Israel Relaunches, Rebrands Online Propaganda Campaign
By Harrison Berger | The American Conservative | May 21, 2026
Israel has relaunched and rebranded Act.IL, an online campaign originally designed by Israeli intelligence officials at the Ministry of Strategic Affairs to harass and intimidate American critics of Israel. Such operations are generally referred to as “troll farming,” though the forces behind Act.IL use softer, more highfalutin language.
Rebranded as RiseApp, the program is operated by Israel’s Reichman University (IDC Herzliya) and, according to the project’s website, aims to mobilize Act.IL’s existing database of more than 40,000 pro-Israel online operatives to counter what it describes as “antisemitism” and “misinformation.”
The Reichman University website describes RiseApp as delivering “fact-checked, expert-led responses” for users to deploy in “social media debates and public forums,” in order to engage in “proactive advocacy” on behalf of Israel. A “dual purpose,” of the app, Reichman says, is that it allows users to flag and “identify emerging adversarial narratives” while “alerting partner organizations” to “develop tailored responses.”
A presentation for the forthcoming app’s interface, posted to the Reichman website, pitches the platform as “empowering and uniting the Jewish community” and includes tabs for “The Useful Idiots” and “Genocide Claims.” The latter would seem to provide users with arguments to combat the consensus of human rights organizations that Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
RiseApp’s predecessor Act.IL was launched in 2017 as a joint project of Reichman Institute and the Israeli-American Council (IAC)—the U.S.-based Israel lobby group founded by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and run by Adam Milstein (Tuvia Milsztein), who was convicted in 2008 for his involvement in the Spinka tax fraud ring involving Orthodox Jewish charity fronts—and was operated by Yarden Ben-Yosef alongside other current and former Israeli intelligence officials.
“We work with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, consult with them and manage joint projects.” Act.IL director Ben-Yosef said in a 2018 interview with Forbes Israel. In an interview with The Forward a year earlier, he said of Act.IL’s relationship with Israeli spy agencies: “We talk with each other. We work together.”
As The Forward described the app in 2017, Act.IL would gather “high school students and adult mentors” who complete “social media ‘missions’ assigned out of a headquarters in Herzliya, Israel,” including pressuring social media platforms to censor content supportive of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and critical of Israel, with users getting “points” for each mission they complete.
That propaganda and troll campaign was part of a broader Israeli government operation orchestrated by Gilad Erdan’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs called Concert, whose purpose was to create third party-operated surveillance, censorship, and propaganda firms that could hide all Israeli government links to their operations, which at the time were directed against the BDS movement in North America.
“Ambiguity is part of our guidelines,” the Israeli intelligence officer and director-general of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs Sima Vaknin-Gil explained in a leaked 2016 video recording featured in the suppressed Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby, telling a private audience of Adelson’s IAC activists that Israel has established “a civil intelligence unit that collects, analyzes, and acts upon” Israel’s enemies, using data from “campuses… and labor unions, and churches,” calling the program “Israel Cyber Shield.”
Israel Cyber Shield was eventually expanded into a much larger Israeli propaganda program which cycled through the names Kela Shlomo (Solomon’s Sling), Concert, and finally Voices of Israel. It is now housed under Amichai Chikli’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs.
The rebranding of controversial hasbara operations is a documented pattern of the Israeli government and its intelligence services. Before Act.IL launched, Israeli company Psy-Group , also staffed by former Israeli spies and affiliates of Reichman University, ran “Project Butterfly” to infiltrate and destabilize BDS chapters on college campuses using fake identities, later pitching their social media manipulation services to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Psy-Group founder Joel Zamel met Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in August 2016, along with the businessman Erik Prince and a man named George Nader who presented himself as an emissary of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, while a senior campaign aide, Rick Gates, had separately solicited proposals from the Israeli spy-staffed firm for a covert influence campaign targeting Republican convention delegates and Hillary Clinton. When special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russiagate investigators closed in on those meetings, Psy-Group simply shut down and relaunched as Percepto International, while the Israel Lobby insinuated that Mueller was antisemitic for looking into Psy-Group’s Israeli interference efforts.
The relaunch of Act.IL as RiseApp follows the Israeli Knesset’s approval of the country’s largest ever budget for foreign propaganda operations, or hasbara, quintupling funding from 2025 to a total of $730 million. That scaled-up expenditure comes amid surveys showing declining support for Israel across party lines in the United States, a trend Israel correctly perceives as an existential threat to the unconditional funding and diplomatic protection their country depends on.
Harrison Berger is a correspondent at The American Conservative. He has contributed to Drop Site News, The Nation, and Responsible Statecraft. Previously, he was a researcher and producer for System Update with Glenn Greenwald. His work focuses on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. He studied Political Science and Russian Studies at Union College (NY).
