Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NSW Premier Admits New “Security” Bill Restricts Civil Liberties, Promises More “Hate Speech” Laws Ahead

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025

Lawmakers in New South Wales wrapped up the year by rushing through security legislation that broadens police powers and imposes new limits on protest activity and expression.

Passed in an extraordinary sitting of Parliament just before Christmas, the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 represents one of the most far-reaching state security expansions in recent years.

Under the new law, the display of a symbol belonging to a “prohibited terrorist organization” can now lead to a prison term of up to two years.

Police officers are also granted authority to order individuals to remove face coverings if they are attending a demonstration or public event and the officer “reasonably suspects” they may commit an offense.

The legislation also permits police to halt public gatherings in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Although the bill is not framed as a censorship measure, it introduces powers that could intersect with the expanding use of surveillance technologies.

By compelling people to show their faces during political demonstrations, the law effectively weakens the ability of citizens to shield themselves from biometric tracking at a time when facial recognition systems are increasingly used by both law enforcement and private entities.

Premier Chris Minns has openly acknowledged that the law curtails individual freedoms. “These are extraordinary measures, I acknowledge that. I know that not all Australians that live in NSW support these changes, but we have decided it’s the best way of ensuring we do everything possible to keep the people of NSW safe,” he said following the bill’s passage.

Minns further conceded that the process was accelerated, crediting bipartisan cooperation for allowing the legislation to pass so quickly. “I know that that happened in a short space of time. I know that the negotiations and the talks had to happen over a short space of time, but we appreciate the goodwill in which we were able to get much-needed reform in New South Wales through the Parliament,” he stated.

He justified the timing by saying, “We couldn’t wait, this was urgent.”

When pressed about why the measures were bundled into a single omnibus bill, Minns admitted that time was the deciding factor. “If it had been cut up into its component parts, we would have been here way past Christmas… maybe people who oppose elements of those changes would have loved that, because it would have meant that the passage of the bills would have been stalled.”

The Premier did not shy away from admitting that rights were being limited in the process. “I accept, I guess, the implicit criticism that this does restrict rights, whether it’s for protests or guns,” he said. “But in these circumstances, we’ve got a higher obligation to the public… our number one obligation is to keep the public safe.”

Minns also signaled that more legislation is on the horizon, confirming that the government intends to introduce new “hate speech” laws in the coming months. “I want to make it clear that this isn’t the end of change… we’re currently looking at other areas of the law that are urgently required to confront hate speech, confront Islamist terrorism in our community,” he said. “Hate speech leads to hateful actions… and we’re prepared to take action and steps to keep the community safe.”

While the Premier frames the agenda as necessary to safeguard citizens, the process reflects a deeper shift toward governance by emergency.

Parliament’s decision to fast-track legal powers during a holiday recess, without full debate or public review, raises serious questions about transparency and proportionality.

The rapid normalization of police discretion over identity and assembly carries lasting implications for privacy and dissent.

As soon as governments assert the right to define and control “hate speech” or to compel identification at protests, the boundaries of lawful expression narrow quickly. A response to terrorism may end up reshaping the basic relationship between the individual and the state.

More: Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”

December 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025

American Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers has sharply criticized British and European speech regulators for attempting to extend their laws to US-based platforms, calling it a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.

She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.

Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”

Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.

The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.

That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.

She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are… trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.

On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.

“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.

Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.

Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.

She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage… about American political controversies… and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”

Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.

Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.

“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”

Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.

Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.

More: EU Launches New Push For Digital ID Age Checks and Big Tech Probe Under Digital Services Act

December 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

SANCTIONED: Col Jacques Baud Explains Being the EU’s TARGET

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – December 23, 2025

Col Jacques Baud explains that on December 12 he learned via Radio Free Europe that his name would appear on an EU sanctions list. After contacting his embassy in Brussels (where he lives), he received no follow-up. On December 15 the EU formally published the sanctions, which served as the only notification. Since then, his bank accounts have been frozen and he is banned from traveling within the EU, preventing him from returning to his home country.

He says he is accused of spreading pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation, including allegedly promoting a conspiracy theory that Ukraine orchestrated its own invasion by Russia in 2022. He strongly denies this, stating that he merely quoted remarks made in 2019 by Oleksiy Arestovych, then an adviser to President Zelensky, about the risk of war if Ukraine pursued NATO membership. He emphasizes that quoting a Ukrainian official is being treated as evidence of acting as a Russian agent, despite his claim that he has no ties to Russia.

The speaker stresses that he was never warned, contacted, or given a chance to respond by EU, Belgian, or Swiss authorities before the sanctions were imposed. He argues the decision is political, not legal: there was no court ruling, no charges under any law, no right to defense, and no real avenue for appeal.

He further explains that he deliberately avoided appearing on Russian media, refused invitations from outlets like RT, and bases his work largely on Ukrainian and U.S. sources to maintain academic objectivity. He insists propaganda itself is not a crime under European law and says he has always tried to use precise, nuanced language in his analysis.

