On Tuesday this week, the European Commission announced its first list of designated Very Large Online Platforms – or VLOPs – that will be subject to “content moderation” requirements and obligations to combat “disinformation” under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). As VLOPs, the designated services will be required “to assess and mitigate their systemic risks and to provide robust content moderation tools.”
Or as a subheading in the Commission announcement pithily puts it: “More diligent content moderation, less disinformation.”
As discussed in my previous articles on the DSA here and here, the legislation creates enforcement mechanisms – most notably, the threat of massive fines – for ensuring that online platforms comply with commitments to remove or otherwise suppress “disinformation” that they have undertaken in the EU’s hitherto ostensibly voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation.
Unsurprisingly, the list of designated VLOPs includes a variety of services offered by all the most high-profile signatories of the Code: Twitter, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok.
But, far more surprisingly, it also includes several platforms that are not signatories of the Code and to which the Commission appears now to be extending the Code/DSA requirements unilaterally. The latter include Amazon, Apple (in the form of the App Store), and even Wikipedia.
The Commission has even designated the favorite messaging service of every filter-crazy preteen, Snapchat! Curiously, however, WhatsApp is not named.
Since many of the newly designated platforms are not publishing platforms per se, it is unclear how exactly the “content moderation” requirements will apply to them.
What will “content moderation” mean for Amazon, for example? That user reviews containing alleged “disinformation” will have to be removed? Or will books or magazines that the European Commission deems to be vessels or purveyors of “disinformation” have to be purged from the catalogue?
The inclusion of the Apple App Store is perhaps even more ominous. Will its subjection to the Code/DSA requirements provide an indirect route for the EU to demand the removal of apps of non-designated platforms that the Commission, however, deems channels of disinformation? Telegram, for example?
And what about Wikipedia? The DSA invests the European Commission with the power to impose fines of up to 6 percent of global turnover on VLOPs. But Wikipedia is a non-profit that is funded by donations. It does not sell anything, so it does not have any turnover. But presumably the Commission plans to treat its fundraising income as such.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a publishing platform, but a user-edited collaborative encyclopedia. If it is to be subject to the EU’s “content moderation” requirements, what can this possibly mean other than that Wikipedia will have to remove user edits that the European Commission deems to be “mis-” or “disinformation?” The European Commission will thus become the very arbiter of encyclopedic knowledge and truth.
The European Commission’s list of designated entities, comprising 17 Very Large Online Platforms as well as 2 Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs), is reproduced below.
Very Large Online Platforms:
Alibaba AliExpress
Amazon Store
Apple AppStore
Booking.com
Facebook
Google Play
Google Maps
Google Shopping
Instagram
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Snapchat
TikTok
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube
Zalando
Very Large Online Search Engines:
Bing
Google Search
Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, a translator, and researcher working in Europe.Follow him at Twitter here. He writes at edv1694.substack.com.
Andrew Bridgen, a U.K. member of Parliament this month warned his fellow parliamentarians that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed new pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) represents “a huge grab of power” by “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.”
People in the U.K. “do not want to be ruled” by an unelected group of people, Bridgen said. “We should have a referendum, because sovereignty belongs to the people. It’s not ours to give away.”
The debate was triggered after 156,086 U.K. constituents signed a petition calling for the U.K. government “to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum.”
Bridgen pointed out that WHO employees are exempt from taxes and have diplomatic immunity — meaning they are protected from prosecution.
He said the WHO pandemic treaty and its IHR amendments seek to take “huge powers” away from “this Parliament and every other Parliament around the world.”
“These two instruments would fundamentally reset the relationship between citizens and sovereign state — not only in this country but also around the whole world,” he added.
The proposals would empower “unelected, unaccountable, top-down, supernational” officials to “impose sweeping, legally binding” orders on member states — including forcing companies to manufacture and export certain medical treatments or shutting companies down “regardless of what the local people think,” Bridgen said.
Bridgen said the WHO’s proposals are skewed toward aggregating power in the hands of WHO officials — rather than the hands of democratic governments — because they would grant the WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Ph.D., the power to decide “when the pandemic or the emergency is over and when he’ll possibly give us the power back.”
The WHO consists of its 192 member states — “basically the whole of the U.N. membership, excluding Liechtenstein and the Holy See” — but it now receives 86% of its funding from non-member states, Bridgen said.
“You have to think: Why are they doing this?” Bridgen said, adding:
“They [the Gates Foundation and Gavi] are also the biggest donors — or biggest investors — in pharmaceuticals and the experimental mRNA technology which was so profitable for those who produced it during the last pandemic.”
Bridgen urged his fellow lawmakers to review the WHO proposals in great detail.
“They [the proposals] need to be considered very strongly. Sticking your head in the stand isn’t going to do it,” he said. “It won’t do for my constituents,” he added.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
Whenever I get off the bus at Oxford city centre, I see the monument to the Oxford martyrs, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, who were burned at the stake in Broad Street in 1555, and Thomas Cranmer, who suffered a similar fate the following year. The three refused to renounce their Protestant beliefs during the reign of Catholic Mary Tudor, and died the most horrific deaths as a result.
I have often thought, when passing the monument and the commemorative plaque set in the wall of Balliol College opposite, that these men could have saved themselves simply by recanting, an option that was open to them and indeed, Archbishop Cranmer did recant before reaffirming his belief in Protestantism.
Now, I see more clearly that, whatever the consequences, they could not in all conscience revert to a faith they no longer believed in. We like to think we live in more civilised times and no longer burn people at the stake for not conforming to the religious orthodoxy of the time – but do we? The history of the last three years has been an updated version of martyrs being consigned to the flames for their beliefs, but this time the rejected articles of faith are the Covid vaccines.
They have become the new religion, with fervent advocates even among church and spiritual leaders. Instead of enjoining us to believe in God, they have urged us to save ourselves by having the vaccine. Their sermonising on the matter has even acquired the status of holy writ as, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Jesus would have wanted us to have the vaccine. The Dalai Lama urged his many followers to ‘be brave and come forward to be vaccinated’ after having the jab himself.