German politician blasts ‘totalitarian madness’ of sanctions on pro-Palestinian journalist
RT | May 29, 2026
Germany’s implementation of EU sanctions against a pro-Palestinian journalist whom Brussels has accused of fueling discord on Russia’s behalf has descended into “totalitarian madness,” German opposition politician Sahra Wagenknecht has said.
Wagenknecht has called for financial restrictions imposed on Huseyin Dogru and his Berlin-based family to be lifted. On Tuesday, Dogru said Comdirect bank had frozen the assets of his elderly mother, citing what it described as a “control relationship over the funds by [her] son.” His wife’s bank account was targeted in March, while his father is reportedly under investigation by the authorities.
“This is how dictatorships treat opposition figures,” the left-wing BSW party founder told Berliner Zeitung on Thursday.
“The EU’s scandalous overreach against a German journalist and the German government’s complicity in breaking the law and collective punishment must finally stop,” she added. “If the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution were doing its job, this totalitarian government extremism would actually be a case for them.”
EU portrays pro-Palestinian advocacy as serving Russia
Dogru is a Turkish-German journalist who previously worked with the media outlet Redfish, which received funding from Ruptly, a video agency Western governments have labeled as being part of Russia’s “propaganda” infrastructure.
The EU imposed personal sanctions on Dogru in May 2025, accusing him of “systematically spreading false information about politically controversial topics, with the intention of sowing ethnic, political and religious discord” in Germany and claiming that his work aligned with Russian objectives.
Dogru says Brussels and Berlin are targeting him over his pro-Palestinian activism. Even Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Michael O’Flaherty criticized Germany over the issue, warning in April that “freedom of expression has been restricted disproportionately, regarding debates on Palestinian rights or legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.”
‘Civil death’ without charges
The German financial restrictions severely limit what Dogru, a father of three young children, can legally do to support his family. He is barred from carrying out donation-funded journalism or accepting solidarity aid, as the government considers such payments an attempt to circumvent sanctions. His assets have been frozen, with only around €500 ($590) per month permitted for expenses. His travel has also been restricted.
Dogru’s supporters say he has effectively been subjected to a “civil death” despite no formal charges being filed against him. A campaign urging the EU to lift the sanctions was launched last week on the anniversary of their introduction.
Wagenknecht is among the signatories of the petition, which argues that Dogru is facing state censorship in violation of the German constitution and EU laws.
After Western governments made combating what they call “Russian disinformation” a major policy priority, Moscow argued that the campaign reflected an attempt to preserve narrative control amid the rise of alternative online media.
Trump Administration’s DOJ Filing in Supreme Court ‘Sharp Betrayal’ of Religious Freedom
By Jefferey Jaxen | May 27, 2026
In a stunning reversal the Department of Justice under President Trump has filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny review in John Doe et al. v. Kathy Hochul, No. 24-1015. The case involves former New York healthcare workers fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds under the state’s now-repealed Section 2.61 mandate, which allowed medical exemptions but barred religious ones.
The move is in stark contrast to the COVID-era legal momentum across the board seeing courts rule in favor of employees fired for religious vaccine refusals.
The Second Circuit upheld the employers’ refusal to accommodate, citing “undue hardship.”
The DOJ’s Call for the Views of the Solicitor General (CVSG) brief argues the petition is a poor vehicle for review—no circuit split, a repealed law, and petitioners who sought only a full exemption rather than alternatives like reassignment—while defending the policy’s consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
This position, however, draws sharp criticism for weakening core protections against religious discrimination. Aaron Siri, a leading litigator who has represented numerous affected healthcare workers, called out the filing in an X post stating:

The brief’s analysis hinges on semantics and procedural technicalities. It acknowledges that petitioners claimed New York’s mandate conflicted with Title VII by foreclosing reasonable religious accommodations. Yet it frames their requests as demands for an “exemption” prohibited by state law, rather than the “accommodation” federal law requires.
Siri dismantled this in a follow-up post:
“Instead of defending these wrongfully terminated workers, the DOJ nonsensically and shamefully plays word games to characterize their requests as seeking an ‘exemption’ (which New York law prohibited) instead of an ‘accommodation’ (an option federal law requires). It then relies on this semantic nonsense to argue that the Supreme Court should not review the Second Circuit’s holding that a policy providing for medical but not religious exemptions is legal.”
Siri, who is perhaps the most experienced lawyer defending Americans who experienced COVID-era oversteps of basic liberties and freedoms, described the practical outcome bluntly: the mandate “permitted only a medical exemption and did not include a religious exemption.”
Healthcare workers with sincere religious objections were fired en masse. He continued,
“Having dealt with scores of religious employees in New York that lost their jobs under this policy, the Trump administration’s position is a sharp betrayal. The DOJ should have simply argued the obvious – that Section 2.61 foreclosed any religious exemption and hence should not stand under federal law. Period. That would have taken one or two pages. Instead, it spends over 20 pages creating a word salad of nonsense to justify New York’s and the DOJ’s unjustifiable position.”
