Extremist armed groups affiliated with the Syrian government have carried out a new massacre in Syria’s Alawite majority coastal region.
On 10 May, at least nine civilians, including a 13-year-old boy, were killed in a massacre in the village of Ain al-Sharqiyah near Jableh, in Latakia province. Two victims were found decapitated in what locals described as sectarian-motivated killings.
Eyewitnesses and local sources attribute the killings to a foreign-backed faction affiliated with the Ministry of Defense’s 107th Brigade, reportedly linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Among the victims were Hilal al-Ali, Anwar Hamouda, and his son. Graphic images circulated on social media showed the bodies following the brutal killings.
Pro-government Syria TV reported on the same incident, stating that “Four people, including a child, were killed by unknown assailants in the village of Ain al-Sharqiya in the countryside of Latakia and the General Security has begun investigating the incident.”
This attack is the latest in a series of abuses carried out by forces associated with the Ministry of Defense.
On 7 March, armed groups belonging to the ministry raided the coastal regions, carrying out a series of massacres and killing over 1,600 Alawite civilians on the basis of their religious identity, while looting and burning homes.
Residents have accused authorities of failing to rein in foreign factions and auxiliary forces responsible for the massacres.
In a related development, Adham Mukhtar Rajoub, the mayor of Al-Waer neighborhood in Homs, was assassinated by members of an extremist group aligned with the HTS-led Syrian government while driving his car.
Meanwhile, in Damascus, at least 50 homes were seized in the Alawite-majority Ash al-Warwar neighborhood. Armed groups reportedly threatened residents with arrest, labeling them as regime collaborators or “shabiha,” to justify the expulsions. Victims claim that even minimal resistance led to verbal abuse, detention, or forced displacement.
On 7 May, government-affiliated armed groups raided multiple villages in Tartous and Latakia, destroying homes and abducting civilians. In Jableh’s Ras al-Ain village, a respected Alawite sheikh, Saleh Mansour, was kidnapped from his home, his family assaulted, and his property looted by auxiliary forces. Locals prevented further kidnappings by intervening.
Since HTS, led by former Al-Qaeda commander Ahmad al-Sharaa, took power in Damascus in December, toppling the government of Bashar al-Assad, Syria has witnessed a chilling wave of mysterious kidnappings of young women, predominantly from the Alawite community.
Dozens of women, primarily from the Alawite religious sect, have been abducted and taken to live as sex slaves in Idlib governorate, the traditional HTS stronghold, by armed factions affiliated with the new Syrian government.
Iran has called attention to the double standards of the international community regarding nuclear weapons, calling it “unacceptable” for Western powers to raise alleged concerns over the country’s peaceful nuclear energy program while overlooking the Israeli regime’s extensive nuclear arsenal.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made the remarks during an extended address during the Fourth Round of Iranian-Arab Dialogues conference in the Qatari capital Doha on Saturday.
The top diplomat reminded that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy activities were a peaceful and legitimate pursuit in contrast to the nuclear weapons possessed by the Israeli regime.
He reaffirmed that Iran did not seek nuclear weapons and that weapons of mass destruction had no place in the country’s security doctrine.
The foreign minister pointed out that the country was one of the initiators of a nuclear-weapon-free zone concept in Asia and called on Western countries to abandon their double standards regarding nuclear proliferation.
“Iran is committed to the international non-proliferation regime,” Araghchi explained, denouncing Western countries’ and their allies’ decades-old way of raising uncalled-for alarm about the nation’s peaceful nuclear energy program while turning a blind eye to the Israeli regime’s nuclear arsenal.
For decades, the United States, its European allies, and Washington’s allied parties elsewhere across the globe have been using allegations of Iran’s pursuing non-conventional arms to either enact or agitate anti-Iranian policies, including sanctions, and anti-Iranian discourse.
This is while Iran’s leadership has categorically ruled out such endeavor in line with moral and religious imperatives.
The Islamic Republic’s refusal to either pursue, develop or stockpiles such weaponry has also been unexceptionally proven during the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s inspections, making the country the most-verified member of the United Nations nuclear watchdog.
‘Israel greatest threat to regional peace’
Pointing again to the Israeli regime’s nuclear weapons program and arsenal and instances of its deadly adventurism and expansionism across the West Asia region, the official said, “The existence of the Zionist regime remains the single greatest threat to peace in the region.”
He condemned the United States for supporting the regime unwaveringly and exponentially, calling Washington an accomplice in the regime’s atrocities, including its acts of violence and injustice targeting Palestinians.
The foreign minister described the regime’s ongoing genocidal and other aggressive measures as a direct attempt to erase the Palestinian nation.
Such prospect, he said, would amount to complete colonial erasure of the Palestinian nation through the most horrific forms of violence and forced displacement.
He identified the so-called “two-state solution” as a myth used to delay the realization of Palestinian rights for decades, and reminded that the regime, itself, had ruled out even that prospect.
Iran-US talks: A clarification on nuclear rights
As the fourth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States was set to begin the following day, Araghchi said, “We will continue our discussions with the United States — and concurrently with Europe, Russia, and China — in good faith.”
However, he made it clear that if the goal of these discussions was to ensure that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, that objective had already been achieved.
The official also firmly stated that if the aim was to deny Iran its legitimate nuclear rights and impose unrealistic demands, the Islamic Republic would not yield. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will never, under any circumstances, surrender any of the legitimate rights of the proud Iranian nation.”
In the same context, he underscored that Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment, was non-negotiable.
On regional cooperation, the path forward
Araghchi stressed the importance of regional convergence as the path forward for Western Asian nations.
He called for deeper trust-building and mutual understanding, advocating for cooperative initiatives in areas like cultural exchange, trade, and tourism.
According to Araghchi, prosperity in the region depends not on the rise of dominant nations, but on the success of a strong region as a whole.