Overall, he presents his case as evidence of a serious erosion of democracy and free speech in Europe, arguing that objective analysis of the Russia–Ukraine war is being labeled “pro-Russian.” He describes the sanctions as effectively confiscating his livelihood without due process and says he is now struggling to meet basic needs, pending a possible humanitarian exemption to access limited funds for essentials like food.

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!! Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavis…

December 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Video | | Leave a comment

How reporting facts can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist

By Jonathan Cook – December 22, 2025

Starmer’s government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it.

The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.

And lo behold, here we are.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.

Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.

But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.

It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.

When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.

The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance – violence – against an occupying army.

But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.

Now journalists, human rights activists and lawyers face a legal minefield every time they try to talk about the Gaza genocide, the trials of people accused of belonging to Palestine Action, or the hunger strikes of those on remand over attacks on weapons factories supplying killer drones to Israel.

Why? Because saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence. Any journalist, human rights activist or lawyer making factual observations risks 14 years behind bars.

Few seem to have understood quite what impact this is having on public coverage of these major issues.

A month and a half into the hunger strike by eight members of Palestine Action – the point at which people are likely to start dying – the BBC News at Ten finally broke its silence on the matter. That was despite the hunger strike being the largest in UK history in nearly half a century.

There are clear political reasons why the BBC had avoided this topic for so long. It prefers not to deal with matters that directly confront the legitimacy of the government, which funds it. The BBC is effectively the British state broadcaster.

But in a naturally spineless organisation like the BBC, the legal consequences have clearly weighed heavily too. In a recent short segment on the hunger strike, BBC correspondent Dominic Casciani carefully hedged his words and admitted to facing legal difficulties reporting on the strike.

In these circumstances, news organisations make one of two choices. They simply ignore factual things because it is legally too dangerous to speak truthfully about them. Or they lie about factual things because it is legally safe – and politically opportune – to speak untruthfully about them.

The so-called “liberal” parts of the media, including the BBC, tend to opt for the former; the red-tops usually opt for the latter.

The government itself is taking full advantage of this lacuna in reporting, injecting its own self-serving deceptions into the coverage, knowing that there will be – can be – no meaningful pushback.

Take just one example. The government has proscribed Palestine Action on the grounds that it is a terrorist organisation. It has justified its decision by implying, without producing a shred of evidence, that the group is funded by Iran, and that its real agenda is not just criminal damage against arms factories but against individuals.

Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment.

Were I to conduct an investigation, for example, definitively showing that Palestine Action was not funded by Iran – proving that the government was lying – it would be a terror offence to publish that truthful information. Why? Because it would almost certainly “encourage support” for Palestine Action. There is no fact or truth exemption in the legislation.

Similarly, the government has suggested that the current “Filton Trial” – which includes discussions of events in which a police officer was injured during a struggle over the sledgehammers being used to destroy the Elbit factory’s weapons-producing machinery – demonstrates that Palestine Action was not just targeting property but individuals too.

Were I to try to make the case that the alleged actions of one individual – only one person is charged with assault – prove nothing about the aims of the organisation as a whole, I would be risking a terrorism conviction and 14 years’ imprisonment. Which is one, very strong reason not to make such an argument.

But in the absence of such arguments, the reality is that social media is awash with posts from people echoing outrageous official disinformation. This spreads unchallenged because to challenge it is now cast as a terrorism offence.

In truth, since proscription, any statements about the political aims of a deeply political organisation like Palestine Action occupy a grey area of the law.

Is it a terrorism offence to point out the fact, as I have done above, that Palestine Action targeted Elbit factories that send killer drones to Israel for use in Gaza. In doing so, may I have “recklessly” encouraged you to support Palestine Action?

Can I express any kind of positive view about the hunger strikers or their actions without violating the law?

The truth is that the law’s greyness is its very point. It maximises the chilling effect on those who are supposed to serve as the public’s watchdogs on power: journalists, human rights groups, lawyers.

It allows the government – through compliant police forces – to selectively pick off those dissenting individuals it doesn’t like, those without institutional backing, to make examples of them. This is not conjecture. It is already happening.

The abuse of the Terrorism Act discourages research, analysis and critical thinking. It forces all journalists, human rights activists and lawyers to become lapdogs of the government. It creates a void into which the government can spin events to its own advantage, in which it can avoid accountability and in which it can punish those who dissent. It is the very antithesis of democratic behaviour.

This ought to appall anyone who cares about the truth, about public debate, about scrutiny. Because they have all been thrown out of the window.

And in proscribing Palestine Action, the government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation and thereby make it impossible to defend that group.

That is what authoritarian governments do. That is exactly where Britain is now.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | 1 Comment

Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 23, 2025

Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla will have to appear in person in the Netherlands to testify at a hearing in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit, a Dutch court ruled late last month.

The court order relates to a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. One of the victims has since died.

The lawsuit centers around the question “of whether the COVID-19 injections are a bioweapon,” Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant reported. In addition to Gates and Bourla, the suit names 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.

