Israel’s diamond industry is going extinct. That’s a billion-dollar problem for the IDF.
Inside China Business | December 24, 2025
Iran says no basis for inspection of bombed nuclear sites
Press TV – December 24, 2025
Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) says that political and psychological pressure over inspection of damaged nuclear facilities will have no effect, calling for clear procedures to be established for such occasions.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Mohammad Eslami said there is currently no codified instruction for inspecting nuclear facilities that have been damaged by military attacks.
“Until this issue is clarified, political and psychological pressure and irrelevant follow-ups aimed at re-inspecting bombed facilities and completing the enemy’s operations are unacceptable and will not be responded to,” he said.
Back in June, during the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, in a clear violation of international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Eslami noted that Article 68 of the Safeguards Agreement refers only to natural accidents and damage, not military attacks or war.
“If the IAEA considers military attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities acceptable, it must explicitly approve and declare that,” he said. “But if such attacks are illegal, they must be condemned, and the post-war procedures must be clearly defined.”
He added that until such conditions are formally defined by the agency, Iran will not accept demands for renewed inspections of damaged sites.
On Iran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Eslami said no country in history has cooperated with the agency to the extent Iran has.
“The most extensive and intensive inspections ever conducted have been imposed on Iran’s nuclear industry, and there is not a single report indicating non-compliance or diversion from safeguards,” he said.
He characterized current pressure as politically motivated and aimed at harming and weakening the Iranian people, stressing that Iran’s nuclear activities remain entirely peaceful.
Referring to the UN Security Council meeting held on Tuesday, Eslami said the discussions no longer merely warranted regret but instead exposed the reality of long-standing US pressure on Iran’s nuclear industry.
He noted that Washington has openly stated in its national security strategy that it does not pursue its interests through international organizations and, instead, relies on “the law of the jungle and the use of force.”
Eslami described the report, statements, and references made during the Security Council session as “completely unprofessional and non-legal.”
He emphasized that UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has expired, and even if it were to be cited, its procedural requirements were not followed.
Claims that Iran’s alleged non-compliance with the JCPOA justifies the reinstatement of previous UN sanctions, he said, are “entirely rejected and unacceptable.”
He added that China and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, have explicitly rejected these claims, stating that the push by the three European countries and the United States—backed by Israeli lobbying—has no legal standing and is not enforceable.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Eslami announced the launch of a nationwide multimedia festival titled “Nuclear Technology for Life,” organized jointly with Iran’s national broadcaster.
He said the initiative aims to counter misinformation and distorted narratives about Iran’s nuclear program by presenting multi-layered accounts through public and media participation.
How reporting facts can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist
By Jonathan Cook – December 22, 2025
Starmer’s government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it.
The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.
And lo behold, here we are.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.
Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.
But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.
It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.
When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.
The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance – violence – against an occupying army.
But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.
Now journalists, human rights activists and lawyers face a legal minefield every time they try to talk about the Gaza genocide, the trials of people accused of belonging to Palestine Action, or the hunger strikes of those on remand over attacks on weapons factories supplying killer drones to Israel.
Why? Because saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence. Any journalist, human rights activist or lawyer making factual observations risks 14 years behind bars.
Few seem to have understood quite what impact this is having on public coverage of these major issues.
A month and a half into the hunger strike by eight members of Palestine Action – the point at which people are likely to start dying – the BBC News at Ten finally broke its silence on the matter. That was despite the hunger strike being the largest in UK history in nearly half a century.
There are clear political reasons why the BBC had avoided this topic for so long. It prefers not to deal with matters that directly confront the legitimacy of the government, which funds it. The BBC is effectively the British state broadcaster.
But in a naturally spineless organisation like the BBC, the legal consequences have clearly weighed heavily too. In a recent short segment on the hunger strike, BBC correspondent Dominic Casciani carefully hedged his words and admitted to facing legal difficulties reporting on the strike.
In these circumstances, news organisations make one of two choices. They simply ignore factual things because it is legally too dangerous to speak truthfully about them. Or they lie about factual things because it is legally safe – and politically opportune – to speak untruthfully about them.
The so-called “liberal” parts of the media, including the BBC, tend to opt for the former; the red-tops usually opt for the latter.
The government itself is taking full advantage of this lacuna in reporting, injecting its own self-serving deceptions into the coverage, knowing that there will be – can be – no meaningful pushback.
Take just one example. The government has proscribed Palestine Action on the grounds that it is a terrorist organisation. It has justified its decision by implying, without producing a shred of evidence, that the group is funded by Iran, and that its real agenda is not just criminal damage against arms factories but against individuals.
Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment.
Were I to conduct an investigation, for example, definitively showing that Palestine Action was not funded by Iran – proving that the government was lying – it would be a terror offence to publish that truthful information. Why? Because it would almost certainly “encourage support” for Palestine Action. There is no fact or truth exemption in the legislation.
Similarly, the government has suggested that the current “Filton Trial” – which includes discussions of events in which a police officer was injured during a struggle over the sledgehammers being used to destroy the Elbit factory’s weapons-producing machinery – demonstrates that Palestine Action was not just targeting property but individuals too.
Were I to try to make the case that the alleged actions of one individual – only one person is charged with assault – prove nothing about the aims of the organisation as a whole, I would be risking a terrorism conviction and 14 years’ imprisonment. Which is one, very strong reason not to make such an argument.