So, as the faithful line up for their sixth jab, the vaccine can be considered the secular equivalent of Holy Communion. The point of Holy Communion is to partake of the body and blood of Christ to absolve us from our sins, and the mRNA vaccine is supposed to protect us against bodily ills. In both cases, the idea is to keep the devil out by a ritual and oft-repeated observance.
Those of us who have done our research, and cannot in all honesty believe in the magical power of the vaccine to ward off the devil of Covid infection, are the heretics of today who deserve to be burned at the stake, or in today’s equivalent to be cast out of polite society and ridiculed as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hat wearers and covidiots. Doctors have lost their jobs for refusing to accept the supremacy of the vaccine and the (very) few politicians who have spoken out against it have been ostracised and marginalised.
Of course, when it comes to Protestantism or Catholicism, it is a question of belief. Yet we know how the vaccines work, and have proof that they are harmful and can set up a variety of adverse reactions in the body. As such, those of us who know the truth cannot recant whatever the cost, as to do so would be to accept the lie that the mRNA vaccines have been a wonderful success story the world over, saving millions of lives.
But even as evidence of severe damage and sometimes death from the vaccine mounts up, as reported on TCW, this continues to be brushed aside, discounted and even denied. Indeed, those who question the holiness of the mRNA to protect us from all ills do so at our personal and professional peril. Whenever a vaccine-related serious side effect or death is reported, it is dismissed in the media as ‘extremely rare’ and insignificant compared with all the good the rollout has accomplished.
And when a fully-vaccinated individual catches Covid anyway, the believers’ standard response is to allege that, but for the multiple jabs, their illness would have been much worse. Vaccines have become, one might say, the holy water of our times.
We may live in a largely secular age, but we have substituted belief in God for a belief in science, and most especially medical science, or what passes for it these days. We have come to worship Big Pharma with the kind of adoring reverence we used to reserve for God and Jesus, and this persists even when the so-called science fails us.
The religious fervour goes even further. The ever-increasing number of vaccines administered to babies can be considered analogous to a holy baptism. For just as baptisms and christenings were supposed to cast out original sins before the baby had time to commit any, so today the many vaccines are supposed to cast out devils in the shape of measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, or prevent them from entering. Once again, the supposedly protective substances are injected long before the baby has had time to develop any of the infections.
Belief in the efficacy and safety of vaccines is so devout that nobody is allowed to raise a dissenting voice, and anybody who dares to do so, such as Dr Andrew Wakefield, risks not only being discredited, but struck off the medical register and not allowed to practise. More recently, Dr Sam White was suspended for ‘spreading misinformation’ about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine. Robert F Kennedy Jr, a challenger for the American presidency, is routinely attacked for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda. Yet to their eternal credit these people will not be silenced.
The search is now on to find a vaccine for every ill that flesh is heir to, including cancer and malaria. Living in Oxford, I am always getting alerts from the Oxford Vaccine Group to be a volunteer for one of their new studies. If vaccines cannot actually deliver eternal life, they can, we are led to believe, confer the next best thing, which is eternal health.
At one time, those who did not believe in God were considered wicked. Nowadays, you are labelled an apostate if you don’t believe in the almighty power of the vaccine.
So I wonder whether I would be prepared to concede, under extreme torture, that the mRNA vaccine was safe and effective. Thankfully, my conviction that it is neither has not been put to such a severe test but pondering on the issue has given me a new understanding as to why Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were prepared to die horribly for what they believed was true, rather than recant.
We know now that it was the sacrifice of these men, and particularly that of Cranmer, which made England a Protestant country. By the same token, I can only hope that those who have had the courage to speak out against the mRNA vaccine, and who because of this have been marginalised, ridiculed and in some cases lost their livelihood, will enable the tide to be turned at last.
Note: I hold no particular brief for either Protestantism or Catholicism but am just pointing out that the ultimate sacrifice from a few brave people can change beliefs – and society.
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticized the censorship of speech arguing that, “there is no time in history where the people censoring speech were the good guys.”
In an interview with Breitbart News host Joel Pollak, Kennedy discussed censorship of alleged “misinformation.” Kennedy has experienced censorship first-hand for questioning measures taken during the pandemic.
“I’m wondering if you can make a pitch to our audience about a common cause that you, running as a Democrat, may have with many conservatives who feel that they’ve been canceled or otherwise censored or marginalized in public discourse,” Pollak asked.
“It’s more than a personal aggrievement. It’s really just a direct assault on our democracy,” Kennedy said.
According to Kennedy, when the founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights, they “put the right to free expression in the First Amendment because all the other rights depended on it—because the government that has the power to silence its critics has license for any kind of atrocity.”
“They also understood just theoretically that the whole basis for democracy was the free flow of information,” he continued, adding that one great benefit of democracy over dictatorship is that “through the free flow of information, the best policies can triumph in the marketplace of ideas.”
“We’re now in this situation where without free speech, democracy just withers and dies. Free speech is the fertilizer; it’s the sunlight; it’s the water for democracy,” he added. “There is no time in history where the people who were censoring speech were the good guys. They’re always the bad guys because, of course, that is the first and last step of totalitarianism: silencing critics.”
Kennedy further noted that misinformation and falsehoods are protected speech.
“There are certain kinds of speech that are not protected. But, you know, those things are.
“What we really ought to be looking at is why? What is the cause of this blizzard and tsunami of misinformation that everybody is worried about? And if you look at why this is happening, it’s clear that it’s happening because people don’t trust the government anymore, and they don’t trust it because the government lies, and the media lies.
“Twenty-two percent of Americans now trust the government, and about 22 percent trust media. That’s the lowest level in our history. And the reason they don’t—there’s a very good reason—is that the government and the media, the mainstream media, the corporate-owned media, they are now lying just as a matter of course. And because of that, people are looking for other sources of information. And when those other sources challenge government orthodoxies, the government’s response is to censor them or to label them as misinformation and say that they’re dangerous.”
WASHINGTON – Twitter said on Tuesday that it received more than 16,000 government information requests for user data from over 85 countries in the first half of 2022 alone.