De Andere Krant said last month’s ruling “is a significant setback for the defendants, who are accused of misleading victims about the ‘safety and effectiveness’ of the vaccines.” However, it “remains to be seen” whether the defendants will comply with the court’s order and appear at next year’s hearing.

The defendants may face additional legal challenges in Dutch courts in the new year. A second lawsuit, filed in March by three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims in the Netherlands, presents a similar set of allegations and names the same defendants.

At a press conference last week, Dutch attorney Peter Stassen, who represents the vaccine-injured plaintiffs in both cases, earlier this month petitioned the courts in both cases to hear in-person testimony by five expert witnesses regarding the safety and efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Stassen, oral hearings will be held in both cases next year, but hearing dates have not yet been scheduled. Stassen seeks to consolidate the cases.

The expert witnesses include:

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
  • Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
  • Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
  • Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Earlier this month, Stassen and the expert witnesses released a series of YouTube videos presenting their evidence and proposed testimony.

Plaintiffs ‘victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth’

Both lawsuits have taken a circuitous path in the Dutch court system.

In October 2024, the District Court of Leeuwarden rejected Gates’ motion to dismiss the case, ruling that it has jurisdiction over Gates and ordering Gates to pay the defendants’ legal fees.

In June 2025, the plaintiffs increased their claims against the defendants and petitioned the court to accept the expert witnesses’ testimony.

On Dec. 7, Stassen submitted written statements and the recorded video statements by the expert witnesses to the District Court of Leeuwarden.

The second lawsuit kicked off in March with an application for preliminary evidence proceedings. In August, the District Court of Leeuwarden denied the application, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary hearing while attempting to join the 2023 lawsuit.

In September, Stassen filed an appeal, alleging that the court did not afford the plaintiffs a fair trial, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and calling upon the court to allow the expert witnesses to testify in court.

During last week’s press conference, Stassen said the plaintiffs — and the broader public — “are victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth.”

“By suppressing the truth, my clients were misled. Had they not been misled, they would not have gotten the COVID-19 shot, a shot that the suppressors of the truth still tout as a safe and effective vaccine to this day,” Stassen said.

Expert witnesses: COVID shots ‘indistinguishable from bioweapons’

During the press conference, Stassen also noted his efforts to have the Dutch courts accept his expert witnesses’ in-person testimony. He said the witnesses intend to present evidence showing that the COVID-19 shots:

  • Are “indistinguishable from bioweapons.”
  • Offer “no health benefits whatsoever.”
  • Are “neither safe nor effective.”
  • Were released in the U.S. under emergency use authorization, “a legal status that removes the enforcement of the pharmaceutical law and consumer safeguards by the FDA,” or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
  • Are “by design, intended to cause the damage described in the package insert and reports as ‘side effects’” — including, “sudden death, heart failure, cancer, and the most horrific diseases.”
  • Are a “key component” of the “Great Reset,” “a military project in which NATO plays a significant role.”

In their video statements, the experts questioned the safety of the COVID-19 shots and the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sansone told The Defender that he and the other expert witnesses are advocating to testify in court, as this “can be more influential” than written testimony.

Sansone said he intends to provide evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are bioweapons that violate the Biological Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — the latter authored by late University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, Ph.D., an expert witness in the original lawsuit who died in January.

“Governments, healthcare facilities and the media deliberately concealed this information from the public, showing clear criminal intent,” Sansone said in his video.

Latypova told The Defender the lawsuits are the only ones worldwide alleging that “COVID was not a public health event but a government ‘project’ that resulted in mass casualty that can be characterized as ‘genocide,’ or more broadly, ‘democide’ of the population.”

In her statement, Latypova alleged that “military governance and contracting were used to develop, procure, deliver, distribute these shots all over the world” — and to bypass standard regulatory oversight procedures for pharmaceutical products.

“There is substantial evidence of non-compliance with good manufacturing practices, which is the law that governs pharmaceutical purity and honesty in labeling all over the world,” Latypova said.

Watt said the vaccines were a component of a broader effort by political, military and pharmaceutical actors to deceive the public, using the pandemic as a pretext.

“Communicable disease and pandemic threats are political fabrications based on widespread use of intentionally deceptive diagnostic testing devices for the purposes of instilling public fear and justifying vaccination and biodefense programs,” she said.

According to Fitts, global central banks and financial institutions were involved in these efforts. She said the pandemic represented an “egregious misuse of healthcare policies to implement economic and political agendas” with the goal of engineering a “Great Reset” of the global financial system.

Yeadon said that since 2020, he has attempted to warn the public that the COVID-19 vaccines are designed to “lower the fertility [rate] and [people’s health] and reduce population.”

He said that even though he was censored on social media for making such comments, “this is what I have watched happen all around me for five years.”

Pfizer CEO sought to block expert witnesses, dismiss lawsuits

Stassen said that several of the defendants, including Bourla, Rutte and the Dutch state, sought to block the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Gates was the only defendant who “deferred to the court’s judgment on this point,” Stassen said.

In September, Gates and Bourla submitted written statements of defense.