But in the absence of such arguments, the reality is that social media is awash with posts from people echoing outrageous official disinformation. This spreads unchallenged because to challenge it is now cast as a terrorism offence.
In truth, since proscription, any statements about the political aims of a deeply political organisation like Palestine Action occupy a grey area of the law.
Is it a terrorism offence to point out the fact, as I have done above, that Palestine Action targeted Elbit factories that send killer drones to Israel for use in Gaza. In doing so, may I have “recklessly” encouraged you to support Palestine Action?
Can I express any kind of positive view about the hunger strikers or their actions without violating the law?
The truth is that the law’s greyness is its very point. It maximises the chilling effect on those who are supposed to serve as the public’s watchdogs on power: journalists, human rights groups, lawyers.
It allows the government – through compliant police forces – to selectively pick off those dissenting individuals it doesn’t like, those without institutional backing, to make examples of them. This is not conjecture. It is already happening.
The abuse of the Terrorism Act discourages research, analysis and critical thinking. It forces all journalists, human rights activists and lawyers to become lapdogs of the government. It creates a void into which the government can spin events to its own advantage, in which it can avoid accountability and in which it can punish those who dissent. It is the very antithesis of democratic behaviour.
This ought to appall anyone who cares about the truth, about public debate, about scrutiny. Because they have all been thrown out of the window.
And in proscribing Palestine Action, the government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation and thereby make it impossible to defend that group.
That is what authoritarian governments do. That is exactly where Britain is now.
Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 23, 2025
Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla will have to appear in person in the Netherlands to testify at a hearing in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit, a Dutch court ruled late last month.
The court order relates to a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. One of the victims has since died.
The lawsuit centers around the question “of whether the COVID-19 injections are a bioweapon,” Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant reported. In addition to Gates and Bourla, the suit names 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.
De Andere Krant said last month’s ruling “is a significant setback for the defendants, who are accused of misleading victims about the ‘safety and effectiveness’ of the vaccines.” However, it “remains to be seen” whether the defendants will comply with the court’s order and appear at next year’s hearing.
The defendants may face additional legal challenges in Dutch courts in the new year. A second lawsuit, filed in March by three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims in the Netherlands, presents a similar set of allegations and names the same defendants.
At a press conference last week, Dutch attorney Peter Stassen, who represents the vaccine-injured plaintiffs in both cases, earlier this month petitioned the courts in both cases to hear in-person testimony by five expert witnesses regarding the safety and efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
According to Stassen, oral hearings will be held in both cases next year, but hearing dates have not yet been scheduled. Stassen seeks to consolidate the cases.
The expert witnesses include:
- Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
- Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
- Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
- Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.
Earlier this month, Stassen and the expert witnesses released a series of YouTube videos presenting their evidence and proposed testimony.
Plaintiffs ‘victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth’
Both lawsuits have taken a circuitous path in the Dutch court system.
In October 2024, the District Court of Leeuwarden rejected Gates’ motion to dismiss the case, ruling that it has jurisdiction over Gates and ordering Gates to pay the defendants’ legal fees.
In June 2025, the plaintiffs increased their claims against the defendants and petitioned the court to accept the expert witnesses’ testimony.
On Dec. 7, Stassen submitted written statements and the recorded video statements by the expert witnesses to the District Court of Leeuwarden.
The second lawsuit kicked off in March with an application for preliminary evidence proceedings. In August, the District Court of Leeuwarden denied the application, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary hearing while attempting to join the 2023 lawsuit.
In September, Stassen filed an appeal, alleging that the court did not afford the plaintiffs a fair trial, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and calling upon the court to allow the expert witnesses to testify in court.
During last week’s press conference, Stassen said the plaintiffs — and the broader public — “are victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth.”
“By suppressing the truth, my clients were misled. Had they not been misled, they would not have gotten the COVID-19 shot, a shot that the suppressors of the truth still tout as a safe and effective vaccine to this day,” Stassen said.
Expert witnesses: COVID shots ‘indistinguishable from bioweapons’
During the press conference, Stassen also noted his efforts to have the Dutch courts accept his expert witnesses’ in-person testimony. He said the witnesses intend to present evidence showing that the COVID-19 shots:
- Are “indistinguishable from bioweapons.”
- Offer “no health benefits whatsoever.”
- Are “neither safe nor effective.”
- Were released in the U.S. under emergency use authorization, “a legal status that removes the enforcement of the pharmaceutical law and consumer safeguards by the FDA,” or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
- Are “by design, intended to cause the damage described in the package insert and reports as ‘side effects’” — including, “sudden death, heart failure, cancer, and the most horrific diseases.”
- Are a “key component” of the “Great Reset,” “a military project in which NATO plays a significant role.”
In their video statements, the experts questioned the safety of the COVID-19 shots and the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sansone told The Defender that he and the other expert witnesses are advocating to testify in court, as this “can be more influential” than written testimony.
Sansone said he intends to provide evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are bioweapons that violate the Biological Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — the latter authored by late University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, Ph.D., an expert witness in the original lawsuit who died in January.
“Governments, healthcare facilities and the media deliberately concealed this information from the public, showing clear criminal intent,” Sansone said in his video.
Latypova told The Defender the lawsuits are the only ones worldwide alleging that “COVID was not a public health event but a government ‘project’ that resulted in mass casualty that can be characterized as ‘genocide,’ or more broadly, ‘democide’ of the population.”