This approach is dangerous because it normalizes differential treatment: medical exemptions are permissible, but religious ones trigger “undue hardship” claims tied to state penalties. Under Title VII, as clarified in Groff v. DeJoy (2023), employers must accommodate religious practice unless it imposes substantial increased costs. Yet the DOJ’s brief effectively blesses a regime where religious belief is disfavored, allowing employers to hide behind preempted state rules.
If a law bars religious accommodations outright, Title VII should preempt it—yet here the filing accepts a policy that functionally did exactly that while claiming otherwise.
The stakes extend far beyond healthcare. A Supreme Court denial, influenced by this brief, could embolden employers nationwide to impose vaccine or other medical mandates while dismissing religious objections as unreasonable.
It undermines the free exercise principles reinforced in cases like Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and signals that post-COVID religious liberty battles remain unwinnable in court. Workers facing future mandates—for flu shots, boosters, or novel therapies—would find their faith subordinated to bureaucratic convenience.
Siri’s critique highlights a missed opportunity for the administration that campaigned on restoring freedoms eroded during the pandemic. By playing procedural games instead of forcefully defending Title VII’s mandate to accommodate sincere religious practice, the DOJ risks setting precedent that treats faith as second-class. As Siri warned, this is no minor technical brief; it is a “sharp betrayal” that could erode religious freedom for millions. The Supreme Court must recognize the broader threat and take the case to reaffirm that no employer or state can lawfully force a choice between livelihood and conscience.
A Nation of Suspects
By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | May 28, 2026
Some of the recent legal challenges to the use of surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security upon Americans have resulted in the revelation of truly terrifying behavior by the government, in direct defiance of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. We now know that the federal government spies on innocent Americans without suspicion and without warrants.
The spying seems to fall into several categories. The National Security Agency, which is in the Department of Defense, employs about 60,000 domestic spies. These are the folks who want us to believe that they go through the trouble of making applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants to spy on foreigners.
Actually, from time to time they do go to this court, but their travels there — where judges are frisked upon entering and leaving the courthouse by the NSA agents who appear before them — serve as fig leaves for their massive warrantless spying on Americans. The FISA Court is unconstitutional because it issues warrants based on probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, rather than on probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires.
The courts have ruled consistently since the 1960s that spying — surveillance, as the feds call it — is a search, and the capture of data from a surveillance is a seizure.
The Fourth Amendment protects all persons in America — not just Americans — from warrantless searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” There are some well-recognized exceptions to this constitutional baseline, such as evidence that will quickly vanish or be seriously degraded, but those exceptions do not apply here as the NSA captures in real time all keystrokes on all digital devices and all fiber optic data transmitted into, out of and within the United States.
The judges of the FISA Court surely know that the Department of Justice lawyers and NSA agents who appear before them are going through a charade, and the court has been made a part of it. The charade is the pretense that all spying is done pursuant to the warrants that FISA Court judges issue. Former NSA agents have revealed publicly that this is hardly the case.
Nevertheless, the lowered standard from probable cause of crime to probable cause of communicating to a foreign person was crafted by Congress — in another of its many moments heedless of the Constitution. After a few years of this, the FISA Court began to issue warrants for spying on the Americans who communicate with foreigners, out to the sixth degree. A sixth grader can do the math, as this leads to hundreds of millions of Americans whose communications are captured.
A second category of spying is employed by the DHS. The DHS — now a 250,000-person strong federal police department nowhere countenanced by the Constitution — has sophisticated software that can read fingerprints at 15 feet and irises at 15 inches. So, if you wave goodbye or good riddance to an ICE agent, and he holds up his mobile phone, and you are in the federal system for any benign reason, he has captured your bank, health, legal and commercial records on the spot. If he talks to you in your car and is within 15 inches of your face, he can capture the same data.
As if all this were not enough, the feds and local police use a device called a Stingray, which mimics the signal sent to all mobile devices as if the device were being used to communicate. But the communication is just one way, as the Stingray will tell the government where the person possessing the mobile device is at any given moment. This, too, is a seizure of private personal information — the contents of the computer chip in your mobile device — which the Fourth Amendment characterizes as an “effect.”
And then there is the FBI, which now uses zero-click software. This permits agents without warrants or even approval of their superiors to engage in computer hacking without having to trick the hacked victim into clicking on a link. Computer hacking is a felony.
All of this surveillance is unconstitutional, dangerous and commonplace. It consists in the use of surveillance and law enforcement tools without articulable suspicion.
For 600 years, articulable suspicion — the lowest evidentiary standard we have — has been the baseline for all government behavior that targets an individual. Articulable suspicion is the fact-based ability to state why a person — not a group — should be targeted and for what crime. This is the same standard that must be met when police stop someone in public.
