Crackdown on Capitol riot ‘terrorism’ means arrests of people in Congress and around Trump: former FBI asst. director
RT | June 9, 2021
A former FBI deputy director has declared hundreds of Americans terrorists, and called for the arrest of sitting members of Congress, all over the notion that the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill was “terrorism.”
Hundreds of participants in the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill in January have been arrested and charged, with many held in deplorable prison conditions ahead of trial. With current FBI Director Christopher Wray testifying to Congress that the riot was an act of “domestic terrorism,” former Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday to call for even tougher action against the MAGA rioters.
“Arresting low-level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a road block,” he claimed. “In order to really tackle terrorism – and this time domestically – you’ve got to attack and dismantle the command and control element of a terrorist group.”
“Unfortunately,” he continued, “that may mean people sitting in Congress right now. People in and around the former president.”
The language used by Figliuzzi is more commonly used by officials to describe foreign terror groups, rather than mobs of unruly Americans. However, such words have been liberally deployed by intelligence officials, Democratic lawmakers, and journalists in the wake of the Capitol riot. Despite the hyperbole, many rioters were simply allowed inside the Capitol to loiter and snap selfies, and of the five deaths connected to the riot, only one (the shooting dead of an unarmed Trump supporter by a police officer) has been proven to be directly inflicted by another person.
While many of the aforementioned officials, lawmakers, and reporters have clamored for expanded surveillance powers and domestic terror laws in the wake of the riot, Figliuzzi’s comments come the closest yet to outright accusing Republican leaders of orchestrating “terrorism.”
Figliuzzi’s comments drew outrage from conservatives and opponents of the intelligence community. “We should demand that every senior FBI official, from Wray to the lowest level supervisory agent denounce this talk and make clear this lunacy is unacceptable,” security analyst Kyle Shideler tweeted. “If they do not, shutter the agency forever.”
That the FBI, or at least the agency’s former officials, would associate support for Trump with terrorism is unsurprising. FBI brass broke agency rules to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign and knew no evidence existed linking the Trump team to Russia, but investigated the supposed links anyway.
Figliuzzi was fully on board with the ‘Russiagate’ hoax, telling MSNBC’s Brian Williams after a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July 2018 that Trump was “compromised financially or personally” by Russia and therefore had “made the decision to side with the other team.” Figliuzzi gave no evidence for his claims.
Even now, long after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia in the runup to the 2016 election, Figliuzzi still insists that this collusion took place, and parrots the debunked story that Russia allegedly paid Taliban fighters in Afghanistan “bounties” to kill American troops.
Why a Judge Has Georgia Vote Fraud on His Mind: ‘Pristine’ Biden Ballots That Looked Xeroxed
By Paul Sperry | RealClearInvestigations | June 8, 2021
When Fulton County, Ga., poll manager Suzi Voyles sorted through a large stack of mail-in ballots last November, she noticed an alarmingly odd pattern of uniformity in the markings for Joseph R. Biden. One after another, the absentee votes contained perfectly filled-in ovals for Biden — except that each of the darkened bubbles featured an identical white void inside them in the shape of a tiny crescent, indicating they’d been marked with toner ink instead of a pen or pencil.

Brian Amero: The judge, a donor to Democrats, ordered ballots unsealed for inspection after poll workers swore under oath Biden votes looked fake. https://www.co.henry.ga.us/
Lawyer Sue Grey to NZ government: Failure to cease Covid vaccination programme may constitute homicide
NZ Outdoors Party | June 5, 2021
URGENT REQUEST FOLLOWING RESEARCH SHOWING “S PROTEIN” IS A TOXIN
To: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern <jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon David Parker <david.parker@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon Andrew Little <andrew.little@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon Chris Hipkins <chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>, <ashley_bloomfield@moh.govt.nz>, Chris James <Chris.James@health.govt.nz>, <ayesha.verrall@parliament.govt.nz>
Dear Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Health, Minister of Covid, Minister or Seniors, Director General of Health and Chris Hipkins
I attach below some new and very important research which I must assume your advisors have not yet provided to you, or the experimental Pfizer injection rollout would surely already have been suspended.
It is now clearly established that the S-Protein [spike protein] is a toxin that causes the harmful symptoms known as “Covid”.
I surely don’t need to explain the legal, ethical and human rights consequences of a government knowingly promoting a program which intentionally injects a life threatening toxin into healthy people.
I also attach a report indicating that injected nanoparticles (and the S-Protein) do not remain in the arm muscle but instead circulate throughout the whole body.
The combined effect is that the Pfizer jab injects mRNA to take over cells to manufacture the deadly S-Protein toxin and this spread throughout much of the body, manufacturing the S-Protein toxin for days and in some cases many weeks.
This explains why even the limited available research from the two months of study as summarised in the Comirnaty Data Sheet identifies possible harm to many different parts of the body including the heart, blood, brain, musculoskeletal system, nervous system, fainting and dizziness etc.
This is no longer just a shocking experiment. Everyone involved is now on notice of this “injection roulette” which may result in death or serious injury to previously healthy people. The health and safety implications for employers and those who push this jab, are significant.
No post injection death can legitimately be ruled out as being caused or contributed by the injection, at least not without a full coroner’s report. Certainly any post vax stroke, heart attack, other blood disorder, nervous system disorder or even suicide or car accident (known overseas as “vaccidents”) must prima facie be assumed to be caused or contributed to by the jab, at least until a full coroners report is undertaken.
Similarly it is not good enough to claim that our seniors who die post jab were frail and likely to die. Surely if they were that frail they should have been spared from the jab. Anyway, surely “deaths post Jab” should be treated consistently with “deaths post Covid”.
Despite the secretive, flawed and very passive official post jab injury reporting process ( CARM), and as a result of the more active community led follow up, you are already on notice of a number of deaths and life threatening and life changing harm from this injection. The deaths and harm will inevitably continue if there are any further injections. Perhaps initially you had an excuse that you thought the S-Protein was “safe”. However now you are on notice that it is not “safe” by any definition.
Further, although you in privileged position are on notice, many members of the public who you were elected to represent remain deceived by misleading claims in crown propaganda that the jab is “safe and effective”. In these circumstances there can be no “Informed consent”. Each jab without Informed Consent is in breach of the Health and Disability Code and is an assault.
In these circumstances, the ongoing program is surely criminal, and indeed may result in Homicide as defined by the Crimes Act:
158 Homicide defined
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 173
Anyone who aids, abets or otherwise incites homicide is a party to that homicide.
I note that the Director-General of Health has shared his view in sworn evidence that Covid is the most serious health issue for New Zealand in 100 years.
I invite you all to consider that claim very carefully and critically. Please put Covid in perspective against the many other challenges which we face, including for example heart attacks, strokes, cancer, suicide accidents and diabetes and the nitrate and other contamination of much of our water.
Surely you must agree that the harm is not from “Covid” but from the “Response to Covid”.
The best expert evidence is that the risk from Covid is similar to the risk from influenza. Many experts are now saying that Covid is simply a rebranding of influenza and colds, supported by PCR testing that was never intended as a diagnostic tool. The WHO says that PCR testing should not be used beyond 20-25 cycles. OIA responses indicate that in NZ PCR tests use up to 45 cycles, which simply multiplies any contamination.
Our government is about to enter dangerous new phase if it proceeds to inject more healthy New Zealanders with an injection that experts have established is toxic.
Apart from the direct harm to those who choose, or are bullied to accept this injection, there is considerable peripheral harm. This includes the contamination of our Blood Bank with S-Protein. We can only speculate on the risks for vulnerable people who receive blood contaminated with this toxin.
Please stop and reflect. Please listen to international experts who are independent from Big Pharma and who are not invested in the Covid paradigm.
Please listen to the New Zealand scientific and medical experts who have put their careers and reputations on the line out of extreme concern.
Please correct the misinformation that this injection is “safe and effective” and “approved by Medsafe” when in fact it did not meet the statutory criteria that “benefit exceeds risk”.
There is no imminent health risk from suspending the program. Dr Bloomfield’s sworn evidence was that the risks were mainly financial and reputational.
Please find the courage to challenge whoever is driving this, and any who act on dogma rather than evidence, reason or ethics.
The future of New Zealand depends on your courage to step up and make this critical call for our people.
I urge you to listen, engage and act in the public interest.
Please put aside your pride and the dogma, and suspend this program.
I am happy to assist however I can.
Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
Co-leader NZ Outdoors Party (https://www.outdoorsparty.co.nz)
academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
Why I spoke out against lockdowns
Martin Kulldorff on the necessity of challenging the Covid consensus

Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University.
By Martin Kulldorff | spiked | June 4, 2021
I had no choice but to speak out against lockdowns. As a public-health scientist with decades of experience working on infectious-disease outbreaks, I couldn’t stay silent. Not when basic principles of public health are thrown out of the window. Not when the working class is thrown under the bus. Not when lockdown opponents were thrown to the wolves. There was never a scientific consensus for lockdowns. That balloon had to be popped.
Two key Covid facts were quickly obvious to me. First, with the early outbreaks in Italy and Iran, this was a severe pandemic that would eventually spread to the rest of the world, resulting in many deaths. That made me nervous. Second, based on the data from Wuhan, in China, there was a dramatic difference in mortality by age, with over a thousand-fold difference between the young and the old. That was a huge relief. I am a single father with a teenager and five-year-old twins. Like most parents, I care more about my children than myself. Unlike the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, children had much less to fear from Covid than from annual influenza or traffic accidents. They could get on with life unharmed — or so I thought.
For society at large, the conclusion was obvious. We had to protect older, high-risk people while younger low-risk adults kept society moving.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, schools closed while nursing homes went unprotected. Why? It made no sense. So, I picked up a pen. To my surprise, I could not interest any US media in my thoughts, despite my knowledge and experience with infectious-disease outbreaks. I had more success in my native Sweden, with op-eds in the major daily newspapers, and, eventually, a piece in spiked. Other like-minded scientists faced similar hurdles.
Instead of understanding the pandemic, we were encouraged to fear it. Instead of life, we got lockdowns and death. We got delayed cancer diagnoses, worse cardiovascular-disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health, and a lot more collateral public-health damage from lockdown. Children, the elderly and the working class were the hardest hit by what can only be described as the biggest public-health fiasco in history.
Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for every one of its 1.8million children aged between one and 15. And it did so without subjecting them to testing, masks, physical barriers or social distancing. This policy led to precisely zero Covid deaths in that age group, while teachers had a Covid risk similar to the average of other professions. The Swedish Public Health Agency reported these facts in mid-June, but in the US lockdown proponents still pushed for school closures.
In July, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article on ‘reopening primary schools during the pandemic’. Shockingly, it did not even mention the evidence from the only major Western country that kept schools open throughout the pandemic. That is like evaluating a new drug while ignoring data from the placebo control group.
With difficulty publishing, I decided to use my mostly dormant Twitter account to get the word out. I searched for tweets about schools and replied with a link to the Swedish study. A few of these replies were retweeted, which gave the Swedish data some attention. It also led to an invitation to write for the Spectator. In August, I finally broke into the US media with a CNN op-ed against school closures. I know Spanish, so I wrote a piece for CNN-Español. CNN-English was not interested.
Something was clearly amiss with the media. Among infectious-disease epidemiology colleagues that I know, most favour focused protection of high-risk groups instead of lockdowns, but the media made it sound like there was a scientific consensus for general lockdowns.
In September, I met Jeffrey Tucker at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), an organisation I had never heard of before the pandemic. To help the media gain a better understanding of the pandemic, we decided to invite journalists to meet with infectious-disease epidemiologists in Great Barrington, New England, to conduct more in-depth interviews. I invited two scientists to join me, Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford, one of the world’s pre-eminent infectious-disease epidemiologists, and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University, an expert on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. To the surprise of AIER, the three of us also decided to write a declaration arguing for focused protection instead of lockdowns. We called it the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD).
Opposition to lockdowns had been deemed unscientific. When scientists spoke out against lockdowns, they were ignored, considered a fringe voice, or accused of not having proper credentials. We thought it would be hard to ignore something authored by three senior infectious-disease epidemiologists from what were three respectable universities. We were right. All hell broke loose. That was good.
Some colleagues threw epithets at us like ‘crazy’, ‘exorcist’, ‘mass murderer’ or ‘Trumpian’. Some accused us of taking a stand for money, though nobody paid us a penny. Why such a vicious response? The declaration was in line with the many pandemic preparedness plans produced years earlier, but that was the crux. With no good public-health arguments against focused protection, they had to resort to mischaracterisation and slander, or else admit they had made a terrible, deadly mistake in their support of lockdowns.
Some lockdown proponents accused us of raising a strawman, as lockdowns had worked and were no longer needed. Just a few weeks later, the same critics lauded the reimposition of lockdowns during the very predictable second wave. We were told that we had not specified how to protect the old, even though we had described ideas in detail on our website and in op-eds. We were accused of advocating a ‘let it rip’ strategy, even though focused protection is its very opposite. Ironically, lockdowns are a dragged-out form of a let-it-rip strategy, in which each age group is infected in the same proportion as a let-it-rip strategy.
When writing the declaration, we knew we were exposing ourselves to attacks. That can be scary, but as Rosa Parks said: ‘I have learned over the years that when one’s mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.’ Also, I did not take the journalistic and academic attacks personally, however vile – and most came from people I had never even heard of before. The attacks were not primarily addressed at us anyhow. We had already spoken out and would continue to do so. Their main purpose was to discourage other scientists from speaking out.
In my twenties, I risked my life in Guatemala working for a human-rights organisation called Peace Brigades International. We protected farmers, unionised workers, students, religious organisations, women’s groups and human-rights defenders who were threatened, murdered, and disappeared by military death squads. While the courageous Guatemalans I worked with faced much more danger, the death squads did once throw a hand grenade into our house. If I could do that work then, why should I not now take much smaller risks for people here at home? When I was falsely accused of being a Koch-funded right-winger, I just shrugged – typical behaviour by both establishment servants and armchair revolutionaries.
After the Great Barrington Declaration, there was no longer a lack of media attention on focused protection as an alternative to lockdowns. On the contrary, requests came from across the globe. I noticed an interesting contrast. In the US and UK, media outlets were either friendly with softball questions or hostile with trick questions and ad hominem attacks. Journalists in most other countries asked hard but relevant and fair questions, exploring and critically examining the Great Barrington Declaration. I think that is how journalism should be done.
While most governments continued with their failed lockdown policies, things have moved in the right direction. More and more schools have reopened, and Florida rejected lockdowns in favour of focused protection, partly based on our advice, without the negative consequences that the lockdowners predicted.
With the lockdown failures increasingly clear, attacks and censorship have increased rather than decreased: Google-owned YouTube censored a video from a roundtable with Florida governor Ron DeSantis, where my colleagues and I stated that children do not need to wear masks; Facebook closed the GBD account when we posted a pro-vaccine message arguing that older people should be prioritised for vaccination; Twitter censored a post when I said that children and those already infected do not need to be vaccinated; and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) removed me from a vaccine-safety working group when I argued that the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine should not be withheld from older Americans.
Twitter even locked my account for writing that:
‘Naively fooled to think that masks would protect them, some older high-risk people did not socially distance properly, and some died from Covid because of it. Tragic. Public-health officials/scientists must always be honest with the public.’
This increased pressure may seem counterintuitive, but it is not. Had we been wrong, our scientific colleagues might have taken pity on us and the media would have gone back to ignoring us. Being correct means that we embarrassed some immensely powerful people in politics, journalism, big tech and science. They are never going to forgive us.
That is not what matters, though. The pandemic has been a great tragedy. A 79-year-old friend of mine died from Covid, and a few months later his wife died from cancer that was not detected in time to initiate treatment. While deaths are inevitable during a pandemic, the naive but mistaken belief that lockdowns would protect the old meant that governments did not implement many standard focused-protection measures. The dragged-out pandemic made it harder for older people to protect themselves. With a focused-protection strategy, my friend and his wife might be alive today, together with countless other people around the world.
Ultimately, lockdowns protected young low-risk professionals working from home – journalists, lawyers, scientists, and bankers – on the backs of children, the working class and the poor. In the US, lockdowns are the biggest assault on workers since segregation and the Vietnam War. Except for war, there are few government actions during my life that have imposed more suffering and injustice on such a large scale.
As an infectious-disease epidemiologist, I had no choice. I had to speak up. If not, why be a scientist? Many others who bravely spoke could comfortably have stayed silent. If they had, more schools would still be closed, and the collateral public-health damage would have been greater. I am aware of many fantastic people fighting against these ineffective and damaging lockdowns, writing articles, posting on social media, making videos, talking to friends, speaking up at school board meetings, and protesting in the streets. If you are one of them, it has truly been an honour to work with you on this effort together. I hope that we will one day meet in person and then, let’s dance together. Danser encore!
How Biden’s Effort to Weaponise Human Rights Against Russia May Backfire on Washington

Members of the National Guard stand inside anti-scaling fencing that surrounds the Capitol, Sunday, Jan. 10, 2021, in Washington © AP PHOTO / ALAN FRAM
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 07.06.2021
While Joe Biden has vowed to “press” Moscow on human rights issues in Geneva, he may be given a dose of his own medicine one day given Washington’s record of human rights abuses both at home and abroad, according to economist and author Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
President Joe Biden has vowed to bring up human rights issues during an upcoming meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on 16 June in Geneva. Commenting on the American president’s remarks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted on 31 May that Russia views no topics as taboo and is ready to discuss issues including the prosecution of Americans charged with orchestrating the January 6 riots and the human rights of US opposition activists.
Not Everything in the US Garden is Rosy
The Biden administration’s attempts to weaponise human rights against Russia may backfire on the White House, according to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an American economist and former assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy under President Ronald Reagan.
“In mass violations of human rights, we have President Bill Clinton’s destruction of Serbia, George W. Bush’s destruction of Iraq, Barack Obama’s destruction of Libya and attempted destruction of Syria, Washington’s protection of Israel’s violation of Palestinians’ human rights, Washington’s bombings of Pakistan. The list goes on and on. Reformist governments in Latin America are overthrown,” he says.
When it comes to the US, the situation does not look better; currently, conservative observers are expressing growing concerns about the prosecution of Trump rally participants referred to as “armed insurrectionists” by the US mainstream press and Democratic politicians.
One of them, Richard Barnett, 60 – who posed for the cameras with his feet on Nancy Pelosi’s desk – was ordered to remain behind bars in a DC jail, along with dozens of other Capitol protesters, “with no chance to make bail even though he has no criminal record and faces no violent charges,” according to Julie Kelly, a political commentator at American Greatness. Barnett spent almost four months in jail before a federal judge released him in April 2021.
Speaking to Kelly, Barnett and another 6 January defendant, Jacob Lang, complained that they and other detainees were “abused mentally, physically, socially, emotionally, legally, and spiritually.” Some defendants were severely beaten while the detainees’ attempts to practice their religion were mocked by “nasty and insulting” jailers, according to Barnett’s account of events.
While painting all the 6 January demonstrators with the same brush, Democratic policy-makers and MSM remain tight-lipped about the trigger behind the riot, i.e. suspicions over alleged election irregularities and voter fraud, according to Dr. Roberts. The former Reagan official believes that the 2020 election with its last-minute voting rule changes in swing states and abuse of authority by some governors and secretaries of state was nothing short of “a coup against democracy” and “a human rights violation.”
Big Tech Censorship, Critical Race Theory & Warrantless Spying
Big Tech’s censorship and suspension of accounts of conservative pundits, politicians, activists, and those who expressed doubts about the 2020 election outcome is a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, the economist notes.
“‘Cancelling’ people is a human rights abuse,” he says.
Those who have been recently subjected to the critical race theory (CRT) programming or fired from their jobs for objecting to their children being taught CRT in public schools could also be added to the list of domestic human rights controversies, Dr. Roberts believes.
CRT revolves around the concepts of “white supremacy” and premises that US laws and legal system are inherently racist and designed to suppress people of colour, most notably African Americans. Corporate human resource training sessions and diversity workshops for educational and government institutions label white people as “oppressors” and urge them to be “less white.” While former President Donald Trump banned these training sessions, new Oval Office occupant, Joe Biden, rescinded his predecessor’s ban via executive order in the first days of his presidency.
”The Democrats’ demonisation of white Americans as ‘systemic racists’ is a major human rights abuse,” insists Dr. Roberts.
In addition to this, American citizens are being routinely spied on by federal agencies, the economist notes, referring to the latest FISA compliance review declassified in April 2021. According to FISA Court Presiding Judge James Boasberg, the FBI continues to use the NSA’s massive electronic troves for warrantless searches of US citizens’ information despite repeated criticism. The Department of Defence appears to surveil US citizens without warrants too, according to a 13 May letter written by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who introduced a bill protecting Fourth Amendment rights. On top of this, the Biden administration is reportedly considering hiring outside companies to spy on suspected “white extremists” online and “legally” infiltrate private groups under fake identities.
“Spying is a violation of the Constitution,” says Dr. Roberts. “An assault on the Constitution is an assault on the human rights of all Americans.”
Julian Assange
However, perhaps the worst case of US human rights violation is that against WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange, Dr. Roberts believes.
“Acting first through the Swedish government and now through the British government, Assange has been imprisoned without charges or conviction for about a decade,” Dr. Roberts underscores. “This case is as bad or worse than Soviet human rights violations against individual dissidents. I would say worse, because Assange is not an American citizen; yet Washington is trying to bring treason charges against Assange. A person who is not a citizen of the country cannot commit treason against the country.”
On 11 April 2019, Assange – who shed light on US atrocities in Iraq, Democratic Party’s rigging of primaries in 2016, and the CIA’s cyber-hacking tools among other issues – was arrested in London after being stripped of Ecuadorian asylum protection. The US Justice Department charged the him with conspiracy to commit intrusion into a US government computer and 17 counts relating to the Espionage Act of 1917. The charges brought against the journalist carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.
Given all of the above, Biden is opening a can of worms if he wants to lecture others about human rights, Dr. Roberts concludes.
EU: Growing online censorship of presumed “violent extremism” of all ideological varieties
StateWatch | June 7, 2021
EU police agency Europol recently undertook its first ever “Referral Action Day against right-wing terrorist online propaganda,” in which officers trawled the internet to file complaints about material that may contravene platforms’ terms of service.
The “Action Day” followed recommendations made by the Council of the EU and was part of a growing move towards EU and national bodies removing “violent extremist” material from the internet.
However, as “violent extremism” is a term for which – unlike terrorism – there is no legal definition, it has an expansive scope that puts much in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed, the Portuguese Council Presidency states (in document 8372/21) that the current EU threat assessment takes into account “all forms of extremism that could lead to a terrorist threat or to violence.”
Alongside “Islamism/Jihadism”, it is taken to include both the far-right (or “violent right-wing extremism”, VRWE) and “violent left-wing and anarchist extremism” (VLWAE), both of which encompass a broad sweep of ideologies and activities.
A specific recommendation stemming from the threat assessment was for Europol to use Joint Action Days to target “violent right-wing extremist and terrorist online content.”
However, this is likely to precede action against other ideologies – the document also suggests that: “Where appropriate, consideration should also be given to other forms of violent extremism, such as left-wing.”
This is not the end of it. A separate note from the Presidency (7896/21) considers that:
“Taking into consideration the latest assessments provided to the TWP [Terrorism Working Party], the growing polarization in society, whether based on ideological extremisms or not, seems to be a trend worldwide that may fuel violent extremism. It is also assessed that mainly, but not exclusively, due to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new breeding ground for radicalisation has the potential to emerge.”
And:
“Mainly as a consequence of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, today’s ideological extremism in the EU is no longer restricted to the “classic” VRWE, VLWE or jihadist extremism. Some recent antisystem COVID-19 denier movements have obvious potential for violence; inspired by conspiracy theories, they challenge governments and restrictive measures put in place, by inciting civil disobedience and unrest. Although extremely difficult to label, they need to be addressed since they pose security challenges to EU Member States.”
Thus:
“Bearing in mind this new reality, it is critical to understand the depth of today’s online threats and the extent to which extremists are using the internet. Therefore, an adequate balance between the improvement of operational capacity and the necessary security requirements on PCVE online activities should be met.”
Documentation
- NOTE from: Presidency to: Delegations: EU Threat Assessment in the field of counterterrorism: recommendations (Council document 8372/21, LIMITE, 3 May 2021, pdf) and a previous version: 7171/21 (pdf)
- NOTE from: Presidency to: Terrorism Working Party (TWP): Countering violent extremism (CVE) in its ideological orientations and dimensions, including online (Council document 7896/21, LIMITE, 23 April 2021, pdf)
- Europol press release, 1st Referral Action Day Against Right-Wing Terrorist Online Propaganda, 28 May 2021 (pdf)
Further reading
The Global Race Towards Full Vaccination
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | June 1, 2021
Scientists initially estimated that 60 to 70 percent of a population would have to acquire resistance to Covid-19 in order for herd immunity to take effect, a threshold that has been revised upwards since the start of the year with 80 to 85 percent quoted in some cases.
Despite the ever-higher immunity threshold discussed by scientists, Israel’s Covid-19 case count started to tumble when 40 percent of its population received at least one jab and now 59.3 percent of its inhabitants are fully vaccinated. The country’s reproduction rate has been around 0.5 in recent weeks and it appears to be on track to emerge from the pandemic, suggesting that initial herd immunity estimates carried some accuracy.
With 45.4 percent of its inhabitants fully vaccinated, Bahrain comes second on the list.
In the United States, 40.2 percent of people have been fully vaccinated (though do not forget that almost half of unvaccinated Americans have natural immunity from prior infection).
In this case, full vaccination refers to all doses prescribed by the vaccination protocol with data only available for countries reporting the breakdown of their doses.
As Scott Morefield wrote recently, Blue-state lockdown-lovers drunk on their own power like Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who insist on a 70 percent vaccination rate in order to ease up on mandates and restrictions are ignoring the science completely in order to hold their people hostage to an unobtainable, unnecessary goal.
Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital debunked the desire among some health officials, sometimes referred to as “zero COVID,” that COVID-19 can be eradicated completely.
Well, unfortunately, we have this perception now that’s being created by some public health leaders that we need to reach total eradication. We’re not gonna get to total absolute risk elimination. That is a false goal and quite honestly it’s being used now to manipulate the public. We heard today again from our public health leaders that if we get to 70% vaccination, then we can start seeing restrictions removed. That’s dishonest. Most of the country is at herd immunity.
Other parts will get there later this month. San Francisco had 12 cases yesterday, most asymptomatic. What do you call that? I call that herd immunity. And I think what’s happening is our public health leaders are dismissing natural immunity from prior infection, which changes the path to get to more population immunity. It invokes mandates, it means kids may have to get it and it demonizes those that are hesitant rather than respecting their decision.
Indeed, you don’t have to have a medical degree to know that the formula for herd immunity has always been vaccinated plus natural immunity.
Abby Martin Beats the Israel Lobby: Attack on Free Speech and Association Fails Court Test
By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 3, 2021
Many Americans who follow developments overseas would concede that Israel and its supporters in the United States exercise a fairly high level of control over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Some are also aware of Congressional attempts to introduce legislation that would define criticism of the Jewish state as a federal hate crime. That would narrow the options for discussion, infringing on First Amendment free speech rights, and further tighten the grip on policy. It would also make violators of the new law subject to fines and even imprisonment at the hands of the Department of Justice, which has traditionally responded favorably on issues of concern to Israel and its supporters.
Still fewer Americans, however, are aware of the ability of the Lobby to promote legislation favorable to Israel and its perceived interests at state and local levels. Possibly the most insidious program being advanced by the friends of Israel is the attempt to make boycotts and public criticism of Israel a punishable offense. Legislation is now in place in many states that requires prospective recipients of government jobs, services or compensation to agree not to participate in boycotting or otherwise seeking to damage the Israeli economy. The details on how the legislation works and what exactly it covers varies from state to state, but the intention is to create disincentives for anyone who seeks to harm Israel as defined by Israel itself. It particularly targets the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is popular on many university campuses. And the prohibition goes beyond just sanctioning those who are taking action personally, as in a number of states one also cannot publicly or even privately encourage others to take action that might be damaging to the Jewish state. In some U.S. states, the recipient must even sign a legal document under oath indicating that he or she will not engage in anti-Israeli activity.
One might well ask by what authority state governments can demand that citizens not be free to discuss or even peacefully oppose the activity engaged in by a foreign government, particularly as the government in question is an apartheid regime that is a serial violator of international law and guilty of numerous war crimes. Indeed, many who have observed the corruption of constitutional government in the United States by Israel and its friends have asked just that and have predictably not received any credible response. Recently, some believers in the Bill of Rights have, however, gone one step further, going to court after refusing to swear fealty to Israel. Highly respected international journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin is one of the latest to do so.
Abby’s tale will strike many as bizarre, but it has been verified by multiple independent sources and is absolutely true. It demonstrates how in 21st century America government at all levels can strip citizens of their fundamental rights with the stroke or a pen and how the lawmakers will feel absolutely no remorse after they have done so.
In 2016 in Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed off on a law designated SB 327, which is similar to legislation currently active in at least thirty states. The bill is entitled “State Purchasing; prohibit the state from entering into certain contracts unless such contracts contain a certification; does not presently conduct a boycott of Israel” and reads “A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 1 of Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general authority, duties, and procedure relative to state purchasing, so as to prohibit the state, including all of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, from entering into certain contracts with an individual or company unless such contracts contain a certification that such individual or company does not presently conduct a boycott of Israel and will not conduct such a boycott for the duration of such contract; to exclude certain contracts from these requirements; to provide for definitions; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”
In simple language, the law requires any person or company that enters into a contract with the State of Georgia worth $1,000 or more to sign a loyalty oath pledging not engage in political boycotts of the Israeli government based on its treatment of Palestinians.
Abby Martin had agreed to give the keynote address at the International Critical Media Conference that was to be held at Georgia Southern University in 2020, but her participation was canceled by the authorities controlling the University System of Georgia when she refused to sign the document. Her advocacy for BDS was already well known to college authorities when she agreed to speak. She responded with a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund seeking to overturn both the decision and the law, arguing that her speech was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Last Monday, Judge Mark Cohen of the Federal District Court in Atlanta ruled in her favor, declaring that the University System of Georgia had violated Martin’s constitutional rights when it cancelled her speaking engagement over her refusal to sign the state-mandated oath pledging not to engage in boycotts of Israel, which the court determined to be protected by the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
The Georgian government defense argued absurdly that it had canceled Martin’s speech because it had “an interest in furthering foreign policy goals regarding relations with Israel.” Dismissing that contention, the judge countered with “Defendants fail to explain how Martin’s advocacy of a boycott of Israel has any bearing on Georgia’s ability to advance foreign policy goals with Israel.” One might also add that the U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government alone the conduct of foreign affairs for the entire United States, so, in a sense, Georgia has no foreign policy.
The judge specifically cited how the law’s clear intention to stifle discussion of BDS “prohibits inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment,” and therefore “burdens Martin’s right to free speech.” He also observed that requiring Martin to sign under oath to refrain from certain otherwise legal activity is “no different than requiring a person to espouse certain political beliefs or to engage in certain political associations.”
Abby Martin was, of course, pleased over the outcome of her case, even though the judge has not yet gone so far as to overturn the law itself. She enthused “I am thrilled at the judge’s decision finding this law unconstitutional as it so clearly violates the free speech rights of myself and so many others in Georgia. My First Amendment rights were restricted on behalf of a foreign government, which flies in the face of the principles of freedom and democracy. The government of Israel has pushed state legislatures to enact these laws only because they know that sympathy and support for the population they brutalize, occupy, ethnically cleanse and subject to apartheid, is finally growing in popular consciousness ––they want to hold back the tide of justice by preemptively restricting the right of American citizens to peacefully take a stand against their crimes.”
Abby Martin’s efforts must be applauded for she has won a major victory in the struggle to maintain freedom of speech in the United States. May it be one of the first in the many battles that will have to be fought to have the courts finally determine decisively that laws drafted by states (and the federal government) specifically to serve Israel’s perceived interests are all unconstitutional and will have to be overturned.