In her statement, Latypova alleged that “military governance and contracting were used to develop, procure, deliver, distribute these shots all over the world” — and to bypass standard regulatory oversight procedures for pharmaceutical products.
“There is substantial evidence of non-compliance with good manufacturing practices, which is the law that governs pharmaceutical purity and honesty in labeling all over the world,” Latypova said.
Watt said the vaccines were a component of a broader effort by political, military and pharmaceutical actors to deceive the public, using the pandemic as a pretext.
“Communicable disease and pandemic threats are political fabrications based on widespread use of intentionally deceptive diagnostic testing devices for the purposes of instilling public fear and justifying vaccination and biodefense programs,” she said.
According to Fitts, global central banks and financial institutions were involved in these efforts. She said the pandemic represented an “egregious misuse of healthcare policies to implement economic and political agendas” with the goal of engineering a “Great Reset” of the global financial system.
Yeadon said that since 2020, he has attempted to warn the public that the COVID-19 vaccines are designed to “lower the fertility [rate] and [people’s health] and reduce population.”
He said that even though he was censored on social media for making such comments, “this is what I have watched happen all around me for five years.”
Pfizer CEO sought to block expert witnesses, dismiss lawsuits
Stassen said that several of the defendants, including Bourla, Rutte and the Dutch state, sought to block the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Gates was the only defendant who “deferred to the court’s judgment on this point,” Stassen said.
In September, Gates and Bourla submitted written statements of defense.
In his statement, Gates said he does not have any connection to or influence over the policies of international bodies such as the World Health Organization, either personally or through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Bourla said the court “has been sufficiently informed and can dismiss the claims without the need to order an oral hearing.”
In a previous statement submitted to the District Court of Leeuwarden last year, Bourla denied that he was liable for the injuries and damages the plaintiffs sustained and maintained that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective.”
In June, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state. He remains confined in a high-security prison.
De Andere Krant reported that earlier this month, van Kessel’s pre-trial detention was extended until February, despite “a complete lack of convincing evidence.”
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.
The vindication (and brutal punishment) of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 23, 2025
Alongside the powers that be everywhere, Google’s still anonymous AI is also a pious believer in the virtues of free expression. It proclaims boldly and for all the right reasons that free speech is vital to democracy, in which it also claims to believe. It reminds us also, which is good to know, that freedom of expression promotes an informed citizenry and self-governance and ensures government accountability. Furthermore, that open dialogue and debate facilitate the “marketplace of ideas,” which is a vital condition for social progress and provides society with a much-needed “safety valve.” And finally, that the unhindered right to express one’s thoughts, beliefs, and values without fear is a fundamental aspect of human dignity and self-fulfilment. Amen, amen, amen.
In theory, all would heartily salute those noble sentiments. And that includes even some of their most ruthless violators, such as the German government.
For over a year after kidnapping him abroad, the German government kept prominent German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in prison on contrived charges and under extraordinarily harsh and inhuman conditions, which were seemingly designed just to torment him. In Germany, for Dr. Fuellmich at least, the right to express one’s thoughts with dignity (never mind self-fulfilment) in the manner so movingly preached by Google’s AI avatar went out the window many moons ago.
How many are there who still remember who Dr. Fuellmich is and what he stands for, let alone are aware of his current plight?
For those who do not, a brief note is in order. Shortly after the sudden appearance of the Covid affair in 2019, Dr. Fuellmich, a prominent trial attorney from Gottingen, gained public attention by raising sensible questions about the nature and origin of the commotion which was becoming global in scope. Identical questions were on the minds of many, but few were capable of articulating them in legal terms as effectively as he was. Initially, his questions were formulated rather timidly, barely overstepping the unspoken bounds of permissible inquiry. There was nigh a suggestion of any “conspiracy theory” or frontal challenge to the integrity of the system that in a matter of weeks had improvised, for purposes then still unknown, a global health emergency which was the pretext for unprecedentedly comprehensive social disruptions and the imposition of hitherto inconceivable restrictions on elementary human liberties.
As prominent professionals in the medical and other fields began also to sound the alarm and to raise questions from their respective areas of expertise, it became obvious to those who followed Reiner Fuellmich’s public pronouncements that both the direction and tone of the Covid inquiry he and his associates were pursuing were beginning to change. The issues he was now beginning to raise were no longer merely technical. Increasingly, as he dug deeper he was calling into question the bona fides of the political, media, and pharmaceutical intimidation machine that was invoking a supposed pandemic to implement a global lock-down regime, with compulsory mass injection of untested “therapeutic” substances.
Dr. Fuellmich’s basic questions about the “pandemic” are well worth recapitulating:
- “One: is there a corona pandemic, or is there only a PCR test pandemic, specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the person tested is infected with COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing, in connection with the COVID-19 infection;
- “Two, do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdowns, facemasks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from corona, or do they serve only to make people panic, so they believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that in the end, the pharmaceutical and technology companies can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints; and
- “Three, is it true that the German government was extensively lobbied, more so than any other government, by the chief protagonists of the so-called corona pandemic? Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world, for its strict, and therefore, successful adherence to the corona measures.”
When, compelling as they evidently were, those interrogatories remained ignored in the public arena (whilst Dr. Fuellmich himself was being ridiculed and vilified just for asking) there began a perceptible shift in the scope and focus of his inquiry. His razor sharp legal mind was activated in the highest degree. The Establishment’s stonewalling on mostly softball issues gradually led him to undertake an unsparing in-depth scrutiny of the systemic background of the global Covid affair, fully intending to go to the root of it and leaving no stone unturned. Dr. Fuellmich threw the gauntlet when he announced that he was assembling evidence of crimes against humanity on a massive scale and of sufficient weight to convene a Medical Nuremberg II, with parallel criminal and class action proceedings that he intended to initiate in the judicial system of the United States and also before the European Court of Human Rights.