“Twitter received over 16,000 government information requests for user data from over 85 countries during the reporting period. Disclosure rates vary by requester country,” the social network said in a press release.
The United States, France, Japan, Germany and India were the top five requesting countries for the period, the release said.
Twitter also received about 53,000 legal requests from governments around the world to remove content, with the majority of requests coming from Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and India, the release added.
In the first half of 2022, Twitter required users to remove 6,586,109 pieces of content that violated the company’s rules – an increase of 29% from the second half of 2021, according to the release.
First, corporate executives don’t give away $787 million of shareholders’ money without a test of the claim in court. The uncontested amount is so large that one wonders if Fox News itself paid it or whether this almost $800 million was a gift funneled through an uncontested lawsuit to fund Dominion by our ruling elites. Once elections are determined by how voting machines are programmed, the people are disenfranchised.
Second, it is not defamation to report the news. Tucker Carlson reported the claims of experts. That is news reporting. Dominion’s defamation lawsuit should have been filed against the experts. It wasn’t, because the experts had the evidence.
Third, Experts supplied evidence that the Dominion voting machines could be programmed to count votes differently from how the votes were cast; experts supplied evidence that the machines could be hacked; experts supplied evidence that the voting machines were connected to the Internet. Fox News could have called these experts as expert witnesses. By agreeing to settle, Fox News refused the evidence its day in court. Why?
A possible explanation is that Fox News, voluntarily or involuntarily, participated in an orchestration that established the precedent that reporting news different from the narrative, or news that is unfavorable to a person, company, or government institution, is defamation. Think about what this means. A prosecutor who charges a person with a crime has defamed the person. Truth becomes unreportable. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh could be charged for defamation, and for being a Russian agent, for reporting that the US government destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline.
When we see the few truth-tellers who are the stars of their organizations jettisoned–Tucker Carlson from Fox News, Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone, Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept, James O’Keefe from Project Veritas, President Trump charged under a non-existent law, and Wikileaks’ Julian Assange imprisoned for a decade without due process, we must face the fact that there is an organized conspiracy to suppress truth. We are experiencing the completion of The Matrix in which expressed doubt or even unspoken suspicion of official narratives are criminal offenses.
Truth-tellers receive almost nonexistent support. The inescapable conclusion is that in the Western world truth has no future.
The United States government, in its incessant bullying of foreign nations to get them to see the world the way that the cabal that runs Washington sees it, ironically often cites such fictions as the “rule of law” that guarantees such “rights” as “free speech” and “freedom of religion” to justify its illegal actions. Right at the moment, the United States maintains garrisons illegally in both Iraq, where the country’s parliament has asked it to depart, and also in neighboring Syria where the government is fighting an insurgency that seeks regime change and is supported by both the US and Israel. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is analogous to what Russia has done in Ukraine though Moscow certainly had stronger compelling national security reasons for doing what it did while the United States had to construct a series of lies to provide as an excuse to topple Saddam Hussein, an objective strongly supported by Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who added his own fabrications to the exchanges.
One has to look to the media to discern the reasons why some developments are wrapped in “religious freedom” or “democracy promotion” while other actions are ignored or even covered-up. Currently the right-wing Jewish extremists who have gained control of Israel’s government are engaging in something like genocide directed against the Palestinian population, many of whom are actually Israeli citizens though possessing second class rights when they are enforced at all. Israel regards itself legally as a Jewish state, so what is the “rule of law” for those who are not Jews and how does it perceive “religious freedom?” Considerable government pressure is being exerted to force the “terrorists,” as the Arab residents are frequently called, to emigrate or face the consequences if they choose not to. It is directed most particularly against those Palestinians who are leaders in their community and it has therefore focused on the major Arab religious groups, both the Christians and the Muslims.
Ironically, though one can read in the US media almost daily accounts of alleged surging anti-semitism and the myth of perpetual Jewish victimhood, the ongoing brutality against the Palestinians, including their religious foundations and practices, is hardly noticed. That is the fundamental problem as the silence or perhaps the willful connivance of the American media and entertainment industry, firmly in the grip of the Jewish community and its “standards,” has shaped the narrative and limited any propagation of contrary opinion. It is a process that is similar to what has taken place with any discussion of the Ukraine war in the mainstream media, where there is also a heavy Jewish footprint.
There have been two major incidents involving Jewish assertion of its occupation of and control over all of Jerusalem that have recently impacted on the country’s religious minorities during their holy seasons, Easter and Ramadan. The first consisted of two consecutive middle-of- the-night attacks by Israeli police and soldiers in full riot gear armed with stun grenades and clubs on Palestinians spending the night at the al-Aqsa mosque on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the third holiest site for Muslims. The Palestinian men were there in part to protect the building from Jewish settlers who have been threatening to destroy it. The Palestinians inside were beaten by police, who had broken into the mosque, and as many as 350 mostly young men were later arrested for resisting.
The second incident was an order by Israeli police limiting the regular Christian gathering on Holy Saturday, referred to as the “Holy Fire” celebration, at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which normally attracts 10,000 worshippers, to no more than 1,800 attendees. On the day of the ceremony, Israeli police reacted with heavy-handed tactics to block hundreds of Orthodox Christians from gathering at the church, which is at the center of the old Christian quarter of the city. Several Coptic Orthodox priests were particularly targeted in front of the church and beaten with batons. Israeli forces closed off access to the site with roadblocks and barriers at the gates of the Old City, permitting only small numbers of Christians and those with government permits to enter.
Both steps restricting freedom of religion were taken without any consultation with the respective communities and without any evidence that there would be disorder or violence without the police interventions. The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the Israeli action as a “blatant attack on the freedom of worship” and a “flagrant attack on the existing political, historical and legal status quo in occupied Jerusalem and on Israel’s obligations as an occupying regime in Jerusalem” that
“violate international law, international humanitarian law and signed agreements.” The Christian churches’ leadership also separately objected to no avail and responded to the threat by observing that Palestinian Christians are themselves under increasing pressure from the Israeli government to force them to emigrate. Christians constituted 20% of the Israeli population in 1947 but now are fewer than 2%.
Indeed, since the rise this year of Israel’s most far-right government in history, Palestinian Christians frequently experience Jewish Israeli discrimination at all levels. They directly observe how their 2,000-year-old community in the Holy Land has come under increasing attack. In March, two Israeli men assaulted and beat a priest in the church sited at the Tomb of the Virgin Mary. In February, a statue of Jesus was vandalized by an American Jewish tourist at the Church of the Condemnation, where Jesus was flogged and sentenced to death while a month earlier, dozens of Christian graves were desecrated by two Jewish teenagers at the Anglican cemetery on Mount Zion, where Jesus’s Last Supper took place. In November, two soldiers from the Israeli army’s Givati Brigade spit at the Armenian archbishop and other pilgrims during a procession in the Old City. Christian clerics living in Jerusalem claim that they are frequently physically assaulted and spat on by settlers and other Jewish Israelis when they are walking in the streets. The Israeli government has also been increasingly confiscating church properties for various projects that benefit only the Jewish community. When Christians seek redress from the Israeli courts they are almost always denied justice.
Now one would think that the United States, with its dedication to “rule of law” and religious freedom would at a minimum condemn the Israeli actions, particularly the unprovoked violent attack on peaceful Muslims during their high holy days at al-Aqsa. But no, and this is how a State Department spokesman Vedant Patel described it: “We are concerned by the scenes out of Jerusalem. And it is our viewpoint that it is absolutely vital that the sanctity of holy sites be preserved. We emphasize the importance of upholding the historic status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem and any unilateral action that jeopardizes the status quo to us is unacceptable. We call for restraint, coordination and calm during the holiday season.”
So the State Department believes that Israel did not initiate the violence, which is, of course, false. And Patel felt compelled to add an additional comment on recent home-made rocket attacks coming from Lebanon in the wake of the police and army actions: “We condemn the launch of rockets from Lebanon and Gaza at Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad and we recognize that Israel has the legitimate right to defend itself against all forms of aggression.” Don’t you love the frequent assertion of the claim that Israel has a “right to defend itself?” Patel was in fact wrong about Gaza firing missiles – that was a fiction invented by the Israeli government to explain why it had responded with a bombardment of its own directed against the long-suffering Gazans. The hostile rockets, which did little damage and injured no one, actually came from a Palestinian group in Lebanon. Apparently, the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors do not have the right to defend themselves or to respond to Jewish violence. Rule of law and religious freedom appear to depend on who is attempting to exercise those rights and under what circumstances.
Interestingly, the New York Times had its own bizarre description of what took place at al-Aqsa. Their correspondent wrote how the crisis started when Palestinians “barricaded themselves” overnight inside the building before being “cleared” by police from the mosque in the middle of the night, to “protect Jewish worshippers” who were reportedly observing the Passover holiday in the vicinity. In other words, the violence was initiated by the Israelis but it was to prevent any threat against Jews, even though there is no evidence that anything like that was intended and why Jews were present at close quarters to a Muslim holy site is not clear. By one report, extremist Jews may have been preparing to sacrifice a goat.
On April 14th, to honor International Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Joe Biden demonstrated the he is not as brain dead as is often claimed. He knows exactly who owns him and knows how to pile it on. His proclamation reads: “During Yom Hashoah and throughout these days of remembrance, we mourn the 6 million Jews who were murdered during the horror of the Holocaust—as well as the millions of Roma and Sinti, Slavs, disabled persons, LGBTQI+ individuals, and political dissidents who were murdered at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. Together with courageous survivors, descendants of victims and people around the world, we renew our solemn vow: ‘never again.’”
Clearly Joe had not gotten the message that in America every day is de facto holocaust remembrance day as measured by the frequent appearance of that expression in the media. But he makes sure of the trans gay vote by including the LGBTQI+ folks as victims of the Nazis. Perhaps Joe should pay some attention to the Americans murdered by the Israelis, to include the 34 crewmen of the USS Liberty killed by the Israeli military in 1967, activist Rachel Corrie crushed by a bulldozer in 2003 and most recently Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh killed by the Israeli army last May. Israel has not been held accountable for any of those deaths and it knows it can get away with anything, including targeting and killing US citizens.
Next week, the GOP will be doubling down on the message as Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy leads a delegation of twenty bipartisan fawning congress critters to Israel. He has carefully billed it as his first foreign trip as speaker, underlining what an important ally Israel is. He will address the Knesset on May 1st and there will no doubt be a lot of kissing and hugging with Bibi and many pledges of undying commitment to the Jewish state. The Israeli government is already describing it as “Speaker McCarthy’s speech in the Knesset will be a sign for the strong and unbreakable bond between Israel and the US.” And no doubt lots of money will appear in the pipeline so Israel can defend itself. Just don’t mention Israel’s recent premeditated murder of Shireen Abu Akleh back or “religious freedom.” And to hell with the Palestinian Christians. They have been hanging around for 2,000 years but are on their way out.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The European Commission has designated 19 online platforms under its Digital Services Act, a move that opens them up to hefty fines if they target advertisements at certain users, publish illegal content, or fail to “address the spread of disinformation.”
In an announcement on Tuesday, the commission named 17 “Very Large Online Platforms” and two “Very Large Online Search Engines,” defined as those reaching at least 45 million monthly active users. Among the platforms cited are Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter, while Google and Microsoft’s Bing are the two designated search engines.
The decision means that as of August, these platforms must be in compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a wide-ranging piece of legislation that came into force in November.
To avoid fines of up to 6% of their global annual turnover, the commission stated that these platforms must label all advertisements as such and avoid targeting ads at users based on “sensitive data” such as their ethnicity, sexuality, or political orientation.
Targeting ads toward children will no longer be permitted, and platforms will have to “redesign their systems to ensure a high level of privacy, security, and safety of minors,” the commission said.
Regarding content moderation, platforms will be required to restrict the “dissemination of illegal content” and “address the spread of disinformation.” The entire text of the DSA mentions the word “disinformation” 13 times without defining it. Free speech activists have argued that the term is often used by governments to silence factually correct yet politically inconvenient narratives.
The commission also warned that platforms and search engines will need to address “negative effects on freedom of expression,” a requirement that could clash with the demand to tackle “disinformation.”
While the DSA was being drafted last year, EU officials singled out Twitter as a company that would be forced to comply with its requirements. Immediately after billionaire Elon Musk bought the platform and set about rolling back some of its restrictive speech policies, EU industry chief Thierry Breton declared that “in Europe, the bird will fly by our European rules.”
Two months later, EU Commissioner for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova warned that Twitter would face “sanctions” if it breached the DSA. Jourova cited Musk’s banning of several prominent journalists – who shared information on his whereabouts – as potential DSA violations.
No, not financially. He makes $20 million a year while producing $77 million in advertising revenue for Fox annually.
And no, not in terms of popularity. His daily audience was just south of four million viewers and now that he has been fired by Fox executives, he is among the most famous people in America, at least in this news cycle.
We may resemble him in one respect however: his truth-seeking. Yes, he got some things wrong. Unless we’ve lived a life of total perfection, the same can be said for us.
We admit to being annoyed at times by the extent to which he personally insulted people as being fat or stupid (one need not state the obvious). In a world sagging under the weight of vulgarity he should have maintained a higher standard of civility and decorum.
His hyperbole was frequent. Too many events, people, crimes and grievances became in Tucker’s parlance, the worst or the greatest in “all of history,” which is the conceit of pundits and philosophers of every age, who are tinctured with eschatological notions. The preceding examples are however, peccadilloes rather than discrediting offenses.
The one occasion on which he did cross the line was February 22, 2021 when he was fed disinformation about the late Wellesley College Prof. Tony Martin (1942-2013) and heedlessly parroted the character assassination on his show, as part of an attempt to discredit Kristin Clarke, Biden’s Assistant United States Attorney General, with a guilt-by-association slander.
When she was a student at Harvard University, Clarke invited Martin to speak on campus. That was enough for someone at Fox to persuade Tucker to denounce Dr. Martin. Tucker complied, calling him a “noted Trinidadian anti-semite” and, “the author of a “self-published manifesto called The Jewish Onslaught… He attacked Jews and Judaism as a religion. Tony Martin spent his final years giving speeches to holocaust denial organizations on topics such as ‘tactics of organized Jewry in suppressing free speech.’ Kristin Clarke strongly approved of Tony Martin.”
The preceding reads like a press release from one of the thought police organizations that are today celebrating Tucker’s removal. Tony Martin was not “anti” any ethnicity. He was a gentle Catholic scholar, a self-made man and a native of Trinidad who became an English barrister, a PhD., an authority on Marcus Garvey, and professor of African history at Wellesley, where he placed a book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, on his class reading list, from which sprang most of his troubles, including the subsequent “onslaught” which he scrupulously documented in his book. The Secret Relationship is one of the most banned books in America (we surveyed ithere).
Prof. Martin endorsed its thesis as historically valid. What should have been a matter of rational debate between scholars was turned into the familiar “no debate with hate” hysteria too often used as a cover for denouncing a work of merit which self-appointed arbiters of approved history have not the scholarly means to challenge. The irony is that Tucker permitted himself (albeit briefly), to be a tool of the political correctness which ultimately cost him his employment with the Murdoch dynasty.
We believe that had Tucker known the facts about Tony Martin he would not have broadcast the segment. Unlike Sean Hannity and other Fox News talking heads, Tucker seldom trafficked in callous anti-Palestinian rhetoric or Israeli government talking points. On that score he will be walking on thin ice if he signs with the Newsmax television network, which is at least as beholden to the hasbara public relations of war Zionism and racist Israeli settler violence as any media outlet, Right or Left.
After years of broadcasting five nights-a-week Tucker was probably bound to blunder on occasion, as he did in wronging Prof. Martin. Nonetheless, the good he did far outweighed his mistakes.
In a comment briefly published on the website of the Wall Street Journaland then removed for “violating community standards,” we wrote:
“Ad hominem attacks on Tucker do not impress. His investigation of the death of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody was brilliant. Part of his investigation included an exposé of Trump’s Attorney General William Barr on whose watch Epstein’s death occurred. Epstein’s molestation network included some of the most powerful and wealthy men on earth. If he was murdered in federal custody, this is an indication of profound corruption, and deserves the highest possible media scrutiny; and yet it was primarily Tucker who shined a light.”
To his credit, Tucker traveled to Las Vegas and broadcast his show from that city to focus attention on the anomalies in the 2017 slaughter of 60 Country and Western music fans blamed by the Federal government and it’s mouthpiece media on gambler Stephen Paddock (see our investigation, “The Route 91 Harvest Massacre” in Twilight Language).
“Tucker Carlson Tonight” was the only major news program to undertake a skeptical examination of the official story of the Las Vegas mass murder. Glenn Greenwald points to some of Carlson’s other valiant investigations:
“Tucker was the cable host who most opposed US proxy war in Ukraine; denounced CIA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security for systemic lies and corruption; devoted himself to a pardon for Julian Assange; objected to regime change efforts in Cuba; criticized the Trump administration’s militarism.”
(He also exposed the U.S. government’s role in the sabotage of the Baltic Sea Nord Stream pipeline, and helped to kindle the memory of the largely forgotten Christian victims of the Nashville school shooter).
Two authoritarians, New York Senator Schumer, the Democrat leader in the senate, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had demanded the government ban Carlson from the airwaves.
The Dominion Lawsuit
On her podcast, “The Megyn Kelly Show,” Kelly, a Fox News alumnus, stated in connection with Tucker’s firing and Fox Corpation’s $787.5 million out-of-court settlement with Dominion Voting Systems:
“This is a terrible move by Fox and it’s a great thing for Tucker Carlson. I don’t know what drove Fox News to make this decision, and it was clearly Fox News’ decision because they’re not letting him say goodbye. That’s my supposition. That’s not inside knowledge.
“The irony here is that — how did they get in trouble with Dominion? They called Arizona too soon, felt their critics, and ultimately that proved to be the case. They were under pressure by their audience to reverse the call.