Over the past few weeks and months, European leaders have changed their plans from sending troops to Ukraine to offering ‘air support’ and, finally, to bolstering Ukraine’s military forces and defence capability as a means to protect European security.
This whimsical switching exposes a lack of internal coherence and the continent’s inability to act autonomously and decisively to shape the course of events.
Europe’s Many Plans
Immediately after the Trump administration began its peace talks with Russia and Ukraine to end the military conflict, Europe decided to take a different route. This was supposed to be the first major manifestation of Europe’s strategic autonomy ever since its decision in 2003 not to support the US war on Iraq. The first route involved sending European troops from within the so-called “coalition of the willing” to Ukraine as a ‘peacekeeping’ force. This plan was the brainchild of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. But, as the Telegraph, a leading UK-based newspaper, reported at the end of March, the UK’s military officials dismissed the plan, calling it a “political theatre”. Needless to say, President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, had already dismissed the plan as “a posture and a pose” only. The second plan turned to offering air and naval support. But defence sources in the US and elsewhere in Europe reportedly found no military sense in this plan too, considering that this deployment will be hundreds of miles away from the frontline. In fact, one defence source told the media this support will not only be meaningless, but it will not be able to defend itself in the wake of any escalation.
The “Porcupine strategy”
This has led Europe to contemplate an altogether different strategy. The new plan is to arm the Ukrainian military to its teeth to prevent any deal between Russia and the US. It also includes upgrading Europe’s own defence capability. This strategy was released earlier in April as a “Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030”.
The White Paper is interesting for several reasons, one being that it is critical of Washington as well. For instance, the reason why Europe needs to upgrade its defence readiness is that it is being “coerced by external actors” who are “threatening our way of life and our ability to choose our own future through democratic processes. They believe that we are politically unable to summon a meaningful and strategically enduring response.” The paper squarely places these threats against the backdrop of the massive changes to the “political equilibrium that emerged from the end of the Second World War and then the conclusion of the Cold War”. Called the “Porcupine strategy”, the underlying objective of this plan is to help Ukraine boost its overall military capacity so that it can ‘resist’ Russia and protect Europe from any possible Russian expansion. It involves providing “large-scale artillery ammunition”, “air defence systems”, “drones”, “train and equip Ukrainian brigades”, “direct support to Ukraine’s defence industry”, and, among other things, “enhances access to EU spaces and services”.
The elephant in the room, however, is whether the EU actually has the ability to boost Ukraine. A lot of this is based upon the hope that the EU will be able to deliver this. The paper says, “Member States need the European defence industry to be able to design, develop, manufacture and deliver these products and technologies faster and at scale. In the context of substantially increased defence expenditure, a higher share needs to be invested in defence research and development and technology, concentrating efforts and resources on common European projects”.
A good part of this strategy, in fact, depends upon securing and providing loans. The White Paper proposes that the EU should “provide Member States with loans backed by the EU budget. With up to EUR 150bn, the Security and Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument will strongly support a significant increase in Member States’ investments in Europe’s defence capabilities, now and over this decade.”
Of course, it does not include, at present, any assurances and commitments from member states that they will be able to either secure these loans and/or be willing to invest this much in the defence industry immediately. For many in Europe continue to hope that transatlantic ties could still return to ‘normal’ in the post-Trump era.
While this is understandable as to why Europe, facing a different and unpredictable administration in the US, would want to chart a new course for itself – and doing so might, in the long run, help multipolarity as well – its rapid shifts between several plans based upon wrong strategic and financial calculation is unlikely to take it anywhere.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Polls show the majority of Americans support the closure most military bases overseas. The United States spends more on its overseas military bases each year than China spends on its entire military. The American President can close any foreign base without Congressional approval.
During the last year of his first term in office, President Donald Trump realized that he had been fooled and back stabbed by the Washington establishment. They want to grow the American empire no matter what it costs, not reduce it. Trump brought in knowledgeable outsiders in 2020 who quickly helped him order a reduction of American forces in Europe by just 10%. The Washington establishment screamed and Trump’s plan was killed soon after Joe Biden became president, who sent more soldiers to Europe.
American Generals and Admirals love overseas bases and never close any unless forced by political leaders. If told to close bases, they follow a proven strategy of demanding billions of dollars to move personnel, construct new facilities, and clean up closing bases. They stall the effort for years until political leaders have changed, as they did with Trump’s last effort. Trump is back with plenty of time to force base closures, but he needs to start now.
A National Institutes of Health (NIH) program that health officials claimed reduced the number of infants who died suddenly in their sleep fell victim late last month to budget cuts, triggering an outcry from some experts and mainstream media.
The 30-year-old “Safe to Sleep” campaign was overseen by the NIH communications office at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The program cut was part of the ongoing reorganization and streamlining of the NIH.
The program, which includes TV advertisements, was created to provide guidance to parents about safe sleeping practices for infants. It advises parents to place babies on their back to sleep, use a flat firm sleeping surface, keep the sleeping area clear, use a pacifier, and breastfeed, among other lifestyle interventions. That information will remain available on the website.
In an article published May 5, Mother Jones claimed “Safe to Sleep” was responsible for “years of progress in reducing the number of babies that succumb to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).”
The article smeared Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and others who suggest that the sudden and unexplained death of thousands of infants each year, often within a few days of vaccination, may in some cases be linked to vaccines rather than to sleep hygiene.
However, the plausible association between vaccines and SIDS has been reported in peer-reviewed literature for decades.
And research published in top journals has long shown that claims about the success of the “Safe to Sleep” campaign are mistaken. SIDS deaths didn’t go down after the campaign was launched in the 1990s. The deaths were simply categorized differently because of a change to the codes used by medical examiners.
A short history of SIDS in the U.S.
A SIDS diagnosis is given when an infant under age 1 dies suddenly, typically during sleep, and an investigation into the death fails to yield a cause. However, 95% of SIDS deaths occur in the first six months of life, peaking at ages 2-4 months.