Anything less than articulable suspicion is a fishing expedition; stated differently, a general warrant. General warrants — which were used by British agents on American colonists — permitted the agents to stop anyone, to search anywhere and to seize anything without articulable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment outlawed them.
How did we get from a Constitution that assumes that the individual is sovereign, our rights are natural and inalienable, and the government may only legally do what the governed have affirmatively authorized it to do to where we are today? The answer is fear. Fear is the great tool for authoritarians — fear of foreigners, fear of war, fear of crime, fear of drugs, fear of terror. When people are afraid, they will allow the government to take liberty in return for a promise of safety.
Of course, liberty once surrendered is never returned. But liberty is individual, not collective. You can surrender your liberty and your neighbors can surrender theirs, but none of you can surrender mine. These values are what animated Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration and James Madison in the Bill of Rights. Those animations seem like ancient history today. On the eve of America’s 250th anniversary, the Founders would not recognize this country of no values where everyone is a suspect.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2026 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Defining Dissent: How the Federal Crackdown on Anti-Semitism Redefines the Boundaries of Speech
The Lancaster Patriot | May 21, 2026
A dual-track federal offensive aimed at combating anti-semitism is rapidly altering the landscape of American public discourse, civil rights enforcement, and immigration policy.
The strategy is unfolding simultaneously across both the executive and legislative branches. On May 19, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism officially launched a 15-city “National Awareness & Action Tour.” Concurrently, Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) introduced the bipartisan Jewish American Security Act, a comprehensive bill that seeks to mandate strict Title VI frameworks on college campuses, boost nonprofit security funding to $1 billion, and force social media platforms to disclose their moderation algorithms.
At the core of this sweeping nationwide push is a highly controversial legal mechanism: the codification of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of anti-semitism into federal civil rights investigations. By linking this specific definition to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federal agencies are increasingly treating political criticism of the State of Israel as potential instances of unlawful discrimination.
The Executive Foundation: EOs 13899 and 14188
The DOJ’s new 15-city tour serves as the public enforcement rollout of two pivotal executive actions spanning two administrations: Executive Order 13899, signed in 2019, and Executive Order 14188, signed on January 29, 2025.
Together, these orders dictate how the federal government defines, monitors, and punishes anti-semitism. EO 13899 explicitly instructs federal departments—including the Department of Education and the DOJ—to “consider” the IHRA definition when adjudicating discrimination complaints. EO 14188 escalated these measures by ordering agencies to utilize “all available and appropriate legal tools” to prosecute violators and aggressively targeted campus protests.
Crucially, EO 14188 directs federal agencies to leverage immigration laws (specifically 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) to investigate, block entry, or initiate deportation proceedings against foreign students and visa holders who “endorse or espouse terrorist activity” during political demonstrations. It also tasks universities with actively monitoring and reporting the activities of non-citizen students and staff to federal authorities.
The Litmus Test: What Now Counts as a Civil Rights Violation?
Because the IHRA framework is now the operational standard for federal civil rights compliance, public scrutiny has shifted heavily toward the specific “contemporary examples” of anti-semitism outlined in the text.
Under this framework, actions and statements that historically fell under protected political speech, theological debate, or historical revisionism are now systematically flagged for federal review. The specific criteria include:
1. The Nazi Comparison Ban
The IHRA framework explicitly classifies “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as an act of anti-semitism.
- The Impact: In practice, this guideline establishes a unique legal standard for the State of Israel. While political commentators, historians, and activists routinely draw analogies between various global governments and 20th-century authoritarian regimes (such as comparing U.S., Russian, or Chinese policies to Nazi or fascist systems), doing so specifically in reference to Israeli military or domestic policy can now trigger a federal civil rights investigation, risking a university’s federal funding.
2. The “Racist Endeavor” Test
The definition labels anti-semitic any claim that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
- The Impact: This standard directly intersects with academic and political discussions regarding the geopolitical founding of modern states. Under this rule, analyzing or criticizing the historical displacement of populations during the 1948 foundational period of Israel, or arguing that the state’s structural laws inherently favor one ethnic group over another, transitions from a matter of political theory into a potential violation of federal civil rights law.
3. Placing Historical Atrocities Outside Normal Inquiry
The framework flags “accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”
- The Impact: The inclusion of the word “exaggerating” introduces an unprecedented legal boundary around historical analysis. Scholars note that every major historical event—including wars, genocides, and revolutions—is subject to ongoing demographic debates, revisions of casualty numbers, and critiques regarding how governments politically leverage historical trauma. Under the federal framework, subjecting this specific historical atrocity to standard revisionist or critical analysis can be interpreted as a civil rights offense.
4. The Codification of Theological Interpretation
The IHRA definition includes “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”
- The Impact: This provision brings traditional Christian theology and historical textual interpretation into the crosshairs of federal oversight. For centuries, various Christian denominations have maintained specific theological positions regarding the New Testament accounts of first-century Jewish authorities and the rejection of Jesus Christ. If a religious group or individual applies these traditional covenantal critiques or biblical interpretations to the actions of the modern, secular State of Israel, those statements can now be legally categorized as anti-semitic harassment.
