Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

In the UK, the classroom has become ground zero for woke ideology

By George Samuelson | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 20, 2026

In yet another chapter pulled straight from the pages of Orwell, educators across Wales are being trained to identify and report “racist incidents” by toddlers – yes, you read that right, toddlers – under new legislation endorsed by government ministers and funded by taxpayers.

The initiative turns daycare centers into miniature surveillance camps for the government’s “anti-racism” agenda.

The program has received over £1.3 million in taxpayer funding via the Welsh Government, and distributed to more than 300 nurseries, daycare centers and kindergartens.

Administrators are absurdly advised to determine whether a child’s interaction with other children could be considered a hate crime and, if so, contact police.

The teaching material, which includes lessons on “white privilege,” also compels educators to review their resources for “diversity,” and engage in discussions on skin color and race with toddlers.

The guidance goes so far as to even document toddler-to-toddler interactions as potential “racist incidents” or “wrongthink” requiring possible intervention by law enforcement.

Meanwhile, secondary classroom books are increasingly focused on the question of mass migration, indoctrinating schoolchildren to the government agenda. More than 1,000 schools have signed up to a program that promotes a so-called “culture of welcome” towards child refugees in Britain.

The Schools of Sanctuary organization has shared a number of recommended book lists with secondary schools, primaries, and nurseries.

In one of the book selections, “Bobble” by Helen May, tells the story of a blue creature who washes ashore on a beach in his small boat, having escaped an unspecified tragedy in some “distant land.”

Extract from “Bobble”

Finally he made it

Finally he made it

He washed up onto land.

Bobble lay there for a while

Just playing in the sand

 

… He sadly wasn’t ready for the welcome he’d receive

… the others stopped their dancing, but they didn’t say hello

They didn’t want to welcome him, they wanted him to go

 

“There’s no room for you here with us

You’ll have to try elsewhere

Travel to the next island

And ask if there’s space there”

As things turn out, the Bobble becomes a hero, having saved the indigenous people on the island from a natural disaster.

The lesson here is obvious: helping the mass of migrants can only have positive consequences for the local population.

And of course, things don’t get any better as the child enters high school and college. For example, the British government has introduced a government-funded video game that informs teenagers they could be reported to counter-terrorism authorities for merely questioning mass migration.

The video game, titled “Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism,” is intended for students aged 11 to 18 and aims to deter young people from “extreme right-wing” ideologies.

Students select a character called Charlie – either male or female, using “they” pronouns regardless of which sex the player picks – who has just entered university. Players must answer multiple-choice questions throughout the game, with options color-coded red for bad and green for good.

The game guides players through various scenarios where “making the wrong choices”—such as engaging with content critical of mass migration, questioning the “erosion of British values,” or attending protests—results in the character being referred for anti-terrorism counseling.

Charlie comes into contact with a video claiming “Muslim men are stealing the places of British veterans in emergency accommodation” and “the Government is betraying white British people and we need to take back control of our country”. It should be obvious what the correct response to such scenarios would be. Anything that questions the government’s immigration policies is flagged.

The character has the option to attend a protest against “the changes that Britain has been through in the last few years and the erosion of British values”.

Attending the protest nearly results in arrest in this interactive world.

In another episode, Charlie performs worse academically than a black student. At this point the student must then choose whether to simply accept his or her fate or blame immigrants for “stealing jobs”.

The initiative has come under fire for warning teenagers that questioning mass migration or even simply researching immigration statistics could lead to being reported as an extremist.

Students risk referrals to Prevent, an anti-terror organization, if they interact with groups spreading “harmful ideological messages” or opt to attend protests opposing the “erosion of British values”.

Critics have described the classroom tool as highly “manipulative,” and an attempt at “political conditioning,” arguing that it treats mainstream concerns about immigration as terrorist-level ideologies.

All of this effectively illustrates that the classroom in the UK is being used as a hotbed of woke ideology, intent on destroying the very fabric of the nation with unrealistic goals and objectives that help nobody, and possibly least of all the migrant population.