The SIDS diagnosis didn’t exist until the late 1960s, when the category was created in response to a rise in sudden unexplained infant deaths. In 1971, the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) assigned a code to SIDS.
The ICD is the list of about 130 categories that coroners globally use to assign the cause of death when a baby dies.
In the early 1960s, the number of vaccines administered to most U.S. infants took off. The federal government began appropriating money so the CDC could work with local health departments to vaccinate all children. The agency established the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes the recommendations for vaccines to be listed on the childhood immunization schedule.
By the end of the decade, most U.S. infants were receiving the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT), polio and measles vaccines, and mumps and rubella vaccines also became available.
As SIDS rates rose, so did parental concern that SIDS was connected to vaccination, but authorities assured parents that unexplained death following vaccination was “merely coincidental,” Miller wrote.
He also said that before 1979, the ICD included cause-of-death classifications associated with “prophylactic vaccination” as an official cause of death. As a result, “medical examiners are compelled to misclassify and conceal vaccine-related fatalities under alternate cause-of-death classifications.”
Instead of examining the link between vaccines and SIDS, public health researchers developed a “triple-risk model” for explaining SIDS. That model says SIDS occurs when a baby has an unknown medical condition, it is going through an important period of development where the body changes quickly, and it encounters an outside stressor, such as sleeping on its stomach.
Enter the ‘back to sleep’ campaign
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1992 launched a national “Back to Sleep” campaign to inform parents to have children sleep on their backs rather than on their stomachs.
Between 1992, when the program was started, and 2001, SIDS deaths reportedly declined a whopping 55% — a number touted in every article celebrating the program, making it appear that babies sleeping on their stomachs was the cause of SIDS, not vaccines.
However, at the same time deaths from SIDS decreased, the rate of mortality from “suffocation in bed,” “suffocation other,” “unknown and unspecified causes,” and “intent unknown” all increased significantly.
What had happened was that the classification system had changed. SIDS deaths were being reclassified by medical certifiers, usually coroners, as one of the other similar categories, Miller reported.
Research published in the journal Pediatrics — the flagship journal of the AAP — concluded that deaths previously certified as SIDs were simply being certified as other non-SIDS causes, such as suffocation, that were still essentially SIDS deaths.
That change in classification accounted for more than 90% of the drop in SIDS rates.
The Pediatrics paper showed there was no decline in overall postneonatal mortality, despite the program’s — and the AAP’s — claims to the contrary.
Others verified the Pediatrics paper’s findings, and the trend continued, as reported by multiple studies in top journals. Miller reported that, for example, “From 1999 through 2015, the U.S. SIDS rate declined 35.8 % while infant deaths due to accidental suffocation increased 183.8%.”
In 2020, infant deaths from Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) — an umbrella category that accounts for both SIDS and other unknown causes began to rise even higher, according to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
No codes for vaccine-related sudden deaths
Dr. Paul Thomas, pediatrician and author of “Vax Facts: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & Stages of Life,” told The Defender in an interview last year that extensive evidence links SIDS to vaccination.
Thomas said that because there are no ICD codes for vaccination, the deaths are typically recorded as something else.
“When an infant dies, no matter how soon after vaccination, coroners and pathologists do not have any codes for vaccine-related death available as options, so these deaths are generally coded as SIDS, unknown, or suffocation.”
80% of infant deaths reported VAERS between 1990-2019 happened within 7 days of vaccination
Thomas said pediatricians are not educated about the link, so even when it clearly occurs, they don’t recognize it.
“I was taught that SIDS was due to parents smoking in the room, the room being too hot, babies co-sleeping or sleeping on surfaces that were too soft, or moms smothering their babies while nursing,” he wrote, sharing insights from his new book. “While all these factors may plausibly contribute, the primary cause has been right under our noses for decades. The vaccines!”
Miller’s analysis of sudden infant deaths in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed that nearly 80% of those deaths reported to the system between 1990 and 2019 happened within seven days of vaccination.
The 2018 Health Affairs study reported that the bifurcation of the U.S. mortality rates from those of other wealthy countries began in the 1980s — the same time the country saw a major uptick in childhood vaccination.
A 2023 study published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science found that the developed nations requiring the most neonatal vaccine doses tend to have the worst childhood mortality rates.
Child mortality researchers have also noted that sudden unexplained childhood deaths in children over 1 year old are often underestimated, and many such child deaths remain unexplained due to failure to understand or investigate causes.
A recent study in JAMA Pediatrics found that hospitalized preterm infants had a 170% higher incidence of apnea within 48 hours of receiving their routine 2-month vaccinations compared to unvaccinated babies, according to the data in a new study.
Higher infant mortality has also been linked to poor maternal health or other perinatal issues, including premature birth.
The present populist era is rife with all manner of odd realignments.
Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt recently faced sharp criticism from its ex-director Abraham Foxman over his initial plan to speak at the Israeli Diaspora Ministry’s International Conference on Combating Antisemitism in Jerusalem. For Foxman, the current ADL chief’s decision to share the stage with European populist figures was a bridge too far.
This conference counted on the presence of Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s National Rally party; member of the European Parliament Hermann Tertsch of Spain’s Vox party; MEP Charlie Weimers of the Sweden Democrats party; MEP Marion Maréchal, granddaughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen; and MEP Kinga Gál, of Hungary’s governing Fidesz party.
“Neither the left nor the right are friends of Israel and the Jewish people,” said Abraham Foxman, who led the ADL for nearly three decades. “Since the explosion of left-inspired antisemitism and anti-Israel hate in the last several years, the pseudo-Fascist right is trying to use the Jewish community as a platform, to demonstrate how legitimate and tolerant they are. Israel and the Jewish community should not give them legitimacy.”
Foxman is correct. Parties like the AfD and National Rally gain legitimacy by being slavishly pro-Israel—an excellent marker of the power of Jews in Western societies.