In his statement, Gates said he does not have any connection to or influence over the policies of international bodies such as the World Health Organization, either personally or through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bourla said the court “has been sufficiently informed and can dismiss the claims without the need to order an oral hearing.”

In a previous statement submitted to the District Court of Leeuwarden last year, Bourla denied that he was liable for the injuries and damages the plaintiffs sustained and maintained that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective.”

In June, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state. He remains confined in a high-security prison.

De Andere Krant reported that earlier this month, van Kessel’s pre-trial detention was extended until February, despite “a complete lack of convincing evidence.”

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.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

The vindication (and brutal punishment) of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 23, 2025

Alongside the powers that be everywhere, Google’s still anonymous AI is also a pious believer in the virtues of free expression. It proclaims boldly and for all the right reasons that free speech is vital to democracy, in which it also claims to believe. It reminds us also, which is good to know, that freedom of expression promotes an informed citizenry and self-governance and ensures government accountability. Furthermore, that open dialogue and debate facilitate the “marketplace of ideas,” which is a vital condition for social progress and provides society with a much-needed “safety valve.” And finally, that the unhindered right to express one’s thoughts, beliefs, and values without fear is a fundamental aspect of human dignity and self-fulfilment. Amen, amen, amen.

In theory, all would heartily salute those noble sentiments. And that includes even some of their most ruthless violators, such as the German government.

For over a year after kidnapping him abroad, the German government kept prominent German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in prison on contrived charges and under extraordinarily harsh and inhuman conditions, which were seemingly designed just to torment him. In Germany, for Dr. Fuellmich at least, the right to express one’s thoughts with dignity (never mind self-fulfilment) in the manner so movingly preached by Google’s AI avatar went out the window many moons ago.

How many are there who still remember who Dr. Fuellmich is and what he stands for, let alone are aware of his current plight?

For those who do not, a brief note is in order. Shortly after the sudden appearance of the Covid affair in 2019, Dr. Fuellmich, a prominent trial attorney from Gottingen, gained public attention by raising sensible questions about the nature and origin of the commotion which was becoming global in scope. Identical questions were on the minds of many, but few were capable of articulating them in legal terms as effectively as he was. Initially, his questions were formulated rather timidly, barely overstepping the unspoken bounds of permissible inquiry. There was nigh a suggestion of any “conspiracy theory” or frontal challenge to the integrity of the system that in a matter of weeks had improvised, for purposes then still unknown, a global health emergency which was the pretext for unprecedentedly comprehensive social disruptions and the imposition of hitherto inconceivable restrictions on elementary human liberties.

As prominent professionals in the medical and other fields began also to sound the alarm and to raise questions from their respective areas of expertise, it became obvious to those who followed Reiner Fuellmich’s public pronouncements that both the direction and tone of the Covid inquiry he and his associates were pursuing were beginning to change. The issues he was now beginning to raise were no longer merely technical. Increasingly, as he dug deeper he was calling into question the bona fides of the political, media, and pharmaceutical intimidation machine that was invoking a supposed pandemic to implement a global lock-down regime, with compulsory mass injection of untested “therapeutic” substances.

Dr. Fuellmich’s basic questions about the “pandemic” are well worth recapitulating:

  • “One: is there a corona pandemic, or is there only a PCR test pandemic, specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the person tested is infected with COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing, in connection with the COVID-19 infection;
  • “Two, do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdowns, facemasks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from corona, or do they serve only to make people panic, so they believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that in the end, the pharmaceutical and technology companies can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints; and
  • “Three, is it true that the German government was extensively lobbied, more so than any other government, by the chief protagonists of the so-called corona pandemic? Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world, for its strict, and therefore, successful adherence to the corona measures.”

When, compelling as they evidently were, those interrogatories remained ignored in the public arena (whilst Dr. Fuellmich himself was being ridiculed and vilified just for asking) there began a perceptible shift in the scope and focus of his inquiry. His razor sharp legal mind was activated in the highest degree. The Establishment’s stonewalling on mostly softball issues gradually led him to undertake an unsparing in-depth scrutiny of the systemic background of the global Covid affair, fully intending to go to the root of it and leaving no stone unturned. Dr. Fuellmich threw the gauntlet when he announced that he was assembling evidence of crimes against humanity on a massive scale and of sufficient weight to convene a Medical Nuremberg II, with parallel criminal and class action proceedings that he intended to initiate in the judicial system of the United States and also before the European Court of Human Rights.

