‘Israel’ violates ceasefire: Troop infiltration, strikes in S. Lebanon
Al Mayadeen | January 12, 2025
Israeli occupation forces infiltrated various areas and villages in South Lebanon on Sunday, violating the ceasefire agreement in place since November 27.
In the latest violation, an Israeli drone targeted the outskirts of the town of Jbal al-Butm in southern Lebanon, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported.
Earlier, an Israeli Merkava tank also advanced toward the northern areas of the town of Maroun al-Ras, our correspondent said.
In a related development, an Israeli infantry unit raided homes on the northern outskirts of Maroun al-Ras, near Bint Jbeil, conducting a sweeping operation with machine gun fire.
An Israeli force also advanced toward the town of al-Majidiya, moving toward the Wadi Khansa junction and the outskirts of the al-Mari plain, under the surveillance of a military drone.
Additionally, an Israeli military unit infiltrated the western outskirts of the town of al-Dhayrah, blowing up a house before withdrawing toward the southern outskirts of the town.
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent further reported that Israeli occupation vehicles involved in the incursion fired shells at civilian homes in the town of Ayta al-Shaab.
HTS-led Syrian security forces step up sectarian killings: Report
The Cradle | January 12, 2025
Militants affiliated with the new Syrian government, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, are kidnapping and murdering members of Syria’s Alawite community based on their religious identity in various parts of Syria.
Immediately after ousting the government of Bashar al-Assad and taking power in Damascus on 8 December, militants from HTS began targeting members of the Alawite community based on accusations of crimes they committed as part of the previous government.
However, Al-Akhbar reported on 11 December that in the Hama governorate, especially in the villages of its northern and eastern countryside, HTS and affiliated militants are carrying out “liquidation operations based on identity, without making accusations against them, such as that they are ‘regime remnants’ or were ‘against the revolution’ before ordering the killing.”
The Lebanese paper reports that militants affiliated with the new government are “terrorizing the residents of the Alawite sect and pressuring them to evacuate their homes, especially in some eastern villages affiliated with Salamiyah,” which will lead to demographic changes in the region.
In the villages of Al-Zaghba, Mabatan, Maryoud, Al-Fanat, and Maan in the eastern countryside, armed factions are stealing, looting, and burning homes to ensure that residents do not return.
A resident of Al-Zaghba village told Al-Akhbar that “the militants present in the village prevent the return of the homeowners, and if the purpose of returning is to check on the house or bring some items and necessities from it, then the residents enter at their own risk.”
One of the residents displaced to the villages of the Syrian coast told Al-Akhbar that “he no longer thinks of returning to his village due to the violations committed by militants whose affiliation no one knows.”
He added that “the militants killed a civilian man from the village who returned to check on his house during the past two days.”
When he contacted authorities from the new government to “find out the affiliation of these killers, who responded that the area was outside the control of its factions and that it had nothing to do with the violations taking place there.”
Reports of sectarian killings by HTS or affiliated militants in Homs, Latakia, and Tartous continue to emerge on social media.
On 8 January, an Alawite man, Sheikh Ali Deeb, and his wife were killed in rural Salamiyah in the village of Dniba during an HTS search operation. Their bodies were found on a side road connecting the village of Dniba to the neighboring village of Snida.
On 9 January, Aziz Mamdouh Ahmed was found murdered after being kidnapped in the Dablan area in the city of Homs by HTS militants.
Ahmed was a fifth-year student in the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Homs and is the only child of his parents. He comes from the Alawite-majority village of Al-Qabou.
In another incident this week, extremist militants shot and killed the popular Syrian-Palestinan actor Abdulmounem Amayri, accusing him of blasphemy. According to his daughter, the militants stopped him while he was driving, dragged him out, beat him till he was unconscious, and then stepped on his body.
On 8 January, in the small Alawite village of Ayn al-Sharqiyah on the Syrian coast, three members of the Izzeddine family were murdered while picking olives. Large numbers attended the funeral of Ammar, his son Musa, and his nephew Mohammad.
The HTS-led government sometimes acknowledges that such violations are taking place, but describes them as ‘isolated’ incidents or revenge incidents. At other times, it refuses to comment on them, saying that the armed groups committing these killings have no affiliation with the government.