The presence of these controversial figures prompted a backlash from the ruling liberal establishment of the West. Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner for combating antisemitism, canceled his appearance, citing his shock at the participation of populist politicians. Likewise, French-Jewish intellectual and ardent Zionist Bernard-Henri Lévy withdrew from his keynote address after learning Bardella would be speaking at the conference. Greenblatt, himself, eventually bowed out as speaker.
Bardella was particularly vehement in his comments on anti-Semitism:
“Since Oct. 7 [2023] in particular, France and Europe are witnessing a deadly honeymoon between Islamists and the far left,” Bardella said. “One provides the fanatics, the other institutionalizes the evil … We have to face anti-Jewish action head on … We have a solemn commitment in France to fight antisemitism everywhere at all times in all of its forms, whether from radical Islamists and the far left or the far right and their delirious plots. None of this hatred has any place in France or Europe.”
Bardella linked “the rise of Islamism, resurgence of antisemitism and the migratory phenomenon tearing apart all Western societies,” and said that the “National Rally is the best shield for the Jews in France.”
In contrast with his party’s founder, Bardella noted that he visited Yad Vashem and spoke of “the unspeakable horrors” of the Holocaust.
Despite the controversy surrounding the Israeli-sponsored conference, it proceeded without issue. Overall, it reflects a notable shift in Israeli foreign relations, spearheaded by Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli of the Likud Party. Even before the Israeli government officially abandoned its policy of avoiding cooperation with right-wing populist parties in Europe, Chikli had been engaging with European populists.
He made appearances at conservative gatherings such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, where he praised President Donald Trump for his efforts to combat antisemitism. Chikli also spoke last year at Europa Viva 24, a gathering hosted by Spain’s Vox party, where he shared a platform with Marine Le Pen.
This growing closeness between Israel’s current leadership and European nationalist parties has stirred controversy both at home and abroad. Chikli’s vocal support for Le Pen during France’s recent elections drew criticism from diplomats in both countries. Last month, he and several Likud colleagues attended CPAC Hungary. In Western capitals, Hungary has been increasingly treated as a pariah for its unconventional foreign policy of treating NATO rivals such as China and Russia as normal countries and for its defense of traditional values and opposition to mass migration.
To those who have a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish influence in Western politics, the notion of Jewish groups aligning themselves with the populist would be almost unheard of. However, for seasoned observers of Jewish political behavior, these Jewish overtures to the European right are another classic case of the “Kosher Sandwich.” The strategy is quite simple: Jews take advantage, or sometimes even create a pressing social issue — immigration in this case. They subsequently insert themselves and their associates into both sides of the debate. But the Jewish interest in this case is to twist and exploit the issue for their own interests. Political newcomers, unaware of the deception, accept the Jew as an ally, convinced they are united in a common cause — only to be misled in the end.
One can see this in the “counter-Jihad” movement. Anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson, who has a history of receiving funding from the pro-Israel Middle East Forum and Jewish tech billionaire Robert Shillman, has been one of the most useful front goys for Jewish interests. While he has valid critiques about Islam’s corrosive influence in the United Kingdom and other West countries, Robinson has no issue with the UK importing millions of Hindus and Sikhs from the Indian subcontinent.
In effect, Robinson serves Jewish interests by promoting a Zionist-approved form of immigration restriction. Certain non-Whites — Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia — are demonized and barred from entering Western countries while other non-Whites less hostile, or at least apathetic, to Jewish political machinations continue flooding the Old Continent by the millions.
Jewish co-optation of European populist parties is a multi-decade project. Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán, who has otherwise sensible views on immigration and foreign policy, has a blindspot for Israel. This is largely due to his connection to Jewish Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein—one of the key architects of Orbán’s and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral successes.
As a result of this Jewish connection, Orbán has been one of Israel’s strongest diplomatic allies in Europe, especially in the post-October 7 world. Despite his positive overtures to the Israeli government, the Hungarian Prime Minister continues to be demonized for being antisemitic by Western liberal institutions.
Such Jewish penetration of the populist Right has also been present in Italy. Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s right-wing Lega party, has cultivated strong ties with Israel, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. Salvini has visited Israel multiple times, including in 2018 when he met Netanyahu, who called him a “great friend of Israel.” During these visits, Salvini expressed support for Israeli policies and criticized the EU’s stance on Israel.
A similar trend has occurred in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, the founder and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) has a long-standing, personal connection to Israel, having lived and volunteered there as a young man and visited the country dozens of times. He firmly believes that Israel should have dominion over the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, and has openly advocated for moving the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem. Wilders has met with Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, and other high-ranking officials. He has been welcomed as a “true friend of Israel” by Netanyahu and has attended official events in Israel.
With prominent French populist leader Marine Le Pen being convicted for embezzling European Union funds, Israel now sees an opening for outreach in the French populist scene. It has invited Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally (RN), and Marion Maréchal (Le Pen’s niece), to official conferences in Jerusalem, including the aforementioned government-organized antisemitism conference attended by the Netanyahu government.
Both Le Pen and Bardella have sought to rebrand the National Rally as a party amicable to Zionism, emphasizing support for the Jewish state’s security and opposition to “Islamist ideology.” Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Chikli publicly endorsed Le Pen, calling her “excellent for Israel” due to her anti-immigration and anti-Islamist positions.
The linking of right-wing populism with Zionist-friendly causes has also been pursued by political strategists and intellectuals like Steve Bannon and Yoram Hazony since the 2010s. Their distinctive approaches—Bannon’s political organizing versus Hazony’s think tank-building—represent two avenues that the American conservative movement has taken to make the world safe for Zionism in the populist era.
All things considered, what’s unfolding here appears to be a part of a backup plan for international Jewry to preserve itself in a 21st century marked by significant geopolitical upheaval. In a world where the United States can’t always be counted on to slavishly defend Israel, Jewish interest groups will strive to have all their bases covered by buying off populist parties abroad. As more and more voters in the West grow disillusioned with the post-World War II order, populist parties are well-positioned to upend traditional conservative and liberal parties and assume the levers of power.
As a result, the shiftiest elements of the transnational Jewish community will make attempts to insinuate themselves in these populist parties to ensure that they don’t become explicitly anti-Israel, much less antisemitic. Europe’s natural tendency, as evidenced by the scores of mass expulsions of the Jews across the Old Continent over two millennia of recorded history, is one of directly confronting the excesses of Jewish economic and political machinations.
To prevent this persistent element of European politics from making a comeback, Jewish interest groups have made it a point to defang White political power on both sides of the pond since the end of World II. In a post-liberal order, where the United States is no longer the unipolar power and its NGO appendages have lost their credibility, the Jewish diaspora will continue its subversive agenda albeit with a few tweaks in its strategy. Enter kosher populism—the only form of White grievance politics allowed in Jewish-dominated polities.
White advocates would be wise to not fall for the glossy exterior of regime-approved “populist” movements. While they may appear to be anti-system, their flaws with respect to challenging Jewish influence, ruin whatever positives they bring to the table. A hardened political cynic would view philosemitic populist organizations as containment vehicles designed to deradicalize Whites and prepare them for their eventual replacement by millions of foreign interlopers. Under normal circumstances, the White segment of the electorate would be gravitating towards nationalist parties that confront Jewish political power head on.
It can’t be stressed enough that European ethnic nationalism and strong anti-Zionist political movements are not permitted in the West. By leveraging hate speech laws, enforcing deplatforming across social media and financial sectors, and promoting controlled opposition groups, the Jewish lobby has thoroughly shaped the discourse in a way that prevents a friend-enemy distinction from ever materializing—the critical factor in undermining the Jewish supremacist projects.
Thanks to the Talmudic sleight of hand a certain faction of Jews has employed in their infiltration of nationalist groups, they ensure that Whites become cognitively polluted by Judaized talking points and expend vast resources and political energy in futile causes. In the meantime, the transnational criminal enterprise that is the Jewish global network continues to act with impunity—be it in the Middle East through the further consolidation of Israel’s geopolitical standing or by accelerating the demographic annihilation of the West via mass migration.
A strict policy of social distancing from institutions that are committed to preserving the Judeo-American Empire is of the essence. Given the demographic crises facing so many Western countries, it makes little sense to strike a Faustian pact with the Jewish institutions responsible for these developments.
US Representative Anna Paulina Luna has introduced a bill, the American Privacy Restoration Act, that aims to repeal the Patriot Act, passed in 2001.
The Florida Republican believes that what has in the meantime become the notorious post-9/11 legislation, has been abused by “rogue” intelligence officers to carry out mass surveillance in unlawful ways.
Announcing the bill, Luna mentioned that the Patriot Act has over the last decades been used to interfere in elections, violate innocent Americans’ privacy by spying on them, and even “settle personal scores.”
According to the representative, the ability to misuse and abuse the Patriot Act in such a way turned it into a tool for what is known as “the deep state” – whereas her legislative proposal seeks to take away the ability of these permanent power centers to violate the Fourth Amendment, that should protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Like a number of other laws, in particular those supposed to regulate intelligence and broader national security work, on paper, the Patriot Act’s condensed purpose is uncontroversial: to expand law enforcement powers, so as to “enhance the federal government’s efforts to detect and deter acts of terrorism in the United States or against United States’ interests abroad.”
However, on closer inspection – even before the law’s subsequent slide into controversy – it quickly became clear that the expanded powers were too broad and went beyond surveillance itself, to allow for warrantless searches in some cases, more “information sharing,” as well as access to business records.
Critics have been saying that since 2001, the Patriot Act has been turned against Americans themselves, and used as an excuse to subject even those not suspected of any wrongdoing to mass surveillance, all the while sidestepping the necessary guardrails and oversight.
Luna believes this has produced “the most sophisticated, unaccountable surveillance apparatus in the Western world.” And she believes it is necessary to act now to rectify this situation.
“It’s past time to reign in our intelligence agencies and restore the right to privacy. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is using ‘security’ as an excuse to erode your freedom,” the legislator is quoted as saying.
One of Luna’s unlikely – for political and ideological reasons – allies is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been pushing for reforms of the Act, reminding of the fact that when it was first passed in October 2001, many members of Congress admitted to not having read the bill before voting for it.
According to the ACLU, there were “intimations from the Bush administration that those who voted ‘no’ would be held responsible for further (terror) attacks.”
In 2023, I experienced something I never expected in a country like Singapore. Not once, but twice, I was detained and interrogated at Changi Airport—not for breaking any law, not for carrying suspicious items, but for my work as an academic and journalist who writes on Middle Eastern affairs, especially Palestine.
I am an Indonesian citizen. I grew up in Qatar due to my father’s work relocation and completed my high school and undergraduate education there. I later studied in the UK, and between 2022 and 2025, I lived and worked in South Korea as a Research Professor at Busan University of Foreign Studies. My writing has long focused on the politics of the Middle East, with a consistent interest in Palestine—a cause rooted in personal history, moral clarity, and scholarly duty.
In February 2023, my wife and I were in transit in Singapore, flying back to Indonesia from South Korea. We had planned a quiet evening during our overnight layover, including a stop to try halal noodles at Tampines Mall. But instead of a peaceful layover, I was stopped at immigration and taken to a secluded room beside the counter. My wife was told to wait nearby, confused and anxious.
After a short wait, three men approached me, identifying themselves as Singapore’s security officers. They questioned me about my background, my travel history across the Middle East, and most tellingly—my academic and journalistic work. They seized my phone and combed through its contents. One of them referred to me as a “prolific writer,” a remark that made it clear they had done prior research on me before the encounter. Another asked, “Why do you write about the Middle East, especially Palestine?” They also pressed me on my views regarding the situation in the Middle East, suggesting a deeper interest not just in what I had written, but in the perspectives I held.
They never explicitly accused me of wrongdoing. But their fixation on my publications, and on my years living across the Middle East, was a clear indication that my intellectual work had triggered their attention. Later, my wife told me that one officer had directly told her that they were questioning me because of my journalism. After hours of interrogation, I was released and escorted to the departure gate. We never got to try the noodles, and we were told to wait until morning for our connecting flight. Before letting me go, one officer gave a parting warning: “Don’t write about our encounter.”
I’m writing about it now because such intimidation cannot go unchallenged.
Seven months later, in September 2023, it happened again. I was on a flight from Busan to Yogyakarta via Singapore. Because the transfer wasn’t automatic, I had to go through immigration to recheck my bags. The moment my passport was scanned, I was flagged and pulled aside once more. The questioning this time was shorter, but the tone and focus were the same. Even when I returned in the morning to board my next flight, I was flagged again and directed to a “special” immigration counter.
These were not isolated or accidental encounters. My name and passport had clearly been red-flagged.
Ironically, I have professional ties with Singapore itself. I am affiliated with the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore—one of the country’s premier academic institutions on Middle Eastern affairs. But that did not seem to matter to the security officers who questioned me. My intellectual contribution meant nothing in the face of state suspicion.
I have traveled to over 40 countries. Like many Muslims and Middle East-focused researchers, I’ve experienced scrutiny at airports, including once under the UK’s notorious Schedule 7 counter-terror law at Manchester Airport. But to face this kind of treatment in Singapore—a country I had visited multiple times in the past without issue, and the very first country I ever traveled to as a young student—was deeply unsettling.
Singapore’s position on Palestine is telling. While it officially supports a two-state solution and often expresses concern over violence in the region, its foreign policy leans heavily toward Israel. Military cooperation between the two states is robust, including procurement of Israeli-made weaponry. As such, open criticism of Israel or public support for Palestinian rights may be quietly discouraged within Singapore’s tightly controlled public sphere. For foreign nationals like myself, even transiting through the airport can be enough to trigger scrutiny.
This raises critical questions about freedom of expression and academic independence—not just inside Singapore, but across a growing network of states that prioritise geopolitical alliances over basic rights. The chilling effect is real. After these experiences, I now actively avoid flights that transit through Singapore. I decline invitations to speak or participate in events there. I no longer feel safe traveling through a country that punishes intellectual inquiry into the Middle East.
We must ask: what kind of global academic and journalistic space are we creating when states begin punishing people not for what they do, but for what they write? When security officers begin quoting your articles to justify a border interrogation, you know you are not just being profiled—you are being surveilled for thought.
Journalists and scholars must remain vigilant. We must continue to speak truth to power, especially when it concerns oppressed peoples like the Palestinians. It is essential to continue challenging power through critical inquiry and to document the subtle and overt ways in which restrictions on freedom of expression and dissent extend beyond national borders.
Singapore, for its part, must be held accountable. If it wants to remain a respected hub for global transit, business, and academia, it cannot target people based on their views. It cannot pick and choose which intellectual conversations are permissible. And it certainly cannot suppress writing on Palestine without revealing its own complicity in a much larger effort to silence that struggle.
Let us be clear: Palestine is not a taboo. Palestine is not a crime. Writing about it should not make anyone a suspect.
I was told not to write about what happened to me at Changi Airport. But silence is not an option.
The top diplomats of Iran and Saudi Arabia met to discuss key issues related to bilateral relations, as well as regional and international developments.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, upon arriving in Jeddah on Saturday. His visit to Saudi Arabia is part of Tehran’s ongoing policy of strengthening ties with neighboring countries.
During the meeting, Araghchi also signed the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s memorial book.
Araghchi urged the Muslim world to take action to confront threats and challenges, including putting an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and preventing a conspiracy to annihilate Palestine in a colonial manner.
The top Iranian negotiator updated his Saudi counterpart on the latest developments regarding the Tehran-Washington indirect talks.
The Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers expressed the two countries’ determination to promote their common goal of expanding mutual relations in all fields.
On Friday, Araghchi announced that the fourth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States will take place in Oman on Sunday.
His regional tour includes a visit to Qatar later on Saturday as part of his diplomatic engagements.
Speaking in an interview on Friday, Araghchi said his visit to Saudi Arabia would be in line with consultations between the two countries about regional issues and indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States.
He added that since the beginning of the talks in April, Iran has been in constant contact with regional countries to inform them about the process.
“The sustainability of any potential agreement largely depends on the considerations and concerns of the regional countries regarding the nuclear issue and their common interests with the Islamic Republic,” the Iranian foreign minister emphasized.
Mediated by Oman, Iran and the US have held three rounds of talks in the Omani capital of Muscat and the Italian capital of Rome on April 12, 19, and 26, with the aim of reaching a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of sanctions on Tehran.
Both parties have so far expressed satisfaction with the way the negotiations are moving on, praising the talks as “positive” and “moving forward.”
A fourth round of the talks was scheduled to be held on May 3 in Muscat but was postponed for “logistical and technical reasons,” as cited by the Iranian foreign minister.
Russia is used to Western pressure and is not concerned about new sanctions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
He was commenting on a new round of sanctions recently imposed by the UK.
”We already know what we will do once the sanctions are announced and how we will minimize their effect,” Peskov told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Saturday. Russia has learned effective ways to counteract Western pressure, he said. “Therefore, scaring us with sanctions is pointless.”
On Friday, the British government announced what it called the “largest-ever” sanctions package against Russia, targeting its oil transportation network in order to deliver a blow to the country’s energy revenues.
The new measures blacklisted up to 100 oil tankers that the West claims are part of a Russian ‘shadow fleet’, older vessels operating outside Western insurance systems. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict over three years ago, successive British governments have introduced more than 2,000 sanctions on Russian individuals and entities.
Moscow has said the move will not harm Russia’s economy and will instead increase energy costs and inflation in Europe.
Earlier, US President Donald Trump called for an “unconditional ceasefire” between Moscow and Kiev, threatening punitive measures if the truce is not observed. “The US and its partners will impose further sanctions” if it is violated, he said.
In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that a total of 28,595 sanctions were imposed on Russian companies and individuals in recent years – more than the total number on all other countries combined. According to the president, the West sought to eliminate Russia as a competitor but its economy has only grown more resilient under pressure.
Gulf analysts wrote in The Media Line on Saturday that Saudi Arabia will host the 2025 Gulf-US Summit in mid-May, aligning with US President Donald Trump’s first visit to the Kingdom in his second term, echoing the huge May 2017 summit in Riyadh during his first term.
All Gulf leaders are expected to attend the summit, except for King Salman bin Abdulaziz, who has remained absent from public engagements due to health concerns.
Ahead of the summit, speculation has grown around what Trump referred to as a “very important announcement” during a recent meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House on May 6.
Observers anticipate that the summit could unveil high-level diplomatic shifts, economic agreements, or security deals.
Rumors of US recognition of a Palestinian State
According to The Media Line, the announcement of a Palestinian state is among the most widely discussed possibilities.
Moreover, a Gulf diplomatic source who spoke anonymously to The Media Line said, “President Donald Trump will issue a declaration regarding the State of Palestine and American recognition of it, and that there will be the establishment of a Palestinian state without the presence of Hamas.”
The source added that such an announcement could mark a significant realignment in the region, possibly leading more Arab states to join the normalization agreements.
Additionally, former Gulf diplomat Ahmad al-Ibrahim told The Media Line, “I don’t expect it to be about Palestine. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and King Abdullah II of Jordan have not been invited. They are the two countries closest to Palestine, and it would be important for them to be present at any event like this.”
This marks a significant policy shift by Washington. Under former President Joe Biden, nuclear negotiations with Riyadh were tied to a broader US-Saudi agreement that included recognizing “Israel” and a potential defense treaty with the United States.
Potential economic deals worth billions
Major Saudi economic deals in the 2025 visit may mirror those of the 2017 summit, when agreements worth more than $400 billion were signed, according to The Media Line.
Trump is also expected to visit Qatar and the UAE following his stay in Saudi Arabia, reinforcing speculation of further bilateral and regional economic announcements.
Saudi political analyst Ahmed Boushouki echoed this sentiment, stating, “This is about major economic deals that will take place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
“Perhaps President Donald Trump hinted at this when he told the American people to ‘buy stocks now, before his big announcement in the next two days.’”
According to the report, the summit may reignite discussions on US-Saudi nuclear cooperation. Saudi Arabia has had a peaceful nuclear energy program in place since 2010, and “International companies are now working to implement these projects in Saudi Arabia.”
It is worth mentioning that Saudi Arabia is advancing plans to build its first nuclear reactor, with several global firms competing for the contract, while the UAE’s Barakah plant remains the Arab world’s only operational four-reactor facility, built with South Korea.
I have in the past speculated that the day might come when President Donald Trump, he of a massive ego, might just become tired of his being manipulated and controlled by America’s Israel Lobby and by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. I thought, and hoped, that he might become so annoyed that he might move to take control of the so-called tail wags the dog relationship that has for so long put Israel in the driver’s seat. While I am loathe to read too much into several recent developments, the first suggestion [is appearing] that all is not well in Washington’s relationship with what has been euphemistically referred to as “America’s best friend and closest ally.”
Many observers are now openly voicing their view that Israel and its all-powerful Lobby in the United States have corrupted and now control many aspects of government, starting at the top in Washington and working its way down to state and local levels. Witness the near worship of Netanyahu by groveling congress critters during recent visits to Capitol Hill if you want a tangible display of government serving no conceivable national interest. Or check out the “antisemitism” and anti-Boycott legislation currently moving through Congress that will strip all Americans of free speech and free association, leaving them able to demonstrate against or even criticize their own country or other nations with the single exception of the Jewish state. If you don’t believe that will happen, check out the current tale coming out of San Marcos in Texas at the hands of ardently Zionist Governor Greg Abbott.
Given that Jews constitute something like 3% of the US population the establishment of such control through bribery and the support of a compliant media is truly a remarkable achievement but one might plausibly argue that it has done terrible damage to the country as a whole and has contributed nothing to benefit the American people. Israel is currently carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians that is funded, armed and provided with political cover by the Trump Administration, following on to the model established by Genocide Joe Biden, which could be stopped with one phone call to Netanyahu from the White House. But, unfortunately, up until now no one has been picking up the phone.
I must admit to being shocked to have read some of the recent news coverage, mostly coming out of Israeli and other foreign media, of course, that is describing the rift between Trump and Netanyahu. The signs that trouble could be brewing might well be dated back to January 11th, with US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff demanding a meeting in Tel Aviv with Netanyahu. Netanyahu responded that it was a Saturday, the Sabbath, but Witkoff, acting under orders from Trump, insisted and the meeting was held. It turned out to be a tense exchange which included a demand that a ceasefire for Gaza drawn by the White House be implemented, and so it was, though Netanyahu later proceeded to withdraw from it and recommence hostilities before it entered phase two on March 1st. A demand by Trump that Netanyahu should visit him in Washington in early April followed and there were reported disagreements about the Administration’s tariff plan and about US negotiations with Hamas without Israel’s input. Discussions also concerned US discussions with Iran to restore a program (JCPOA), canceled by Trump during his first term in office, to monitor the Iranian nuclear program to prevent it from being weaponized. Netanyahu was demanding a “Libyan Solution” which would have been a war including US forces that would have basically destroyed Iran’s defensive capabilities, something that even a White House disinclined to deal with reality realized would never be accepted in Tehran. Netanyahu was reportedly also angry at the Trump Administration’s resistance to his own plans to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians while also going to war with the Iranians.
So, the US move to negotiate with Hamas directly, sidelining Israel, started the rebellion on the part of Washington and it was followed up by the negotiations with Iran, again without Israel’s input. And there was also the issue of US negotiations with Saudi Arabia, again without including Israel, over the Kingdom’s intention to develop its own civil nuclear program. And finally, there was last week’s decision to enter into a ceasefire with the Houthis after direct negotiations, described by the White House comically as a “capitulation” by the Yemenis. Some observers accepted the language but have been questioning who had done the surrendering in a war that cost in excess of $1 billion and which accomplished nothing. Israel, for its part, was not involved in either the talks or the agreement, leading an aggrieved Netanyahu to vow to “defend ourselves alone”.
But this week, Trump sent the clearest message of all to Netanyahu. He has been planning to meet with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the Middle East next week but will not meet with Netanyahu. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also canceled a planned trip to Israel at the same time, according to two Israeli officials, reinforcing the message sent by the president. The immediate cause of the rift was that Trump had apparently hoped for a major de-escalation and even a ceasefire in Gaza as a highlight of his trip for which he would have taken credit, but Netanyahu instead called up army reserves and ordered a major escalation. The Times of Israel reported that “Trump is disappointed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” citing two “senior sources close to the president.” And even opinion columnist Thomas Friedman in normally careful-about-its-reporting on Israel The New York Times is openly suggesting in a piece “This Israeli Government is Not Our Ally” that the Netanyahu regime is no longer behaving as an American friend because of its extremist agenda.
Several reports, relying on what are claimed to be multiple sources inside the Israeli government, have now claimed that Trump has de facto cut ties with Netanyahu and will have no direct contact with the Israeli Prime Minister. Israeli government Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and former Ambassador to the US was in Washington on Thursday and was welcomed and met with Trump. He was reportedly told flatly that the US “will move forward on regional plans without coordinating with Netanyahu, accusing him of manipulation.” One report on the development went on to emphasize that what Trump hates most is being looked down upon and being manipulated, “There is nothing Trump hates more than being portrayed as a fool or someone being played. That’s why he decided to cut contact with Netanyahu,” one US official speaking off the record added.
What is not being discussed in the media but is nevertheless being considered in intelligence circles in Washington is the possible connection of the excommunication of Netanyahu with various dismissals and relocations of high officials in Washington, including that of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz who was demoted to the post of UN Ambassador. It seems that there is strong evidence to suggest that Netanyahu did not exactly trust Trump and has been spying on him and his decision making through a number of officials in his cabinet, which explains to a certain extent the odd Signal phone calls where journalist Jeffrey Goldberg just happened to be listening in and other incidents that suggest that Mossad or the Israeli Embassy in Washington has established relationships that sought to go around the president and might be described as espionage. It would also help to explain the mixed signals coming out of the administration, suggesting that some “recruits” are being coached on what to say to advance the Netanyahu agenda.
How all of this will develop and where it will eventually wind up remains somewhat up in the air as the powerful Israel Lobby is almost certainly cranking up efforts to restore the Jewish state’s dominance of US foreign policy in the Middle East, what Trump is now defining as “manipulation.” Zionist uber hawks in Congress are already warning the White House that any agreement on nuclear developments with Iran will be rejected by the legislature if it does not include a “complete dismantling” of all nuclear enrichment by Tehran, something that is not likely to be acceptable and which means that no agreement will be possible. Wholly owned by Israel Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Victor Cruz are leading the charge and claim to have enough votes to block any such proposal, which means it will not be a “law” or treaty and could be “withdrawn from” by any new president, just as Trump did with the original JCPOA in 2017.
So, there has been some movement in the relationship between Israel and the United States. As it is headed towards Washington regaining some independence of action in its Middle Eastern foreign policy it can only be a good thing as the lopsided relationship with Israel has brought nothing but grief and suffering. One can hope that it will continue in that more positive direction but there will be strong resistance from Congress and the Media, directed by the powerful Israel Lobby. Trump and whoever supports him will find themselves assailed from all sides but we ordinary citizens who are watching all this from the sidelines will have to hope and pray for a good result.
Philip Giraldi is an American columnist, commentator and security consultant. He is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a role he has held since 2010.
Trump claims Iran’s military is routed just as IRGC launched missiles strike American bases
RT | June 10, 2026
The Iranian military has been “completely defeated,” US President Donald Trump has claimed, warning Tehran it will “pay the price” for delaying a deal with Washington.
The warnings came after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced missile and drone strikes on American military facilities in several Arab countries in retaliation for recent US attacks. US Central Command said the operations inside Iran were carried out after an AH-64 Apache helicopter was lost near the Strait of Hormuz, an incident it blamed on Tehran.
Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday that Iran “is all talk and no action,” adding that “The Bully of the Middle East is DEAD!!!” … Full article
HEAT exposure could drive a dramatic rise in cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden across the USA over the next 25 years, with researchers warning that climate change and population ageing may combine to reverse decades of progress in heart health.
Heat Exposure Threatens Future Heart Health A new modelling study estimated that heat-attributable CVD burden could more than triple by 2050 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, disproportionately affecting older adults and economically disadvantaged communities. … Full article
… Climate change and land use conversion have the potential to increase the frequency of encounters between snakes and humans. This situation arises due to changes in temperature and rainfall, the loss of natural habitats, and shifts in food sources, which drive snakes to move into areas closer to human activity.
Prof Mirza Dikari Kusrini, a lecturer in the Department of Forest Resource Conservation and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment (Fahutan) at IPB University, explained that climate change affects snakes’ behavior, distribution, and movement patterns. … Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 