“The audience started to leave them in droves because they felt betrayed. Like they didn’t understand the mission of Fox News, which is to be fair to especially the Republicans who don’t get a fair shake on other channels. And they (Fox) went into a panic as their audience started to flee. Then they over-corrected by covering the bulls**t claims about Dominion as though they were plausible and gave way too much credence to some of those claims on the air. He was not the reason for that $800 million settlement.
“So what do they do now in the wake of that settlement? They get rid of Tucker. Talk about misjudging your audience yet again. I think this is a massive error. I think this is a massive misjudgment of what their audience wants. If you are — this is a reaction to the Dominion lawsuit — why is Maria Bartiromo there? Why is Jeanine Pirro still there? Why is (Fox CEO) Suzanne Scott still there?”
Tucker’s Thought Crimes according to the New York Times
The New York Times, one of Mr. Carlson’s frequent targets after he stopped obsessing over small fry like CNN, could barely conceal its glee as Tucker was shafted by the “conservative” Murdoch family for whom he had made hundreds of millions of dollars. The Times haughtily charged him with begetting “misinformation.” This is a laugh coming from a newspaper that repeatedly states as an article of faith a lie of Brobdingnagian proportions: that individuals possessing xy chromosomes are “women.” It’s on that hill that the credibility of the New York Times has died and is buried.
The Times (here and here) inventoried Tucker’s thought crimes:
“He seemed to shrug off his on-air popularization of a racist conspiracy theory known as the ‘great replacement’ … When Russia invaded Ukraine, Mr. Carlson’s show frequently promoted the Kremlin’s point of view, attacking U.S. sanctions and blaming the conflict on American designs for expanding NATO… Carlson warned his viewers that they were under assault from liberal elites and unchecked immigration, borrowing some of his central themes from the white nationalist and far-right web and polishing them up for a more mainstream audience.”
The New York Times doesn’t offer reasoned rebuttal to refute Carlson’s theses. The paper generates shabby guilt-by-association inculpation. If Carlson believes the billions spent on Ukraine would be better spent at home, that the U.S., in the wake of costly no-win wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, should halt its role as world policeman, and that risking nuclear war with Russia while undermining peace talks flirts, with planetary conflagration— well, he’s not articulating common sense, he’s promoting “the Kremlin’s point of view.” The prestigious Times is the master of the cheap shot.
After much thought and observation, if an American honestly has arrived at the conclusion that President Biden’s far-Left open border immigration policies are disastrous for the country, then according to the New York Times that American is “borrowing central themes” of “the white nationalist and far-right web.” It is the brazen unfairness of that flimsy linkage, tossed recklessly for maximum effect, which Tucker shredded night after night amid peals of his own laughter. He was a merry warrior and his mirth was contagious.
The Times also avers that Carlson is guilty of the “racist conspiracy theory known as the ‘great replacement.” That concept puts forth the proposition that the U.S. government is conspiring to replace white Americans with a large immigrant population from south of the border. If that is a fact, it is not racist. Truth is not bias. The same obtains for statements of fact concerning our border. When you see facts subjected to politics you are in the presence of a commissar, not an individual interested in the advancement of knowledge.
Furthermore, the white nationalists enamored of the “You will not replace us!” slogan are in search of scapegoats to conceal their own failure. It is white people themselves who are at fault for voluntarily contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence. There’s no law in our nation that limits the size of one’s family, such as existed in Communist China. Get married; have at least three children. Train them up in the way they should go (Proverbs 22:6). Quit whining.
The smear that “Carlson backs white racist talking points about replacement theory” is actually a matter of prerogative. The media does not grant to Carlson the prerogative it grants to the ADL, the thought cops they rely upon for lists of dissidents to libel with impunity. It appears that the ADL is somehow, without so much as denting its brand, entitled to promote a replacement theory of its own. In 2010 the ADL went on record warning against the replacement of Israelis by Arabs. The New York Times does not disclose that fact when it is lauds and relies upon the ADL for data.
The Times also reported that in March one of Carlson’s former producers filed a lawsuit against him, claiming that he “ran a toxic workplace.” The producer, Abby Grossberg, said in her suit that “she endured an environment ‘where unprofessionalism reigned supreme, and the staff’s distaste and disdain for women infiltrated almost every workday decision.’ She also accused her former colleagues on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ of making antisemitic remarks… she accuses Mr. Carlson of presiding over a misogynistic and discriminatory workplace culture. Ms. Grossberg said… that on her first day working for Mr. Carlson, she discovered the work space was decorated with large pictures of Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a plunging swimsuit.”
If this suit is as frivolous as it appears to be, then it is little more than harassment. The opinionated charges it raises are subjective at best and more suited to a talkshow scream session than a courtroom. As a basis of litigation, unflattering photos of Pelosi are a nullity.
We Are All Tucker
The illusion factory seeks to project an image of justice, democracy and decency. Those who penetrate their veil of hypocrisy are stigmatized as little better than demons, haters and Fascists.
The ideal of dialogue and debate is increasingly delegitimated because, as the tenets of our Overlords become ever more preposterous, they can be readily exposed by granting a voice to doubters and dissenters. For most of us not in Tucker’s league, the suppression of us translates into censorship, online deplatforming and demonetization.
Many of us began our Internet outreach using YouTube to broadcast our discussions and lectures across America and around the world, and Paypal to efficiently process credit card orders for our book sales. When YouTube and Paypal were controlled by libertarians with a respect for the free marketplace of ideas which is critical to the advancement of knowledge, the free enterprise system was largely untrammeled on the relatively new Internet. By 2017 however, Paypal was under new ownership and began to deny service to dissidents. YouTube has also purged tens of thousands of independent researchers and scholars. The anti-monopoly aspect of the Internet, competing as it does with the corporate media, had to be curtailed for the sake of the success of the Novus Ordo Seclorum.
The potential of the Internet was being obstructed prior to the recent inauguration of the Rumble video service, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the podcasting host Transistor, and the emergence of Substack. These four are paving the way back to the original promise of the Internet as expressed in 1996 by one of its pioneers, the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s John Perry Barlow:
“I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us… a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth… a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”
Tucker Carlson’s domain was the old media. He had a position within it that gained him nearly four million direct viewers and who knows how many others who obtained bits and pieces of his reporting from barber and breakfast shop conversations, podcasts, tweets and e-mail.
