to behave with complete freedom to include carrying out murder, war crimes, and human rights violations targeting those it sees as opponents.
To be sure, protesting against any of the horrors that Israel is engaged in is regarded to be one symptom of “antisemitism” which is ipso facto considered to be something like a capital offense, even though it is pretty much generated in America by the impunity and savagery with which Israel behaves towards the rest of the world. And the parameters of what might constitute a legitimate search for “antisemites” is expanding. The US State Department will now demand from foreigners wishing to travel to the United States information on their social networking sites. Those sites will be screened for anti-Israel content and the visas will be refused. This is an extension of the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) policies now in place in 38 states in the US where a job or services will be denied to citizens if they will not sign a pledge or promise not to support the movement to boycott or punish Israel. The situation is even worse for those foreigners who are currently going through screening to become US permanent residents as it is the issue of one’s views of Israel alone that could easily determine who is allowed to become a future citizen and who is rejected.
Indeed, protecting Jews is a full-time job of the Trump Administration, even more so that under Genocide Joe Biden. Antisemitism comes up in speech after speech and fully ninety per cent of the discretionary Homeland Security Agency grants already go to Jewish groups or buildings, to the tune of more than $400 million. Interestingly, the government also appears to be constructing a data base of Jews to protect them further. The personal cellphones of dozens of current and former Barnard College employees rang last Monday evening with a text message that said it was from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, part of a review of the employment practices of Barnard. A link led to a survey that asked respondents if they were Jewish or Israeli, and if they had been subjected to harassment.
Another attack on free speech in America that is Israel related, apart from what is going on at the universities which are being destroyed from within by the government demands to protect Jews, is the role of how research institutes have traditionally been able to engage in fraternal discussions to seek action and share information with any country or government entity in the world. But researchers and university employees who engage in certain nonviolent protests or political expression over human rights conditions in Israel and Gaza may now risk loss of employment and other civil and criminal penalties, according to a new policy unveiled by the National Institutes of Health on April 21st. The agency, the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, touches virtually every corner of the scientific community but it will now be silent over what is happening in Gaza, where every hospital has now been destroyed by Israeli-American bombs.
So there you have it. Let’s stop making excuses for Israeli behavior that depicts Jews as the perpetual victims while seeking to falsely label Israel’s enemies as the war criminals and racists. We will leave those attributes to Israel itself. Better still, arch-Zionist Donald Trump should pick up the phone in the Oval Office and call Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to tell him that America has become tired and the game is over. America will no longer be sacrificing its own interests to support a genocide and no longer will be footing the bill and providing the weapons to carry out the slaughter. “Goodbye Bibi! And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!”
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Featured Video
Lessons Learned from Thirty Years CT Heart Scans and Coronary Calcium Scores: The Role of Vitamin D
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How GMO seeds and “RoundUp” are driving US policy in Venezuela
By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | May 6, 2019
CARACAS, VENEZUELA — As the political crisis in Venezuela has unfolded, much has been said about the Trump administration’s clear interest in the privatization and exploitation of Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world, by American oil giants like Chevron and ExxonMobil.
Yet the influence of another notorious American company, Monsanto — now a subsidiary of Bayer — has gone largely unmentioned.
While numerous other Latin American nations have become a “free for all” for the biotech company and its affiliates, Venezuela has been one of the few countries to fight Monsanto and other international agrochemical giants and win. However, since that victory — which was won under Chavista rule — the U.S.-backed Venezuelan opposition has been working to undo it. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t… loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean loongtip on Australian festival boycotted… loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi… seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America… John Edward Kendrick on Donald Trump, and Most America… aletho on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… John Edward Kendrick on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t…
Aletho News- Iran’s Mass Protests /Patrick Henningsen & Lt Col Daniel Davis
- EU admits it will have to talk with Putin
- Where Did 0.85 Come From? Aluminum Adjuvants and the Science That Was Never Done
- President Karol Nawrocki Vetoes Poland’s EU Digital Services Act Enforcement Bill, Citing Censorship Concerns
- Australian festival boycotted for excluding Palestinian writer
- Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sittah defeats pro-Israel lawfare in landmark GMC ruling
- Satellite images reveal extensive bulldozing of rubble in Beit Hanun amid signs of broader plans
- Is a New Saudi-Led Axis Forming against the UAE & Israel?
- UAE begins ‘hurried evacuation’ from Somali air base: Report
- The Only Way For America To ‘Help’ Iran Is To Lift the Crushing Sanctions
- If Americans Knew
- More death: in Gaza, West Bank, Israeli prison – Not a ceasefire Day 94
- The Israeli Influence Operation Aiming to Install Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran
- Avoidable tragedy: another infant dies from cold – Not a ceasefire Day 93
- Israel is quietly erasing Palestinian refugee camps from existence in the West Bank
- The “Zionist tint” to the Maduro abduction, if not operational, then normative
- Press association condemns Israel’s continued ban on media access to Gaza
- Israeli Indifference to Palestinian Suffering Is Fertile Ground for the Growth of Sadism
- Surge in premature births, congenital defects, cancer deaths in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 92
- 35,000 ‘Partially or Completely’ Deaf in Gaza Due to Israeli Bombings – Le Monde
- By suspending 37 aid organizations is Israel pushing toward a final expulsion?
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
Aletho News 