Dr. Fuellmich had stepped on some very sensitive and hostile toes. Clearly no such lunacy as he was contemplating could possibly be allowed. Plans were laid immediately to derail him by means of one of those shabby, low life operations in which secret services excel. Informants were planted in the target’s immediate circle to snitch on him and under false witness to furnish compromising evidence. A secret indictment (lettre de cachet, as this practice was known under the ancien regime in France and which recently was revived by the Hague Tribunal) for a purported money laundering scheme was duly prepared and German authorities waited for the convenient opportunity to catch their unsuspecting prey. That opportunity presented itself two years ago when Dr. Fuellmich, as a German citizen, appeared on the premises of the German consulate in Mexico (technically German territory, of course) to solicit a routine consular service. There, he was apprehended and promptly packed off to Germany to be disposed of as the German authorities saw fit. The only saving grace is that he was not snuffed and chopped up like the dissident journalist at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Following an unprecedented, almost two-year, pre-trial incarceration under medieval conditions that was seemingly devised especially for him (the old “flight risk” ruse was cited as the official rationale for this harsh measure) in April 2025 Dr. Fuellmich was finally sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on the bogus charges filed against him. On the surface, everything appears neat and proper. Technically, he was condemned for a crime of moral turpitude. His real “offence” against the vindictive globalist Establishment, the irrefutable public exposure of its totalitarian and population-reduction agenda and its corrupt liaison with the nefarious pharmacological mafia and compulsory promotion of its lethal products, was not even alluded to in the course of those proceedings. Yet, while Dr. Fuellmich is rotting in prison, every one of the principal claims for which he actually was imprisoned is now being scientifically corroborated.

The so-called “covid vaccines” are now known to be associated with heart damage, exactly as Dr. Fuellmich and numerous other researchers insistently warned during the “pandemic” (also here). As predicted by Dr. Fuellmich and his research team, a surge of life threatening blood clots has been correlated with the mass injection of untested “vaccines.” There has also been a marked acceleration of deadly cancer conditions. As further evidence of the fraudulence of the “pandemic emergency,” a peer reviewed study has demonstrated that 86% of allegedly PCR-positive “Covid  cases” were not even real infections. That had originally been stated by Dr. Fuellmich, to widespread derision at the time. It is a fact that dismantles the scientific foundation used to justify lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccine mandates. And perhaps the most damning fact of all, Japanese scientists have demonstrated that contrary to disinformation about infected bats and unsanitary Chinese markets when the pandemic broke out, all known Covid variants are in fact of laboratory origin. That raises obvious and legitimate questions about criminal intent both on the level of the proposed “cures” and of the fabricated health emergency itself that those cures presumably were developed to resolve.

The vicious treatment allotted to the distinguished German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is comparable to the persecution of figures like Giordano Bruno. It gives the lie to the collective West’s pharisaical pretence of freedom of expression. The dark stain it leaves will be indelibly recorded as a shameful episode in the history of German jurisprudence.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

US Department of State Discloses Names of 5 Europeans Sanctioned for Censorship Against US

Sputnik – 24.12.2025

US Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers has disclosed the list of five Europeans who have been sanctioned by Washington for the extraterritorial censorship of Americans.

The list includes Thierry Breton, who is described as a mastermind of the Digital Services Act (DSA); Imran Ahmed, who headed the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that called for deplatforming US anti-vaxxers, including now Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy; Clare Melford, who leads the Global Disinformation Index (GDI); Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, the founder of German organization HateAid that was allegedly created to “counter conservative groups” and is an official censor under the DSA; and Josephine Ballon, the co-leader of HateAid.

“These sanctions are visa-related. We aren’t invoking severe Magnitsky-style financial measures, but our message is clear: if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil,” Rogers wrote on X.

The introduction of sanctions against five Europeans was announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The secretary said that “these radical activists and weaponized NGOs” had aided censorship crackdowns by foreign states, targeting American speakers and American companies.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”

Victoria’s push to unmask online users marks a turning point where the rhetoric of safety begins to eclipse the right to speak without fear

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 23, 2025

Victoria is preparing to introduce some of the most far-reaching online censorship and surveillance powers ever proposed in an Australian state, following the Bondi Beach terror attack.

Premier Jacinta Allan’s new five-point plan, presented as a response to antisemitism, includes measures that would compel social media platforms to identify users accused of “hate speech” and make companies legally liable if they cannot.

Presented as a defense against hate, the plan’s mechanisms cut directly into long-standing principles of privacy and freedom of expression. It positions anonymity online as a form of protection for “cowards,” creating a precedent for government-mandated identity disclosure that could chill lawful speech and dissent.

During her announcement, Premier Allan said:

“That’s why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and their anonymous users to account – and we’ll commission a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.”

Under the proposal, if a user accused of “vilification” cannot be identified, the platform itself could be held responsible for damages. This effectively converts private platforms into instruments of state enforcement, obligating them to expose user data or face financial risk.

The Premier also announced plans to accelerate the introduction of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2024, which had been due to take effect in mid-2026. It will now be brought forward to April 2026.

The law allows individuals to sue others for public conduct, including online speech, that a “reasonable person” might find “hateful, contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing” toward someone with a protected attribute. These protected categories include religion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.

This framework gives the state and private citizens broad interpretive power to determine what speech is “hateful.” As many civil liberties experts note, such wording opens the door to legal action based on subjective offense rather than clear, objective harm.

Weakening Oversight of Speech Prosecutions

Premier Allan also intends to remove a major procedural safeguard from Victoria’s criminal vilification laws: the requirement that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) consent to police prosecutions. Without that check, police could independently pursue speech-based offenses, bypassing higher legal oversight.