The Cryptocracy and its auxiliary, the Deep State, have a morbid fear of any opposition, however small, a trait visible in all totalitarian regimes, whether that of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin or Mao. As big as Tucker’s position was on cable television—and his footprint was huge—he was sacrificed to the gods of woke. “Thou showest the difference ‘twixt ourselves and thee, in this thy barbarous damned tyranny.” (Christopher Marlowe).
Even in this Revelation of the Method era where the crimes perpetrated against the people have been made manifest to such an extent that we are exhausted by the truth, even the slightest chance that Tucker might spark a peaceful populist uprising, militant in character and knowledgeable concerning the depth of media and government deception, had to be terminated.
The billions of dollars in the company’s coffers that Fox News chief executive Lachlan Murdoch commands were not enough to keep him from caving to the relentless pressure to can Tucker. This is not only a display of pusillanimity but of spiritual weakness. It serves as a tool for demoralizing us. A fearsome lesson has been reinforced, “Don’t buck the system. We are invincible.”
There has been a good deal of whistling in the dark in the aftermath, suggesting that Tucker will be better off and he’ll be going on to bigger and better things. We hope so. Godspeed, Tucker.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Nothing online or at the relatively puny and Zionist-compromised Newsmax can equal an hour in primetime five nights a week, on a television network like Fox that is viewed on almost any TV in America. The awesome power of that plugged in presence remains unequaled. Any job Tucker takes with any alternative will diminish his reach, though not, we trust, his message.
In that sense, Tucker Carlson, for all his accomplishments and the good he has done, is in the same boat with those of us who have been kicked off YouTube, Facebook and Paypal, had those who host our websites harassed, and our credit card acceptance terminated. It’s all one war on alternatives to the System, and for that reason we are all Tucker Carlson. For this week at least, he shares what we have experienced as veterans of the war of ideas.
…..
How did this come about? How do our enemies exhibit such solidarity and unwavering loyalty to their cause? Their cleverness, exertion, skill, planning and organization are generally outstanding.
It seems that the adherents of the diabolic can oft-times exhibit more dedication than the purported followers of Jesus. They are effective, tenacious and willing to suffer massive losses for their infernal cause; while with many of us, it is not that way. We will go only so far for Jesus and then, when our struggle for truth threatens our bank account or reputation, we meekly withdraw, with regret to be sure. Our absence from the field of battle strengthens the enemy immeasurably. “What treachery was used? No treachery, but want of men and money” (Shakespeare).
Jesus drew our attention to this ignominy 2,000 years ago when he observed, “For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Luke 16:8).
Obviously, He who declared that all power in heaven and earth was given unto Him (Matthew 28:18), did not intend for those who love and follow Him to be powerless.
In Luke 16:8 Jesus was pointing out the perennial tendency of the diabolic to effectively fight the godly when we fail to use the instruments Jesus has placed before us for battle.
When we rise to our destiny by defending and invoking His holy name and recalling that our time on this earth is meant for spiritual battle, and that our rest is in the grave, then we will begin to equal and surpass the devotion and discipline of God’s opposers.
In the sight of the betrayal represented by Tucker’s defeat at the hands—not of his enemies, but of the people he served—we soldier on. We know that Jesus Christ has dominion and nothing happens on planet earth unless he allows it.
We help to curb evil when, seeing a truth-teller assaulted or overcome, we re-dedicate ourselves to the Cause and fill their shoes.
Let us put the Cryptocracy on notice that every time they take down a Tucker Carlson, millions of us will stand up to emulate his pursuit of truth. We are on firm ground here for the gospel of Jesus Christ is always and in every age, counter-cultural. Woe to us when we curry favor with men and the media speak well of us (cf. Luke 6:26).
Because we are God’s people we reject demoralization. We remain more than ever resolved and stalwart in the face of what transpired at Fox News on the morning of April 24.
Hope is the virtue that expects God’s help. Truth is the witness we bear in order to receive it.
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONTRA CANCEL CULTURE
President Joe Biden and US Vice President Kamala Harris announced that they are going to run for reelection in 2024 on April 25, to the elation of some and the bafflement of others.
In the tweet announcing his latest presidential run, Biden said he is doing so because he believes that “every generation has a moment where they have had to stand up for democracy” and “their fundamental freedoms,” and urged his supporters to join him to “finish the job.”
James George Jatras, retired US diplomat and adviser to the US Senate Republican leadership, did not seem particularly impressed by the POTUS’ move, telling Sputnik that Biden is merely a “placeholder” and a “face for a deep state conglomerate that is essentially running the country.”
“We’ve got to the point where it really doesn’t matter who the Democrats put up as their candidate, it would be very difficult for any Republican candidate to win,” Jatras remarked.
He also remarked that, despite the Biden administration being saddled with quite a bit of economic and internal policy problems, the “very high proportion of Americans are simply not able to understand” what is really going on in the US and in the world, thanks to the “very managed legacy media here in the United States.”
“So they basically think, it’s all the Russians fault or it’s all Trump’s fault or maybe if they’re getting some money sent to them from the government a certain way that’s all they really care about,” Jatras elaborated. “I don’t think that’s a majority of the population, but a sufficient minority of the population, that provides the basis for the Democrats to be able to pull out a victory.”
Regarding the prospects of the Democratic Party in the upcoming presidential election, Jatras simply remarked that “that’s more than just the question of who counts the votes,” but also the “voting procedures, the media, the social media and everything else where it seems that the Democrats have mastered the art of political technology.”
“Especially in a presidential election, we don’t have a single national election as long as you can win several key states,” he added. “And the way you win those key states is to win several big cities in those states, you’re going to win the election. And given that the Democrats have virtually free reign to pack the votes in several major American cities, I think it’s very hard to see how they lose.”
When New Zealand Civil liberties activist, Billy Te Kahika, was arrested in 2021 at a peaceful freedom rally in Auckland, he had no idea the legal battle he would face. Currently out on appeal, hear about the shocking 4 month jail sentence he’s facing for simply organizing a peaceful protest.
Government regulatory agencies are not weapons to be used against political opponents. Dr. Jensen is preparing a lawsuit to vindicate the rights of physicians and other health care professionals, cosmetologists, and anyone else who recognizes this grave threat to free speech and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The purpose of the suit will be twofold: First, to aid the courts in further drawing the line between protected speech and professional conduct subject to regulation. Second, we will hold accountable those responsible for the outrageous weaponization of government against Dr. Jensen and countless other professionals with the courage to speak out against censors and regulators run amok.
After being an outspoken voice during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Jensen had his medical license threatened 5 times by political activists who leveraged Minnesota’s Board of Medical Practice against him. These attacks on speech continued throughout his campaign for Governor of the State of Minnesota.
Others around the country lost their livelihoods and had their professional careers threatened because of similar government overreach. Their freedom to speak freely and question authority was crushed and their recourse was oftentimes nonexistent. We are pursuing this lawsuit to vindicate Dr. Scott Jensen and to set a precedent so that ALL healthcare professionals and beyond will have free speech protections.
Elon Musk appears to have convinced the Twitter masses that he is their champion of free speech, with his recent appearance on the BBC providing yet another opportunity to burnish his bona fides in this regard.
“Who’s to say that something is misinformation?” Musk asked the BBC’s befuddled interviewer, “Who’s the arbiter of that?”
Good point and fair enough.
But the problem with this and all of Musk’s critical remarks about the very notions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is that Elon Musk’s Twitter is itself a signatory of the European Union’s so-called “Code of Practice on Disinformation” and “The Code” requires platforms like Twitter precisely to censor “mis-” and “disinformation.”
And “require” here means require: as discussed in my previous articles here and here, the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) renders the commitments undertaken in the Code mandatory on pain of massive fines. As I have likewise documented in those articles, Elon Musk has repeatedly flagged not only his compliance with, but indeed his full-throated approval of the DSA.
How in the world is he able to square that circle?
Furthermore, Twitter is even a member of a Permanent Task-Force on “disinformation” that has been set up under the Code and that meets at least every six months, as well as in sub-groups in between the plenary sessions. (See Section IX of The Code, which is available here.)
The task-force is chaired by none other than the EU’s executive body, the European Commission: the very same European Commission that the DSA invests with the exclusive power to assess compliance with the Code and apply penalties if a platform is found to be wanting.
Who is to say something is misinformation, who is the arbiter of that? Well, there you have it. In the case of Twitter and all the platforms cooperating with the EU, the European Commission is the arbiter of that, since it is the Commission that will decide if Twitter and the other platforms are doing enough to combat it.
So, here is my question for Elon Musk: What exactly are you or your representatives doing in the EU’s Permanent Task-Force on disinformation?
In a much celebrated Twitter bon mot, you said, “People who throw the disinformation word around constantly are almost certainly guilty of engaging in it.” Okay. Well, what are you or your representatives discussing in the Permanent Task-Force then? Wouldn’t it be “disinformation?” Because discussing “disinformation” and how to “combat” it to the EU’s satisfaction is the whole point of the task-force!
Furthermore, what sub-groups on specific issues is Twitter participating in, per Commitment 37.4 of “The Code?”
To what extent has the European Commissiwon or perhaps the European foreign service (the EEAS), which is also present in the Permanent Task-Force, had input into the development of Twitter’s “algorithm,” which regulates the “reach” and visibility of Twitter users?
For, as discussed in my last article on this subject, the European Commission is setting up a “Centre for Algorithmic Transparency” specifically for this purpose. Furthermore, as parts of the algorithm that you have published make clear, suppressing “misinformation” is built right into it. See below, for instance.
Getting flagged for such “violations” will result in restricting of visibility and/or “downranking.” So, yes, who’s to say that something is misinformation, who is the arbiter of that? Because Twitter is saying that right in its code and it must be recognizing someone or something as the arbiter.
Speaking of which, it is surely no coincidence that the general categories of misinformation employed in the algorithm mirror the main areas of concern targeted by the EU in its efforts to “regulate” online speech: “medical misinfo,” of course, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, but also “civic misinfo” in the context of contested elections – for instance, reports of fraud in recent elections in France or Brazil – or “crisis misinfo” in the context of the war in Ukraine.
Under the new Twitter regime, the stealth censorship of the algorithm has largely replaced the open censorship of the permaban. Shadow-banning has, in effect, become the norm.
Once upon a time, Elon Musk pledged to inform Twitter users if they are being shadow-banned and the reason why. (See here). But like his promise of a “general amnesty” for all banned Twitter accounts, this pledge too has gone unfulfilled.
Perhaps the European Commission prefers the censorship to remain in the shadows and has thus vetoed the idea, as it vetoed the “general amnesty.”
But, in any case, why does Elon Musk never address his platform’s involvement with the European Union’s censorship regime? He talks all the time about incidental contacts with US government agencies. What is going on in the Permanent Task-Force on disinformation, Elon Musk, and how can it possibly be compatible with your ostensible commitment to free speech?
Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, a translator, and researcher working in Europe.Follow him at Twitter here.
By John Laforge | CounterPunch | November 30, 2018
In my Nov. 16 column, I reported on potential radiation risks posed by California’s Woolsey wildfire having burned over parts or all of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory—south of Simi Valley, Calif., 30 miles outside Los Angeles—site of at least four partial or total nuclear reactor meltdowns.
The field laboratory operated 10 experimental reactors and conducted rocket engine tests. In his 2014 book Atomic Accidents, researcher James Mahaffey writes, “The cores in four experimental reactors on site … melted.” Reactor core melts always result in the release of large amounts of radioactive gases and particles. Clean up of the deeply contaminated site has not been conducted in spite of a 2010 agreement.
Los Angeles’s KABC-7 TV reported Nov. 13 that the Santa Susana lab site “appears to be the origin of the Woolsey Fire” which has torched over 96,000 acres. Southern Calif. Public Radio said, “According to Cal Fire, the Woolsey Fire started on the afternoon of Thursday, Nov. 8 … on the Santa Susana site.” … continue
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 