Dr. Fuellmich had stepped on some very sensitive and hostile toes. Clearly no such lunacy as he was contemplating could possibly be allowed. Plans were laid immediately to derail him by means of one of those shabby, low life operations in which secret services excel. Informants were planted in the target’s immediate circle to snitch on him and under false witness to furnish compromising evidence. A secret indictment (lettre de cachet, as this practice was known under the ancien regime in France and which recently was revived by the Hague Tribunal) for a purported money laundering scheme was duly prepared and German authorities waited for the convenient opportunity to catch their unsuspecting prey. That opportunity presented itself two years ago when Dr. Fuellmich, as a German citizen, appeared on the premises of the German consulate in Mexico (technically German territory, of course) to solicit a routine consular service. There, he was apprehended and promptly packed off to Germany to be disposed of as the German authorities saw fit. The only saving grace is that he was not snuffed and chopped up like the dissident journalist at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Following an unprecedented, almost two-year, pre-trial incarceration under medieval conditions that was seemingly devised especially for him (the old “flight risk” ruse was cited as the official rationale for this harsh measure) in April 2025 Dr. Fuellmich was finally sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on the bogus charges filed against him. On the surface, everything appears neat and proper. Technically, he was condemned for a crime of moral turpitude. His real “offence” against the vindictive globalist Establishment, the irrefutable public exposure of its totalitarian and population-reduction agenda and its corrupt liaison with the nefarious pharmacological mafia and compulsory promotion of its lethal products, was not even alluded to in the course of those proceedings. Yet, while Dr. Fuellmich is rotting in prison, every one of the principal claims for which he actually was imprisoned is now being scientifically corroborated.
The so-called “covid vaccines” are now known to be associated with heart damage, exactly as Dr. Fuellmich and numerous other researchers insistently warned during the “pandemic” (also here). As predicted by Dr. Fuellmich and his research team, a surge of life threatening blood clots has been correlated with the mass injection of untested “vaccines.” There has also been a marked acceleration of deadly cancer conditions. As further evidence of the fraudulence of the “pandemic emergency,” a peer reviewed study has demonstrated that 86% of allegedly PCR-positive “Covid cases” were not even real infections. That had originally been stated by Dr. Fuellmich, to widespread derision at the time. It is a fact that dismantles the scientific foundation used to justify lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccine mandates. And perhaps the most damning fact of all, Japanese scientists have demonstrated that contrary to disinformation about infected bats and unsanitary Chinese markets when the pandemic broke out, all known Covid variants are in fact of laboratory origin. That raises obvious and legitimate questions about criminal intent both on the level of the proposed “cures” and of the fabricated health emergency itself that those cures presumably were developed to resolve.
The vicious treatment allotted to the distinguished German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is comparable to the persecution of figures like Giordano Bruno. It gives the lie to the collective West’s pharisaical pretence of freedom of expression. The dark stain it leaves will be indelibly recorded as a shameful episode in the history of German jurisprudence.
US Department of State Discloses Names of 5 Europeans Sanctioned for Censorship Against US
Sputnik – 24.12.2025
US Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers has disclosed the list of five Europeans who have been sanctioned by Washington for the extraterritorial censorship of Americans.
The list includes Thierry Breton, who is described as a mastermind of the Digital Services Act (DSA); Imran Ahmed, who headed the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that called for deplatforming US anti-vaxxers, including now Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy; Clare Melford, who leads the Global Disinformation Index (GDI); Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, the founder of German organization HateAid that was allegedly created to “counter conservative groups” and is an official censor under the DSA; and Josephine Ballon, the co-leader of HateAid.
“These sanctions are visa-related. We aren’t invoking severe Magnitsky-style financial measures, but our message is clear: if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil,” Rogers wrote on X.
The introduction of sanctions against five Europeans was announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The secretary said that “these radical activists and weaponized NGOs” had aided censorship crackdowns by foreign states, targeting American speakers and American companies.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 1, Mr. Clinton
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2025
A necessary introduction
I don’t usually write about these topics, but this time the matter is becoming interesting. The Epstein case is a Pandora’s box that reveals many power intrigues and the workings of certain geopolitical mechanisms currently in operation. For this reason, I will devote a series of articles – the Epstein Saga – to exploring some relevant aspects of this complicated affair.
First of all, it should be noted that the sources have been flawed, at least in part, from the outset. The files officially released by the US Department of Justice are mostly insignificant photographs, a large amount of .pdf files of what was found in Epstein’s residence; most of the files are obscured, with black stripes or squares concealing the identities and significant details of the material. This makes it very difficult to interpret the available material correctly and comprehensively.
The intent, however, is not to provide an exhaustive report on the entire affair—a task we gladly leave to investigative journalists—but rather to provoke reflection on the short- and long-term strategy behind this case.
The release of these files is part of a plan whose importance we still do not understand. It is a transformation taking place throughout the West, a transition from an old world of politics to a new one, through the fall of many masks.
The biggest problem, however, remains what will come next.