5. The “Double Standard” Mandate
The definition includes “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
- The Impact: Legal experts have pointed out the extreme ambiguity of this clause. Because there is no objective legal metric to determine whether a protest group or political candidate is demanding “more” from Israel than they do from other nations, this clause gives federal investigators vast discretion to classify selective foreign policy criticism as a discriminatory act.
The Chilling Effect on Domestic Dissent
The combination of the DOJ’s 15-city tour and the newly introduced Jewish American Security Act marks a systemic shift in how the state monitors local communities. The stated objectives of the DOJ tour include “increasing reporting of antisemitic incidents by local officials” and embedding federal oversight directly into K-12 public schools and teacher unions.
Critics from across the ideological spectrum—ranging from civil liberties lawyers to anti-war activists—warn that these measures create a de facto speech code. By utilizing the machinery of the state to insulate a foreign government, its lobbying apparatus, and billions of dollars in annual U.S. foreign aid from severe public criticism, the federal government has effectively created a protected political class under the guise of civil rights enforcement.
Trump advances his Arctic strategy
Washington will have many difficulties implementing its plans for the Arctic
By Lucas Leiroz | May 26, 2026
US interests in the Arctic continue to pose a significant threat to the European security architecture. Washington continues to advance its plans to expand its military and economic presence in the Arctic, despite the proven inability of the current American naval apparatus to conduct operations in the region efficiently. In practice, the irresponsibility with which the US conducts its Arctic policy could lead to a serious escalation of tensions in the near future.
According to recent reports, the US and Denmark are finally reaching an understanding on the Greenland issue. The Danish government has allegedly given permission for the US to proceed with a plan to build two military bases on Greenlandic territory. This will allow Washington to control specific territorial zones in the region, expanding its influence in the Arctic without having the burden of a formal annexation of Greenland.
The measure, if confirmed by Danish authorities, will certainly face strong opposition from the local population. The current situation of Greenland is unpopular among native Greenlanders, who do not want their homeland administered by a European country – nor by the US. Without the political power necessary to fight for independence, the locals end up having their future defined in negotiations between Europeans and Americans, in which they do not participate.
However, despite the disapproval of the local people, it is likely that the US will be able to impose its presence in the region in a reasonably peaceful manner. Local citizens do not have sufficient political power to prevent these moves, leaving them only with formal disapproval. Furthermore, regardless of how this process unfolds in practice, the final result will be the expansion of the American military presence in the Arctic zones, which will bring an atmosphere of tension and insecurity to the Greenlandic people.
Still, Greenland is just one of the regions where the US plans to enter in order to increase its Arctic presence. Washington is also reportedly planning to occupy the Norwegian island of Svalbard, which would have even more significant impacts on regional security. Despite Norwegian sovereignty, the island is regulated by an international treaty that guarantees Russia the right to economic exploration of the region, which is why, even today – despite sanctions – Moscow maintains activities in Svalbard.
Militarizing Svalbard would be a terrible move, as well as a violation of international law. The treaty regulating the island prohibits its militarization, and there is a historical Russian presence that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, even if the US does not use the island for public military purposes, the mere expansion of the American presence in a European Arctic region – so close to Russia – would be enough to substantially escalate regional tensions.
However, in both Greenland and Svalbard, the US will face the same problem: its logistical weakness in Arctic environment. Washington has historically ignored the Arctic, focusing on other regions of the world for its military and economic expansion. The result has been a significant lag in US Arctic technologies. The country does not have a significant icebreaker fleet, which severely diminishes its ability to operate in the Arctic. For decades, the Arctic has been seen by American experts as an inhospitable region of low strategic value, leading the country to not give due attention to its military and economic potential.
In recent military exercises in the Arctic, the US has proven incapable of conducting complex operations due to the low quantity and quality of its icebreakers. While the country is attempting to rehabilitate its Arctic strategy and produce high-quality equipment for the region, it is practically impossible for the US to achieve any status as an “Arctic superpower” in the near future. In practice, Washington is only beginning to take an interest in the region, but its possibilities for action are extremely limited.
In fact, instead of seeking to expand its Arctic presence aggressively and unilaterally, the US should simply engage in joint peaceful cooperation projects in the Arctic – especially with Russia, which is the country that currently possesses the most advanced Arctic technology in the world. Unfortunately, warmongering and pro-hegemonic sectors have gained considerable influence in the Trump administration in recent months, which explains his irresponsible decisions on several recent issues.
If Trump manages to regain control of his own government and contain the pressure from pro-war sectors, the US may in the future engage in fruitful international cooperation in the Arctic. Without this, however, the Americans will remain unable to explore the economic and strategic potential of the region for a long time.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
France criminalizing pro‑Palestine speech for ‘antisemitism’: Op-Ed
Al Mayadeen | May 22, 2026
French authorities have systematically silenced and criminalised pro-Palestinian solidarity under the guise of combating antisemitism, columnist Rokhaya Diallo writes in The Guardian, warning that a now‑shelved government bill aimed at punishing “indirect incitement” and “denial of a state” would have made it impossible to criticise “Israel” without risking legal sanctions.
Diallo notes that tensions in France over how to respond to a rise in antisemitism have been running high. A government‑backed bill introduced in 2024 by Caroline Yadan, a member of the National Assembly, was intended to counter “new forms of antisemitism.” However, its wording quickly veered toward a different objective: curbing the ability to criticise “Israel.”
“It must be possible to denounce the many crimes – extensively documented – committed by Israel, and to do so repeatedly without risking sanctions,” Diallo writes. “Freedom of expression in France allows individuals to voice any form of sentiment towards any country as long as there is no incitement to violence.”
Bill would have criminalised ‘indirect incitement’ and ‘denial of a state’
The Yadan bill proposed widening the existing offence of “glorifying terrorism” so that “indirect incitement” could be punished. It also introduced a new offence penalising the act of “inciting the destruction or denial of a state.”
Diallo argues that such a prohibition would run counter to the fundamental right to decolonization.
“Under the proposed legal framework, what would become of the right to question France’s own borders?” she asks, noting that France’s overseas departments are former colonies where independence movements have not disappeared.
A petition opposing the bill gathered a record 700,000 signatures. Rights bodies warned of the dangerously illiberal trajectory of the proposal. Five UN special rapporteurs issued an open letter expressing concern that the bill threatened “the exercise of protected rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including media freedom.”
Rima Hassan arrested, charged with ‘glorifying terrorism’
Diallo points to the case of French‑Palestinian MEP Rima Hassan of the left‑wing France Unbowed party, a prominent voice for Palestinian liberation. Hassan was arrested last month, taken into police custody and questioned for “glorifying terrorism.” Her alleged offence was a post on X quoting Kozo Okamoto, a member of a Japanese group that carried out a 1972 attack at Tel Aviv’s Ben‑Gurion airport.
News of her detention leaked as she was being questioned, accompanied by false claims that synthetic drugs had been found among her personal effects. The drug probe was later dropped, but only after days of negative media coverage.
It then emerged that Hassan’s phone had been under police surveillance from the beginning of the year without her knowledge. She will be tried in July and says she intends to refer the matter to an independent UN rapporteur and to the European Parliament.
Pattern of structural criminalisation of pro‑Palestinian activism
Diallo argues that the Yadan proposals should be seen as part of a broader pattern of structural criminalisation of pro‑Palestinian activism. After October 7, 2023, the French interior minister attempted to ban Palestinian solidarity demonstrations. University students who mobilised against the Yadan bill faced violent police repression. Prosecutions for alleged glorifying terrorism have multiplied since 2023, targeting influencers, athletes, trade union activists, and even members of parliament.
“The disproportionate response to pro‑Palestinian activism over what human rights groups have called a genocide raises questions about the lengths deployed, apparently to restrict a form of expression that is essential in a democracy,” Diallo writes.
While the Yadan bill is dead, she concludes, its provisions should be seen within a broader dynamic: one that seeks systematically to conflate anti‑Zionism with antisemitism and narrow the space for any pro‑Palestinian discourse.
Merkel Urges EU to Keep Regulating Social Media Speech

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | May 21, 2026
Angela Merkel used her first major European platform since leaving office to tell the EU exactly what it wanted to hear: keep regulating speech online, and don’t worry too much about getting it wrong.
The former German chancellor, speaking Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, urged the bloc to “continue regulating the social media” and artificial intelligence. “To believe that responsibility for spreading information is no longer necessary, that accountability – there should be no accountability for lies, then that would undermine democracy,” she told the chamber.
Lies. Who decides what counts as a lie? In the EU’s model, that question gets answered by the European Commission, by government-appointed regulators, by “trusted flaggers” that platforms are legally required to obey. Not by courts. Not through anything resembling due process.
Merkel knows this system well. Her government built the prototype. Germany’s NetzDG law, passed under her chancellorship in 2017, required platforms to delete “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours or face fines up to €50 million.
The people whose speech got censored under it included a satirical magazine, a political street artist, and an opposition party leader. NetzDG became an export product, copied by governments in Russia, Turkey, and across Southeast Asia, each adapting it to their own definition of “illegal.”
The EU took the concept continent-wide with the Digital Services Act, which requires major platforms to assess and reduce “systemic risks,” a category broad enough to cover “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “public security.”
The Commission writes the rules, decides whether platforms comply, and levies fines of up to 6% of global revenue when they don’t. No independent prosecutor. X is currently challenging the first DSA fine ever imposed, a €120 million penalty from December 2025, arguing the process involved “grave procedural errors” and “systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process.”
More than 50 European NGOs have warned that the DSA’s vague terms could violate the EU Charter’s own free expression protections. The Commission’s response was to declare the law “content-agnostic” and move on.
Merkel acknowledged none of this. She told parliamentarians that “perhaps mistakes will be made, but we learn through mistakes.” That’s cold comfort when the mistakes involve censoring legal speech and silencing political opposition through systems with no judicial oversight and no meaningful appeal.
Her remarks came at the inaugural ceremony for the European Order of Merit, where she was honored alongside 19 other laureates, including Lech Wałęsa, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She framed regulation as essential to democracy. “We’ve had 75 years of European thought,” she said. “Peace, prosperity, and democracy.”
Democracy requires that citizens can speak, argue, and be wrong without a regulator deciding which claims are permissible. The EU’s apparatus does the opposite. Merkel said mistakes would be made. She didn’t say who would pay for them. The answer, as always, is the people who get silenced.
The San Diego Shooting and the Effort to Silence Criticism of Zionism
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | May 20, 2026
Not long after a couple kids shot up a mosque in San Diego, the Jewish American Security Act (JASA) was rolled out in the Senate by two uniparty “representatives,” Jacky Rosen (Democrat faction) and James Lankford (Republican faction).
From the Jewish Insider :
Rosen, leaders from the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and BBYO International and local leaders whose communities have been impacted by antisemitic violence in recent years spoke in favor of the bill at a Jewish Federations of North America press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. JFNA activists are on Capitol Hill this week meeting with more than 200 lawmakers to advocate for the bill and other legislation.
Rosen and Lankford are paid handsomely to violate your free speech. AIPAC gave Rosen $2,253,099 and Lankford received $311,655.
While you may have a difficult time filling up your car for the commute to work and are deep into foreclosure as a credit card burns a hole in your wallet, rest assured your uniparty “representatives” are poised to fork over a billion dollars in “federal support for security personnel costs that Jewish communities are forced to bear,” according to the Jewish Federations of North America.
There is not much you can do about it. Now that Thomas Massie was thrown out of Congress and a bought-and-paid-for AIPAC simp was put in his place, both chambers of the uniparty are that much closer to complete fealty to a tiny outlaw nation.
In addition to “addressing antisemitism [antizionism] on college campuses,” JASA will make sure you don’t say mean things online about ethnosupremacist baby killers. The proposed law promises to address the “spread of antisemitism online by requiring new transparency reports from social media companies.”
Addressing antisemitism online, the bill requires platforms with more than 50 million unique monthly American users to submit to the Federal Trade Commission and to share publicly a transparency report on their “content moderation practices and efforts to detect, remove, limit the visibility of, and prevent the amplification of antisemitic content” on their platform, twice each year.
The “transparency report” on social media users outraged over genocide, the murder of paramedics, journalists, and activists in Gaza and Lebanon
would include details on the specific review mechanisms and content moderation tools the platforms use; the total number of pieces of content on the platform that were determined to violate their policies on antisemitism and what action the platforms took; the amount of antisemitic content that reached more than 100 viewers or was promoted by the platform’s algorithms; the percentage of antisemitic content that violated the platforms’ policies but remained online; and details on accounts that were suspended or removed for sharing antisemitic content.
“Platforms that do not comply with these reporting requirements would be subject to penalties by the FTC.”
The suspicious shooting in San Diego and a subsequent “manifesto” were perfectly timed to inject urgency into JASA and additional legislation designed to banish and criminalize criticism of Israel’s crimes against humanity.
The teenager Caleb Vazquez, said to be the author of the manifesto, defined himself as a “Third Positionist,” an advocate of the Third Position, a far-right political ideology that rejects both capitalism and communism and is said to be tied to fascist movements. “I’d call myself a Third Positionist specifically aligning most with Nationalist Socialism and Eco Fascism though any Third Positionism especially those that prioritize its people, nationalism, racial homogeneity, nature, traditionalist ideals, etc.,” Vasquez allegedly wrote.
I find it rather unusual that an 18-year old kid would be this politically astute, but then maybe he was a genius or an idiot savant.
The suicidal manifesto writer name-drops John Earnest, the racist Poway synagogue shooter; Patrick Crusius, the white supremacist El Paso shooter; Phillip Manhaus, the Norwegian shooter at the Al-Noor Islamic Center; and Stephan Balliet, the German perpetrator of the Halle synagogue shooting. He also mentions “Saint Tarrant,” aka Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand.
“The number one goal of this New Crusade is to restart and bring back the momentum that Saint Tarrant had started, to convince many other would be Saints that the time is now, and most importantly to kick start the race war,” Vasquez writes.
Everyone has their own idea of who is to blame for all the wrong in the world, they will say its the government, the elite, the rich, the politicians, the 1%, the left, the right, the capitalists, the communists, the illuminati, the fags and trannies, the immigrants, and many more. All of them can be traced back to be or be caused by one group, the jews.
“IT’S THE JEWS,” he writes in all caps. “The Jews across all of time have been behind an EXTREMELY disproportionate amount of the world’s problems… There is no moderate option to this problem, they’ll always rise back to power or do the same again wherever you exile them to, for any sane man seeing all this the only logical solution would be to just kill them all,” he concludes.
It really is remarkable how the shooting in San Diego, Vasquez’s supposed manifesto, and JASA dovetail to create a perfect storm aimed at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“In politics,” FDR said, “nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” I don’t have definitive evidence that the San Diego shooting was a psyop designed to push through legislation that violates the natural right of free speech, but it sure looks that way.
In the UK, the classroom has become ground zero for woke ideology
By George Samuelson | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 20, 2026
In yet another chapter pulled straight from the pages of Orwell, educators across Wales are being trained to identify and report “racist incidents” by toddlers – yes, you read that right, toddlers – under new legislation endorsed by government ministers and funded by taxpayers.
The initiative turns daycare centers into miniature surveillance camps for the government’s “anti-racism” agenda.
The program has received over £1.3 million in taxpayer funding via the Welsh Government, and distributed to more than 300 nurseries, daycare centers and kindergartens.
Administrators are absurdly advised to determine whether a child’s interaction with other children could be considered a hate crime and, if so, contact police.
The teaching material, which includes lessons on “white privilege,” also compels educators to review their resources for “diversity,” and engage in discussions on skin color and race with toddlers.
The guidance goes so far as to even document toddler-to-toddler interactions as potential “racist incidents” or “wrongthink” requiring possible intervention by law enforcement.
Meanwhile, secondary classroom books are increasingly focused on the question of mass migration, indoctrinating schoolchildren to the government agenda. More than 1,000 schools have signed up to a program that promotes a so-called “culture of welcome” towards child refugees in Britain.
The Schools of Sanctuary organization has shared a number of recommended book lists with secondary schools, primaries, and nurseries.
In one of the book selections, “Bobble” by Helen May, tells the story of a blue creature who washes ashore on a beach in his small boat, having escaped an unspecified tragedy in some “distant land.”
Extract from “Bobble”
Finally he made it
Finally he made it
He washed up onto land.
Bobble lay there for a while
Just playing in the sand
… He sadly wasn’t ready for the welcome he’d receive
… the others stopped their dancing, but they didn’t say hello
They didn’t want to welcome him, they wanted him to go
“There’s no room for you here with us
You’ll have to try elsewhere
Travel to the next island
And ask if there’s space there”
As things turn out, the Bobble becomes a hero, having saved the indigenous people on the island from a natural disaster.
The lesson here is obvious: helping the mass of migrants can only have positive consequences for the local population.
And of course, things don’t get any better as the child enters high school and college. For example, the British government has introduced a government-funded video game that informs teenagers they could be reported to counter-terrorism authorities for merely questioning mass migration.
The video game, titled “Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism,” is intended for students aged 11 to 18 and aims to deter young people from “extreme right-wing” ideologies.
Students select a character called Charlie – either male or female, using “they” pronouns regardless of which sex the player picks – who has just entered university. Players must answer multiple-choice questions throughout the game, with options color-coded red for bad and green for good.
The game guides players through various scenarios where “making the wrong choices”—such as engaging with content critical of mass migration, questioning the “erosion of British values,” or attending protests—results in the character being referred for anti-terrorism counseling.
Charlie comes into contact with a video claiming “Muslim men are stealing the places of British veterans in emergency accommodation” and “the Government is betraying white British people and we need to take back control of our country”. It should be obvious what the correct response to such scenarios would be. Anything that questions the government’s immigration policies is flagged.
The character has the option to attend a protest against “the changes that Britain has been through in the last few years and the erosion of British values”.
Attending the protest nearly results in arrest in this interactive world.
In another episode, Charlie performs worse academically than a black student. At this point the student must then choose whether to simply accept his or her fate or blame immigrants for “stealing jobs”.
The initiative has come under fire for warning teenagers that questioning mass migration or even simply researching immigration statistics could lead to being reported as an extremist.
Students risk referrals to Prevent, an anti-terror organization, if they interact with groups spreading “harmful ideological messages” or opt to attend protests opposing the “erosion of British values”.
Critics have described the classroom tool as highly “manipulative,” and an attempt at “political conditioning,” arguing that it treats mainstream concerns about immigration as terrorist-level ideologies.
All of this effectively illustrates that the classroom in the UK is being used as a hotbed of woke ideology, intent on destroying the very fabric of the nation with unrealistic goals and objectives that help nobody, and possibly least of all the migrant population.