May 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on In the UK, the classroom has become ground zero for woke ideology

Six Russians Jailed in Armenia on Flimsy Espionage Allegations

Sputnik – 20.05.2026

Armenia continues to hold six Russian citizens on espionage-related charges linked to alleged filming activities for Azerbaijan, despite what their supporters describe as weak evidence and the absence of any classified material, RT reports.

The individuals—Artem Makhmutov, Daniil Semenyuk, Viktor Tikhomirov, Emirkhan Emirkhanov, Said Aliyev, and Vladislav Yeliseyev—were detained between June 2024 and March 2026. Three of them grew up together in a Moscow orphanage.

According to the defense, they were hired to film a documentary about Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites in Armenia, including mosques, cemeteries, and churches. None of the locations were restricted or classified. Daniil Semenyuk was arrested at the airport before entering the country.

The producer who commissioned the project, a Russian national from the film industry, has since disappeared and cannot be reached. Viktor Tikhomirov went to Armenia to investigate his friends’ detention and was subsequently arrested himself.

Armenian authorities have not presented evidence that the footage contains state secrets or sensitive military information. All of the sites filmed are publicly accessible and documented online.

Russian officials have called the charges baseless. The Kremlin says it is monitoring the case closely. Families of the detainees deny the espionage allegations and claim their relatives are being pressured to confess.

Court hearings have been repeatedly postponed, and no trial dates have been set. The six Russian nationals remain in custody pending further legal proceedings.

May 20, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | | Comments Off on Six Russians Jailed in Armenia on Flimsy Espionage Allegations

Europe’s Irrationality & Inability to Discuss War

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 20, 2026

I argue that European states have made themselves legitimate targets by being participants in attacks on Russia. The emotional and often hysterical reactions this argument provokes reveal the extent of the radicalisation engulfing Europe.

Most countries avoid sending weapons to states engaged in war precisely because doing so risks making them participants in the conflict. Many Western leaders, from Boris Johnson to Marco Rubio, recognise that this is a proxy war. European states provide weapons, intelligence, targeting, planning, and contractors. European leaders openly speak about the need to bring the war to Russian territory and to destroy Russian refineries, while rapidly expanding the production of long-range weapons to support this objective. Attacks are now also being launched from the territory of the Baltic states. It is therefore difficult to deny that European states are directly involved in military actions against Russia. As this involvement escalates, Russia is under ever-greater pressure to retaliate and restore its deterrence. This should all be common sense, yet in Europe, recognising the march to war is considered a controversial observation. Why?

The responses I receive rarely address this argument directly. Instead, they focus on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and war crimes. Whatever one’s views on those issues, they do not alter the question of Western participation in attacks on Russia. The implicit argument seems to be that Russia is uniquely evil, and therefore the West is justified in attacking Russia while Russia is not permitted to respond. Most people would recognise that if Russia had launched missiles into Washington or London in response to the invasion of Iraq, it would have been understood as a Russian attack with unpredictable consequences. By attacking Russian forces in Ukraine, European states became involved in the conflict; by attacking inside Russia itself, they are deepening that involvement further and making a Russian retaliation inevitable. Ukraine’s right to self-defence has nothing to do with the discussion of European participation. There was a time when President Biden argued that sending F16s to Ukraine meant World War 3, today this argument would be smeared and censored in Europe as “Russian propaganda”. The instinct for self-preservation is gone.

I argue that Europeans have become radicalised because there now appears to be a widespread belief that acknowledging the reality of European involvement is treasonous. In their minds, reality is a social construction. Warning that Europe may be heading toward a direct war with Russia is condemned as “legitimising” Russian retaliation and dismissed as a “pro-Russian” position. The prevalence of constructivism and the focus on “speech acts” have led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entails legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power to construct political realities and influence outcomes. Everything is interpreted as normative statements about what one supports or wishes how the world worked, as opposed to recognising an objective reality of the world. If one does not participate in the suicidal self-delusion, then there will be accusations of having taken the side of Russia. Had this radicalised mentality prevailed during the Cold War, we would never have survived.