The context: what is happening these days
The most recent documents published on the Epstein case, in December 2025, include thousands of new records, photos, and investigative files from the Department of Justice and the House Oversight Committee. These documents contain images of prominent figures linked to Epstein, details of his travels and properties, grand jury transcripts, and investigative reports, including a 1996 FBI complaint about alleged child pornography and harassment. Many of the files have been heavily redacted to protect victims, but some pages have been completely blacked out, drawing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for the lack of transparency.
Among the new revelations are photos of Epstein’s Little St. James Island, emails from his estate referring to high-profile figures, and a previously missing minute of video from his cell block before his death. The release also includes a transcript and audio recording of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as additional court documents and flight logs. The Department of Justice has stated that several hundred thousand documents will be released in batches, with more expected in the coming weeks.
Some documents, including a photo associated with President Trump, were reportedly removed from the initial release, sparking further controversy and calls for full transparency. The latest batch of documents continues to fuel public and political debate about the responsibility and scope of Epstein’s network.
Hey, Bill!
The first person worth mentioning is former US President Bill Clinton.
In one photograph, he is sitting on a private jet, smiling relaxed and his face slightly flushed, while a young blonde woman is reclining on the armrest of his chair. In another shot, he appears reclining, shirtless, in a hot tub, his hands clasped behind his head; the face of the person next to him is covered by a black box. In other images, he is seen smiling next to Mick Jagger, wearing a shirt and elegant jacket. In yet another, he is swimming in a luxurious marble-lined indoor pool with Ghislaine Maxwell, a key figure in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization. And then, smiling again, he is wearing a decorated silk shirt and standing side by side with Epstein himself.
The powerful American Democratic leader is undoubtedly one of the most mentioned VIPs in the Epstein documents. In the quarter-century since leaving office, Clinton has worked carefully to put the personal scandals that marked his presidency behind him. Today, at 79, he leads the typical life of a former statesman: traveling the world for conferences and commemorations, writing memoirs and political novels, and continuing the work of his philanthropic foundation. But that is not enough to escape the serious allegations that Epstein’s files quietly reveal, namely less institutional aspects of Clinton’s personality, such as his penchant for extramarital affairs, rash decisions, and a certain impulsiveness.
Already in 2017, Clinton had been at the center of numerous allegations, from sexual harassment to non-consensual exhibitionism to rape, allegations that Clinton has always denied. But what about now, with the files of the Epstein case?
In his memoir published in 2024, Clinton wrote that he had only two “brief encounters” with Epstein: one in his Harlem office and one at the financier’s New York residence. Between 2002 and 2003, Clinton admitted to flying several times on Epstein’s jet with his staff and Secret Service escort to support his foundation’s activities. In exchange for the flight, he explained, he devoted “an hour or two” to conversations about politics and economics.
“That was the content of our conversations,” he wrote. “Although those trips allowed me to visit foundation projects, getting on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questions that followed.”
The section closes with a sentence that is perhaps more revealing than the images themselves:
“I wish I had never met him.”
The Department of Justice has announced that additional documents will be made public in the coming weeks. The political aims of the first tranche of disclosures, however, appear clear: to shift attention away from Trump’s possible involvement in the scandal and focus the spotlight on Clinton instead.
The release of the images is unlikely to end Clinton’s political difficulties related to her relationship with Epstein. For months, the Clintons have tried to avoid appearing directly before the House Oversight Committee as part of the Epstein investigation. Such a hearing would be exceptional: no former president has testified before Congress since 1983, when Gerald Ford did so during the bicentennial celebrations of the Constitution.
The publication of the photos could increase public pressure for the couple to participate openly in the investigation and reignite questions about Clinton’s version of events, according to which he was unaware of Epstein’s crimes and severed all ties after the first reports of the investigation emerged in 2005.
On several occasions, not only the allegations but also the accusers themselves have been brought to the forefront of the political scene: in 2016, less than two hours before the second presidential debate, Trump and his campaign manager, Stephen K. Bannon, organized an impromptu press conference with three women who claimed to have been discredited or ignored by the Clintons after reporting sexual harassment. In 2019, a few hours after Epstein’s death in his cell, Trump relaunched an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on social media linking Clinton to the financier’s death. Since then, Trump has continued to claim that Clinton spent a lot of time on Epstein’s private island, an accusation that the former president has always denied and that has also been refuted by Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, and Ghislaine Maxwell herself.
Bill Clinton’s presidency was marked by several high-profile scandals, the most notable of which was the Monica Lewinsky affair. In the late 1990s, Clinton, then president of the United States, was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. After months of denials, Clinton finally admitted to having had “inappropriate intimate contact” with Lewinsky, calling it a personal failure and an error in judgment. His initial denials under oath led to accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate but remained deeply compromised by the scandal.
In addition to the Lewinsky affair, Clinton faced other controversies. The Whitewater scandal involved allegations of financial impropriety related to a failed real estate venture in Arkansas in which Clinton and his wife Hillary were investors. Although the investigation did not lead to criminal charges against the Clintons, it consumed much of Clinton’s second term and contributed to a climate of suspicion surrounding his administration.
Among Clinton’s accusers was Paula Jones, who filed a lawsuit against him in 1994 for sexual harassment. The former president settled the case out of court for $850,000 without admitting guilt. Other women, such as Kathleen Willey, have made similar allegations, although Clinton has always denied any wrongdoing.
However, it is not only Republicans who consider the allegations of sexual assault and harassment to be a political burden for Clinton. Even within the Democratic Party, although there has been no dramatic distancing, there has been a gradual attempt to relegate the former president to the background. His presence in election campaigns has been reduced compared to the past, with some candidates preferring to avoid him altogether. At the 2020 Democratic convention, Clinton appeared for less than five minutes in a pre-recorded speech broadcast before prime time. Four years later, he returned to the stage, speaking for 27 minutes, far exceeding the allotted time.
With the recent publication of the photographs, Clinton’s critics seem to have found a new foothold to reopen a chapter that the former president has long tried to close. And this is only the beginning of the uncovering of the rot present in the American Democratic world… as well as in the Republican one.
Bill Clinton is in the frame again, but this time it’s Trump who put him there
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2025
“The photos depict a web of unsavoury relationships and associations that complicate both Democratic efforts to keep the focus on Trump and the incumbent president’s desire to move on from the issue entirely,” reported the AP when the first major tranche of photos from the so-called Epstein files was released in mid-December.
Bill Clinton’s prominent appearance in the photos at least sheds some light on why Democrats, when in power, refused to lift the lid on the stinking Epstein affair—doing so would have been akin to shooting themselves in the foot, and Joe Biden obviously didn’t want to drop the Clintons in it.
Many might argue we shouldn’t be shocked to see Bill feature in this tawdry affair, given his reputation for an inability to control his carnal needs. The list of women he has been accused of assaulting is extensive, as are the lengths to which Hillary has gone to protect him.
Two things emerge from this latest batch of photos, which show Bill Clinton in close proximity to very young girls while spending time with Epstein. First, the Trump administration has decided that if the scandal is going to erupt, they might as well land the first political blow—and so they have reached for the lowest-hanging fruit: Bill. Second, the Clintons themselves will likely make a mockery of the entire corrupt U.S. political system by bypassing its legal institutions. They have already started this by ignoring congressional committee requests to appear and testify.
But in any case, the gloves are off. This is now outright war between Republicans and Democrats—and the latter will do everything in its power, using its deep contacts within institutions like the FBI, to get its hands on the Trump photos, which have, of course, been removed from the official release.
However, it is fair to say Clinton appears to have been even closer to Epstein than Trump was.
When Clinton was president, records show Epstein visited the White House multiple times. Later, after Clinton left office, Epstein assisted with some of the former president’s philanthropic efforts. Clinton flew multiple times on Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” including on a humanitarian trip to Africa in 2002 with disgraced actor Kevin Spacey and comedian Chris Tucker.
Even Democratic-leaning journalists in the U.S. note that Clinton’s personal weaknesses have always clashed with his public moralizing—and his association with Epstein serves as a stark reminder of that. This goes far beyond receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office. It stretches back decades.
His 1992 campaign was rocked by rumours of an affair with Gennifer Flowers, which he denied at the time. His presidency was hit even harder when he was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice after denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He ultimately acknowledged an “inappropriate” affair with her.
Currently, it seems the pressure from Democrats to release the files—whether genuine or not—has backfired, as the trove of photos reveals numerous images of Clinton and Epstein together. In fact, these pictures of the two hanging out as old friends are arguably more damaging than the ones in which a young girl’s face has been pixelated—supposedly a DOJ initiative to “protect minors or victims.” That framing alone is a clean shot designed to hit its target, and for now, it is Clinton in the frame, facing media wrath even from traditionally Democratic-leaning outlets like CNN. Recently, conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings suggested the files should be renamed the “Clinton Files.”
Of course, simply being photographed next to Epstein is not a crime and could, in certain cases, reflect innocent proximity. A number of famous faces appear in the first batch of files—alongside Clinton and Prince Andrew, there are also shots of musicians Mick Jagger and Michael Jackson.
What’s important to note is that Bill Clinton is known to share the same sexual compulsions as Prince Andrew, whom a royal biographer recently remarked on a podcast “needed to have sex three times a day.” Epstein reportedly referred to Andrew as the only person as depraved as he was when it came to young women. Clinton, like Andrew, has a history that can’t be airbrushed away—and the photos of him with young girls are a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It stinks.
Naturally, that won’t stop Democrats from calling this stunt what it is: a well-timed smear ahead of the midterms, where Trump is expected to likely lose both houses of Congress. Failing quick-fix policies on the economy and foreign policy—which are having a doubly damaging effect—will hit Trump hard at the ballot box, potentially rendering him impotent in the second half of his term. How long he can maintain the farce that the Epstein story is empirically linked to the Democrats is uncertain, though it is worrying that a war in the Middle East against Iran looks increasingly likely to be used as a tool to deflect blame from his lacklustre performance as a populist leader—one struggling to help blue-collar Americans and restore the country’s former global hegemony.
US Navy effectively becomes a tool of modern piracy
By Drago Bosnic | December 24, 2025
The political West has been conducting an unprovoked aggression against the entire world for at least half a millennium at this point. Whether through direct attacks and occupation or various forms of colonialism (that lasts to this day), the world’s most aggressive power pole has been a threat to every other country on this unfortunate planet. Although certainly not the only one, the primary tool of Western power projection have been navies, which is hardly surprising given the political West’s thalassocratic nature. Through naval supremacy, Western (primarily Anglo) powers have spread their colonial empires to virtually every corner of the world, exterminating the native populations along the way and settling in their lands.
Entire continents (such as North America and Australia) were secured through brutal genocide of the locals who now live in small, scattered communities (so-called “reservations/reserves”). The genocidal campaign continued throughout the Atlantic and Pacific, where numerous islands and maritime trade routes remain in Western hands to this very day. Controlling these areas is key to maintaining its stranglehold over global trade, as seen during the latest US attacks on inbound and outbound Venezuelan shipping. However, the Pentagon seems to be expanding this aggression to other countries trading with Caracas, including China, which is a major importer of Venezuelan commodities (particularly crude oil).
Namely, the US Navy and Coast Guard hijacked the “Centuries”, an oil tanker carrying up to two million barrels of Venezuelan crude to China. According to military sources, American forces, operating MH-60T helicopters and reportedly including a Maritime Security Response Team, led the raid. The oil belongs to the Chinese Satau Tijana Oil Trading company. In December alone, this is the third such incident where US naval assets effectively engaged in piracy, as these civilian ships were hijacked in international waters. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned the illegal raid, slamming it as a “serious violation of international maritime law and an illegal interference in legitimate global trade”.
This is an attempt to continue the policy of economic strangulation of Venezuela after the sanctions failed to produce the desired result (a color revolution that would bring a pro-American puppet regime to power). It comes less than a week after US President Donald Trump formally ordered the “total and complete blockade” of Venezuela, claiming that its government is now designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO). In his signature manner of communicating through the unchecked use of superlatives, Trump also bragged that the US Navy “completely surrounded” Venezuela with “the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America”. Considering Caracas’ already difficult position, this is effectively a declaration of war.
Namely, Venezuela has a highly complex geographical and geopolitical position that makes lands routes largely unusable. Its coastline is the main lifeline that enables trade with the rest of the world, so Washington DC’s decision to engage in piracy against Caracas is a clear indicator that it doesn’t want to allow any sovereign nations to exist in the Western Hemisphere (especially now that the new US National Security Strategy and the restructuring of the Pentagon’s commands is putting an emphasis on the resurgent Monroe Doctrine). Venezuela is probably the most fiercely independent Latin American country, making it the No. 1 target for warmongers and war criminals in the monstrous American oligarchy.
What’s more, considering the fact that these pirates, thugs and goons in suits are terrified of China and its unprecedented development, they wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to hurt Beijing’s interests. The Chinese economy, the world’s largest and most powerful since 2014, needs a constant supply of critical resources (particularly natural gas and oil). The US is unable to prevent Russia and other multipolar powers from trading with China, so it’s focused on disrupting this with other, more vulnerable countries, such as Venezuela. This is precisely why Beijing perceives the US, its vassals and satellite states as the primary threat to Chinese shipping and maritime trade (and naval security interests in general).
Obviously, the most glaring example of this is China’s breakaway island province of Taiwan, where a US puppet government is escalating tensions and jeopardizing Beijing’s basic national security interests. However, the Asian giant certainly understands that this is only one segment of the Western so-called “China containment” strategy that seeks to limit its ability to conduct unimpeded trade with the world. This is why China keeps building an ever stronger navy that can respond to such challenges. Namely, the US-led political West will undoubtedly continue to conduct its unprovoked aggression against the entire world unless prevented through the use of the only language it understands – force and violence.
It should be noted that this isn’t some spontaneous reaction to Beijing’s growth. And it’s certainly not limited only to the Trump administration. Namely, starting in the early 2010s, Barack Obama launched the so-called “Pivot to Asia” initiative to build up US/NATO presence in the Asia-Pacific. This continued during Trump’s first term, as well as the troubled Biden administration. In practice, this means that the warmongering American oligarchy pulls the strings regardless of who’s president. The Pentagon has increasingly stressed the need to launch “distant blockade operations”, the strategic goal of which is to cut off Chinese trade. This would give the US-led political West significant leverage over Beijing.
The same goes for Russia, whose shipping has been under attack for years, particularly when the Neo-Nazi junta is not doing so great on the battlefield in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Although the political West is attributing these attacks to the Kiev regime, it’s difficult to imagine the latter could conduct such operations thousands of kilometers away without ample Western support (if not direct orders and participation). This form of piracy gives the US, its vassals and satellite states perfect “plausible deniability”, meaning they can disrupt Moscow’s and Beijing’s economic interests without the need to engage Russian and Chinese militaries directly. This is precisely how piracy was used geopolitically until the early 18th century.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
EU Morphing Into Its Own Worst Enemy – Viktor Orban
Sputnik – 24.12.2025
The decline of the European Union, rather than the Ukrainian conflict, is what really threatens to plunge Europe into war, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban told the Magyar Nemzet newspaper.
The real reason of the existing risk of escalation, Orban argued, is the political, economic and social decline of Western Europe, whereas the Ukrainian conflict is more of a symptom of the current situation rather than its cause.
According to him, the process that led to this state of affairs started during the 2000s and was exacerbated by Europe’s inadequate reaction to the ensuing financial crisis.
Orban also noted that a war in Europe may break out soon, and that 2025 might have been the last peaceful year for the region.
He pointed out that the decisions that were made at the EU summit in Brussels last week were aimed at prolonging the Ukrainian conflict and continuing Europe’s confrontation with Russia.
Though there are powers in Europe that seek peace – like Hungary, for example – Orban warns that those European elites who seek war seem to be gaining an upper hand.
Next year’s election is a choice between peace and war, warns Hungarian PM Orbán
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | December 23, 2025
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has said that recent anti-war rallies in Hungary serve to explain to the public what he described as decisions being taken behind closed doors as Europe prepares for war.
Speaking on TV2’s Tények program, he said European leaders at a summit over the weekend had effectively convened a “war council,” with speeches focused on defeating Russia, and argued that a growing divide has emerged between the United States and Europe since the inauguration of Donald Trump in January.
“Previously, it was unthinkable within NATO that the United States would say no to something and European states would still go ahead and do it,” the prime minister said.
Orbán warned Europe is much closer to war than most Hungarians realize, noting what he described as a German war plan to seize Russian currency reserves held in Western Europe, a move he claimed that would openly turn Europe into Russia’s enemy.
According to the prime minister, Hungary will now have a war-free Christmas, but the danger has not passed. He said the European Union wants to provide Ukraine with €90 billion over two years, despite having no funds of its own, and is therefore seeking loans from banks that he claimed would never be repaid. Orbán said Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary refused to provide guarantees for the borrowing. “This would have cost Hungarian families 400 billion forints. We will not pay that — full stop,” he said.
Orbán argued that Europe has more private-sector assets in Russia than the value of the funds it would have seized, adding that Hungary also holds significant corporate assets there. He expressed hope that U.S.-Russian negotiations would succeed despite what he called counter-campaigning by Europe’s political elite. He claimed that anti-war views now dominate Western public opinion as the economic costs of the conflict rise.
“From a Hungarian perspective, war is the most horrific thing that can happen,” he said. “We know how a war consumes a nation’s future and decades of hard work.”
The prime minister also argued that financial interests are pushing politicians toward conflict. He said bankers were driving Europe toward war, as they did before World War I, and claimed that within months the divide between Hungarian and European politics would become even clearer. Germany, he said, is pro-war, as is the European People’s Party, while his administration in Budapest represents what he called the party of peace.
“We will not allow ourselves to be dragged into war,” Orbán said, adding that Europe’s stated aim of being ready for war with Russia by 2030 turns Hungary’s upcoming elections into a choice between peace and war. “We — and I personally — will succeed in keeping Hungary out of the war,” he said.
Turning to domestic policy, Orbán spoke of what he described as a “tax revolution,” saying the government had launched fixed-rate home-ownership and business loan programs, restored the fourteenth-month pension, and introduced lifetime tax exemptions for mothers with two or three children. “By the end of the year, every program was launched. Only we are doing this in an era preparing for war,” he said.
On the opposition Tisza Party, Orbán said, “The Tisza Party’s program is Brussels’ program. But Hungary must not take the Brussels path — we must stay on the Hungarian path.” He added that Hungary’s low household energy prices could only be maintained through agreements with Russia, the United States, and Turkey, warning that EU plans to scrap the policy would amount to “brutal austerity” for families.
Featured Video
SANCTIONED: Col Jacques Baud Explains Being the EU’s TARGET
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Ways of the Jewish Slave Traders
NOI RESEARCH GROUP • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 8, 2024
“As Mr. Yakub continued to preach for converts, he told his people that he would make the others work for them. (This promise came to pass.) Naturally, there are always some people around who would like to have others do their work. Those are the ones who fell for Mr. Yakub’s teaching, 100 per cent.” — The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, chapter 55 of Message to the Blackman in America titled “The Making of Devil”
“Three blessings a Jewish man is obligated to pray daily: ‘(Blessed art Thou,) Who did not make me a gentile; Who did not make me a woman; and Who did not make me a slave.’” — Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 43b–44a
The story of the Jewish American experience that most Jews want to believe, and want the world to believe, is one of almost endless historical victimhood. They insist that they fled anti-Semitic oppression in Europe, landing safely on Ellis Island long after the Civil War’s end in 1865, and certainly some did. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea…
Aletho News- The architecture of extermination: Why the Gaza genocide is premeditated and repeatable
- Israeli-UAE Aggression In Yemen Could Backfire Enormously
- German journalist says she was sexually assaulted in Israeli custody
- Moscow accuses Bloomberg of spreading ‘fake news’
- Nigeria rebuffs Trump’s persecution narrative despite US coordination
- SANCTIONED: Col Jacques Baud Explains Being the EU’s TARGET
- Fuel rationing chaos looms in New York State
- Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants
- The Rebirth of ISIS, Israel and the Continuation of Syria’s Civil War
- Europe’s Panic Economy: Frozen Assets, Empty Arsenals, and the Quiet Admission of Defeat
- If Americans Knew
- Christmas in the grip of genocide, occupation – Not a Ceasefire Day 77
- Palestinian Christians offer “Kairos,” an alternative Christmas Day sermon – Not a Ceasefire Day 76
- The Faces of AIPAC: the largest pro-Israel lobbying org in the US
- Gazan Christians mark 3rd Christmas under genocide – Not a Ceasefire Day 75
- Israeli scams children with cancer out of millions fundraised for their treatment, BBC finds
- Casey Kennedy Fired from AG Scientific Amid Zionist Troll Campaign Over Track AIPAC Work
- The Hasmoneans: The Jewish Dynasty That Gave Us Hanukkah Is a Symbol of Murder, Not Heroism and Hope
- Int’l NGOs may be blocked from Gaza starting Jan. 1 – Not a Ceasefire Day 74
- From Churches to ChatGPT: Israeli Contracts Worth Millions Aim to Influence U.S. Public Opinion
- Who is the Pro-Israel Clique behind TikTok’s US Takeover?
- No Tricks Zone
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
Aletho News 