The new Syrian government has also detained large numbers of soldiers who fought in the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) before its fall in December. The HTS authorities are requiring all soldiers to turn in their weapons and undergo an investigation for their actions during the war. In exchange, they receive a paper showing their reconciled status.
However, reports have emerged of Alawite soldiers being singled out for their religious faith and imprisoned.
On 6 January, relatives of imprisoned soldiers held a protest in Umayyad Square in Damascus, calling for the release of up to 10,000 former Syrian army soldiers and officers currently held in HTS prisons in Adra, Hama, and Idlib. Demonstrators demanded their sons be released, saying many were detained after handing in their weapons and receiving reconciled status.
How the West Destroyed Syria
By Rick Sterling | Dissident Voice | January 11, 2025
Peter Ford served in the UK Foreign Ministry for many years including being UK Ambassador to Bahrein (1999-2003) and then Syria (2003-2006). Following that, he was representative to the Arab world for the Commissioner General of United Nations Relief and Works Agency. He was interviewed by Rick Stering on Jan 6, 2025.
Rick Sterling: Why do you think the Syrian military and government collapsed so rapidly?
Peter Ford: Everybody was surprised but with hindsight, we shouldn’t have been. Over more than a decade, the Syrian army had been hollowed out by the extremely dire economic situation in Syria, mainly caused by western sanctions. Syria only had a few hours of electricity a day, no money to buy weapons and no ability to use the international banking system to buy anything whatsoever. It’s no surprise that the Army was run down. With hindsight, you might say the surprise is that the Syrian government and Army were successful in driving back the Islamists. The Syrian Army forced them into the redoubt of Idlib four or five years ago.But after that point, the Syrian army deteriorated, became less battle ready on the technical level and also morale.
Syrian soldiers are mainly conscripts and they suffer as much as any ordinary Syrian from the really dreadful economic situation in Syria. I hesitate to admit it, but the Western sanctions were extremely effectively in doing what they were designed to do: to bring the Syrian economy down to its knees. So we have to say, and I say this with deep regret, the sanctions worked. The sanctions did exactly what they were designed to do to make the Syrian people suffer, and thereby to bring about discontent with what they call the regime.
Ordinary Syrians didn’t understand the complexities of geopolitics, and they blamed the Syrian government for everything: not having electricity, not having food, not having gas, oil, high inflation. Everything that came from being cut off from the world economy and not having supporters with bottomless pockets.
Syria was being attacked and occupied by major military powers (Turkey, USA, Israel). Plus thousands of foreign jihadis. The Syrian army was so demoralized that they really were a paper tiger by the end of the day.
RS: Do you think the UK and the US were involved in training the jihadis prior to the December attack on Aleppo?
PF: Absolutely. The Israelis also. The leader of Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS), Ahmed Hussein al Sharaa (formerly known as Mohammad abu Jolani) almost certainly has British advisors in the background. In fact, I detected the hand of such advisors in some of the statements made in impeccable English. The statements had Americanized spelling, so the CIA are in there too. Jolani is a puppet, a marionette saying what they want him to say.
RS: What’s the current situation, a month after the collapse?
PF: There are skirmishes here and there, but broadly, the Islamists and foreign fighters are ruling the roost. There are pockets of resistance in Latakia where the Alawite are literally fighting for their lives. Much of the fighting is about the attempts by HTF, the present rulers to confiscate weapons. The Alawites are resisting and there are pockets of resistance in the South where there are local Druze militias.
HTS is spread thinly on the ground. They are facing problems in asserting themselves. Although they had a walkover against the Syrian army, they never actually had to do much fighting. I would guess they only have about 30,000 fighting men and spread across Syria, that is not a lot. There’s an important pocket of resistance in the Northeast where the Kurds are. The Kurdish American allies are resisting. The so-called Syrian National Army, which is a front for the Turkish army, may go into a fully fledged war against the Kurdish forces. But that’s going to depend partly on what happens after the inauguration of the new US president, how Trump deals with the situation.
RS: What are you hearing from people in Syria?
It is not a pretty story. HTS and their allies have been parading showing their dominance, flying ISIS and Al-Qaeda flags. They have been bullying, intimidating, confiscating and looting. Surrendering Christian as well as Alawite soldiers have been given summary justice, roadside executions being the norm. Christians in their towns and villages are just trying to hunker down and pray. Literally. I’m sorry to say the senior Christian clerics, with one or two noble exceptions, have opted for appeasement and effectively betrayed their communities. The senior leadership at the Orthodox Church, in particular Greek Catholic church, have had themselves photographed with dignitaries of the jihadi regime.
They are turning the other cheek. It’s quite a contrast with the Alawite. But they have no choice. You may remember that the slogan of the jihadi armies during the conflict was, “Christians to Beirut, Alawite to the grave.” HTS is going through the motions of having meetings with clerics and making soothing noises. All the while their henchmen are driving around in trucks flying ISIS flags. What I’m hearing is very depressing.
The regime is leaving the Alawites totally abandoned. You barely read a word in the west in media about the plight of the Alawite and not much more about the Christians.
RS: Western media have demonized Bashar al Assad and even Asma Assad. What was your impression of Bashar and Asma when you met them? What do you think of accusations they accumulated billions of dollars?
PF: The accusations are completely spurious. I know some members of the Assad family, some of them have lived for many years in Britain. They lived in very modest personal circumstances. If Assad had been a billionaire, like they’re saying, some of that would’ve trickled down. I can guarantee you that has not been the case. These accusations also go against the impressions that I picked up when I was seeing the Assads when I was an ambassador there. They appreciated the good things of life the same as everybody else, but they didn’t come across as the Marcos type. Nothing at all like that. It is all lies, made up to serve the deeper agenda.
The media kicking of Bashar and Asma is really distasteful. It’s pointless. He’s disappointed his few remaining followers, although it was unrealistic, I believe, for them to expect more. But the fact is that he ran when others were not able to run, and many of those have been killed, or they’re hiding or they’ve escaped to Lebanon in some cases where they’re also hiding. He did get out with his skin, but to beat up on him as the media are doing is really distasteful and pointless. It is akin to this new genre of political pornography, Assad porn, the torture stories, the hyped up narrative about prison and graves being opened up. Actually, by the way, most of those graves are war dead. They were not people who’d been tortured to death as the media pretends. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the conflict over more than a decade, and many of them were buried in unmarked graves. But the western media are reveling in this new genre of Assad porn.
This is all being whipped up to make Western audiences more accepting of the way the West is getting into bed with Al-Qaeda. The more they demonize Assad and harp on the misdeeds of the Assad regime, and the more likely we are to swallow and be distracted away from the hideous atrocities being carried out right now.
Western leaders are kissing the feet of a guy who’s still a wanted terrorist and who has been a founder member of ISIS for God’s sake, as well as a founder member of Al-Qaeda in Syria. It is morally distasteful and shaming.
Joulani needs the west desperately now. Otherwise, he will face the same fate as Bashar Asad. If the economy continues on its trajectory of the years, then Joulani will be dead meat in fairly short order. He has to deliver massive rapid economic improvement to survive as leader. And this is what it’s all about. His strategy, obviously, is to milk his status as a puppet of the West in order to secure not just reconstruction aid, but that’s for the long term, but more immediately sanctions relief, the electricity flowing again, the oil.
Let’s not forget that the oil and gas of Syria is still effectively in the hands of the United States, which through its Kurdish puppets, controls a segment of the economy, which used to be worth, I think, 20% of serious GDP and provide essential oil for fuel, cooking, everything. He’s got to get his hands on that and get sanctions lifted. That’s what so much of it is about. But he has one major problem: Israel. Israel’s not buying it. Israel is the exception. All the western front is tumbling over itself to go and kiss the feet of the sultan of Damascus. But the Israelis are sucking their teeth, saying they don’t trust the guy.
Israel is destroying the remnants of the Syrian army and its infrastructure. Meanwhile they grab more Syrian land. They want to keep Syria on its knees indefinitely by insisting that Western sanctions not be lifted. I sense there’s a battle royal going on in Washington between what we might call the deep state, which would favor lifting sanctions and the Israel lobby, which is resisting that for selfish Israeli reasons. Given that the Israeli lobby wins these tussles nine times out of 10, the outlook may not be that great for the Jolani regime.
RS: What are your hopes and fears for Syria? What’s the nightmare scenario and what’s the best possible?
PF: I’m very pessimistic. It is very hard to see a silver lining in what has happened. Syria has been taken off the table as a Middle East player. The old Syria has died effectively. Syria was the last man standing among the Arab countries that supported the Palestinians. There was no other. There were militias like Hezbollah plus Yemen but there were no states other than Syria. Syria is now gone, and the jihadis are saying, telling the world they don’t care. By the way, this is an example of how the Israelis will not take yes for an answer. The jihadis keep telling the world, “We love Israel. We don’t care about the Palestinians. Please accept us. We love you.” And the Israelis won’t take yes for an answer.
The best hope for the Syrian people is that they may get some respite. It is possible to imagine a scenario where the Syrian people are able to recover, at least economically a scenario under which sanctions are lifted, under which Syria, the central government recovers control of its oil and grain, where fighting has stopped, where it doesn’t have to pay anything to keep up an army because it’s not trying. They might be able to put everything into reconstruction.
So it is possible to imagine a scenario where Syria loses its soul, but gains more hours of electricity. That is possibly the most likely scenario. But there are major obstacles as we discussed, Israel standing in the way of sanctions, lifting pockets of resistance in discipline among the jihadi ranks, Turkey rampaging against the Kurds and ISIS which is still not a completely spent force. So the outlook is obviously cloudy. We should take stock in a month’s time when we see the early days of the new regime in Washington on which so much will depend.
RS: In Trump’s first term he tried to remove all US troops from east Syria but his efforts were ignored. Perhaps that could have made a big difference?
PF: Yes, it could have been a total game changer. If Syria had access to its oil, it wouldn’t have had the fuel problem, the electricity problem. It could have changed the history of the region.
Now, the US is increasing the number of soldiers and bases in Syria. And they recently assassinated an ISIS leader which might have played a role in sparking the recent terrorist attack in the US. All of this makes it much harder now for Trump to withdraw US forces because it will be seen as a retreat, a reward for ISIS.
I argued for years that the sanctions were manifestly not working. But in the end they did. It’s like a bridge. It gets undermined and then suddenly it breaks. There was no single cause. It was just the culmination and things reached a tipping point.
AfD delegates reject motion condemning Putin
RT | January 12, 2025
The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has overwhelmingly voted against including in its 2025 election manifesto a condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the conflict in Ukraine.
The delegates gathered for a conference in Riesa, Saxony on Saturday to decide on the platform for the snap parliamentary elections, which will be held next month.
Albrecht Glaser, a member of the Bundestag, proposed to accuse Russia of failing to protect civilians in Ukraine and to state that “AfD condemns the behavior of President Putin and once again calls on all warring parties to propose an immediate ceasefire and hold peace talks.”
According to news channel N-tv, 69% of the delegates voted to reject the motion. The draft program approved by the party leadership only briefly mentions the conflict, saying that “the war in Ukraine has disturbed the European peaceful order,” the news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported.
The draft reportedly says that AfD “sees Ukraine’s future as a neutral state outside of NATO and the EU,” and calls for the restoration of “undisturbed trade” with Russia.
Known for its anti-immigration stance, AfD is the second-most popular party in Germany, according to the polls. The party has been often accused of parroting Russian narratives about the conflict, given that its position on Ukraine mostly aligns with Moscow’s demands to Kiev.
The party has rejected the “pro-Russian” label, insisting that continuing military support for Kiev and sanctions on Russian trade and energy exports are against Germany’s national security.
During her recent conversation with tech billionaire Elon Musk, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel argued that the EU has abandoned diplomatic efforts in favor of dangerous confrontation with Russia. The conflict could “escalate big time towards a nuclear exchange,” she warned.
Early elections were called after Germany’s ruling three-party coalition collapsed in late 2024 due to disagreements over the budget.
Swiss People’s Party Demands Resignation: Defense Minister Under Fire for Security Policy Failures
Sputnik – 12.01.2025
According to the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), Switzerland is incapable of guaranteeing internal and external security because of its arms deliveries to Ukraine and its rapprochement with NATO.
The Swiss People’s Party, Switzerland’s largest political force, has called on the head of the country’s Defense Ministry, Viola Amherd, to resign over her failed security policy.
“The fact that Switzerland can no longer guarantee its internal and external security is the result of political mistakes – and a consequence of wrong appointments,” a statement read.
Viola Amherd is also blamed for the country’s rapprochement with NATO.
“Those who are gradually tying Switzerland to NATO are accepting that young Swiss are dying abroad and that Switzerland is being dragged into foreign conflicts,” the Swiss People’s Party said.
According to the SVP, Amherd prefers to deal with gender issues in the armed forces rather than military equipment.
“She allows weapons ordered for Switzerland to be delivered to Ukraine. These are the wrong priorities, Federal Councillor,” the SVP said in a statement.
In late October 2024, Amherd said that Bern should ease restrictions on the re-export of Swiss weapons because of the country’s arms business. She cited the fact that the Netherlands had already decided to stop buying weapons from the nation because of the current ban on re-exports, and that Germany could follow suit.
Russia believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder a settlement and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Lavrov, the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict, not only by supplying weapons, but also by training personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries. The Kremlin stated that the West pumping Ukraine with weapons does not contribute to negotiations and would have a negative effect.
Non-violent revolution in Serbia gains traction and raises questions
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2025
New Year’s came and went, but as we had surmised Serbia’s Batista did not make his country a wonderful holiday gift by fleeing. Not just yet. The pressure from below however continues to build relentlessly, clouding his political future. The most that the stubbornness of the regime, which has managed to annoy almost everyone, can now hope to accomplish is to merely postpone the inevitable.
The latest round of social unrest in Serbia began on 1 November when in the northern city of Novi Sad a recently “reconstructed” roof overhang weighing over 20 tonnes collapsed, squashing seventeen passers-by, of whom fourteen died on the spot, one succumbed later on, and two are still fighting for their life.
But what elsewhere might have been written off as an unfortunate accident (or an “Act of God,” as it is awkwardly known in common law terminology) has triggered in Serbia an unprecedented tsunami of popular fury directed at the presumed malfeasance of the authorities, which are seen as having made it possible for the tragedy to occur.
The broad based protest movement is spearheaded by university and secondary school students, but its ranks are being swelled by farmers, teachers, members of other professions, and ordinary citizens. The position of the protesters is that the direct cause of the killing was endemic corruption which pervades all echelons of Serbian society, with a disproportionate concentration at the political top. They argue that the railway station reconstruction was a sweetheart deal at a grossly inflated price awarding the job to contractors close to top officials, with whom they were more than willing to share the loot. As a result, the authorities deliberately turned a blind eye to egregious violations of quality standards and the shabby workmanship of their minions.
The principal demands of the student movement are that all technical and financial data pertaining to the defective reconstruction be made public and that culprits responsible for the appalling loss of life be punished, irrespective of rank. That sounds reasonable enough, although other issues vital to the Serbian nation, such as the regime’s betrayal of Kosovo, are conspicuously missing from their list of grievances. Even these rather modest demands however have been rebuffed contemptuously by the authorities, fuelling more discontentment and swelling the mass of the protesters.
To prevent the regime from hunting down or suborning their leaders, the students are operating on the principle of leaderless resistance, following the pattern previously set by the Tupamaros in Uruguay. That raises the puzzling question of how they take their decisions and do their strategic planning. The students’ somewhat disingenuous response is that they decide on matters collectively in an institutional setting they call the plenum, where all participants deliberate transparently and as equals. Many are bewildered by the suitability of such a loose mechanism for coordinating large-scale political activities. Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was openly sceptical, claiming to detect the aroma of a Western-inspired colour revolution in these proceedings.
The commotion currently taking place in Serbia could plausibly be interpreted within such a framework. Overlooking its own complete subservience to the collective West and in an effort to delegitimise the protesters, the regime has been making that point forcefully.
The “plenum” mechanism that Serbian students claim is their collective decision-making tool does raise some critical questions if we postulate the possibility that the student movement is externally directed or manipulated. The most obvious question is how young people in their twenties who did not personally experience the socialist system, where expressions such as “Party plenum” and the like were common, had settled on such odd terminology. Suspicions of a nefarious external link are reinforced by the fact that the same concept was used in 2014 during the failed “colour revolution” attempt in the Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and a year later in the partially successful regime change operation executed in Macedonia.
It turns out that in both those cases the concept of plenum was presented to the public as the collective decision-making device behind the upheavals in those two countries. In reality, it was a notion designed to create the appearance of spontaneity for a managed process and even more importantly to disguise the behind the scenes influence of the external string-pullers. This methodology for creating the illusion that the actors on the colour revolution stage are making autonomous decisions originally was pioneered by the infamous think tank, the Rand Corporation. Insights into its practical application were offered in 2007 in an article entitled “The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus,” authored by C. Hsu and B. Sandford, and published in the scholarly journal Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, no. 10, August 2007.
The authors state that the Delphi technique “is designed as a group communication process which aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue.” They add that the technique, which relies on the use of trained “facilitators” tasked with discretely supervising the decision-making process, is “well suited as a method for consensus-building.”
In the practical application of the Delphi strategy, the “change agent,” or “facilitator,” plays the principal role and is the driver of the entire process. He is trained to initially act as a neutral discussion moderator in an interaction that the participants believe is entirely controlled by them. The facilitator feigns sympathetic attention to the participants’ statements regarding their respective concerns. Whilst the participants in the “plenum” session take their turns speaking out, the facilitator categorises them as individuals with leadership potential, “barkers,” and undecided who lack a stable point of view and are apt to change their posture under group pressure.
The “facilitator” is trained in the methodology of psychological manipulation and based on previous observation he can predict the probable reactions of most participants. Individuals who take a critical stance toward the agenda the facilitator is promoting are marginalised and group members are thereby sent a message that should they identify with openly dissenting positions they too may be shunned.
Participants are rarely aware that they have been subjected to manipulation. Even should they suspect it, they have no idea how to resist. The desired effect is polarisation within the group, generating the impression of lively, democratic discussion, whilst the facilitator gradually ceases to act as an unbiased moderator and increasingly takes on the role of a full-fledged participant in the group dynamic. He or she selects the right moment to table a proposal, policy, or course of action that is slated in advance to be adopted. Those present gradually line up behind the proposal and vote in favour of it as if it originally had been their own idea, whilst pressuring uncommitted and wavering colleagues to follow suit and also give their consent.
Like everything to do with “colour revolutions,” this technique of consensus engineering is phony and contrived, designed to assure useful idiots that they are in charge of the process and to conceal the presence of the background manipulators. It is a cynical example of directed group dynamics without the participants’ knowledge. The successful employment of the Delphi method is based on the concealed presence of trained professionals to create the pretence of robust “discussion” but in reality their role is to channel group energy toward the adoption of preordained conclusions. Many of those present would perhaps have not gone along if they had been granted the possibility of unpressured reflection and informed decision-making.
There is no direct and conclusive evidence that external forces are exerting a significant influence over the Serbian student movement in the manner described above. An equally or even more plausible case could be made that the students and other citizens are indeed acting on their own, motivated by the catastrophic collapse not just of a railway station roof but of the entire legal and political system in their country. They have plenty of credible reasons for rage. But unless convincing evidence of foreign interference emerges coincidental similarities with classical colour revolution methods should not be given excessive credence. They should always however be prudently kept in the back of one’s mind.
Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity
Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.
The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.
Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.
So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”
But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”
Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.
Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.
One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.
As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.
Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.
Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.
And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.
Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.
Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.
For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.
Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.
THE POLIO PARADOX WITH DR. SUZANNE HUMPHRIES
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 9, 2025
Nephrologist and co-author of ‘Dissolving Illusions’, Suzanne Humphries, MD, joins Del to discuss her significant role in the first installment of ‘Jefferey Jaxen Investigates’ on the polio virus. Hear how the dangers of vaccines came to light for her and why the future of humanity depends on people understanding the true history behind the polio vaccine.
Public Opinion on Water Fluoridation Is Changing, Expert Says
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2025
Kathy Thiessen, Ph.D., a leading fluoride expert, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss a meta-analysis published last week by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluding that that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans.”
Thiessen, president and senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, testified last year in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A September 2024 federal court ruling in the case found that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.
The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to address the risks of water fluoridation. The agency, which has until Jan. 20 to appeal, has not yet taken action.
Thiessen co-authored a 2006 National Research Council report that addressed the toxic effects of fluoride and called for more research into its effects.
Thiessen said the new meta-analysis and a previous NTP report show that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans and as fluoride exposure is increased, the likelihood of reduced IQ and some other cognitive deficits … increases.”
According to Thiessen, exposure to fluoride during pregnancy harms the fetus. “Fluoride crosses the placenta, so whatever the mother’s fluoride exposure is, the baby’s going to be exposed to that.”
And those risks continue after birth. “If the [infant] formula is made up with fluoridated tap water, those babies get the largest dose per body weight of anybody in the population at an age when they’re still developing,” Thiessen said.
‘Consistent body of literature’ shows ‘fluoride is neurotoxic during development’
The NTP’s latest meta-analysis reviewed 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure. Thiessen said the number and quality of such studies has increased substantially in recent years.
“When we wrote the [2006 report], there were just a few studies of fluoride exposure and cognitive deficits,” Thiessen said. “Many of the … most recent ones have been funded by our National Institutes of Health. They are high-quality studies.”
Thiessen said the studies together form “a very consistent body of literature showing that the fluoride is neurotoxic during development.” In the case of the NTP report and meta-analysis, however, there were repeated efforts to block or delay their publication.
Thiessen said the lawsuit against the EPA, filed by the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children in 2017 was instrumental in the public release of the NTP report and meta-analysis.
“My best guess is that, if possible, they would’ve suppressed them totally,” Thiessen said. “But … because they were important to the court case, the judge required them to be made public. And we have that to be thankful for there.”
Efforts to block or delay publication of the NTP’s reports are part of “a very long history of suppression” and “of adverse information about fluoridation,” Thiessen said.
Scientists raised concerns about water fluoridation as early as the 1940s when it first started, Thiessen said. “From the 1940s on, there have been vested interests of several sorts that have pushed for water fluoridation.”
The EPA has ignored evidence of fluoride’s risks, Thiessen said. “I have said on record in the fluoride trial that if EPA had done its job responsibly, even back in the 1980s, we would not be having that case,” Thiessen added.
‘There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation’
Thiessen responded to claims that fluoridation protects oral health and that it was one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. She said, “The real evidence shows that it’s probably one of the 10 leading contributors to poor health in this country.”
Thiessen referred to a 2024 Cochrane report finding that water fluoridation confers minimal benefits to public health. She suggested that diet and other lifestyle factors are more significant determinants of oral health than fluoridation or lack of it.
“There are studies showing that children in areas where it’s a subsistence existence … These kids have great teeth. You have poor kids in this country whose diet is mostly sugar and no, they’re not going to have good teeth … It’s much more a matter of access to care, and access to good nutrition,” Thiessen said.
Thiessen suggested children in poorer and rural populations “are most likely to be adversely affected” by fluoridation, as their parents are more likely to bottle-feed babies with baby formula mixed with tap water.
Thiessen said public attitudes toward water fluoridation are changing. “The tide has been turning slowly for 20-something years, but we’re seeing a lot more of that now.”
She said many communities will be using the court ruling to justify stopping fluoridation.
“Hopefully, this will happen at the state level in those states that mandate it. I’d like to see it at the national level that we just don’t do this anymore,” Thiessen said. “There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation.”
Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here.
Listen to the podcast on Spotify.
‘The Defender In-Depth’ airs on CHD.TV Wednesdays at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel
Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025
Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.
The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”
To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.
The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.
Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.
The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.
The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”
President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.
President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.
The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.
There must be truth if not justice.
Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025
In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.
“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.
This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.
Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”
However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”
The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.
Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