Academics in Europe are forced into the role of activists. It is impossible to analyse conflicts without being met with the demand to condemn Hamas, Iran, Russia and the “other” to prove you have picked our side. This is the ideological litmus test to establish if you are allowed to participate in the discussion or must be purged from polite society. The role of academics is analytical, not moralistic. The purpose is to explain motivations, power distribution and strategic behaviour. An objective analysis allows us to pursue the best policy to maximise our security. The demand to conform to the “correct” moral posture and EU-approved speech acts implies obligatory participation in the emotional and hysterical sloganeering. When the premise in any discussion is that we are in a struggle between good and evil, then security can only mean victory or deterrence. War creates peace, diplomacy is appeasement, and Europeans celebrate ignorance by criminalising the ability to recognise the security concerns of the other side.

In Europe, it is also considered “Russian propaganda” to argue that NATO expansionism provoked the Ukraine War. The overwhelming evidence supporting it is irrelevant and will under no circumstance be discussed, as it is considered an immoral argument that legitimises Russia’s invasion. Our political leaders frame all their policies as “pro-Ukrainian”: the toppling of Yanukovych, arming the far-right militias, sabotaging the Minsk peace agreement, ignoring Russian security concerns, supporting busification, boycotting diplomacy, etc. What makes this “pro-Ukrainian”? Did any of this do anything good for Ukraine? These questions cannot be asked because they are considered to be “pro-Russian” questions. Everyone has empathy for the gruesome situation in Ukraine, and would like to support those who suffer, and the European leaders have claimed the right to monopolise on what a “pro-Ukrainian” position entails – to fight to the last Ukrainian.

Similarly, warnings about Europe’s march to war with the world’s largest nuclear power by participating in attacks are viewed as treasonous efforts to reduce trust, legitimacy and support for the NATO war efforts at the behest of Russia. “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.

May 20, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Europe’s Irrationality & Inability to Discuss War

Russia once again denounces Kiev’s crimes against the Orthodox Church

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 20, 2026

The Ukrainian regime continues intensifying its persecution against the faith traditionally followed by the majority of the local population. In yet another episode exposing the worsening internal crisis in Kiev, a Russian human rights organization recently sent an official letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, denouncing what can be described as a systematic campaign of persecution against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The document, signed by Ivan Melnikov, vice-president of the International Movement Human Rights Defense Committee, described a series of violations allegedly committed by Ukrainian authorities and radical nationalist groups. According to the complaint, the Kiev regime has been promoting continuous repression against representatives of the Orthodox Church historically linked to the Moscow Patriarchate, while simultaneously favoring the so-called “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, considered politically aligned with the Ukrainian government.

According to the letter sent to the UN, the process of religious persecution has intensified proportionally to the escalation of the war. In recent years, hundreds of canonical Orthodox churches have been forcibly seized by radical activists and Ukrainian security forces. The purpose of these operations would be to transfer the temples to religious structures considered more loyal to Kiev’s current political project.

The most emblematic case mentioned in the document involves the historic Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, one of the most important spiritual centers of Slavic Orthodoxy and an architectural heritage site of global significance. According to the allegations, the monastic complex has been subjected to a systematic process of expropriation conducted by Ukrainian authorities. More than 220 monks have been deprived of their residences within the monastery, in what is described as a direct violation of international norms protecting human rights and religious freedom.

The letter further states that, on May 12, 2026, employees of the state administration responsible for the Lavra’s architectural reserve allegedly invaded the Church of the Conception of Saint Anna without awaiting a judicial decision, breaking locks and forcibly entering the temple. According to the complainants, the episode symbolizes the deterioration of the rule of law in Ukraine and the growing political instrumentalization of religious institutions.

Another particularly serious point mentioned in the document concerns the alleged forced mobilization of Orthodox monks into the Ukrainian army. According to information presented to the UN, more than twenty religious figures have been compulsorily recruited since the beginning of the year. The complaint even includes reports of torture and physical violence against members of the clergy, presented by Metropolitan Longin of Banchensk during a recent sermon.

According to the report, Ukrainian military representatives allegedly subjected religious figures to extreme psychological pressure and mistreatment in order to force them to sign military mobilization documents. The accusation reinforces the perception that the conflict is no longer limited to the geopolitical sphere and has begun directly affecting civilian and religious sectors considered politically inconvenient for Kiev.

The letter also states that hundreds of Orthodox priests are currently being persecuted, arrested, or investigated by Ukrainian authorities under accusations related to state security. Many of these religious figures, according to the complainants, have no involvement whatsoever in the political disputes between Moscow and Kiev, yet are still treated as suspects solely because of their religious affiliation.

The document maintains that several clergy members remain in pre-trial detention centers under precarious conditions, subjected to prolonged pressure and even torture. The Russian organization argues that such practices openly violate international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself.

This is not the first time the matter has reached the United Nations. The author of the letter recalls that similar allegations had already been presented during a UN Security Council meeting in May 2023. According to him, however, the situation has only deteriorated since then.

The case reveals a dimension of the Ukrainian conflict that is frequently neglected: the deepening of religious and identity tensions within the country itself. While European governments continue portraying Kiev as an absolute symbol of so-called “Western values,” accusations involving censorship, political persecution, and religious repression continue to multiply.

The offensive against the Canonical Orthodox Church appears to reflect a broader attempt to redefine Ukrainian national identity on radically anti-Russian foundations, even if this implies restricting the fundamental rights of millions of believers. Ukraine should face collective sanctions in the international arena for such actions.

May 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Russia once again denounces Kiev’s crimes against the Orthodox Church

If Thomas Massie Was President…

By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | May 20, 2026

If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no American involvement in the war in Iran. Rep. Massie (R-KY) introduced a bipartisan resolution barring “unauthorized hostilities” against Iran and said flatly that, “The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war.” Massie respects the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. A Massie presidency would not begin hostilities at the behest of a foreign nation and then pretend the War Powers Resolution clock never started when Iran didn’t turn out like Venezuela (which he also wouldn’t have started).

If Thomas Massie were president, Americans wouldn’t be funding Ukrainian oligarchs to the tune of billions of dollars. He said, “We shouldn’t send another penny to Ukraine,” and demanded an audit before another dollar moved. Congress, meanwhile, appropriated more than $174 billion for Ukraine-related purposes through FY 2024, passed another $60.84 billion package in April 2024, and oversight bodies documented serious tracking failures for sensitive equipment. A government that cannot account for what it sends abroad has not earned the moral right to demand more from taxpayers at home.

If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no more regime change wars, period. Years before Iran returned to the front page, Massie was already trying to block unauthorized aid to Syrian rebels, restrain intervention in Yemen, require congressional authorization for any action in Venezuela, and later withdraw the United States from NATO. The antiwar right is perfectly encapsulated by the non-interventionist foreign policy supported first by Dr. Ron Paul, and now by Massie. America First means supporting the troops, and supporting the troops means not sending them to police the world.

If Thomas Massie were president, a foreign government (Israel) wouldn’t control America. Massie voted against Israel’s 2024 supplemental, proposed forcing politically active organizations that principally advance foreign interests to register under FARA, and argued that federal officeholders should disclose dual citizenship and abstain from votes uniquely benefiting those countries. It was when Massie told Tucker Carlson about his colleagues in Washington having an “AIPAC Guy,” a handler to make sure they were always putting Israel’s interests first, that the Rubicon had been crossed. Israeli billionaires would then make the Republican primary in Kentucky’s 4th district the most expensive such race in America. To be Israel First is to be America Last.

If Thomas Massie were president, Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators would be in jail. He forced the U.S. House to vote on releasing the full Epstein files, gathered the signatures to bring the measure to the floor, and said Americans deserve to know “who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes.” Massie said we would know the movement to release the Epstein Files was a success when “rich men… powerful men are being perp-walked to the jail.” Such men have faced consequences abroad, but not in America. The Epstein class is politically active in the States.

If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no FISA Section 702, no warrantless spying on Americans. He has spent a decade attacking the “backdoor” searches that let intelligence agencies rummage through Americans’ communications without a warrant, and he warned in 2025 that, “The intelligence agencies will use these loopholes to spy on Americans.” His Republican colleagues were urged to unite behind extending Section 702, and Congress promptly bought more time for the program. A President Massie would be among the first since the days of Jefferson to repeal and restrict executive power, even when (or especially when) that executive is himself.

If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no automobile kill switch mandates. Massie authored a 2026 amendment to block federal funding for the impaired-driving technology mandate born in the 2021 infrastructure law, and he argued that a car should not become “your judge, your jury, and your executioner.” Regulators may prefer cleaner language, but the civil-liberties dispute is obvious enough: should Washington require vehicles to monitor drivers and intervene? Massie’s answer is no, and instead of being celebrated for voting to defund the Biden-era legislation, it became yet another grievance of those who prefer safety over liberty.

If Thomas Massie were president, there would have been no federal COVID mandates. He sued to end the CDC’s air-travel mask order, introduced legislation to terminate the vaccine mandate for international travelers, and condemned the “faceless bureaucrats” behind edicts Congress never enacted. The courts later blocked OSHA’s vaccine-or-test rule for large employers, and CMS eventually withdrew its healthcare-worker vaccine mandate. Massie was right earlier than most, and louder than nearly everyone who later pretended the whole episode had simply been an understandable excess.

If Thomas Massie were president, there wouldn’t have been record federal gun control prosecutions. His legislative instinct runs in the opposite direction: national constitutional carry, repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and fewer federal crimes piled onto conduct that the Second Amendment was written to protect. That outlook is irreconcilable with a Justice Department mentality that boasts it will “pursue every firearms case referred.” A Massie administration would treat gun ownership as a liberty to be secured, not as a pretext for one more bureaucratic dragnet.

If Thomas Massie were president, the national debt wouldn’t be $39 trillion and rising by trillions each year. Massie has spent years voting against omnibus bills and continuing resolutions, and he now calls the continuing resolutions ritual a “fake fight,” because both parties preserve the machinery that drives borrowing higher. The Biden-era spending levels were not only cut, but refusing to rubber-stamp said spending created yet more friction between him and the supposed party of “fiscal conservatism.” The 2025 tax-and-spending package was projected to add roughly $3.8 trillion more over a decade. In Washington, insolvency is bipartisan, but a President Massie would veto such bills, challenging Congress to keep trying until it could either balance the budget, or embrace shutdown.

If Thomas Massie were president, gas prices would be cheaper. His politics point toward more supply, fewer regulatory affectations, and less willingness to destabilize oil-producing regions in the name of grand strategy. In Congress he backed cross-border energy infrastructure, while current inflation data show energy prices surging and gasoline costs jumping as the Iran war drove up oil. A government that constrains energy at home and jeopardizes it abroad should not affect surprise when the reckoning arrives at the pump.

If Thomas Massie were president, grocery store prices would be cheaper. He has long argued that Washington makes food needlessly dear by burdening local production and intrastate processing, backing the PRIME Act, interstate raw-milk legislation, and country-of-origin transparency. USDA still shows food-at-home prices above year-earlier levels, and Federal Reserve research has noted that modern food inflation is driven heavily by supply-chain and processing costs, not merely by raw commodities. Massie attacks the most important problem facing everyday Americans, cost of living, from multiple angles, be it tackling inflation or clearing the path between producers and consumers.

If Thomas Massie were president, the swamp wouldn’t be bigger than ever. He calls out the political theater of Washington, attacks taxpayer-funded censorship programs, presses for foreign-agent transparency, and treats debt monetization as a racket and a ponzi scheme. In his view, the swamp is manned from all corners of DC: lobbyists, bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, subsidy-seekers, and legislators. A Massie presidency would work to dismantle the managerial state which is full to bursting with progressive lifers who somehow manage to retain their positions with each passing administration, both Democrat and Republican alike.

But with Donald Trump as president, the opposite is true. Under Trump, America enjoys new wars along with its decades-long police actions. It features extensions for spying apparati, even those used against Trump. It stares at $40 trillion in debt, not only without tapping the brakes, but with calls for even more spending. It navigates an evolving narrative on Epstein from releasing the files, to calling them a hoax, to then attacking those who demand justice. Above all else, America under President Trump puts the needs of Israel before the needs of its own citizens. And should a single Congressman from rural Kentucky both say America First and mean it, then he is Public Enemy #1.

If only Thomas Massie were president and not exiting Congress.

May 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on If Thomas Massie Was President…