This change would hand significant discretion to law enforcement in determining which speech crosses into criminality. Once enacted, it would mean that a person’s online comments could be prosecuted directly, without review from the state’s top legal office.

The “anti-hate” package extends beyond censorship. It proposes new powers for police to shut down protests in the aftermath of “designated terrorist events” and establishes a Commissioner for Preventing and Countering Violent Political Extremism to coordinate programs across schools, clubs, and religious institutions.

These measures, combined with the online anonymity restrictions, represent a substantial consolidation of state power over communication, movement, and association, all justified in the name of combating hate and maintaining safety.

Requiring companies to unmask users fundamentally undermines the principle of anonymous participation, a cornerstone of free expression, whistleblowing, and political organizing. Anonymity has historically protected vulnerable groups, dissidents, and small voices from retaliation.

Under Victoria’s proposal, those protections could erode rapidly as platforms are pressured to reveal identities or face litigation.

Laws targeting “hate speech” often extend far beyond their original purpose, evolving into broad speech controls that deter public criticism, satire, and unpopular opinions. Once enacted, such powers rarely contract.

More: Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention

December 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 1 Comment

Who is the Pro-Israel Clique behind TikTok’s US Takeover?

By Romana Rubeo – The Palestine Chronicle – December 20, 2025

The short-form video social media platform TikTok, which has more than 170 million users in the United States and has become a central space for political discourse, journalism, and youth activism, finalized an agreement on Thursday to transfer control of its US operations to a newly created joint venture dominated by American and allied investors.

The deal, reported by multiple US media outlets including CNBC, Reuters, and the Associated Press, follows years of bipartisan efforts to force ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to divest from the app or face an outright ban under US national security legislation. The agreement is expected to close in January 2026.

Under the terms of the deal, TikTok’s US business will be placed under a new entity, commonly referred to as TikTok USDS, with majority ownership held by a consortium led by Oracle Corporation and the private equity firm Silver Lake, alongside MGX, an investment vehicle based in Abu Dhabi. ByteDance will retain a minority stake of just under 20 percent, the maximum allowed under US law, while existing ByteDance-linked investors will collectively hold a further share of the company.

Oracle will play a central role not only as an investor but also as TikTok’s so-called “trusted technology partner.” US officials have stated that Oracle will be responsible for hosting American user data and overseeing key aspects of the platform’s algorithm, an arrangement presented by the administration as a safeguard against foreign influence.

Is Israel Involved?

While no Israeli company or state-linked entity is formally involved in the ownership structure of the new TikTok US venture, the deal has sparked debate over the political affiliations and ideological positions of some of the corporate figures associated with the transaction.

Oracle, one of the principal investors, has long-standing ties to Israel through its leadership. The company’s chief executive, Safra Catz, is Israeli-American and has previously made public statements expressing strong support for Israel.

According to TRT, an email sent by former Oracle CEO Safra Catz to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was disclosed following a hack of Barak’s email account.

“We have all been horrified by the growth of the BDS movement in college campuses and have concluded that we have to fight this battle before the kids even get to college. We believe that we have to embed the love and respect for Israel in the American culture. That means getting the message to the American people in a way they can consume it,” Catz reportedly wrote in February 2015.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison has also been widely reported to have close political and personal relationships with Israeli leaders and to have donated to pro-Israel causes over many years.

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ellison is among the largest private donors to the Israeli army. Reporting on a Beverly Hills gala organized by The Friends of the Israel Defense Forces in 2017, the JTA wrote: “Larry Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle and its executive chairman, gave $16.6 million — the largest single gift in FIDF history.”

Ellison has also publicly described Israel as his own state.

According to Responsible Statecraft, the online magazine of the Quincy Institute, Ellison holds extensive interests across major news, television, and Hollywood media companies, largely through the recent takeover of Paramount by Skydance Media, a group now led by his son, David Ellison. The report also noted that David Ellison is considering appointing openly pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss to a senior executive role at the newly acquired CBS network.

The report also mentioned that David Ellison is considering appointing openly pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss to a senior executive role at the newly acquired CBS network.

Limitations on Freedom of Expression

Civil liberties groups and pro-Palestinian advocates have repeatedly warned that the restructuring of TikTok’s ownership could have consequences for freedom of expression, particularly regarding content related to Palestine and Israel.

These concerns come against the backdrop of repeated complaints from activists and journalists about the suppression or downranking of pro-Palestinian content across major social media platforms since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Pro-Israel Organizations Welcome the Deal

At the same time, pro-Israel organizations in the US have publicly welcomed the sale, framing it as an opportunity to address what they describe as antisemitism and hostile narratives on TikTok.

For example, leaders of the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), one of the largest umbrella groups representing Jewish communities in the US, issued a public statement framing the proposed TikTok deal as an opportunity to tackle what they described as the “antisemitism” on the platform.

Israeli officials and commentators have also emphasized the strategic importance of social media platforms in shaping public opinion, particularly among younger audiences.

Even former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently claimed that young Americans, including young Jewish Americans, hold increasingly critical views of Israel because they are being misled by “pure propaganda” and “totally made up” videos on TikTok and other social media platforms.

Speaking at a summit in New York hosted by Israel Hayom on December 2, Clinton repeatedly suggested that widely documented information circulating online about Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza is fabricated, and expressed concern that students “don’t know the history and don’t understand.”

Clinton described it as “a serious problem” that young people rely heavily on social media for their information, despite the fact that the videos, documentation, and reporting she dismissed have been independently verified by journalists, human rights organizations, UN bodies, and legal experts investigating Israeli war crimes and genocide.

Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals.

December 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine: Does Europe Work for a Stalled Conflict?

Why negotiations are blocked and why a long, managed conflict is becoming the default outcome.

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – December 23, 2025

Negotiations to end the conflict in Ukraine appear stalled not because of a lack of diplomatic encounters, but because there is no shared understanding of what the proxy war is about, nor of what a settlement should address. The Berlin meeting illustrated this structural deadlock.

Russia continues to restate a limited and stable set of core demands, above all, Ukrainian neutrality and the rollback of NATO’s military footprint, while Europeans and Ukrainians advance proposals that explicitly negate these demands. This is not a negotiation gap; it is a conceptual incompatibility.

The American role exacerbates this problem. The United States oscillates between mediator and belligerent, without committing to a coherent diplomatic line. Instead of deploying professional diplomatic teams with a clear mandate, Washington relies on ad hoc envoys and transactional approaches. Trump’s inclination towards deal-making, inspired by business logic rather than diplomatic craft, leads to contradictory signaling: reassurance to Moscow followed by alignment with European and Ukrainian maximalist positions. This reinforces Russian perceptions that talks are performative rather than substantive.

From a European perspective, the refusal to listen to Russia’s security concerns is justified through a normative framing of the conflict: Ukraine is the victim, Russia the aggressor, and therefore only Ukrainian security deserves guarantees. This position, articulated explicitly by EU figures such as Kaja Kallas, forecloses any bargaining space.

Russia is delegitimised as a security actor, and empathy, understood here not as moral approval but as analytical capacity to understand the other side’s threat perception, is absent. The result is a strategy that implicitly accepts the continuation of the conflict until Ukraine collapses militarily or Russia concedes its defeat, a scenario that seems unrealistic.

Meanwhile, Russia senses that time is on its side. Battlefield dynamics, industrial mobilisation, and political cohesion reinforce Moscow’s assessment that it can achieve its objectives through attrition. In this context, concessions would be irrational from a realist standpoint.

As negotiations fail, Europe and Ukraine increasingly rely on asymmetric strategies, such as sabotage, attacks on Russian assets, and irregular warfare, openly endorsed by Western intelligence discourse, including references by the head of MI6 to Second World War–style special operations. This marks a shift from conflict resolution to conflict management.

Financing Ukraine: strategic risk without political consent

Europe’s approach to financing Ukraine reveals a second layer of contradiction. The decision not to confiscate Russian frozen assets, but instead to fund Ukraine through EU borrowing (€90 billion for 2026–2027) acknowledges the legal, financial, and systemic risks involved. Belgium’s concerns over Euroclear, the threat of credit downgrades by rating agencies such as Fitch, and the exposure of European pension funds and financial institutions underline the fragility of this strategy.

Yet this choice was made without a social pact with European citizens. There has been no democratic debate proportionate to the scale of financial commitment. At a time when European societies face mounting pressures on housing, welfare, pensions, and infrastructure, war financing is normalised as a moral and face-saving necessity rather than a political choice. This fuels domestic resentment and strengthens nationalist and far-right parties across the continent.

Strategically, European financing does not resolve the conflict. Money cannot substitute for manpower nor reverse battlefield dynamics. Ukraine’s primary constraint is not just liquidity but, above all, soldiers. Moreover, persistent concerns about corruption and weak accountability mechanisms undermine public support for continued transfers. Rather than bringing peace closer, European funding functions as a holding mechanism: prolonging the conflict to weaken Russia, buying time to rearm European militaries, and delaying political reckoning of the defeat.

In this sense, Ukraine increasingly functions as a proxy, absorbing the human cost of a broader confrontation while Europe avoids direct military engagement. This is a morally uncomfortable but analytically coherent reading of current policy.

The fear of a Russian “victory” and the erosion of Europe’s political core

The prospect of Russia being perceived as the winner is existentially threatening for European elites. It would symbolise not only Ukrainian defeat but also NATO’s limits and Europe’s strategic weakness. More profoundly, it would undermine the EU’s self-image as a political peace project and a normative power.

To prevent this outcome, European leaders and media have invested heavily in a simplified narrative: Russia as sole aggressor, Ukraine as pure victim, and Europe as moral defender. Yet two facts disrupt this narrative. First, the EU has not presented a concrete peace proposal of its own.

Second, dissenting voices are increasingly marginalised or silenced, contradicting Europe’s professed commitment to pluralism and freedom of expression. In several European countries, journalists, analysts, and former officials who question NATO strategy, the feasibility of a military victory, or the costs of prolonged war – such as George Galloway in the United Kingdom, former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud, French analysts like Xavier Moreau or the online platform Euroactiv – have been systematically delegitimised, deplatformed, or labelled as disinformation vectors rather than engaged on the substance of their arguments. The closure of debate, whether through media pressure or formal and informal censorship, erodes Europe’s intellectual resilience.

As nuance becomes suspect and contradiction is framed as betrayal, Europe loses its capacity to think strategically. Political realism, understood as the ability to engage with power politics without moral illusion, has largely disappeared from mainstream European discourse. NATO expansion is no longer discussed as a variable in Russian threat perception but as an unquestionable good. The assumption persists that Russia will eventually weaken, accept European terms, and even relinquish frozen assets. There is no empirical basis for this belief.

Is there a way out?

A negotiated settlement remains theoretically possible but politically unlikely. European leaders seek a face-saving exit that preserves moral superiority while avoiding military escalation. Yet they are unwilling to make the concessions such an exit would require.

Europe will not send troops to fight Russia, but it will also not accept defeat. The most probable outcome is therefore a long, tense cold peace, akin to the Korean model: frozen frontlines, unresolved status, and continuous low-level confrontation.

This outcome will shape European–Russian relations for decades. It will also accelerate Europe’s internal fragmentation, as member states increasingly diverge in their strategic orientations, weaken its social model, and normalise permanent rearmament. Europe pays the bill, calls it principle, and postpones the hardest decisions at the cost of Ukrainian lives and its own political coherence.

Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics

December 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian investigative journalist ‘kidnapped’ by draft officers

RT | December 23, 2025

A Ukrainian investigative journalist is reportedly missing after being seized by conscription officials days after filing a criminal complaint against his local city administration.

A video shared on the Facebook account of Aleksey Brovchenko, which went viral this week, was purportedly filmed by CCTV cameras at his home in Podgorodnoye in Dnepropetrovsk Region on Monday morning. It showed people in military and police uniforms apprehending a man and forcing him into a van despite a woman’s vocal objections – which the description called a “kidnapping.”

Brovchenko’s family said he was beaten earlier in the day and called police to file a complaint, but was instead taken away and has since been out of touch with them.

Last week, the journalist reported an “interesting situation” at a police station where he went to file a complaint against the town mayor for alleged fraud. He said officers accused him of being a draft dodger but let him go instead of transferring him to military officials – a move he described as a sign that “the police will soon switch to the side of the people.” Brovchenko’s reporting often highlights suspected abuses by conscription centers.

City head Andrey Gorb, whom the journalist had accused of wrongdoing, claimed on Tuesday that Brovchenko is a “fake journalist” who “did everything to derail the mobilization.” He thanked police and military officers “for doing their job.”

Military mobilization is a contentious issue in Ukraine, viewed by many as unfair due to corruption that allows the wealthy and powerful to evade mandatory service. Videos of what critics call abductions regularly go viral, even as officials downplay the so-called “busification” as not a serious problem.

Public resistance to recruiting also exacerbates existing issues with Ukrainian troop desertion. The Prosecutor General’s Office recently stopped reporting the number of cases against soldiers who have left their posts, a move critics say is an attempt to conceal the scale of the manpower drain.

December 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US officials admit to major violations during 2020 election

RT | December 22, 2025

Election officials in the US state of Georgia have admitted to major violations of vote certification procedures during the 2020 presidential race. US President Donald Trump, who lost to Joe Biden, has repeatedly claimed that the election was “stolen” and marred by widespread fraud and irregularities.

The admission, made earlier this month, emerged from a complaint filed by election integrity activist David Cross, who accused Fulton County, Georgia’s most populous county, of illegally certifying at least 315,000 ballots in 2020.

Biden beat Trump in Georgia – which has 16 electoral votes – by fewer than 12,000 votes, before going on to win the Electoral College 306–232.

The dispute centers on tabulator tapes produced by voting machines during early voting. Under state rules, each tabulator must generate closing tapes signed by poll workers to certify the recorded vote totals.

After filing an open records request with Fulton County, Cross found at least 134 tabulator tapes with no signatures, meaning that the associated ballots could not have been legally certified.

Cross also raised allegations of missing “zero tapes” meant to confirm that machines began counting from zero at the start of polling, along with discrepancies involving scanner serial numbers and unusually late poll closing times.

During a recent State Election Board hearing, Ann Brumbaugh, an attorney for the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, said the county “does not dispute the allegations,” acknowledging the failure as a violation of election board rules.

Members of the state board described the findings as “very troubling” and referred the case to the Georgia Attorney General, seeking potential civil penalties of $5,000 per unsigned tape and other enforcement action.

The Georgia result has remained a focal point of Trump’s broader complaints about the 2020 election, which have been rejected by Democrats and formed the basis of multiple legal cases against him.

Since returning to office, Trump has vowed to overhaul the US voting system, pledging stricter voter identification requirements, limits on mail-in voting, and a shift toward paper ballots, arguing that these changes are necessary to restore confidence in elections.

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »