Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

EPA Finally Proposes To Rescind The Endangerment Finding

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 29, 2025

It’s been a long time coming. But today the EPA, through its Administrator Lee Zeldin, finally began the formal process of rescinding the so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF). The EF is the 2009 regulatory action by which the Obama-era EPA purported to determine that CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger to human health and welfare.” That Finding then formed the basis for all subsequent federal greenhouse gas regulations, including efforts of Obama and Biden regulators to force the closure of all power plants running on coal and natural gas, and to mandate increased vehicle mileage to levels that no internal combustion engine could meet.

EPA initiated the rescission process today by means of an announcement in a speech by Zeldin, who appeared at an event in Indianapolis, and also through this document, titled “Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards.” The document looks to be about a couple of hundred pages long, although it’s hard to know exactly, because the pages aren’t numbered.

Long time readers here will know that I have been an active participant in efforts, beginning when President Trump first took office in 2017, to get the EF rescinded. Immediately after Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, co-counsel Harry MacDougald and I filed a Petition to EPA, on behalf of the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), seeking the rescission. Here is a post I wrote in April 2017, describing the initiation of the petition process, and also linking to our Petition. But during Trump’s first term, despite the critical importance of the EF in supporting all of the burdensome “climate” regulations, EPA never undertook the rescission process. We continued to press the point, filing some seven supplements to our Petition during the four years of Trump’s first term. For example, here is a post from July 2017 announcing the first of the Supplements to our Petition, based on new research at the time.

Ultimately our Petition was denied in 2022 by the Biden EPA. We then appealed that denial to the DC Circuit, where our appeal was denied in 2023, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, where certiorari was denied in 2024.

Well, the proposal in today’s document will reverse the denial of our Petition. I can’t give you a page cite, but this quote is from the page of the EPA document that contains footnote 15:

If finalized, this action would also rescind denial[] of petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding in 2022 . . . entitled “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Action on Petitions,” 87 FR 25412 (Apr. 29, 2022). . . .

Vindication!

As to the grounds for the prospective rescission, EPA appears ready to take on both the legal and scientific bases of the EF. As to the legal analysis, the following quote comes from the page preceding footnote 42:

Section IV.A of this preamble describes our primary proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding by concluding that CAA section 202(a) does not authorize the EPA to prescribe standards for GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns or to issue standalone findings that do not apply the statutory standard for regulation as a cohesive whole. If finalized, this proposal would require rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations because we lacked statutory authority to issue them in the first instance. . . . Next, we propose that the Nation’s response to global climate change concerns generally, and specifically whether that response should include regulating GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines, is an economically and politically significant issue that triggers the major questions doctrine under UARG and West Virginia, and that Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA to decide it by empowering the Administrator to “prescribe … standards” under CAA section 202(a). Throughout this section, we propose that the Endangerment Finding relied on various forms of Chevron deference to depart from the best reading of the statute and exceeded the EPA’s authority in several fundamental respects, any one of which would independently require rescission to conform to the best reading of the law.

On the subject of “climate science,” the following quote comes from the document’s pre-amble:

[T]he Administrator has serious concerns that many of the scientific underpinnings of the Endangerment Finding are materially weaker than previously believed and contradicted by empirical data, peer-reviewed studies, and scientific developments since 2009.

Then, on the page with footnote 87 there begins a lengthy section titled “Climate Science Discussion.” The gist of this entire section is that the alarmists have not proved their claims. There are lengthy paragraphs reviewing data on all the major “extreme weather” claims, and citing work showing no increasing or accelerating trends in things like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, sea level and the like. Here is a paragraph that reiterates a theme of our Petition, namely that the amount of human caused global warming cannot be separated from what may be caused by natural factors:

The Administrator is also troubled by the Endangerment Finding’s seemingly inconsistent treatment of the nature and extent of the role human action with respect to climate change. The Endangerment Finding attributes the entirety of adverse impacts from climate change to increased GHG concentrations, and it attributes virtually the entirety of increased GHG concentrations to anthropogenic emissions from all sources. But the causal role of anthropogenic emissions is not the exclusive source of these phenomena, and any projections and conclusions bearing on the issue should be appropriately discounted to reflect additional factors. Moreover, recent data and analyses suggest that attributing adverse impacts from climate change to anthropogenic emissions in a reliable manner is more difficult than previously believed and demand additional analysis of the role of natural factors and other anthropogenic factors such as urbanization and localized population growth (2025 CWG Draft Report at 14-22, 82-92).

The process here will likely take until around the end of this year for EPA to formally enact the rescission. And then the legal battles begin — first to the DC Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. The big question: Can the administration get this process to the Supreme Court in time to avoid a reversal of this whole regulatory effort by a Democratic administration that could be elected in 2028? I would think that if the Supremes have upheld this effort of Trump’s EPA before January 2029, it will be very difficult for a subsequent administration to reverse. On the other hand, if the status as of January 2029 is that the DC Circuit has struck down EPA’s rescission and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, it would be much easier to attempt a reversal. But the ongoing failure of “net zero” energy transition plans in places like New York, California, Germany and the UK may make reversal a dead letter anyway.

I want to offer my thanks and gratitude to the small band of independent thinkers who have fought this lonely battle all these years, in the face of the billions of dollars at the hands of the climate industrial juggernaut. For particular mention: the members of CHECC (including its moving force, James Wallace); my co-counsel Harry MacDougald; the few think tanks that have taken on this issue, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who filed a Petition for rescission of the EF along with ours) and the Heartland Institute; the CO2 Coalition, including its Chair Will Happer and Executive Director Greg Wrightstone; CFACT; the Global Warming Policy Foundation (I serve on its Board); and Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter at Watts Up With That. I’m sure that there are a few that I have forgotten. Congratulations to all!

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

EV Update: Will The Market Survive The Expiration Of The Federal Tax Credit?

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 26, 2025

How quickly things change.

It was barely more than a year ago that climate activists and federal bureaucrats thought they had maneuvered the internal combustion engine (ICE) automobile to the brink of extinction. ICE vehicles had become like dinosaurs, inferior to their new competitors the EVs, and therefore headed for the scrap heap of history. Customers were flocking to the trendy new EVs, which were seeing rapidly rising sales.

And the all-powerful federal bureaucracy was going to give the final push to put ICE vehicles out of their misery. On June 7, 2024 President Biden’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had issued a final rule (“Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond”) jacking up mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage, the only path forward for vehicle manufacturers would be rapid conversion to making only EVs. NHTSA’s mileage rule had also quickly followed an equally draconian mandate from EPA, finalized on April 18, 2024 (“Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles”) setting strict and declining limits for CO2 emissions that no ICE vehicles would be able to meet by the early 2030s. And meanwhile, 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act had extended a $7500 tax credit to buyers of new EVs through December 31, 2032.

So all the pieces were in place. By some time in the early 2030s, it would be effectively illegal to sell new ICE cars, and they would be rapidly disappearing from the roads.

Well, not so fast. Suddenly, the rapid advance of the EV may have stalled out completely. The federal regulators have reversed their direction. And customer preferences seemingly favorable to EVs may turn out to evaporate as soon as federal tax benefits end, an event now just a couple of months away.

NHTSA’s CAFE standards just got eviscerated by the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. Although the standards themselves have not yet been rescinded, the OBBB re-set the enforcement mechanism to have a maximum penalty of zero. This is from a July 8, 2025 memo from the law firm Sidley & Austin:

In one of its many changes, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4, 2025, eliminated civil penalties for noncompliance with federal fuel economy standards.  Specifically, Section 40006 of the Act amends the language of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute to reset the maximum civil penalty to $0.00.  Although the statute and its implementing regulations otherwise remain in place, this amendment removes any civil penalties for producing passenger cars and light trucks that do not meet fuel economy requirements.

As to the EPA-mandated CO2 emissions limits for vehicles, EPA announced on March 12, 2025 that it was beginning a process of reconsidering the vehicle greenhouse gas emissions rule that had just been adopted less than a year before. Excerpt:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In addition to imposing over $700 billion in regulatory and compliance costs, these rules provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate that takes away Americans’ ability to choose a safe and affordable car for their family and increases the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.

That one may be in the regulatory grinder for many months, but with little doubt as to what the final result will be, namely full rescission.

And the $7500 per new vehicle tax credit? After just having been extended to 2032 by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the credit has now been modified by the OBBBA to end as of September 30, 2025. From Kiplinger, July 12:

With the passage of President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax reform, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) the federal EV tax credit will expire for vehicles purchased or leased after September 30, 2025. As a result, buyers have only a short window left to take advantage of these federal savings.

All of a sudden, EVs and ICE vehicles are set to compete on a completely level playing field, with no mandates or tax credits propping up the EV side of the competition. How will that turn out? It remains to be seen, but data from the first half of the year indicate that the previous rapid increase in EV sales may already be stalling out. In a reversal for a previously rapidly-growing market segment, sales of EVs in the second quarter of 2025 declined significantly from the same period the prior year. From Cox Automotive, July 14, 2025:

[S]ales of new electric vehicles (EVs) in the second quarter of 2025 were lower year over year by 6.3%, in line with the Cox Automotive forecast. A total of 310,839 new EVs were sold in the U.S, down from 331,853 in the same period a year earlier. Sales in Q2 were higher than in Q1 by 4.9%, and total EV sales through the first half of 2025 set a record at 607,089, representing a 1.5% year-over-year increase.

Cox continues to predict a spike in EV sales in the third quarter of 2025, in the run-up to the expiration of the tax credit on September 30. However, after that, it is entirely likely that there will be a significant decline. Without the government mandates and subsidies, it’s hard to see EVs expanding much beyond being a niche product used as a second (or third) vehicle by affluent buyers.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Moldova Could Disappear If Pro-Western Regime Retains Power – Advisor to Regional Governor

Sputnik – 03.08.2025

CHISINAU – The state of Moldova could vanish from the world map if the pro-Western regime remains in power after the September 28 parliamentary elections, Mikhail Vlah, an adviser to Gagauzia head Yevgenia Gutsul, said on Sunday.

“The romanization of our state has been ongoing since the early days of Moldova’s independence. Back in the 1990s, a significant part of the intelligentsia and political elite set a course for uniting our country with Romania. Unfortunately, this process has not stopped for 35 years… If the pro-Western regime retains power in any way after September 28, Moldova as a state may disappear from the world’s political map,” Vlah said on Telegram.

Governments change and political parties in parliament come and go, but the strategy for incorporating Moldova into Romania remains the unchanging goal of the Moldovan-Romanian political elite, he said.

“In kindergartens and schools, children are taught the history of Romanians, ignoring our own Moldovan history. Our history is ancient and rich, starting with Stephen the Great. All key political and economic processes in the country occur under the direct influence of the neighboring state. The highest state positions are held by Romanians: the president, the prime minister, the parliament speaker. The head of Moldova’s National Bank is a Romanian woman, the judges of the Constitutional Court are Romanians, the leaders of the Information and Security Service, and so on,” Vlah emphasized.

The Moldovan government has been criticized for cracking down on the opposition and arbitrarily arresting its leaders. Gagauzia’s governor was detained at the Chisinau airport in March on charges of violating campaign finance rules and falsifying documents. Opposition lawmakers have been routinely detained at Moldovan airports for visiting Russia, while criminal cases continue piling up against government critics.

The government has also blocked over 100 Telegram channels and shut down more than a dozen media outlets, including Sputnik Moldova and several major TV channels.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The real Russiagate scandal blows away Watergate for crimes and treason by U.S. establishment

Strategic Culture Foundation | August 1, 2025

So the hoax is finally officially acknowledged. “Russiagate” – the mainstream narrative, that is – is now described by American intelligence chiefs as a fabrication that was concocted to overturn the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

Tulsi Gabbard, the current Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and CIA director John Ratcliffe have both accused former President Barack Obama of engaging in a “treasonous conspiracy” to subvert the constitutional process. It’s not just Obama who is implicated in this high crime. Other former senior officials in his 2013-17 administration, including former DNI James Clapper, CIA director John Brennan, and head of the FBI James Comey, are also implicated. If justice is permitted, the political repercussions are truly earth-shattering.

The potential impact is not confined solely to the violation of U.S. laws and the democratic process – bad enough as that is. The Russiagate scandal that began in 2016 has had a lasting, damaging effect on U.S. and European relations with Russia. The frightfully dangerous NATO proxy war incited in Ukraine, which threatens to escalate into a full-scale world war, was fueled in large part by the hostility generated from the false claims of Russian interference in the U.S. elections.

The allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw a subversion campaign against the 2016 U.S. election and colluded with Donald Trump to get him elected were always specious. The scandal was based on shoddy intel claims to purportedly explain how Trump defeated his Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton. Subsequently, the scandal was hyped into a seemingly credible narrative by U.S. intelligence chiefs at the direction of then-President Barack Obama as a way to delegitimize Trump’s incoming first-term presidency.

Years before the recent intelligence disclosures, many independent journalists, including Aaron Maté, and former intelligence analysts like Ray MacGovern and William Binney, had cogently disproven the official Russiagate claims. Not only were these claims false, they were knowingly false. That is, lies and deliberate distortions. Russia did not hack emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee to discredit Clinton. Clinton’s corruption was exposed by a DNC internal leak to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks whistleblower site. That was partly why Assange was persecuted with years-long incarceration.

A large enough number of voters simply despised Clinton and her warmongering psychopathy, as well as her sell-out of working-class Americans for Wall Street largesse.

Furthermore, Moscow consistently denied any involvement in trying to influence the 2016 U.S. election or attempts to favor Trump. Putin has said more than once that Russia has no preference about who becomes U.S. president, implying that they’re all the same and controlled by deeper state forces. Laughably, too, while Washington accused Moscow of election interference, the actual record shows that the United States has habitually interfered in scores of foreign elections over many decades, including those of Russia. No other nation comes close to the U.S. – the self-declared “leader of the free world” – in sabotaging foreign elections.

In any case, it is instructive to compare the Russiagate farce with the Watergate scandal. Watergate involved spying by the White House of President Richard Nixon against a Democrat rival in the 1972 election. The political crisis that ensued led to Nixon’s resignation in disgrace in 1974. The U.S. nation was shocked by the dirty tricks. Several senior White House officials were later convicted and served time in jail for crimes related to the affair. Nixon was later pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, and avoided prosecution. Nevertheless, Watergate indelibly disgraced U.S. politics and, at the time, was described as “the worst political scandal of the 20th century.”

Subsequent cases of corruption and malfeasance are often dubbed with the suffix “gate” in a nod to Watergate as a momentous political downfall. Hence, “Russiagate.”

There are hugely important differences, however. While Watergate was a scandal based on factual crimes and wrongdoing, Russiagate was always a contrived propaganda deception. The real scandal behind Russiagate was not Trump’s alleged misdeeds or those of Russia, but the criminal conspiracy by Obama and his administration to sabotage the 2016 election and subsequently to overthrow the Trump presidency and the democratic will of the American people. Tulsi Gabbard, the nation’s most senior intelligence chief, has said that this amounts to “treason,” and she has called for the prosecution of Obama and other former senior aides.

Arguably, the real Russiagate scandal is far more criminal and devastating in its political implications than Watergate. The latter involved illegal spying and dirty tricks. Whereas, Russiagate involved a president and his intelligence chiefs trying to subvert the entire democratic process. Not only that, but the U.S. mainstream media are also now exposed for perpetrating a propaganda heist on the American public. All of the major U.S. media outlets amplified the politicised intelligence orchestrated by the Obama administration, claiming that Russia interfered in the election and that Trump was a “Kremlin stooge.” The hoax became an obsession in the U.S. media for years and piled up severe damage in international relations, a nefarious legacy that we are living with today.

The New York Times and Washington Post, reputedly two of the finest exponents of American journalism, jointly won the Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for their reporting on Russiagate, the official version, that is, which lent credibility to the hoax. In light of what we know now, these newspapers should be hanging their heads in shame for running a Goebbels-like Big Lie campaign to not only deceive the U.S. public but to subvert the democratic process and poison international relations. Their reputations are shredded, as well as those of other major media outlets, including ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC.

Ironically, The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize in 1973 for its reporting on the Watergate scandal. The story was made into a best-selling book, All The President’s Men, and a hit Hollywood movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, playing the roles of intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Woodward and Bernstein and The Washington Post were acclaimed as the finest in U.S. journalism for exposing Watergate and bringing a crooked president to book.

How shameful and absurd that an even greater assault on American democracy and international relations in the form of Russiagate is ignored and buried by “America’s finest”. That the scandal is ignored and buried should be of no surprise because to properly reveal it would shatter the foundations of the U.S. political establishment and the sinister role of the deep state and its mainstream media propaganda system.

August 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

This Hollywood-Backed Bill Would Give Government Power To Block Websites

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 1, 2025

Lawmakers in Washington are once again attempting to give the United States a legal pathway to block websites, a power the federal government has never officially held on a broad scale.

The latest push comes in the form of the Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act, better known as “Block BEARD,” introduced in the Senate by Thom Tillis, Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, and Adam Schiff.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

On its face, the bill targets foreign websites accused of piracy. But the mechanism it creates would establish something far more significant: a formal, court-approved process that could be used to make entire websites vanish from the American internet.

Under the proposal, copyright owners could go to federal court to have a site labeled a “foreign digital piracy site.” If successful, the court could then order US service providers to block access to that site.

The reach is broad. The term “service provider” here mirrors the broad definition in the DMCA, potentially covering everything from ISPs and search engines to social media platforms, and perhaps even VPNs.

Proponents say this is about protecting the entertainment industry. In reality, it’s about setting a precedent. Once the government has a tool to block certain sites, history shows the definition of “unacceptable” content can expand. Piracy today could easily become something else tomorrow.

The ramifications go beyond the music and movie business. If courts can order an ISP to make a site disappear from view, the same logic could eventually apply to other types of content deemed problematic.

And because the bill has no public transparency requirements, the public could be kept entirely in the dark about which sites are blocked, why they’re blocked, or how long the blocks remain in place.

Supporters in the entertainment industry, including the RIAA and Motion Picture Association, are openly cheering the bill, pointing to similar measures overseas they claim have worked without harming free speech.

But the US is not the same as other countries. The First Amendment’s protection of speech and access to information means this kind of censorship tool carries far more constitutional baggage here than it does elsewhere.

What Block BEARD really represents is a milestone. If passed, it would be the first time the US creates a standing legal process for cutting off access to entire websites at the network level.

The DMCA was sold to the public in 1998 as a way to modernize copyright law for the internet age. But from the beginning, it has been controversial, not just because of its reach, but because of how easily it can be weaponized as a tool for censorship.

The most infamous part of the law is the “takedown notice” process under Section 512. In theory, this allows copyright holders to request the removal of infringing material from websites, search results, and hosting platforms. In practice, it’s often used to silence lawful content.

Artists, journalists, independent creators, and political activists have all been hit with DMCA notices for work that clearly falls under fair use, commentary, or criticism.

Sometimes, companies use the DMCA to scrub negative reviews, hide embarrassing information, or push competing material offline. The burden falls on the person targeted to challenge the notice, a process that can be slow, confusing, and intimidating.

Because most online platforms follow a “remove first, ask questions later” approach to avoid liability, even clearly bogus claims can make content vanish instantly. This takedown system can and has been abused by governments, corporations, and individuals to suppress speech they dislike, with little immediate recourse for the target.

The DMCA was supposed to protect creativity, but its design makes it a ready-made censorship lever. It grants private parties the ability to effectively erase content from the internet without a court order, bypassing the normal checks that protect free expression.

That’s why proposals like Block BEARD raise such red flags. If the DMCA already allows individual posts, videos, or search results to be removed at the click of a button, adding a legal process to block entire websites is the next logical, and far more dangerous, step. It moves the conversation from “this link is gone” to “this whole site no longer exists for US users.”

The DMCA has already shown how copyright enforcement can be twisted into a censorship tool. Giving the government and rights holders a formal way to block entire sites risks creating a far broader, far harder-to-challenge system of online suppression. Once in place, history suggests it will be used for far more than just piracy.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Irish High Court Rejects X’s Challenge to Online Censorship Law

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 31, 2025

The Irish High Court has thrown out a legal challenge by X, dealing a blow to the company’s pushback against Ireland’s new censorship rules for online video-sharing services.

X had taken aim at Coimisiún na Meán, the country’s media watchdog, accusing it of stepping beyond legal limits with its Online Safety Code.

The rules demand that platforms hosting user-generated videos take active steps to shield users from “harmful” material. The company had described the regulator’s actions as “regulatory overreach.”

Mr Justice Conleth Bradley, delivering judgment on Wednesday, found no merit in X’s application for judicial review. The court concluded that the regulator’s code was lawful and that its provisions fell within the scope of both the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and Ireland’s 2009 Broadcasting Act.

According to the ruling, the code does not clash with the Digital Services Act and can function in tandem with EU law.

Responding to the outcome, Coimisiún na Meán said it welcomed the decision and intended to examine the ruling closely before offering more detailed comment.

The case comes as X begins rolling out new age verification systems to meet obligations under the Irish code, alongside compliance efforts aimed at satisfying UK and wider EU digital censorship regulations.

The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over who decides the boundaries of online speech and content moderation.

While the court’s backing of the state regulator reinforces governments’ ability to impose strict platform controls, it raises deeper concerns about the growing normalization of surveillance-based compliance measures and centralized authority over digital expression.

July 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

In protest over Gaza, Brazil withdraws from International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | July 30, 2025

The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has formally withdrawn Brazil from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), intensifying diplomatic tensions with Israel and reigniting global debate over the boundaries between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policies. The decision, made on 18 July but only confirmed publicly on 24 July by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has drawn both praise and criticism at home and abroad, particularly in the context of Brazil’s recent support for genocide accusations against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Brazil had joined the IHRA in 2021 during the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, holding observer status within the organisation. According to sources within Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), the accession was “hasty” and lacked sufficient public or institutional debate. These officials cited unmet obligations, such as financial contributions and participation in plenary sessions, as contributing factors in the decision to leave.

Brazil’s withdrawal from the IHRA comes on the heels of its decision to join South Africa in accusing Israel of genocide at the ICJ. Despite the timing, Brazilian officials insist the move is not directly linked to its formal entry into the ICJ lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel on 23 July. However, the diplomatic and symbolic overlap is hard to ignore.

In its official statement, the Brazilian government condemned Israel’s conduct, citing a lack of accountability and accusing it of violating international norms.

“There is no longer room for moral ambiguity or political omission,” the Itamaraty statement read. “Impunity undermines international legality and compromises the credibility of the multilateral system.”

The government emphasised that its participation in international alliances must reflect Brazil’s constitutional values, particularly the defence of human rights and the self-determination of peoples.

Israel swiftly condemned Brazil’s withdrawal from the IHRA. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs labeled the move a “profound moral failure” and accused Brazil of abandoning the global consensus on fighting antisemitism. Fernando Lottenberg, the Commissioner for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism at the Organization of American States (OAS), also criticised the decision, calling it a “mistake.”

Domestically, the reaction was polarised. Senator Sergio Moro (União Brasil–PR) described the move as “yet another international embarrassment” by the Lula administration, accusing it of adopting a hostile stance toward the Jewish community.

The Palestinian Arab Federation of Brazil (Fepal) celebrated Brazil’s withdrawal from the IHRA. In a public statement released on July 25, Fepal described the move as a “necessary break” from what it characterised as the misuse of historical memory to justify “crimes against the Palestinian people.”

Fepal further urged the Brazilian government to take what it called a “final civilizing step”: the complete severance of diplomatic relations with Israel. According to the federation, Brazil’s IHRA membership served to “legitimise colonial, racist, and apartheid policies.” Its exit, they argue, symbolises a rejection of efforts to “criminalise anti-Zionism and silence reports of the genocide in Gaza.”

The organisation also criticized Bill 472/2025, authored by Representative Eduardo Pazuello (PL-RJ), which proposes adopting the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. Fepal called it the “Zionist gag bill” and cited a legal opinion from the National Human Rights Council deeming the bill unconstitutional and a threat to free expression. According to Fepal, the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with hate speech and has been weaponised internationally to suppress students, activists, intellectuals, and even dissenting Jewish voices.

“Rejecting this definition is protecting democracy and political freedom,” the federation wrote.

Brazil’s withdrawal sends a strong signal that historical memory and contemporary international policy are now more intertwined—and more contested—than ever.

That signal became even clearer on Monday (28 July), when the Brazilian government announced a series of retaliatory diplomatic, commercial, and military measures against Israel in response to what it described as “genocide” in Gaza. The announcement came from Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira during a speech at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Among the steps, Brazil will ban the export of defence equipment to Israel and launch investigations into imports from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The government framed these actions as part of its commitment to upholding international law and rejecting impunity.

“These are the legal measures that countries can take now,” Vieira said at the conference. “The credibility of the international system depends on this non-selective enforcement. What we need now is political will and effective action to monitor this conference.”

These developments occur against the backdrop of worsening diplomatic tensions between Brazil and Israel, which have been escalating since February 2024, when President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva compared Israel’s military actions in Gaza to the Holocaust. The controversial remark prompted Israel to declare Lula persona non grata. In May, Brazil recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv, and the position has remained vacant since. Furthermore, the Brazilian government has refused to approve the appointment of Israel’s proposed ambassador to Brasília, deepening the diplomatic standoff.

July 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

REVEALED: Ofcom Pressured Rumble and Reddit to Enforce UK Censorship Laws Beyond Borders

By Rick Findlay | Reclaim The Net | July 29, 2025

Internal communications now made public by the US House Judiciary Committee shed light on a pattern of escalating pressure by the UK’s “communications regulator,” Ofcom, aimed at pushing US-based tech platforms like Rumble and Reddit into adopting strict speech standards, even in apparent disregard for national boundaries and free speech protections.

The emails expose how Ofcom has been leaning on Rumble to align itself with the UK’s Online Safety Act, a censorship law that vastly expands the state’s oversight of online content under the guise of child protection and harm prevention.

Rumble, which has consistently maintained that it is not within the scope of the legislation, told the regulator that the UK is not a “target market” and that the platform does not have a substantial user base in Britain.

Despite this, Ofcom responded with veiled warnings. In one exchange, the agency stated that it would be “monitoring Rumble’s position carefully” and that it may follow up if Rumble’s stance is contradicted by future activity or incidents involving UK users. The implication was clear: remaining outside the regulatory net may not be tolerated for long.

Ofcom also stated it would “strongly encourage Rumble to take the steps required by the Act to protect UK users of internet services from content that is illegal in the UK or potentially harmful to UK children.”

Yet Rumble operates from within the United States, where citizens actually have free speech rights under the First Amendment, raising serious concerns about the extraterritorial application of UK law to platforms governed by different legal frameworks.

Further emails show that Ofcom believes “a supervisory relationship” between the agency and online services is “the most effective way to review and assess compliance,” again suggesting that companies should voluntarily submit to oversight, or risk the alternative: legal coercion. “We retain the right to legally request information,” the regulator warned.

Reddit also appears to be in the crosshairs. In a separate line of correspondence, Ofcom indicated that it expects a “supervision plan” to be in place for the platform, with particular emphasis on how Reddit handles so-called “hate” content, a term that remains dangerously elastic and open to political manipulation.

This shows how regulators are leveraging ambiguous language and compliance pressure to steer speech policies on platforms that are not even based in the UK.

Ofcom’s behavior shows a bureaucratic intent to expand its influence far beyond Britain’s borders, effectively demanding that foreign platforms enforce UK legal standards on content that may not be illegal elsewhere.

July 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Reform UK Vows to Repeal New Online Censorship Law

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 29, 2025

The political party Reform UK has declared its intent to repeal the Online Safety Act, warning that the law grants excessive powers to regulators and poses a serious threat to free speech.

The party claims the legislation, which recently came into force, is presented as a safety measure but in reality undermines civil liberties.

Although the event was announced as a discussion on crime, Reform leader Nigel Farage and his adviser Zia Yusuf devoted most of their Westminster press conference to attacking the legislation.

Their concerns centered on the way the act targets social media platforms and expands the role of the media regulator, Ofcom.

Yusuf, a former party chair who now leads Reform’s efforts on local council reform, said the law was a vast overreach. He warned that it hands regulators the power to pressure platforms into silencing views that challenge the government. According to Yusuf, even companies known for tolerating broad speech would be forced to restrict political discourse.

“So much of the act is massive overreach and plunges this country into a borderline dystopian state,” Yusuf said.

He argued that the legislation uses safety as a cover to expand state control. “Any student of history will know that the way countries slip into this sort of authoritarian regime is through legislation that cloaks tyranny inside the warm fuzz of safety and security and hopes nobody reads the small print.”

Reform UK promised to eliminate the act entirely if it came to power.

Yusuf dismissed tools like age verification as ineffective, claiming children could simply use VPNs to bypass restrictions.

Farage also admitted the party doesn’t have all the answers yet, but insisted they are working with leading technology experts. “Can I stand here and say that we have a perfect answer for you right now? No,” he said. “Can I say that as a party, we have more access to some of the best tech brains, not just in the country, but in the world? That I can say to you.”

Labour leader Keir Starmer responded to questions about the act while in Scotland ahead of a meeting with President Donald Trump, and flat out lied in his denial that the government was censoring people.

July 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

TikTok hires ex-Israeli military associate to censor anti-Zionist content

Press TV – July 29, 2025

TikTok has appointed a new “hate speech” manager with long-standing ties to the Israeli regime amid mounting pressure to curb anti-Israel content on the social media platform.

Erica Mindel, who previously served as an instructor in Israel’s military, has been tasked with shaping TikTok’s stance on what the company refers to as “anti-Semitism,” according to TikTok officials.

Mindel will “develop and drive the company’s positions on hate speech,” seek to “influence legislative and regulatory frameworks,” and “analyze hate speech trends,” with a particular focus on “antisemitic content,” according to an official job description shared by TikTok.

Her appointment to the post comes as the platform faces growing scrutiny over a surge in posts critical of the Israeli regime, particularly since its genocidal war on the Gaza Strip. This has sparked renewed concerns over the censorship of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok.

According to a 2023 survey cited by the Jewish Federations of North America, users who spend more than 30 minutes a day on TikTok are 17 percent more likely to hold critical views of Israel.

That gap reportedly widened after Israel launched its devastating war on the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, prompting calls for a national ban over content that according to US lawmakers fuels “hatred” against the Zionist regime.

July 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

UK Introduces Online Speech Monitoring Police

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | July 28, 2025

If you’re in the UK and you’ve ever dared to type a mildly spicy opinion about immigration into the vast and idiotic circus that is social media, you might now be under surveillance by a shiny new government outfit with a name so Orwellian it sounds like it was cooked up during a slow afternoon in North Korea’s Ministry of Truth.

The UK has officially launched a National Internet Intelligence Investigations team, a title that manages to be both comically vague and terrifyingly specific.

This is the stuff that authors of dystopian novels have been warning people about for decades.

The Frankenstein of a task force, stitched together from officers across the country and headquartered in Westminster’s National Police Coordination Centre, has been given the noble mission of snooping through your posts, likes, and digital mutterings for any whiff of “anti-migrant sentiment.”

The government has decided that free thought is a public safety risk.

Gone are the days when bobbies on the beat focussed on burglaries, stabbings, or the occasional drunken scuffle. Now, they’ve been upgraded, or rather, downloaded, into an era where your keyboard is the weapon and your opinion the crime.

The Home Office insists this is all very necessary. According to a leaked letter, the Telegraph obtained, from Dame Diana Johnson, Policing Minister and part-time press-release poet, the squad will focus on “exploiting internet intelligence” to help local police forces anticipate unrest.

“Exploit.” Not “monitor,” not “observe,” but exploit.

It’s all part of a grand, techno-utopian fantasy where public order is maintained not by policing actual crimes, but by interpreting emojis and out-of-context Facebook posts.

Supporters of this initiative are quick to remind us that tensions are rising over immigration. Protests have flared up from Norwich to Bournemouth, with citizens wondering why their local hotels now resemble temporary refugee camps paid for with their tax funds.

Many Brits are asking uncomfortable questions, questions that the current government would apparently prefer whispered, if not deleted altogether.

Which brings us neatly to the absurd theatre of this whole operation: the idea that public discontent can be managed not by addressing policy failures, but by stalking Instagram stories and dispatching undercover agents to Nextdoor forums.

Essex Police actually sent officers to the home of journalist Allison Pearson over something she posted online. Meanwhile, a mother named Lucy Connolly received a prison sentence longer than some violent offenders after sharing a message deemed offensive following the Southport attacks.

Naturally, the political opposition is smelling blood. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has weighed in.

“Two-tier Keir can’t police the streets,” he fumed, “so he’s trying to police opinions instead.”

He’s not wrong. This isn’t law enforcement; it’s law enforcement theatre, a stage production in which your tweets are the script and the cops are the critics.

Nigel Farage, Reform Party leader, ever the populist thundercloud, put it in even starker terms: “This is the beginning of the state controlling free speech. It is sinister, dangerous, and must be fought.”

Let’s rewind for a moment. During the pandemic, the government rolled out “disinformation teams” that quietly monitored online content and flagged anything that strayed too far from the Approved Messaging Bible. They assured people it was for their safety. They always do.

Now, in what appears to be the spiritual sequel to that damp squib of a policy, we’re being served a reheated version, garnished with civil unrest panic and a dash of woke paranoia. And it arrives just as the Online Safety Act lumbers into force, a lumbering beast of a bill that seems hellbent on turning the UK into a digital kindergarten, where only soft voices and pre-approved opinions are allowed.

The Free Speech Union has already sounded the alarm after users discovered protest videos involving asylum hotels were mysteriously unavailable in the UK. Not removed by the platform. Not censored by other users. Just: poof, gone, as if reality itself had been deemed problematic.

Where does this all end? Are we one government memo away from officers arresting people for sarcastic memes? Will sarcasm itself soon be listed as a hate crime?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: a state that polices speech will eventually police thought. And a government that fears its people’s opinions is a government that knows it has failed them.

July 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »