Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Fānpán – Is China Turning the Tables on the ‘Democratic’ West?

By Mats Nilsson | 21st Century Wire | January 29, 2026

As a European born analyst with a realist mindset, I was, if not surprised, at least slightly intrigued when I read that China feels freer than Germany in the Era of Xi Jinping’s reforms.

In a world where narratives about freedom and authoritarianism are often painted in stark black and white, the words of Ai Weiwei, one of China’s, in the West most prominent dissident artists, have sent shockwaves through the European cultural scene, hurting our self-image. Ai, known for his bold critiques of the Chinese government, his iconic installations like the “Sunflower Seeds” at Tate Modern, and his 81-day detention in 2011, has long been a symbol of resistance against perceived oppression in his homeland. Yet, after a decade in exile, living primarily in Germany, Ai’s recent return visit to China has led him to a startling conclusion: Beijing now feels “more humane” than Berlin, and Germany, once renown for its liberalism, comes across as “insecure and unfree.” This perspective, shared in a candid interview with the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung following his trip, challenges entrenched stereotypes and invites a deeper examination of how societal freedoms are experienced in daily life, in Europe of today.

Ai’s statements are not mere embellishment; they stem from personal encounters that highlight bureaucratic inefficiencies, social isolation, and institutional irrationality in the West, contrasted with the efficiency and warmth he rediscovered in China. But what underpins this shift? A closer look reveals that Ai’s observations align closely with the sweeping reforms outlined by Chinese President Xi Jinping in his seminal works, particularly the multi-volume series Xi Jinping: The Governance of China. These books, which compile Xi’s speeches, writings, and policy directives, emphasize streamlining governance, enhancing people’s livelihoods, and fostering a “people-centered” development model. Under Xi’s leadership since 2012, China has undergone transformations that prioritize efficiency, anti-corruption, and social harmony; elements that Ai implicitly praises through his anecdotes.

When I read about Ai’s new insights, and tying them to Xi’s reforms, I can suddenly argue that in practical terms, China may indeed offer a form of freedom that eludes many in the West today.

Weiwei’s story is one of displacement. Born in 1957, he grew up amid the tumult of the Cultural Revolution, with his father, the poet Ai Qing, exiled to a labor camp. Ai himself rose to global fame through art that critiqued power structures, such as his investigation into the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which exposed local government negligence in school collapses. His activism led to clashes with Chinese authorities, culminating in his 2011 arrest on charges of tax evasion, a move in the West widely seen as politically motivated.

Released but stripped of his passport until 2015, Ai fled to Germany, where he was granted asylum and continued his work from Berlin and later Portugal. For ten years, Ai immersed himself in European life, producing art that often lambasted both Chinese and Western hypocrisies. Yet, his return visit to China in late 2025 marked a pivotal moment.

In the Berliner Zeitung interview, Ai describes Beijing not as the oppressive dystopia of Western media portrayals but as “a broken jade being perfectly reassembled.” He reports feeling no fear upon arrival, a stark contrast to his past experiences. Instead, he encountered a society that felt vibrant and accessible. “Perfectly ordinary people from at least five different professions lined up, hoping to meet me,” Ai recounts, highlighting a social openness that he found lacking in Germany.

This warmth, Ai suggests, extends to everyday interactions. In Germany, he laments, “almost no one has ever invited me to their home. Neighbors from above or below exchange at most a brief nod.” Such isolation, he argues, contributes to a sense of precariousness in Western societies. In China, by contrast, the immediate eagerness of strangers to connect reflects a cultural and social fabric that prioritizes community over individualism; a theme echoed in Xi’s reforms.

This also touches on the issue of bureaucracy and freedom. At the heart of Ai’s critique is the suffocating bureaucracy he encountered in Europe, which he claims makes daily life “at least ten times” more difficult than in China. A poignant example is his experience with banking. Upon returning to China, Ai reactivated a dormant bank account in mere minutes, discovering it still held “a considerable sum of money.” This seamless process stands in sharp relief to his ordeals in the West: “In Germany, my bank accounts were closed twice. And not just mine, but my girlfriend’s as well. In Switzerland, I was refused an account at the country’s largest bank, and another bank later closed my account there as well.”

Ai describes these incidents as “extraordinarily complicated and often irrational,” hinting at possible political motivations or overzealous compliance with anti-money laundering regulations that disproportionately affect outspoken figures like himself, and just recently struck US analyst and author Scott Ritter.

This disparity underscores a broader point about freedom: while Western democracies trumpet abstract rights like free speech, the practical exercise of freedom is often hampered by bureaucratic hindrances. In Germany, a country renowned for its efficiency in engineering, the administrative state can feel labyrinthine. Opening a bank account, registering a residence, or navigating healthcare requires layers of documentation, appointments, and verifications that can take weeks or months. Ai’s account stems from “de-risking” practices, where banks sever ties with high-profile clients to avoid regulatory government scrutiny; practices that have over the last four years intensified in Europe amid geopolitical tensions.

In contrast, China’s banking system under Xi has embraced digital innovation to enhance accessibility. Xi’s The Governance of China (Volume I, 2014) outlines reforms to modernize financial services, emphasizing “inclusive finance” to ensure even remote or dormant accounts remain functional. Through initiatives like the widespread adoption of mobile payment platforms such as WeChat Pay China has reduced bureaucratic hurdles, allowing transactions and account management to occur instantaneously via smartphones. Ai’s quick reactivation exemplifies this: no endless forms, no interrogations; just efficiency. This aligns with Xi’s push for “streamlining administration and delegating power,” a key reform pillar aimed at cutting red tape and boosting economic vitality.

Xi’s books repeatedly stress that true freedom emerges from governance that serves the people. In The Governance of China (Volume II, 2017), he discusses anti-corruption campaigns that have purged inefficiencies and graft from institutions, including banks. Since 2012, over 1.5 million officials have been disciplined, fostering a cleaner, more responsive system. This has translated into practical freedoms: the ability to access services without fear of arbitrary denial. Ai’s experience suggests that in China, freedom is not just rhetorical but operational, free from the “cold, rational, and deeply bureaucratic” constraints he felt in Germany.

Xi’s people-centered approach finds confirmation in Ai’s assertion that Beijing’s political climate feels “more natural and humane” than Germany’s. This in my humble view, points toward a deeper cultural and policy shift. Ai portrays Germany as a place where individuals feel “confined and precarious,” struggling under the weight of historical guilt and future uncertainties. This resonates with critiques of Western societies, where economic inequality, rising populism, and social fragmentation have eroded communal bonds. In Europe, the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with energy crises and migration debates, has heightened a sense of insecurity. Ai’s social isolation in Germany, minimal neighborly interactions, mirrors surveys showing increasing loneliness in Western nations.

China, under Xi, has pursued a different path. Xi’s reforms, as detailed in The Governance of China (Volume III, 2020), prioritize “building a community with a shared future for mankind,” emphasizing social harmony and collective well-being. This includes massive poverty alleviation efforts, lifting nearly 100 million people out of extreme poverty by 2021: a feat Xi describes as ensuring “no one is left behind.”

Such policies foster a society where, as Ai observed in his interview, ordinary people eagerly engage with others, creating a humane environment. Moreover, Xi’s focus on cultural confidence has revitalized community ties. In Volume IV (2023), he advocates for “socialist core values” like civility and harmony, which manifest in everyday life through neighborhood committees, volunteer networks, and cultural events. Ai’s warm reception upon return; people from various professions seeking him out, reflects this. It’s a far cry from the European atomized individualism, where privacy norms can border on alienation.

Critics might argue that China’s harmony comes at the cost of dissent, pointing to tightened controls on expression under Xi. Yet, Ai’s lack of fear during his visit suggests a nuance: while political criticism remains sensitive, daily freedoms, economic mobility, social interaction, access to services, have expanded. Xi’s reforms include “rule of law” initiatives, with over 300 laws revised since 2012 to protect individual rights in non-political spheres. This “selective freedom” may feel more liberating in practice than the West’s more abstract liberties of today.

One must also consider China’s economic transformations in this aspect. Xi’s books outline the “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation through innovation-driven growth. Reforms like the Belt and Road Initiative and dual circulation strategy have bolstered domestic resilience, reducing reliance on Western systems that Ai found unreliable. Xi critiques European protectionism in his writings, advocating for open economies. Ironically, Ai, once a Western darling, now embodies the pitfalls of this approach, his accounts closed perhaps due to his Chinese ties, highlighting how geopolitical insecurities undermine personal freedoms. In China, Xi’s anti-corruption drive has stabilized institutions, ensuring accounts like Ai’s remain intact despite dormancy. This stability contributes to the “unfree” feeling Ai ascribes to Germany, which he says, “plays the role of an insecure and unfree country, struggling to find its position between history and future.”

Xi’s reforms, by contrast, position China as forward-looking, with policies like the 14th Five-Year Plan emphasizing high-quality development and environmental sustainability, creating a sense of progress and security.

So, in conclusion, Weiwei’s reflections serve as a mirror—forcing the West to confront its own contradictions. Germany, with its history of division and reunification, symbolizes the democratic triumph, and yet, Ai’s experiences reveal cracks: overregulation, social coldness, and institutional paranoia.

This isn’t unique to Germany or the EU; similar issues plague the U.S. and U.K., where bureaucratic hurdles in immigration, healthcare, and finance frustrate citizens. Xi’s governance model offers an alternative: efficiency through centralization, humaneness through collectivism. While not without flaws, critics note surveillance and censorship, and so Ai’s endorsement suggests that for many, China’s system delivers tangible freedoms. His words directly challenge the binary of “free West vs. authoritarian East,” urging a reevaluation based on lived realities. Ai Weiwei’s declaration that China feels more humane and freer than Germany isn’t a reversal of his principles, but an evolution based on experience. It underscores the success of Xi Jinping’s reforms in creating a society where bureaucracy recedes, community thrives, and daily life flows unencumbered. As the world grapples with uncertainty, perhaps the West can learn from China’s jade-like reassembly, piecing together a more practical freedom for all?

Author Mats Nilsson LL.M is political analyst and legal historian based in Sweden. See more of his work at The Dissident Club on Substack.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Davos, Mark Carney’s frankness, and the Euro-American rift

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 29, 2026

One of the defining factors of the era beginning from the second half of the 20th century is the partnership between the USA and Europe – initially only Western Europe, eventually most of the old continent. But “partnership” is perhaps an imprecise term. The ideal term would probably be “occupation,” since, as defined by Lord Ismay, NATO was created to “keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down.”

In the meantime, Europeans grew accustomed to an automatic alignment with the USA, quite similar to that of Ibero-American countries during the same period, with the exception of the brief period when Charles de Gaulle distanced his country from NATO. Otherwise, the Atlantic Alliance gradually absorbed European countries.

The confusion is such that when speaking of “Western civilization,” most people think of Europe and the USA together, not only as expressions of the same civilization but as possessing identical fundamental and strategic interests. The Davos Forum or World Economic Forum can be thought of as the “celebration” of this civilizational alliance, an event bringing together political, economic, and societal leaders from around the world to discuss the priorities to be adopted in the coming years.

Historically, the USA and its representatives have always been prominent at the Davos Forum in all discussions, whether on environmental issues, the supposed need to censor the internet, or the social transformations considered necessary to deal with the 2020 pandemic crisis or future health crises. It was a space for consensus and planning among the North Atlantic elites.

However, Trump’s antagonistic stance towards the countries of the European Union inevitably significantly changed the atmosphere of Davos this time.

The pressures and demands for the cession of Greenland, including the threat of using military force, ultimately became the driving force of interactions among the elites. Naturally, at this moment, EU countries would not be capable of mounting significant military resistance to the USA in Greenland. But the increase in European military presence on the Danish-owned island seems to serve simply as the drawing of a red line.

And despite Mark Rutte rushing to try to find some sort of compromise with Trump on the Greenland issue, the reality is that Trump’s mere threat and pressure against his supposed allies was enough to leave scars. In other words, no matter how timid and cowardly current European leadership may be, to the point of yielding time and again, European distrust and ill-will towards the USA is still likely to increase.

Perhaps it is even necessary to look at other sectors besides the political summit. Among intellectuals, think tanks, journalists, and influencers, it seems easier to find tougher and more critical positions regarding the USA, as well as less willingness to reconcile, than among national political leaders.

“Anti-Americanism,” once a central plank for both nationalist and socialist parties in Europe but fallen into disuse after the Cold War, may end up becoming an important discursive topic again in this era of rising diverse populisms.

To a large extent, the speech by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, can be seen as a reasonable summary of the current geopolitical moment.

Throughout his speech in Davos, Carney emphasized that for decades, Canada and most Western countries remained aligned with the so-called “rules-based international order,” even considering it partly fictional; still, it was a useful and pleasant fiction. The other Western countries knew that these rules were not applied equally to all countries, and that stronger countries were practically exempt from most of their regulations. Everything in that order depended on who was the “accused” and who was the “accuser.” Different countries, engaged in the same actions, such as suppressing civilian protesters, for example, would receive different treatment depending on who their leaders and governments were: some would receive no more than a symbolic slap on the wrist, others would be bombed and have their heads of state executed in sham courts.

And these Western countries were satisfied as long as the bombed countries were African or Arab or, occasionally, some Slavic country like Serbia. This was because, for a few countries, that order allowed them to collect benefits in the form of capitalist extractivism.

Now, however, the international order has ended. It does not even survive as a farce – according to Carney himself. Faced with a series of crises, many countries began to perceive global integration more as an Achilles’ heel than as an advantage. Goods might have been cheaper, but what good is the theoretical availability of cheaper products when, in times of crisis, they become inaccessible, as during the health crisis. Or when sanctions simply make trade relations unviable for targeted countries.

For Carney, therefore, some countries have decided to transform themselves into fortresses, primarily concerned with ensuring their own energy, food, and military autonomy. And one of the basic consequences of this change is the decline of multilateral organizations. International courts, the WHO, the WTO, the World Bank, and various other bodies are increasingly ignored and disdained by regional powers – in the case of countries outside the “Atlantic axis,” because they consider the influence of the USA and its allies in these bodies too great; in the case of the USA, because, on the contrary, they consider that these bodies do not sufficiently serve US national interests.

This parallel and crosswise dissatisfaction is natural, to the extent that international institutions only ever served the USA and its hegemony insofar as that hegemony was the best tool for gradually constituting a “world government,” that “New World Order” proclaimed by George H. W. Bush.

The consequence of this process of collapse of globalist multilateralism is that international relations have come to be dominated by force. Most medium-power countries are not prepared to deal with this new and sudden reality. Moreover, it is naive to simply condemn the current situation and hope for a return to the “good old days” of a “rules-based” international order where the rules do not apply equally to everyone.

Carney also makes a suggestion for these medium-power countries to deal with the current international situation: strengthen bilateral relations with countries of similar mindset and orientation, building small coalitions of reasonably limited scope, aiming both to eliminate possible economic weaknesses and to enhance security mechanisms.

Naturally, Carney is specifically referring to strengthening Canada-EU relations, but, to some extent, we can also apply this kind of reflection to those counter-hegemonic or non-aligned countries that are not continental powers like Russia, China, and India. The case of Venezuela demonstrated that it is, in fact, necessary to be prepared to deal with US aggressiveness.

Countries like Brazil, despite its size and the importance given to it in international relations, lack nuclear weapons and sufficiently modern military forces to effectively protect itself against a focused and determined military action. Naturally, Brazil should seek to solve these deficiencies (and, indeed, the debate on “Brazilian nuclear weapons” has already begun in political, military, and social circles), but no significant change will be seen in the short term – which is why Brazil actually needs to develop other ways to guarantee its own security that do not depend on simple servility to the USA.

It would be fully in Brazil’s interests to lobby, within BRICS, for increasing the “security” dimension of the coalition. Still, we doubt that the current Brazilian administration has any interest in this, or even that it understands the need for such a radical transformation. In the absence of this initiative, at the very least, Brazil should seek to update its military, intelligence, and radar technology with the help of Russian-Chinese partnerships. But on a regional level, Brazil needs to strengthen its ties with other South American countries and begin, subtly, to try to attract them and remove them from the US orbit.

In short, the mere fact that we are discussing these needs, instead of naively betting that international forums created on Western initiative will be enough to defend us, already proves that we are already in a new and dangerous world.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Austrian lawmakers propose to revoke citizenship of former foreign minister

By Lucas Leiroz | January 29, 2026

Anti-Russian persecution in Europe continues to grow significantly, affecting even public figures and state officials. Recently, Austrian politicians proposed in parliament that the country’s former foreign minister, Karin Kneissl, have her citizenship revoked due to alleged “ties” with Russia. This only shows how no one in Europe is truly immune to the current Russophobic wave.

The proposal was made by the Liberal Forum and New Austria (NEOS) parties. Both organizations accuse Kneissl of damaging her country’s international image due to her activities in the Russian media and academic community. Apparently, any kind of collaboration with Moscow is considered a crime in Europe and is sufficient argument to legitimize the revocation of a European citizenship.

In fact, the former minister’s “ties” to Russia are not at all obscure, but public and transparent. Kneissl is known worldwide for her critical stance towards the EU and for having chosen to live in Russia, having moved to the country in 2023. In Moscow, Kneissl participates in academic projects with local think tanks and frequently appears on Russian state television giving opinions as an expert – which is natural, considering her political experience and analytical capacity as an insider in the European institutional scenario.

For Austrian politicians, Kneissl’s attitude of simply living a normal life in Russia as a political analyst and TV commentator is unacceptable. The head of the NEOS parliamentary group, Yannick Shetty, accused Kneissl of spreading negative opinions about Austria abroad, portraying her own country as a “hell” supposedly at the direct behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As expected, no evidence of such allegations was presented.

“In [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s service… at the Russian Economic Institute or as a columnist on RT, a channel banned in Austria, Kneissl is symbolically spreading only one message: Austria is the antechamber to hell, Putin’s Russia is the Garden of Eden. Anyone who believes that these appearances are voluntary and done out of pure altruism also believes in Father Frost,” Shetty said.

Austrian citizenship law does allow citizens to lose their citizenship if they “significantly damage the interests or reputation of the Republic.” In theory, Kneissl should not be affected by this rule, considering that she does not attempt to attack the interests or reputation of her own state, but only criticizes the foreign policy of automatic alignment with the EU – which violates even Austria’s own classic principles of neutrality and peace. Unfortunately, many politicians are willing to use the law against the former minister, interpreting her actions as an anti-Austrian attitude instead of a constructive and respectable critique of the country’s administration.

What is being done against Kneissl is in fact a serious violation of European historical values. Freedom of expression and opinion no longer seem to be on the agenda of Austria or the EU. Considering the Austrian state’s historical commitment to neutrality and peace, the violation becomes even more particularly serious. This shows how there are no longer any limits to European Russophobia. In practice, any European citizen who wants to live and work in Russia is subject to the same threats that Kneissl is now suffering.

This type of authoritarian and oppressive practice has the sole objective of spreading fear and preventing other politicians and state officials from making the same decision as Kneissl to openly criticize the EU and its irrational foreign policy of sanctions against Russia. European bureaucrats and their liberal supporters know that EU measures are unpopular, and that criticism of the bloc tends to spread easily in public opinion. Therefore, fearing a crisis of legitimacy, European governments react simply by banning any form of dissenting opinion – severely punishing anyone who thinks independently, even respected public figures.

It is not yet certain that Kneissl will actually lose her citizenship. The legal process for loss of citizenship is long and complex. The accusing parties will have to present evidence that Kneissl is indeed plotting against the interests of the country. However, considering the high level of corruption, liberal ideological fanaticism, and Russophobia within the judicial system of European countries, it is possible that she will indeed lose her citizenship. As a result, she will have no alternative but to simply continue living in Russia, no longer by personal choice, but as a political asylee, since her own country is persecuting her.

This is the natural tendency for all Europeans who dare to think differently from the Russophobic madness of the EU: to emigrate and seek asylum in Russia or anywhere else where freedom of expression is still respected.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Switzerland plans tax hike to revamp military

RT | January 29, 2026

Switzerland plans to raise value-added tax to fund a major military expansion and modernization, the government has announced, citing growing security threats. The money would be earmarked for upgrading the armed forces, missile defenses, cybersecurity, and border protection.

Long Europe’s only formally neutral state, Switzerland has traditionally avoided foreign wars, stayed out of military blocs, and relied on a militia-based army. In recent years, however, Bern has abandoned strict neutrality, expanding security cooperation with NATO, forging closer defense ties with the EU, backing Kiev in the Ukraine conflict, and taking part in the sanctions on Russia.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Swiss government said the “deteriorating geopolitical situation” in Europe requires “substantially strengthening Switzerland’s security and defense capabilities,” citing cyberattacks, disinformation, and insufficient military readiness.

Bern said it needs 31 billion Swiss francs ($40.4 billion) for the move. It plans to raise the money by hiking VAT by 0.8 percentage points from the current 8.1% for ten years starting in 2028, depositing the proceeds into an armaments fund. Upgrades will focus on short-range missile defense, anti-drone systems, IT, intelligence, early warning, and civilian security.

Switzerland currently spends around 0.7% of GDP on defense – less than half the European average – and had planned to reach 1% by 2032. Rising costs and high demand for weapons now make this insufficient, Bern said, estimating that the VAT hike would push spending to 1.5% of GDP.

Under Swiss law, the hike requires parliamentary approval and a national referendum. The government plans to draft the law by March, submit it to parliament in the autumn, and hold a vote in summer 2027. Analysts, however, warn that support could be limited. A recent IPSOS survey found that only 31% of Swiss people favor higher military spending – the lowest in Europe, compared with 60% in Germany and 53% in France.

Western leaders have increasingly invoked the perceived ‘Russian threat’ to justify major defense spending hikes in recent months, including pledges by European NATO members to reach 5% of GDP.

Russia has dismissed claims that it plans to attack Europe as baseless fearmongering, warning that “rabid militarization” risks a broader conflict on the continent. Commenting on Switzerland’s growing military alignment with the EU and its stance on the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier accused it of “forfeiting” its neutrality, calling it “an openly hostile state.”

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

In One Of His Final Pieces, Written in 2014, Michael Parenti Wrote A Prophetic Article About Ukraine

The Dissident | January 28, 2026

This week, the influential left-wing scholar Michael Parenti passed away at the age of 92.

Parenti was well known for his sharp criticism of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. imperialism throughout his life, waking up many to the reality of it and the lies used to justify it.

This is best underscored in one of his last published articles, “Ukraine and Regime Change”, which was published in the book “Flashpoint In Ukraine: How the U.S. Drive for Hegemony Risks World War III”, where he predicted to a tee what the result of the 2014 U.S. backed coup in Ukraine would be.

Correctly Calling Out U.S. Funding Of The Coup

Parenti correctly pointed out how the regime change operation against Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, mirrored previous U.S. regime change operations, writing:

regime change is a form of action designed to make it impossible for the existing government to govern. We have seen this well-orchestrated chaos and endless disruption in various countries. Militantly organized groups are financed and equipped by outside western interests. NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) surface in substantial numbers and produce rebellious publications and events designed to unsettle the besieged government—in Ukraine’s case, a government that was democratically elected not long before. The NGOs handle billions of dollars worth of supplies used to mobilize and sustain the protests. Even though they are supposed to be independent (‘nongovernmental’) some NGOs get all their funds from the U.S. government. An Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, proudly exclaimed that the United States had poured some $5 billion into the struggle for regime change.

All of this has since been vindicated. As journalist Branko Marcetic reported , “Just two months before they (Maidan protests) broke out, the NED’s (National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA cutout) then president, pointing to Yanukovych’s European outreach, wrote that ‘the opportunities are considerable, and there are important ways Washington could help.’ In practice, this meant funding groups like New Citizen, which the Financial Times reported ‘played a big role in getting the protest up and running,’ led by a pro-EU opposition figure. Journalist Mark Ames discovered the organization had received hundreds of thousands of dollars from US democracy promotion initiatives.”

Correctly Calling Out Far-Right Infiltration And The Maidan Massacre False Flag

Michael Parenti then wrote that the protests were overtaken by far-right paramilitary groups, who fired snipers into crowds in the Maidan square, which was then falsely blamed on Viktor Yanukovych’s forces- all facts which have now been proven correct.

Parenti wrote, “In Ukraine, crypto-fascist groups like Svoboda, the Right Sector, and others secured ample funds to keep thousands of people fed and comfortable enough on the streets of Kiev for weeks at a time, complete with well-made marching flags, symbols, and signs in various languages (including English). Svoboda henchmen were being financed by someone. They wore insignia that bore a striking resemblance to the swastika. Svoboda’s top leaders openly denounced ‘Russian scum,’ and ‘Muscovite Jewish mafia.’ Disguised men in unmarked combat fatigues attacked unarmed police and security guards. They moved among the gathered crowd and at times, according to independent sources, delivered sniper shots into the crowd—which could then be readily blamed on the nearly asphyxiated government. Meanwhile the western media reported everything the way the White House wanted, for instance, unfailingly referring to the perpetrators as ‘protestors.’”

Indeed, as the aforementioned Branko Marcetic reported, “The driver of this violence was largely the Ukrainian far right, which, while a minority of the protesters, served as a kind of revolutionary vanguard. Looking outside Kyiv, a systematic analysis of more than 3,000 Maidan protests found that members of the far-right Svoboda party — whose leader once complained Ukraine was run by a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia’ and which includes a politician who admires Joseph Goebbels — were the most active agents in the protests. They were also more likely to take part in violent actions than any group but one: Right Sector, a collection of far-right activists that traces its lineage to genocidal Nazi collaborators.”

Even more impressively, Michael Parenti correctly noted that the “Maidan Massacre” was a false flag carried out by Right Sector, a fact which has now been proven by Ukrainian-Canadian academic Ivan Katchanovski.

After carefully studying the trial on the massacre and the verdict from it, Ivan Katchanovski noted, “51 out of 72 wounded Maidan protesters, with whose shooting on February 20 Berkut policemen (Yanukovych’s forces) are charged and whose testimonies were revealed, testified at the trial and the investigation that they had been shot by snipers from Maidan-controlled buildings or areas, had themselves witnessed snipers there, or had been told by other Maidan protesters about such snipers. 31 of these wounded protesters testified at the trial and/or the investigation that they had been shot from the Hotel Ukraina, the Bank Arkada, and Zhovtnevyi Palace, the buildings on Muzeinyi Lane and Horodetskyi Street, or other Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. At least 33 wounded protesters testified that they had either witnessed snipers there and/or were told about snipers in these Maidan-controlled locations, mostly in the Hotel Ukraina, by other protesters.”

He also uncovered that :

The findings of forensic medical examinations done by government experts for the prosecution were first made public during the Maidan massacre trial, and revealed that the absolute majority of protesters were shot from the side or back, and from top to bottom. Most videos and photos, however, show that the absolute majority of those killed and wounded had the Berkut police (Yanukovych’s police forces) in front of them and at ground level, whereas the Maidan-controlled buildings were generally behind them and on the left and right side.

Forensic medical examinations indicate that 40 out of the 48 killed protesters were shot from a high angle. At least 36 of them were killed at a time when the Berkut policemen were filmed on the ground.

48 out of 51 wounded protesters had steep entry wounds, consistent with the theory that they were shot by snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings, or on the roofs of these buildings.

He also noted that the bullet examinations from the massacre matched those of Right Sector and other pro-Maidan militants and not the Berkut police force, writing:

The forensic ballistic examinations presented at the trial found that 19 protesters were killed on February 20 by bullets which match the calibers not only of AKM Kalashnikov assault rifles, but also of hunting versions of Kalashnikovs, and other weapons, Videos showed protesters with hunting firearms in the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre

A forensic ballistic examination conducted by government experts with use of an automatic computer-based IBIS-TAIS system, found that the bullets extracted from killed protesters, trees, and the Hotel Ukraina rooms did not match police database for Kalashnikov assault rifles of members of the entire Kyiv Berkut regiment, including the special Berkut unit deployed

Predicting The Fallout From The Coup

While Parenti reporting on the events of the Maidan coup exactly right is impressive enough, what makes Parenti’s article especially impressive is the fact that he also predicted the aftermath of the coup to a tee.

Parenti wrote, “This manufactured uprising in Kiev is something we have seen in numerous other countries: from Venezuela to Thailand during this very same time frame. The scenario is much the same, and the goal of these western-financed attacks has been to make the world safe for the 1%, the global super rich. Ukraine citizens who think they are fighting for democracy will eventually discover that they are really serving the western plutocracy. They will be left with a new government filled with old intentions. Ukrainians will end up with nothing to show for their efforts except a still more depressed and more corrupt economy, an enormous IMF debt, a worsening of social services, and an empty ‘democracy,’ led by corrupt neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists.” (Emphasis: Mine)

This is exactly what the result of the Maidan coup was.

Forbes magazine noted at the time that, after the coup, the U.S. installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the interim prime minister of Ukraine because, “Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund’s demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency” while, “Yatsenyuk doesn’t mind”.

As Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko documented, the results of the IMF-imposed “reforms” included:

-“Ukraine’s GDP shrinking by approximately 17%”.

-The exchange rate going from “8 hryvnias (Ukrainian dollar) to 1 U.S dollar” in 2013 to “23 hryvnias to the dollar” in 2015

-Inflation rising from 24.9% in 2014 to 43.3% in 2015

-a “significant decline in industrial production during the first two years” after the coup, leading to Ukraine losing “its economic cluster that manufactured goods with high added value (machine engineering)”

-“mining and metallurgical complex, energy (coal production), chemicals, food production”, “sustained significant losses”.

-“an increase in unemployment and the emigration of citizens from Ukraine to neighboring countries—primarily to Poland and Russia.”

-“utility rates increasing by 123%, reaching up to 20% of family income” from the IMF introduced policies

Parenti was also spot on about the prevalence of “neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists” in the post-Maidan Ukraine.

After the coup, the UK’s Channel 4 news reported that, “the far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum” and Foreign Policy Magazine reported that, “The uncomfortable truth is that a sizeable portion of Kiev’s current government — and the protesters who brought it to power — are, indeed, fascists.”

U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna noted in 2018, “Ukraine’s 2015 memory laws went even further by glorifying Nazi collaborators and making it a criminal offense to deny their ‘heroism.’ However, unlike the Polish law, this move by the government in Kyiv has received little to no public response from the United States. The groups and individuals extolled by Ukraine include Nazi collaborators Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), as well as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). These paramilitaries and individuals in some cases collaborated with the Nazis and bear responsibility for the murder of thousands of Jews, 70,000-100,000 Poles, and other ethnic minorities between 1941 and 1945.”

Khanna added, “It’s particularly troubling that much of the Nazi glorification in Ukraine is government-supported. Examples include the 2017 pro-UPA campaign conducted by the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory; the naming of streets after Bandera and Shukhevych by the Kyiv city council; and L’viv’s 2017 ‘ShukhevychFest’ which took place on the anniversary of the 1941 L’viv Pogroms in which 4000 Jews were killed.”

He added, “Last November, Radio Free Europe reported on the presence of torches and Nazi salutes at a 20,000-person march in honor of the 75th anniversary of the UPA. These torchlight marches are closely linked to organizations such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, an armed group that was prohibited from receiving U.S. weapons and training by the recently signed Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. Rather than disband Azov, the government incorporated it into the Ukrainian National Guard overseen by the Ministry of the Interior. The group is widely known to be closely connected to Interior Minister Arsen Avakov.”

Furthermore, Parenti correctly predicted that the coup would lead to an American confrontation with Russia, writing:

The U.S. empire’s ultimate intent is to encircle and reduce Russia to a frightened and discombobulated satellite. But that is much easier said than done. At this time, as I write, Moscow reportedly no longer accepts telephone calls from the White House. Meanwhile protests against the NATO-supported Ukrainian regime are on the rise. Anti-Kiev activists are seizing administrative buildings and calling for a referendum on federalization. Ukraine’s acting President, Aleksandr Turchinov, put the Ukrainian army on full alert due to the “threat of a Russian invasion.” Turchinov admitted that the government in Kiev could not control the situation in eastern Ukraine. It did not even seem able to control the situation in Kiev itself.

Obama may have a few tricks and trumps left to play. But he is fishing in troubled waters and might invite more danger and tribulation than he—or we—can handle. As Putin put it: “The situation is serious” and we need “to find serious approaches to the solution.”

Michael Parenti’s prophetic article on Ukraine underscores how important much of his foreign policy analysis was and why it will be deeply missed by many.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

More Bombs, More Talks Zelensky Rejects Trump’s Plan

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive

Prof Glenn Diesen & Lt Col Daniel Davis

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

WARNING: Delete TikTok Immediately!

51-49 with James Li | January 27, 2026

In this episode of 51-49, James investigates the reality behind the newly “Americanized” TikTok and the sudden shift in its search algorithm. We uncover the app’s new leadership under Larry Ellison, whose team of former intelligence operatives is now accused of silencing US creators to manufacture consent for a foreign nation.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Sinophobia, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Bari Weiss’ New CBS Hire List Is Full Of Zionists

Zionist Installed Editor of CBS News Has Hired A Long Line Of Hardline Contributors

The Dissident | January 27, 2026

CBS News, under the editorial control of hardline Zionist Bari Weiss, has added 19 new contributors to the network, many of whom- unsurprisingly-are hardline Zionists denying the Gaza genocide and pushing for war with Iran.

In this article, I will go over some of the most egregious new hires.

Elliot Ackerman

The first hire announced at CBS News is Elliot Ackerman, a veteran of the Marine Corps and CIA special operations who is now a fiction and non fiction author.

Like most of the new contributors, he is a hardline Zionist.

On X, he has gone after the New York Times of all outlets for not being subservient enough to the Israeli propaganda line on Iran.

In response to a New York Times article with a subhead that read, “Iran says Israel wants to trap it to a direct conflict by bombing Hezbollah, even as a new Iranian president tries outreach to the West”, Ackerman wrote, “Poor Iran … all it wants is peace.”

He also took issue with the fact that the New York Times wrote, “Iran has so far refused to be goaded by Israel into a larger regional war” responding by saying, “‘Goaded by Israel …’ this is insane.”

He is also an advocate of the U.S. backing Israel and fighting wars in the Middle East on its behalf.

In the Atlantic, he wrote , “ in the name of ‘ending America’s forever wars,’ our leaders have proved reluctant to call enemies ‘enemies’ and friends ‘friends.’ If America wishes to remain at peace, or at least not find itself in an active war, we must speak clearly in defense of our friends. This remains uniquely true in the case of Israel.”

In the article, he called on America to support Israel’s war in Lebanon, writing:

Israel has recently dealt Hezbollah a series of crippling blows, beginning with exploding pagers and radios that sabotaged Hezbollah’s command and control and degraded its leadership. This has culminated with the strike against Nasrallah. Hezbollah has been forced onto its back foot, as has the Iranian regime. This creates an opening, one that Israel will likely exploit and that the United States, Israel’s ally, must support, lest we squander a precious opportunity in this broader war.

The United States can’t afford to make the same mistake with Israel. Now is the time to stand decisively behind our ally and against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, China, and the axis of authoritarian nations that continue to menace the liberal world.

Masih Alinejad

Another contributor announced to CBS News is Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist in exile and U.S. government asset pushing for war with Iran.

As journalist Asa Winstanley reported , Masih Alinejad “is an employee of the Voice of America Persian, a US government-funded media outlet”, which the New York Times called a “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A”.

Furthermore, as Winstanley noted, “Predictability, as an enemy of a government that has steadfastly supported Palestinian resistance since 1979, Alinejad is also rabidly pro-Israel. In June she gave a talk for an Israel lobby group in the US, calling for a future ‘democratic’ Iran to normalise relations with Israel.”

He added that, “Government documents show that Alinejad has been the recipient of more than $628,000 in US federal funding since 2015.”

A state department cable from 2009, when Masih Alinejad was still in Iran, indentified her as a U.S. intel asset.

As a U.S. asset, Masih Alinejad openly supports a U.S. regime change war in Iran, undoubtedly the reason behind her being hired as a contributor at CBS News.

Niall Ferguson

The most egregious contributor added to CBS News is the British Neo-con Niall Ferguson, who described himself as “a fully paid-up member of the neo-imperialist gang” during the Iraq war.

Ferguson denied the fact that Israel committed genocide in Gaza, quoting the Israeli propagandist John Spencer’s genocide denial, and claiming that he is an authority because he has “embedded with the IDF” and “interviewed the prime minister, the defence minister, the chief of staff, the Southern Command leadership”.

Niall Ferguson also supports a U.S. war on Iran for Israel, saying that “The U.S. Should Finish the Job in Iran”.

Ferguson is also a contributor to Bari Weiss’ “The Free Press”, where he once wrote an article alongside Yoav Gallant, the former Minister of Defence of Israel who is indicted by the ICC on war crimes charges where they pushed for a U.S. war on Iran, writing, “Israel has moved and continues to move with determination and dispatch. The support of allies, first and foremost the United States, has been crucial. Now, with a single exertion of its unmatched military strength, the United States can shorten the war, prevent wider escalation, and end the principal threat to Middle Eastern stability. It can also send a signal to those other authoritarian powers who have been Iran’s enablers that American deterrence is back. This is a rare moment when strategic alignment and operational momentum converge. It must not be missed.”

Coleman Hughes

Coleman Hughes, one of Bari Weiss’s propagandists at the Free Press, has now been brought over to CBS News.

On the payroll of Weiss, Coleman Hughes has written genocide denial columns, denying Israel’s well-documented atrocities in Gaza.

In an article for the Free Press, Hughes claimed that “when an IDF soldier goes berserk, he is subject to criminal punishment”, despite the fact that multiple IDF soldiers have said that “You can do almost whatever you want when it comes to Gazans, honestly, I think that is how Israeli society has been dehumanizing Palestinians for years” and “This thing called killing innocent people – it’s been normalized” and despite the fact that, “88% of Israeli Military Investigations Into Gaza War Crimes Stalled or Closed Without Findings”.

HR McMaster

Another contributor added to CBS News is HR McMaster, the U.S. General who served as the United States National Security Advisor from 2017 to 2018 and now serves as a senior fellow at the neo-con Hoover Institution.

McMaster is a hardline Zionist, saying in 2024 that “the U.S. needs to offer stronger backing to Israel and stop pushing for what he described as premature and foolhardy ceasefire agreements”.

HR McMaster is also a strong proponent of war with Iran for Israel, saying in 2018 when he was National Security Advisor, “What’s particularly concerning is that this network of proxies is becoming more and more capable, as Iran seeds more and more… destructive weapons into these networks, So the time is now, we think, to act against Iran”.

In a 2024 article for Bari Weiss’ propaganda blog, the Free Press, McMaster hoped that Trump would go to war with Iran during his new term, saying, “We have a sense of how Trump will respond to Iranian aggression. He frequently told me ‘everywhere I see problems [in the Middle East] there is Iran.’ He knows what the return address is for the violence not only against Israel but also in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He is certain to ramp up sanctions enforcement against Tehran to limit the resources available for Iran’s proxy militias and terrorist organizations.”

He cheered on the U.S/Israeli bombing of Iran in June of last year writing, “But even more importantly, the Israeli and U.S. military operations directly against the Islamic Republic and its warmaking apparatus reminded officials in Tehran that they cannot antagonize their adversaries in the region with impunity—and reminded officials in Washington that Iran’s theocratic dictatorship cannot be conciliated. “De-escalation” was never a path to peace—it was an approach that perpetuated war on the Iranians’ terms.”

Reihan Salam

Another new contributor to CBS News is Reihan Salam, the president of the Neo-con Manhattan Institute who wrote in the Wall Street Journal at the start of the genocide in Gaza, “Muslim Americans Like Me Stand With Israel” adding, “In short, Muslim Americans who stand with Israel and the Jewish people in their struggle for survival do exist—as convenient as it might be for self-described progressive humanitarians to pretend otherwise.”

Glenn Loury, a former contributor to the Manhattan Institute, revealed that he was fired by Reihan Salam who told him in an email they have a “lack of shared priorities” after “the Manhattan Institute first signaled their dismay with my position on Gaza after I posted my conversation with Israeli historian Omer Bartov” who accurately stated that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

Bari Weiss’s Goal

Bari Weiss’s goal with the new CBS contributors is clear- to hire Zionists pushing for American backing of Israel and an American war with Iran for Israel, in order to use the once respected news outlet to manufacture consent for Israel’s foreign policy goals.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Former Biden Advisor, Amos Hochstein, Admits The Biden Administration Is Responsible For the Gaza Genocide

The Dissident | January 28, 2026

In response to claims from Israel that the Biden administration was not supportive enough of its genocide in Gaza, Amos Hochstein, one of Joe Biden’s top advisors, admitted that the Biden administration fully backed Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and that Israel could not have carried out the genocide without its support, a de facto admission of war crimes.

Israeli journalist Guy Elster wrote , “In a rare press conference, Israeli PM Netanyahu claims that soldiers were killed during the war in Gaza from a lack of ammunition due to a partial embargo that was imposed by Biden administration”.

In response to this claim, Axios journalist Barak Ravid wrote , “President Biden’s adviser Amos Hochstein told me in response: ‘Netanyahu is both not telling the truth and ungrateful to a president that literally saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment’”.

Adding to his war crimes confession, Amos Hochstein added, “Let me be clear to ‘journalists’ commenting. After more than $20 Billion military support, largest in Israel history, 2 aircraft carriers rushed to the region, deterring a massive regional war, defeating Iran missile/drone attack x2, defending israel at most vulnerable moments, after SAVING countless lives of Israelis – only acceptable response to POTUS Biden and American people is THANK YOU.”

As journalist Max Blumenthal noted in response to Hochstien, “Netanyahu got you to confirm Biden’s guilt and your own in the Holocaust of our time, which you helped commit on behalf of Israel, your apartheid state of origin”.

Indeed, Amos Hochstein is admitting that through “more than $20 Billion military support,” the Biden administration “saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment”, i.e. allowed it to commit genocide against the civilian population of Gaza.

By Amos Hochstien’s own admission, without support from the Biden administration, Israel would not have been able to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, at least 83 percent of whom were civilians.

Without support from the Biden administration, Israel would not have been able to carry out its system attack on Gaza’s hospitals, which, as the UN documented , consisted of:

(a) airstrikes or shelling on the hospitals and/or in the hospital’s vicinity, often resulting in serious damage to the hospitals’ premises and equipment;

(b) besieging the hospitals with ground troops, preventing Palestinians from accessing the hospital and blocking medical supplies;

(c) raiding the hospital with the assistance of heavy machinery, including tanks and bulldozers;

(d) detaining medical staff, patients and their companions, as well as the IDPs sheltering inside the hospital;

(e) forcing remaining patients, IDPs and others to leave the hospital; and finally;

(f) withdrawing troops from the hospital, leaving in their wake severe damage to the structures, buildings and equipment inside, effectively rendering the hospital non-functional.

Without the Biden administration, Israel would not have been able to target and kill hundreds of Palestinian journalists and their family members as retribution for their reporting on the Genocide in Gaza.

The Biden administration enabled Israel to cause “damage to more than 70 percent of the school buildings in Gaza and create conditions where education for children has been made impossible,” as the UN documented .

The Biden administration enabled Israel to routinely shoot children in the head and chest, as Dr. Feroze Sidhwa and other doctors working on the ground in Gaza revealed.

The Biden administration allowed Israel to repeatedly bomb refugee camps , setting them on fire and burning the displaced Palestinian residents alive.

The Biden administration backed Israel in carrying out a systemic policy of mass torture and rape against Palestinian detainees in Israeli torture dungeons such as Sde Teiman.

All of these genocidal war crimes, by Amos Hochstein’s admission, were only committed because the Biden administration “literally saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment”.

This makes the Biden administration equally as culpable as Israel for the slaughter in Gaza and Amos Hochstein’s admission – meant to placate the Israel lobby- in reality is an admission of culpability for Genocide.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not a Trump anomaly: The Board of Peace and America’s crisis-driven power plays

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | January 28, 2026

The history of American power is, in many ways, the history of reinventing rules—or designing new ones—to fit US strategic interests.

This may sound harsh, but it is a necessary realization, particularly in light of US President Donald Trump’s latest political invention: the so-called Board of Peace.

Some have hastily concluded that Trump’s newest political gambit—recently unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos—is a uniquely Trumpian endeavor, detached from earlier US foreign policy doctrines. They are mistaken, misled largely by Trump’s self-centered political style and his constant, though unfounded, claims that he has ended wars, resolved global conflicts, and made the world a safer place.

At the Davos launch, Trump reinforced this carefully crafted illusion, boasting of America’s supposed historic leadership in bringing peace, praising alleged unprecedented diplomatic breakthroughs, and presenting the Board of Peace as a neutral, benevolent mechanism capable of stabilising the world’s most volatile regions.

Yet a less prejudiced reading of history allows us to see Trump’s political design—whether in Gaza or beyond—not as an aberration, but as part of a familiar pattern. US foreign policymakers repeatedly seek to reclaim ownership over global affairs, sideline international consensus, and impose political frameworks that they alone define, manage, and ultimately control.

The Board of Peace—a by-invitation-only political club controlled entirely by Trump himself—is increasingly taking shape as a new geopolitical reality in which the United States imposes itself as the self-appointed caretaker of global affairs, beginning with genocide-devastated Gaza, and explicitly positioning itself as an alternative to the United Nations. While Trump has not stated this outright, his open contempt for international law and his relentless drive to redesign the post-World War II world order are clear indicators of his true intentions.

The irony is staggering. A body ostensibly meant to guide Gaza through reconstruction after Israel’s devastating genocide does not include Palestinians—let alone Gazans themselves. Even more damning is the fact that the genocide it claims to address was politically backed, militarily financed, and diplomatically shielded by successive US administrations, first under Joe Biden and later under Trump.

It requires no particular insight to conclude that Trump’s Board of Peace is not concerned with peace, nor genuinely with Gaza. So what, then, is this initiative really about?

This initiative is not about reconstruction or justice, but about exploiting Gaza’s suffering to impose a new US-led world order, first in the Middle East and eventually beyond.

Gaza—a besieged territory of just 365 square kilometers—does not require a new political structure populated by dozens of world leaders, each reportedly paying a billion-dollar membership fee. Gaza needs reconstruction, its people must be granted their basic rights, and Israel’s crimes must be met with accountability. The mechanisms to achieve this already exist: the United Nations, international law, longstanding humanitarian institutions, and above all the Palestinians themselves, whose agency, resilience, and determination to survive Israel’s onslaught have become legendary.

The Board of Peace discards all of this in favor of a hollow, improvised structure tailored to satisfy Trump’s volatile ego and advance US-Israeli political and geopolitical interests. In effect, it drags Palestine back a century, to an era when Western powers unilaterally determined its fate—guided by racist assumptions about Palestinians and the Middle East, assumptions that laid the groundwork for the region’s enduring catastrophes.

Yet the central question remains: is this truly a uniquely Trumpian initiative?

No, it is not. While it is ingeniously tailored to feed Trump’s inflated sense of grandeur, it remains a familiar American tactic, particularly during moments of profound crisis. This strategy is persuasively outlined in Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, which argues that political and economic elites exploit collective trauma—wars, natural disasters, and social breakdown—to impose radical policies that would otherwise face public resistance.

Trump’s Board of Peace fits squarely within this framework, using the devastation of Gaza not as a call for justice or accountability, but as an opportunity to reshape political realities in ways that entrench US dominance and sideline international norms.

This is hardly unprecedented. The pattern can be traced back to the US-envisioned United Nations, established in 1945 as a replacement for the League of Nations. Its principal architect, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was determined that the new institution would secure the structural dominance of the United States, most notably through the Security Council and the veto system, ensuring Washington’s decisive influence over global affairs.

When the UN later failed to fully acquiesce to US interests—most notably when it refused to grant the George W. Bush administration legal authorisation to invade Iraq—the organisation was labeled “irrelevant”. Bush, then, led his own so-called “coalition of the willing,” a war of aggression that devastated Iraq and destabilised the entire region, consequences that persist to this day.

A similar maneuver unfolded in Palestine with the invention of the so-called Quartet on the Middle East in 2002, a US-dominated framework. From its inception, the Quartet systematically sidelined Palestinian agency, insulated Israel from accountability, and relegated international law to a secondary—and often expendable—consideration.

The method remains consistent: when existing international mechanisms fail to serve US political objectives, new structures are invented, old ones are bypassed, and power is reasserted under the guise of peace, reform, or stability.

Judging by this historical record, it is reasonable to conclude that the Board of Peace will eventually become yet another defunct body. Before reaching that predictable end, however, it risks further derailing the already fragile prospects for a just peace in Palestine and obstructing any meaningful effort to hold Israeli war criminals accountable.

What is truly extraordinary is that even in its phase of decline, the United States continues to be permitted to experiment with the futures of entire peoples and regions. Yet it is never too late for those committed to restoring the centrality of international law—not only in Palestine, but globally—to challenge such reckless and self-serving political engineering.

Palestine, the Middle East, and the world deserve better.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Manufacturing martyrdom: The west’s cynical use of Iranian protest figures

By Robert Inlakesh | The Cradle | January 28, 2026

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran imposed a nationwide internet blackout to crack down on what it branded as foreign intelligence-backed riots and a terrorist insurgency, unverifiable death tolls and casualty figures have spread rapidly.

These claims – none of which provide any credible evidence – continue to circulate in a coordinated fashion, amplified by Iranian opposition media and the mainstream western press alike.

Amid the wave of western coverage on Iranian protests, a Toronto-based NGO issued an outrageous claim that Iran had killed 43,000 protesters and wounded another 350,000. The group behind the figure, the International Center for Human Rights (ICHR), offered no footage, no forensic data, and no independently verifiable proof. Yet this statistic – dropped in a flimsy 900-word blog post – was catapulted into public discourse by British-Iranian comedian and opposition supporter, Omid Djalili, who pinned it to the top of his X profile.

As intended, the claim went viral. So did similar or even more extreme death tolls. They were echoed across social media by monarchist influencers, recycled by opposition outlets like Iran International, and eventually laundered into western corporate media coverage. The figures varied wildly – from 5,848 to 80,000 dead – and lacked even the pretense of substantiation. But they all served a clear political purpose: to build a case for regime change in the Islamic Republic.

The CIA fronts posing as human rights groups

The lowest estimate of Iran protest deaths – 5,848 people – came from the US-based group, Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI), which admits it is still “investigating” 17,000 additional cases. HRAI is no independent arbiter. It was partnered in 2021 with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US soft-power tool established under former US president Ronald Reagan to continue the CIA’s work under NGO cover.

Another frequent source for Iran’s death tolls is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, which is also funded by NED. One of its board members is Francis Fukuyama, a signatory to the infamous neoconservative blueprint for the “War on Terror,” the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Then there is United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which claimed 12,000 Iranians were killed in the latest protests. This lobbying outfit, which successfully pressured the World Economic Forum (WEF) to disinvite Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, counts among its ranks former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, current US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Dennis Ross of the Israel Lobby’s think-tank WINEP.

These entities feed a revolving door of narratives, all designed to delegitimize the Islamic Republic, decontextualize internal unrest, and greenlight foreign meddling.

Israel-backed outrage machines and war agitators

The ICHR – the group behind the 43,000 deaths claim – is based in Canada and almost solely focused on Iran. It openly celebrates Israeli assassinations of resistance leaders like the late Hezbollah secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, and praises the “growing friendship” between Israel and the Iranian opposition. Its executive director, Ardeshir Zarezadeh, has published photos of himself posing with Israeli and monarchist flags while toasting with wine.

The organization also employs extremely politically biased language, like labeling the Iranian government “the criminal regime occupying Iran” in official press releases.

Despite the bombast, the ICHR’s report offers no evidence. It relies on unverifiable “comparative investigative analysis” and anonymous sources, and falsely claims that 95 percent of killings occurred over just two days. There is no footage of anything approaching the numbers it alleges.

Meanwhile, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), another US State Department-funded outfit, once promoted a bizarre claim that a protester faked his death and hid in a body bag for three days. Even the IHRDC admitted it could not verify the story – but opposition outlet Iran International broadcast it anyway, while omitting that it was fiction.

Far-right activists in the west, like Tommy Robinson, and monarchist influencers have pushed even more outlandish stories, including the allegation that Iran’s security forces suffocate protesters by zipping them alive into body bags. No evidence required. Just one anonymous voice note.

The IHRDC has also been consulted by the US government to guide its sanctions policy, including the creation of a blacklist targeting Iranian individuals. Its executive director, Shahin Milani, recently posted on X that US President Donald Trump’s overtures to Iranian protesters, if “not backed up by overwhelming American support to cripple the regime’s armed forces,” would “constitute the greatest betrayal of Iranians by the West.”

This is part of a broader US strategy whereby Washington has poured funding into dozens of NGOs focused solely on Iran, from women’s rights outfits to ethnic minority advocacy groups, all tasked with feeding the narrative architecture of regime change.

Manufacturing atrocity, laundering lies

The propaganda pipeline runs from online influencers to western media. Take online activist Sana Ebrahimi, who claimed 80,000 protesters had been killed, citing only a friend “in contact with sources inside the government.” Her post garnered over 370,000 views.

Soon after, British radio station LBC News quoted an “Iranian human rights activist” named Paul Smith, who upped the death toll to 45,000–80,000. Smith, it turns out, is a regime change agitator on social media who endorses US military intervention in Iran.

In October 2025, the Israeli daily Haaretz exposed how Tel Aviv funds Farsi-speaking bot farms to promote Reza Pahlavi – the exiled son of Iran’s former monarch – and spread anti-government propaganda. These same bots helped inflate Iran protest narratives back in 2022. It is a digital war campaign masked as grassroots outrage.

Time Magazine claimed 30,000 Iranians had been killed, citing two anonymous Health Ministry officials. Iran International topped that, citing its own unverifiable sources to allege over 36,000 deaths.

Only Amnesty International, despite its hostile posture toward Tehran, refrained from a specific number, saying only that “thousands” had died. That estimate roughly aligns with Tehran’s own figures: Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs reports 3,117 deaths, including 2,427 civilians and security personnel.

When lies become ‘casus belli’

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make of the Iranian state. But what we are seeing now is a coordinated misinformation offensive driven by Washington‑backed networks, Tel Aviv’s propaganda arms, monarchists and other oppositionists in exile, and compliant corporate press.

The grotesque death tolls and phantom atrocity stories being circulated follow a familiar imperial playbook: the bogus incubator babies in Kuwait in 1990, the forged WMD claims in Iraq in 2003, the invented Libyan “genocide” in 2011, and the endless chemical weapons fabrications in Syria. Each time, the purpose was the same: to build a ‘casus belli.’

The people who died in Iran’s protests have become props in another foreign-backed narrative war, laying the groundwork for selective intervention disguised as humanitarian concern.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Attack on Iran would backfire, causing great losses for US, warns European think-tank

Press TV – January 28, 2026

The US faces serious risks if it attacks Iran again, which held back much of its military strength during the 12-day June 2025 war, and any future aggression could provoke a far stronger response, warns the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

A report from ECFR published on Tuesday highlights Iran’s unmatched combination of size, population, and military capability, saying, “With over 90 million citizens and territory nearly four times the size of Iraq, Iran presents a logistical and operational challenge far exceeding previous US interventions.”

Libya’s population during NATO’s 2011 aggression was fifteen times smaller than Iran’s, while Iraq’s population at the 2003 invasion was less than one-third of today’s Iranian population, the report said.

ECFR notes that such scale, combined with Iran’s geographic diversity, makes any attempt to overthrow Iran’s government extremely difficult.

During the June 2025 war, Iran deliberately refrained from using much of its military arsenal. ECFR analysts observe that Tehran “could deploy weapons and strategies it has so far held in reserve if its national security were threatened.”

This deliberate restraint illustrates Iran’s strategic patience and credible deterrence, signaling that further US escalation would encounter formidable resistance, according to the report.

Iran also benefits from a network of regional allies, including resistance groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, which could coordinate defensive or retaliatory actions against potential aggressors.

According to the report, Tehran’s military readiness extends beyond conventional forces as it is capable of protecting critical oil infrastructure and controlling the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint for global energy supplies. Any disruption there could cause severe economic consequences worldwide.

Historical experience reinforces ECFR’s warnings. Past US interventions in Libya and Syria, launched under the pretext of protecting civilians, instead resulted in prolonged instability, economic collapse, and widespread chaos.

Similar tactics applied in Iran would backfire, causing greater losses for Washington while leaving Iranian sovereignty intact, ECFR noted.

This comes as European and regional powers have urged caution, emphasizing that Iran’s thirteen land and maritime borders make any large-scale conflict highly destabilizing.

“Iran’s combination of population, territory, and disciplined military forces ensures that external powers cannot easily impose their will,” the report emphasizes.

Iran has demonstrated restraint during prior conflicts, along with its military capabilities, which would give it a strategic advantage in deterring foreign intervention, ECFR concluded.

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »