Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

From the United States to Europe, criticizing Israel is becoming a crime

By Kit KLARENBERG | MintPress News | April 29, 2025

Across the United States and much of the West, criticism of Israel and solidarity with Palestine are increasingly being criminalized—a project long championed by Israel’s government and its powerful lobbying networks.

In February 2020, Israeli leader and internationally wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu proudly declared that Tel Aviv had “promoted laws in most U.S. states” to punish those who boycott Israel, offering a rare glimpse into the foreign forces eroding free speech in the American heartland.

Since then, anti-boycott laws have quietly spread to dozens of states, forcing public institutions, businesses, and even individual contractors to pledge loyalty to Israel—or risk losing jobs, contracts, and funding. What began as a niche effort to shield Tel Aviv from grassroots criticism has rapidly escalated into a sweeping assault on free speech across the Western world.

The overwhelming majority of states now boast laws making it illegal for local entities, including hospitals and schools, to work with individuals or companies that boycott Israel. For example, in 2016, Indiana’s Senate unanimously passed a law calling for mandatory divestment by state agencies, commercial enterprises, and nonprofit organizations—including universities—from any firm involved in “the promotion of activities to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel.”

The legislation branded boycotts against Israel as “antithetical and deeply damaging to the cause of peace, justice, equality, democracy and human rights for all people in the Middle East.”

Several states have adopted comparable laws via governors signing administrative and executive orders. In some cases, state contractors—be they individuals or organizations—are legally obligated to demonstrate their anti-BDS credentials by signing contractual affirmations of non-support for BDS, which critics argue is essentially a loyalty oath to Israel.

State employees, including teachers, have lost their jobs for refusing to do so. In May 2021, a federal judge ruled such legislation in Georgia to be “unconstitutional compelled speech.” Undeterred, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp reintroduced the requirement just months later with slight amendments.

Israel’s extraordinary and ever-growing influence over domestic U.S. laws in recent years, and the devastating consequences for Palestinian solidarity at home and abroad, have passed without much critical mainstream acknowledgement, let alone censure.

Since October 7, the push to criminalize pro-Palestinian sentiment Stateside and the media’s mass omertà (code of silence) on this disturbing crusade have both intensified significantly. However, such disquieting developments aren’t restricted to the U.S., but eagerly embraced by an ever-growing number of countries intimately complicit in the Gaza genocide.

‘Drastic Rise’

In a grave testament to the speed with which U.S.-based pro-Israel organizations, including several prominent Jewish advocacy groups, sought to capitalize on October 7 for their own purposes, two-and-a-half weeks after Palestinian fighters breached Gaza’s infamous apartheid walls, Republican lawmaker Mike Lawler proposed H.R. 6090, also known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act.

Lawler is a major recipient of Israeli lobby funds, with the influential lobbying group AIPAC gifting him $392,669 in 2023 and 2024 alone, his largest donor by some margin. His bill would require the Department of Education to consider the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (which critics argue conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism) when determining if cases of harassment are motivated by antisemitism, raising concerns that it would violate the intent of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This, its proponents argue, “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance,” including colleges and universities. H.R. 6090 is openly supported by nearly all influential pro-Israel organizations, including the ADL.

The IHRA definition has been condemned by many, including attorney Kenneth Stern, who helped draft it, for falsely conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The ACLU warns that H.R. 6090 raises the clear risk that U.S. educational facilities will “restrict student and faculty speech critical of the Israeli government and its military operations,” for fear of “losing federal funding.”

Longstanding U.S. law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities, making the proposed legislation completely unnecessary.

Despite the obvious and dire threats to fundamental freedoms posed by the bill, and even harsh criticisms from major Jewish groups (such as J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace), it received barely any mention by major news outlets. Still, Congress supported it by an overwhelming majority, voting 320 to 91 in its favor.

Senators nonetheless failed to consider the legislation, prompting Congressman Josh Gottheimer, who received $797,189 from AIPAC in 2023 and 2024, to reintroduce the bill in February. In the meantime, U.S. lawmakers again took a deeply worrying step in Israel’s clear favor.

On November 28, 2023, Congressman David Kustoff—another AIPAC beneficiary—introduced a House Resolution “strongly condemning and denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism” in the U.S. and “around the world” following October 7. Citing the IHRA’s antisemitism definition, it declared that popular Palestine solidarity chants—protected by the First Amendment—“From the River to the Sea,” “Palestine Will Be Free,” and “Gaza Will Win” to be genocidal, and claimed that a candlelit vigil at the Democratic National Committee that month had endangered lives.

It concluded by calling on Congress to “clearly and firmly [state] that anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” which they did inordinately. In all, 311 lawmakers voted for the Resolution, with just 14 against.

Niko House, a media personality and activist specializing in civil rights and anti-imperialist issues, believes that these efforts are desperate attempts to justify legal measures that threaten civil liberties and would be unthinkable if any other country were in the crosshairs—including the U.S. itself.

“If enacted, these laws will give authorities broad license to persecute anyone and everyone who calls attention to the unprecedented levels of discrimination Palestinians experience today, and have done for over 75 years,” House tells MintPress. He reserves particular contempt for H.R. 6090:

“As a Black man, I find it deeply insulting [that] Congress would exploit the Civil Rights Act to silence, if not criminalize, pro-Palestine sentiment. Whether it be segregation, freedom to attend whatever educational institution or pursue whatever career you choose, or equal and indiscriminate access to facilities and basic sustenance like food and water, Palestinians have been suffering from the very forms of discrimination the Act was created to protect against ever since Israel’s creation. And the Gaza genocide has made all of this even worse.”

‘Targeting Critics’

Such brazen pro-Israeli lawfare is a longstanding tradition in modern American politics. In 1977, two amendments to the Export Administration Act and the U.S. Tax Code were passed. In theory, they prohibited U.S. citizens and companies from complying with foreign boycotts against any country considered “friendly” to Washington. In reality, it was specifically intended to counteract the long-running embargo of Israel by the Arab League. Most U.S. allies adopted the prohibition, in some cases ironically damaging their relations with Israel.

Then in 1987, Ronald Reagan designated the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—at the time recognized almost universally as the Palestinian people’s legitimate representatives—a terrorist entity, but enacted a waiver the next year permitting “contact” between White House officials and the group.

This fudge meant the Organization was forced to shut down its D.C. office and cease most of its formal international diplomatic and fundraising initiatives, but allowed U.S. authorities to continue to engage with its leadership without legal repercussions.

There are sinister historical echoes, too, in yet another post-October 7 Congressional move in the U.S. On December 12, 2023, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a fervently pro-Israel lawmaker who has received vast sums from the Israeli lobby while cosponsoring and voting in favor of multiple pro-Israel measures that critics argue suppress Palestinian rights and run afoul of the First Amendment, proposed H.R. 6578. It calls for the creation of an official “Commission to Study Acts of Antisemitism” in the U.S.

The legislation’s clauses exclusively refer to “antisemitism” in the context of criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza after October 7. Its accompanying press release clearly shows that Palestine solidarity activists are its intended targets, particularly college and university students. Under its auspices, a formal Congressional investigation into opposition to Israel among U.S. citizens and organizations would be instigated, and any witness subpoenaed to give evidence would be barred from invoking their constitutional right to remain silent under questioning.

Lara Friedman, Middle East Forum for Peace President, slammed the proposal as a malign attempt to construct a modern equivalent to the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (which investigated suspected supporters of communism during the Cold War). Established by Senator Joe McCarthy in 1938, the Committee probed the political leanings of private citizens, state employees, and public and government organizations. In the process, countless careers and lives were destroyed. Friedman charges H. R. 6578 will, by design, do the same—“but this time targeting critics of Israel.”

‘Disruptive Policies’

It would be wrongheaded to view this wave of repressive laws as unique or isolated to the U.S., or exclusively a product of the Gaza genocide. In the wake of October 7, authorities in Germany, which quietly supported Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons program for years, unleashed an unprecedented crackdown against Palestine solidarity activists and groups. The repression came in the form of brutal assaults on protest attendees of all ages and genders, city and state courts convicting people for leading pro-Palestinian chants, and restrictions on speaking foreign languages at public demonstrations.

German city and state governments have banned or are considering banning displays of red triangles (a symbol adopted by some Palestinian resistance fighters). As of June 2024, applicants for German citizenship are now tested on their knowledge of Judaism and Jewish life. They must declare their belief in Israel’s right to exist to prove their commitment to “German values.” Legal experts and rights advocates have widely questioned the constitutionality of requiring political support for a foreign state as a condition for citizenship.

This wave of legal repression is not confined to Germany. Across the English Channel, British authorities have similarly intensified their crackdown on dissent. In February 2024, three individuals were convicted of terror offenses in Britain after displaying images of paragliders at a Palestine solidarity protest on the controversial grounds that it amounted to “glorification of the actions” of Hamas. Since then, multiple British pro-Palestinian activists and journalists have been arrested, raided, and prosecuted over allegations of “supporting” Hamas. In December 2024, the UN sounded an alarm over London’s “vague and over-broad” counter-terror legislation.

These laws do not define the term ‘support,’ which the UN believes raises the risk of dissenting individuals who cannot plausibly be accused of endorsing “violent terrorist acts” by proscribed groups, including their political wings, being caught up in the legislation’s sweeping dragnet. Undeterred, authorities have only intensified their harassment of Palestine solidarity voices since.

Naila Kauser, an activist currently wanted for questioning by counter-terror police in London for pro-Palestinian statements she purportedly made on social media, tells MintPress News :

“Attacks against activists and journalists who speak out against the genocide in Palestine can only be described as an abuse of law, in service of fascism. It is the British state that is violating multiple world laws, including the Genocide Convention, by continuing to support Israel through intelligence-sharing, arms trade, and diplomatic protection of Israeli war criminals, as we saw recently with the Israeli Foreign Minister’s not-so-secret visit to London. Britain proscribing those who fight occupation also undermines their internationally recognised legal right to resist.”

Electronic Intifada editor Asa Winstanley, whose London home was raided and digital devices seized by counter-terror police at dawn in October 2024, suggests to MintPress News that the British government’s December 2016 adoption of the IHRA’s misdefinition of antisemitism may have played a role in the wave of repression targeting “legitimate dissent, protest, and political action” against crimes committed by the Israeli state. He says that the controversial definition, reportedly influenced by Israeli intelligence, “does nothing to protect Jews or anyone else — its primary aim is to criminalize Palestinians and their supporters.”

Winstanley cites the striking example of a London council in 2019 using the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism to ban a local pro-Palestinian bike ride seeking to raise money for sports equipment for Gazan children from traveling through its parks. “This wasn’t a direct action, it wasn’t anything to do with Jewish people, it wasn’t discrimination, it was pure solidarity of the fluffiest kind, and even this was officially found to fall foul of the IHRA definition,” Winstanley warned.

‘Moral Authority’

In June 2023, the ponderously titled Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill began making its way through British Parliament. Its purpose is to ban any public bodies conducting their investments and procurement “in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of a foreign state.”

An accompanying press release made clear the legislation’s explicit purpose was protecting “businesses and organizations” affiliated with Israel. Michael Gove, the then-government minister who introduced the law, said of BDS efforts:

“These campaigns not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but lead to appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse. That is why we have taken this decisive action to stop these disruptive policies once and for all.”

The array of organizations affected is gargantuan, ranging from local councils to universities, and the implications are grave in every way. Institutions can be investigated solely at the personal discretion of government officials and face voluminous fines for breaches. During the 1980s, when the British government refused to sanction or condemn South Africa, the very entities targeted by this legislation boycotted the Apartheid state. If the new law were in effect at the time, such activities would have been entirely illegal.

Exacerbating matters further, the anti-BDS Act violates multiple UN rulings and contradicts the British government’s own stated positions. London’s official stance for decades has been that Israeli settlements “are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” As such, Britain’s private sector is actively discouraged by authorities from conducting business there. Yet, public bodies may now be legally prohibited from following this very precept.

Still, there remains one potential legal avenue of resistance. As MintPress News has previously reported, multiple legal findings and precedents indicate countries party to the Genocide Convention, as Britain is, must “employ all means reasonably available” to prevent genocide. What’s more, failing to stop providing aid or assistance to a state engaged in genocide could violate Article I of the Convention. This could provide legal protection from London’s new anti-BDS law. As activist Naila Kauser, herself a target of London’s latest measures, concludes:

“Laws that defend genocide have no legitimacy, and states enforcing them and enabling the genocide have no moral authority. They want us to shut up, but we must continue to resist these attacks, as well as the ongoing genocide, in any way we can until Palestine is liberated.”

May 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU Leaders Advocate Stronger Censorship Regulation to Counter “Disinformation” Threats

A battle to define who gets to frame reality online

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 2, 2025

European authorities are stepping up their campaign against what they label “disinformation,” as calls grow from within the EU’s institutional framework to expand regulatory powers over online content and digital platforms.

At the forefront is Oliver Röpke, President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), who is urging tighter enforcement of the EU’s sweeping censorship mechanism, the Digital Services Act (DSA), and calling for more aggressive oversight of artificial intelligence.

Framing the issue as a direct challenge to democratic systems, Röpke claims that coordinated disinformation efforts are being waged both by foreign interests and local actors, with particularly harmful impacts on vulnerable populations. “We know that they are spreading in a coordinated manner disinformation and misinformation within our countries, the European Union, but they all work often hand-in-hand with domestic actors,” he told the European Newsroom.

He went on to argue that marginalized communities are frequent targets in these campaigns, which, he says, erode public confidence in democratic institutions. In response, the EESC has rolled out initiatives like “Citizens can defeat disinformation,” promoting what it calls grassroots resistance to online manipulation.

But the solution Röpke favors is far from bottom-up. He is calling for Big Tech companies to be bound even more tightly to EU regulation under the DSA, which he defends as a tool not of censorship but of structured debate. “I think it’s not about censoring opinions. On the contrary, it is to ensure a free debate ­– a free debate based on facts and on well-informed actors,” Röpke said.

He also wants to see the EU develop its own digital giants, aligned with European regulatory priorities, to compete with dominant global tech firms.

His vision includes expanding the bloc’s AI governance regime, building on the 2024 AI Act. Although that legislation introduced tiered risk-based controls for AI deployment, Röpke believes additional safeguards are needed. “We have to create a regulatory environment which is technology-open and friendly, but at the same time we have to insist on certain rules,” he stated, stressing that AI must serve ethical, not merely commercial, goals.

Meanwhile, environment ministers gathered in Warsaw to hash out strategies for combating what they see as a wave of misinformation tied to climate policy. The recent massive blackout that left large parts of Spain and Portugal without electricity gave fresh ammunition to online speculation, which officials swiftly labeled as “disinformation.”

Poland’s environment minister, Paulina Hennig-Kloska, described the flood of commentary as part of a broader pattern. “In recent months we’ve had more targeted disinformation used for political purposes, very often by our political adversaries,” she said following the meeting.

While the DSA is already in effect, Hennig-Kloska suggested it falls short. According to her, EU governments currently lack “effective measures to combat disinformation.” She confirmed that the environment ministers had agreed on the need for stronger tools and that the next stage would be engagement with the European Commission.

Underpinning much of this is the belief that foreign governments are engaged in information warfare aimed at destabilizing Europe’s climate and energy agenda.

May 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Moldova’s Ex-Prime Minister Calls Gutsul’s Arrest ‘Absurdity’ That Harms National Reputation

Sputnik – 02.05.2025

CHISINAU – Former Moldovan Prime Minister and leader of the Future of Moldova opposition party, Vasile Tarlev, on Friday strongly condemned the arrest of Yevgenia Gutsul, the head of the Moldovan autonomous region of Gagauzia, calling the incident an “absurd” abuse that harms Moldova’s image on the world stage.

Gutsul was detained at the Chisinau airport on March 25. A Chisinau court arrested her for 20 days on charges of violating rules for campaign financing and document forgery. On April 9, the court placed Gutsul under house arrest for 30 days, which her supporters slammed as political pressure.

“I believe that this is an abuse, an absurdity that has damaged the image of our state – both inside and outside the country, from any point of view. If there were grounds, it would have been possible to restrict [Gutsul] from leaving the country, to impose a ban on leaving the place of residence or, in extreme cases, to use a bracelet. But when a woman, a mother of two minor children, is put in prison, this is no longer justice, but cruelty,” Tarlev was quoted by the GRT broadcaster as saying.

The authorities’ actions towards Gutsul are excessive, Tarlev argued, adding that such actions undermine citizens’ trust in state institutions and threaten the country’s stability.

Gagauz-Moldovan relations deteriorated after Gutsul of Moldova’s opposition Sor party was elected head of Gagauzia in spring 2023. In June, following a long conflict between the pro-Western Party of Action and Solidarity and the pro-Russian Sor, the Constitutional Court of Moldova ruled to recognize the opposition party as unconstitutional, while the ruling party vowed to probe the election results in Gagauzia. Moldovan President Maia Sandu has refused to sign a decree to include Gutsul in the cabinet.

May 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Germany’s AfD party is declared ‘definitely right-wing extremist’ by BfV spy agency, paving the way for a ban

Remix News | May 2, 2025

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been declared “definitely right-wing extremist,” by the powerful domestic spy agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). The party is reacting with outrage.

The BfV claims that the party is pursuing efforts against the “free democratic order,” which the agency now says is “certain.”

Previously, the party was only declared as a “suspected case,” with this new designation paving the way for not only a ban but also mass surveillance of the entire party, including all its members. With this new designation, the BfV can surveil members, including their emails, phone calls, and chats, without a warrant. In addition, the BfV can now legally infiltrate the entire party with informants and use other spy techniques.

Already, other parts of the AfD at the state level were classified as “definitely right-wing extremist,” but the new designation now applies this label to the entire national party.

The party is reacting with outrage, with Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the party, writing:

“The decision of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German democracy!”

Regarding the statement by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, AfD federal spokespersons Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla said:

Today’s decision by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German democracy: In current polls, the AfD is the strongest force. The federal government only has four days left in office, the intelligence agency doesn’t even have a president anymore. And the classification as a so-called suspected case is not yet legally binding.

Nevertheless, the AfD, as an opposition party, is now being publicly discredited and criminalized shortly before the change of government. The associated, targeted interference in the democratic decision-making process is therefore clearly politically motivated. The AfD will continue to defend itself legally against these defamations that endanger democracy.”

The BfV, however, is attempting to justify its decision, which will be seen by many as an attack on the country’s largest opposition party.

Due to the “extremist character of the entire party, which disregards human dignity,” the BfV noted in its statement. Vice presidents of the authority, Sinan Selen and Silke Willems, further indicated that statements and positions of the party “violate the principle of human dignity.”

One of the key factors that the BfV is attempting to use to justify the designation is the AfD’s alleged position on “ethnic Germans.”

“The ethnic-descendant understanding of the people prevailing in the party is not compatible with the free democratic basic order,” reads the statement from the BfV. “The AfD, for example, does not consider German citizens with a migration history from predominantly Muslim countries to be equal members of the German people, as ethnically defined by the party.”

The BfV, which has been led by a Christian Democrat for years who was rabidly opposed to the AfD, a rival party, further writes: “The BfV reached this conclusion after an intensive and comprehensive expert review. Following its statutory mandate, the BfV was required to assess the party’s actions against the central fundamental principles of the constitution: human dignity, the principle of democracy, and the rule of law. In doing so, in addition to the federal party’s platform and statements, the statements and other behavior of its representatives, as well as their connections to right-wing extremist actors and groups, were examined in particular.”

The BfV is no longer led by Thomas Haldenwang (CDU), but here he is discussing the AfD during his tenure. Haldenwang gave up his position to run as an MP but he lost his seat.

The news comes at a time when the AfD is the number one party in the country, according to national polls, a position it has achieved for the first time. As the party surges, its democratic rivals are becoming increasingly concerned, prompting calls for a ban from not only the left, but also the traditional “center-right,” which has shifted more and more to the left over the years.

Ban procedure can now move forward

The latest designation was a key plan in the move to ban the party, with many so-called “moderates” waiting for the BfV designation to move forward with a vote to ban the party.

However, there is no sign yet of how a ban will move forward, with many in the CDU skeptical about banning the most popular party in the country, along with some from the left as well.

Previous attempts to ban the far-right NPD, which took some notably extremist stances, were unsuccessful, with the top court arguing that the party was not large enough to represent a serious threat to the democratic order. There were also questions about the excessive number of informants, making it difficult to ascertain how much of the extremism in the party was due to informants versus the party’s own members.

However, the AfD, in contrast, is not only popular but is now the most popular party in the country.

Emil Sänze, the AfD leader in the state association of AfD leader Alice Weidel, said this was a deliberate attempt to weaken the largest opposition party. He told Bild, “This is outrageous. A purely political decision in the run-up to the chancellor election on May 6.”

May 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Klaus Schwab, Sophist

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | May 1, 2025

The existence of Klaus Schwab became known to much of the thinking world during the Coronapocalypse, when so-called conspiracy theories began to flourish about the use of the novel COVID-19 virus as a pretext for reconfiguring the world. The “Great Reset” and the “New Normal” began to be spoken of fondly by bureaucrats back in 2020, shortly after the in some ways incomprehensibly influential Schwab co-authored with Thierry Malleret a short book extolling just those concepts: Covid-19: The Great Reset.

The work, or paraphrased excerpts of it, must have been spam-emailed to every government official and mainstream media journalist on the planet, because in no time pundits and their parrots in the press were gushing about the Great Reset, essentially a Brave New World to come (had none of them read Aldous Huxley’s classic work, or did they simply not understand it?). Nearly every influential person with a microphone was emitting the expression “Everything has changed,” insisting that this was because of the emergence of the novel coronavirus, not the government policies enacted in response to it. Schwab was lurking behind the scenes from the beginning, proffering gaslighting homilies and question-begging arguments camouflaged as benevolent recommendations and facts:

“The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic has no parallel in modern history.”

In truth, “Everything changed” only because government officials changed everything, by closing national borders, locking down entire populations, preventing groups from assembling, and shutting down schools and all but specially designated “essential” businesses. Human beings were required to wear masks nearly everywhere they went, and those who demurred were treated as miscreants and pursued by the police. The insistence by politicians, bureaucrats and other opinion makers that “Everything has changed” was curiously reminiscent of how officials rationalized a massive and ruthless assault on Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of crimes committed on September 11, 2001, by a small group of persons hailing primarily from Saudi Arabia. (Induction on two cases: when someone starts chiming, “Everything has changed!” in order to persuade you to do something or to support some initiative, you should probably turn around and walk away.)

Klaus Schwab founded and led the World Economic Forum (WEF) for more than fifty years. Many of what were revealed during the pandemic period to be the most brazen authoritarians among ostensibly democratic world leaders have connections to the organization. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and French President Emmanuel Macron are notable examples of leaders who punished and even ostracized citizens for daring to defy their administration’s draconian COVID policies. Schwab recently resigned from his position, but whether that was because of age—he was born in 1938—or scandal matters little at this point, for his legacy has been secured throughout much of the world.

Key features of the Great Reset were to foist ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance investing) on people transnationally or, perhaps more accurately, meta-nationally. We have seen that elements of Schwab’s Weltanschauung have indeed made their way into not only federal government policies, with Green New Deals and carbon-limiting programs imposed in many parts of the planet, but also global corporate initiatives, as many companies now boast about their “environmental and social conscience,” using this as a marketing tool. Under the “Social Governance” guise of the ESG program, enthusiastic efforts to expand DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) frameworks throughout the spheres of education and business have led to the appearance of “trans flags” waving alongside national flags at government buildings in what can only be characterized as a bizarre obsession with the subset of human beings, oddly in ascendance, who are said to have been born with the wrong set of genitalia.

One of the more extreme consequences of DEI has indeed been the effusive promotion of a radical trans agenda, which is arguably both homophobic and misogynistic, promoting as it does a grotesque caricature of femininity, exemplified by the skimpily clad and seemingly ditsy Dylan Mulvaney (remember the Budweiser ads?), while essentially denying the possibility of androgyny. In the name of inclusion, biological males (persons in possession of a Y chromosome) have been allowed to compete with females (persons devoid of a Y chromosome) in sports, with female competitors predictably forced to forego awards and scholarships as a result. Female athletes whose sports involve contact with competitors have been physically endangered by the admission of males into their sphere, as is evidenced by the case of volleyball player Payton McNabb and the 2024 Olympic boxing controversy, when two competitors who had previously failed a female gender test (for Y chromosome and testosterone levels) were permitted to compete. On top of all of those clear and present dangers, females in locker rooms have been faced with the prospect of seeing a penis dangling before them as they change their clothes or shower. Rather than attempt to protect females, policymakers were somehow persuaded by radical trans activists that males who decreed themselves to be female needed to be protected instead.

The incomprehensible power of the radical trans facet of the DEI agenda also brought about the enactment of laws which criminalize the “mis-pronouning” of persons who, despite having been born male, self-identify as female, or vice versa. Or neither, which necessitates, by law in some places now, that their interlocutors restrict personal pronoun usage to ‘they/them’. The latter is needless to say a no-win arrangement, for in complying with pronoun laws, one is thus obliged to commit a crime of grammar.

On the New Green Deal front, the European Union is continually devising new policies which attest to its commitments to the New Normal as envisioned by Schwab’s WEF, perhaps the most notorious slogan of which is “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” Countless memes have satirized the WEF leader for exhorting people to eat insects and stay in their “pods,” on the grounds that livestock and travel are allegedly a menace to the future of the planet. (Note: the persons who attend the ever-proliferating conferences on the environment or serve as parliament members of the EU generally fly to their meetings, sometimes in private jets.) Earnest discussion of the possibility of “15-minute cities,” where people do not need to (or are not allowed to) travel farther than fifteen minutes from their domicile has been taken up among local council members in “green-savvy” communities.

The list of rules and regulations already imposed by the European Union is seemingly endless, but to offer only two recent examples: plastic bottles sold in Europe are now required to have their caps affixed to them, and single-serving portion containers (such as are used at bed and breakfast hotels for jam, butter, honey, etc.) are in the process of being outlawed, despite having been devised as a means not only of convenience but also to prevent cross-contamination between unrelated guests. Only time will tell whether bureaucrats eventually side with public health officials or environmentalists in the latter case.

Far more important for the future of free people are the persistent censorship measures in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and beyond, modeled after anti-misinformation and surveillance policies aggressively enforced in many countries during the COVID period. To the shock of many thinking people, governments have taken it upon themselves to monitor the social media posts of citizens and to criminalize the expression of what are deemed unacceptable opinions, an obvious legacy of the COVID period, when persons who disagreed with the government were roundly denounced as agents of misinformation who needed to be de-platformed and silenced, lest they kill anyone with their dangerous ideas. Strikingly, reports of vaccine injury were not even false (misinformation), according to the censors themselves, but instead “malinformation,” which officials regarded as having the potential to prevent people who needed the “vaccine” from getting it.

Looking back at the surprising convergence among governments about the necessity of global lockdowns and, later, universal vaccination in the face of a virus which primarily endangered elderly and already infirm persons, it is clear that Schwab’s work served as a sort of template for how to communicate with constituents and conduct public affairs. Paternalism reigned (or, if you prefer, “maternalism” à la Nurse Ratched), as citizens were spoken to by political leaders in condescending tones as though they were toddlers who needed to be protected from themselves. This approach to governance can be summed up in a phrase: Children are to be seen, not heard.

Citizens were told that it was wrong to do their own research because only “the experts,” such as pandemic guru Anthony Fauci knew what they were doing. Despite having repeatedly lied in insisting that the virus had emerged naturally, having somehow leapt from a bat to a human being (when someone in Wuhan ate a bowl of soup?), Fauci himself, we now know, promoted and funded the gain-of-function research which culminated in the very existence—and potency—of the virus. Throughout this period of history, persons who dared to dissent from the dictates and narratives of the government were decried as enemies of humanity who needed to be controlled in order to protect other people from their nefarious tendencies. Notably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of The Real Anthony Fauci (a true tale of moral horror), who now serves as secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Donald Trump’s second administration, was publicly derided and discredited as an insane conspiracy theorist throughout Joe Biden’s presidency.

The conduct of governments during the period of history from 2020 to 2023 was so confounding and preposterous that a plethora of bona fide conspiracy theories continued to emerge, reaching a peak with the release of the alleged miracle vaccine, which everyone on the planet was first encouraged (through coaxing and bribery) and then, in some cases, required to line up for, on pain of punishment for failure to comply. Some of the theories were quite creative, asserting, for example, that the shots were introducing microchips into the bodies of the recipients, or would turn them into frogs. But the term antivaxxer was affixed to anyone who declined the shot, whatever their reason, with everyone in that group assimilated and depicted as intellectually inept for defying what were claimed by officials at the time to be the dictates of common sense.

Some people, whether with formal training in science or simply endowed with critical thinking skills, understandably expressed skepticism about the new m-RNA therapy shot which they were told would eradicate the virus, while being simultaneously told that natural immunity was inadequate and that persons who already recovered from the virus would still need to undergo vaccination. Because a vaccine, by definition, exploits the subject’s own immune system, anyone with even a modicum of logical acumen must have understood that the new miracle vaccine, which depended on the immune system itself, would only work as advertised if, in fact, natural immunity was possible. This flagrant contradiction was not recognized or acknowledged as such by inept (or, in some cases, mercenarily corrupt) government officials and public health pundits, but it was the most obvious sign to people yet to be indoctrinated into the COVID cult (or not on the Big Pharma dole) that something was seriously awry.

The “Natural immunity is not possible, but this vaccine is necessary and will save you!” contradiction no doubt inspired some of the ever-mutating and proliferating theories about what was really going on. In Covid-19: The Great Reset, Schwab himself refers to antivaxxers as a dangerous impediment to getting through the crisis, and the term came swiftly to be used to denounce anyone who raised even doubts grounded in logic and science about the wisdom of submitting to an experimental treatment in cases where the person’s chances of death from the virus were quite low, as was true for all healthy young persons, and had already been demonstrated in each particular case of anyone who had recovered from previous infection.

The Pentagon required all service persons to take part in the experimental trial of the mRNA therapy, whether or not they had already recovered from infection. The more than 8,000 troops who refused the shot were discharged without pay in 2021, and the military vaccine mandate was not rescinded until 2023. Since assuming office in 2025, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new defense secretary, has been apologizing to those persons and attempting to make amends, acknowledging that the order to take an experimental vaccine was in fact illegal and that no one was obliged to follow illegal orders. The true motives and sincerity of the new administration on this matter will be seen in how they treat the persons who suffered vaccine injury as a result of having undergone the procedure, under the erroneous belief that Joe Biden’s secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, knew what he was doing when he ordered the entire military corps to follow his über-masked, serially vaccinated and boosted example. If the government extends its offer of compensation only to healthy troops, in an effort to woo them back into service, and ignores the persons who were disabled by the vaccine, or the individuals and families wrecked by being plunged precipitously into penury, then it will be safe to conclude that Hegseth’s apology tour is no more and no less than a measure intended to mitigate the ongoing recruitment crisis.

There seemed to be grounds for hope that the United States had managed to extricate itself from the totalitarian clutches of meta-bureaucrats such as Klaus Schwab and their “Fifty Year Plans” for humanity when Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris (who to this day has pronouns in her profile at X) in the November 2024 presidential election. The new president immediately rescinded all DEI initiatives implemented under Biden and enacted numerous executive orders in an effort to protect women, and restore a modicum of sanity to what had become a surreal situation, by boldly asserting the biological fact that no matter how many body parts a male human being chooses to cut off or modify, every remaining cell in his body will still contain a Y chromosome. Trump also acted swiftly to criminalize the scandalous medical practice of mutilating the genitalia of minors. Both Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, repeatedly pronounced that free speech would always prevail in the United States as a fundamental pillar of democracy, and they vociferously denounced the censorship going on abroad.

Vestiges of the New World Order, however, can be seen in the United States, for example, the requirement that all citizens who wish to travel or enter a federal building be in possession of a Real ID. This measure, too, which begins in May 2025, having been planned long ago, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, bears similarities to some of what was going on during the COVID period, when tracking apps and data collection at borders were nearly ubiquitous. More and more data about citizens continues to be collected by governments, and remnants of the health documentation requirements during the COVID period can be seen in the visas now needed to travel to countries where formerly a passport sufficed. Restriction of movement reached a peak during the COVID period, but the apparatus now exists and with a bit of tweaking could be used to stop anyone, anywhere, from relocating at the caprice of government officials, whoever they may be, and whatever their priorities.

The removal of students from campuses in the United States for daring to speak out against the government’s continuing support of the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza suggests that Trump, like Biden and Harris, supports free speech only so long as it does not threaten his own plans for the country or its satellite state, Israel. The libertarians who voted for Trump were needless to say thrilled when he followed through on his promise to pardon Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road who had received a double life sentence plus forty years with no possibility of parole. In choosing to vote for Trump, however, libertarians had somehow forgotten or chose to ignore the fact that Julian Assange was thrown into Belmarsh prison under Trump’s watch. (I am aware that many persons vote according to a “lesser evil” calculation, but the fact remains: the worst persecution of Assange occurred under Trump.) The fact that U.S. government drones are now acknowledged to be flying above U.S. skies (they were under Biden as well, although this was denied at the time), reveals that surveillance of residents remains a priority of the ostensibly new administration.

Antiwar activists—some of whom voted for Trump—were hopeful that he was sincere when he promised on the campaign trail not to start but to end wars. Even more welcome, albeit frankly astonishing, was Trump’s assertion on February 13, 2025, not long after having re-assumed the presidency, that he would like to cut the $800 billion Pentagon budget in half and work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Pacific hopes were swiftly dashed less than two months later when, immediately after hosting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (for the second time in 2025), Trump announced on April 7, 2025, a new, even bigger, $1 trillion defense budget, accompanied by his customary raving about how splendid the U.S. military will be, thanks to his management.

In a welcome change to citizens concerned about government overreach and the massive federal debt, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the direction of Elon Musk, has been purging programs and canceling contracts relating to DEI and other parts of the Schwab “New Normal” agenda, including regulations intended to promote the Green New Deal and expand government power over citizens’ lives. The era of big government, however, is obviously not behind us. Along with his sudden imposition of extreme tariffs and announcement of a shocking 25% increase in defense spending, Trump’s strange fascination with the future possible annexation of Greenland, Canada, and Gaza, does not bode well for the future of free people. The idea that the leader of one country may simply “buy” another country or a part of another country (in the case of Gaza) reflects the very megalomania intrinsic to supra-national organizations such as the WEF and characters such as Klaus Schwab who attempt to impose their will on the rest of humanity.

Setting all of those substantial concerns aside, at the very least we can take solace in the fact that Klaus Schwab is no longer calling the WEF shots and penning flagrantly sophistic pamphlets replete with non sequiturs and gaslighting guidance masquerading as benevolence. Goodbye and good riddance, Herr Professor Doktor Schwab, we will not miss you. Alas, the WEF continues on (funded by not only a congeries of self-interested global corporations, but also NGOs and, by transitivity, unwitting taxpayers), and the danger it poses thus remains. Self-deluded officials named as global thought leaders will continue to comply with the WEF, as was exemplified by former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who is explicitly singled out for praise in Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Bureaucrats, for their part, will continue to conduct themselves as bureaucrats do, amassing power, devising new rules and regulations, and imposing arbitrary policies by all means necessary, as we witnessed throughout the COVID era. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the recently named interim chairman of the WEF, is a former CEO of Nestlé who famously claimed that people have no right to water. Unbeknownst to many of the millions of people who purchase and imbibe bottled water everyday, much of it derives from government-treated municipal water supplies filtered and then poured into plastic bottles to look as though it was sourced from natural spring wells such as Evian, Perrier, Pellegrino, Gerolsteiner, et al. It is unclear how much power Brabeck-Letmathe will exert, or for how long, but he does happen to look empirically indistinguishable from the super villains depicted in movies, so there is some chance that if he begins spouting out gaslighting prescriptions about how all human beings ought to behave, at least some among us will shudder, turn around and walk away.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

France working to dissolve pro-Palestinian group Urgence Palestine

Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2025

Ahead of the May Day protests in Paris, expected to draw around 15,000 participants, French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau announced on the CNews channel on Wednesday that he has initiated the dissolution of Urgence Palestine.

The Palestine Emergency Collective (Urgence Palestine) is a broad coalition comprising citizens, trade unions, political movements, and associations advocating for Palestinian self-determination.

Retailleau justified the move by claiming it was necessary to “hit the Islamists,” saying that Islamism is a political ideology that seeks to exploit Islam for power, representing a distortion of Islam’s true spiritual teachings.

The French state has a documented history of using group dissolution as a legal tool against Palestine advocacy.

In 2022, the Conseil d’État upheld the ban on Collectif Palestine Vaincra, imposed by then-Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin.

This latest crackdown coincides with mass arrests, prosecutions, and interrogations across France targeting writers, demonstrators, and activists for supporting Palestinian Resistance or condemning the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Interior Ministry accusations, activist testimonies 

Informed by a formal letter from the Interior Ministry, Urgence Palestine now faces a two-week contradictory exchange period as part of the dissolution procedure. The group responded swiftly online.

Activist Omar Al-Soumi from Urgence Palestine said, “At a time when the Palestinian people are facing genocide and famine… the French government wants to dissolve our collective. It’s unbearable. This is the reality of a France that is complicit in genocide.”

Authorities are believed to cite slogans used during demonstrations as justification for the crackdown, framing them as calls for violence or antisemitism.

One incident involved activist Elias d’Imzalène, who received a suspended five-month prison sentence and €10,000 in damages for calling to “lead the intifada in Paris” during a protest at Place de la Nation on September 8.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky should keep his original promise to voters – Moscow

RT | April 30, 2025

Moscow has urged Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to finally fulfill the promises that led to his landslide victory in the 2019 presidential election.

The former actor rose to power pledging to bring peace between Ukraine and Russia, Vassily Nebenzia, Moscow’s envoy to the UN, reminded him.

During a UN Security Council session on Tuesday, which focused on the Ukraine conflict, Nebenzia urged Zelensky to “finally honor the pledge made to Ukrainian voters back in 2019, which is to pursue peace with Russia and respect for the rights of the Russian-speaking population of his country.”

Zelensky defeated the incumbent, President Pyotr Poroshenko, by vowing to ease tensions with ethnic Russian citizens who had rejected the government imposed after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev. However, his initial overtures for dialogue were met with threats of violence from radical nationalists, causing his administration to abandon its compromise agenda.

The Ukrainian leader, who claims presidential power despite the expiration of his term last year, “needs to act in the interests of his country rather than for the benefit of those seeking to use Ukraine purely as a pawn in the geopolitical struggle waged against Russia,” Nebenzia said.

The diplomat emphasized that Moscow’s demands include an end to anti-Russian discrimination. According to Nebenzia, Zelensky has repeatedly demonstrated unreliability while his nation now resorts to terrorist tactics in its military campaign against its neighbor, which are tacitly supported by Western nations.

Nebenzia asserted that Zelensky currently “is concerned solely with saving his own skin and covering up the crimes that he has committed against his own people,” suggesting that these interests necessitate the continuation of hostilities rather than a peaceful resolution.

The diplomat also accused Western nations of misrepresenting Kiev’s position as genuinely seeking a truce while falsely attributing warmongering motives to Moscow.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

On Free Speech, Trump’s as Bad as Biden

By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | April 30, 2025

In September, candidate Donald Trump vowed, “I will bring back free speech in America…I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech, and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.”

Trump was addressing the clear danger that Democrats posed to the First Amendment.

The Republican presidential nominee was talking about the Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, who had once threatened to sic the Justice Department on social media platforms that “profit off hate.” In 2022, her choice for running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, said that “there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” In 2021, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that the government needs to figure out how to “rein in the media environment.” The Biden administration had not only proposed a new federal agency that would regulate citizens’ speech, but was revealed to have pressured private social media companies to censor users’ speech, as revealed by the Twitter Files.

All of these anti-First Amendment actions, among many others, were not at all controversial to Democrats. In their blind hatred for Trump, the party had become one that began to see government censorship and regulation of speech as a positive good in their efforts to defeat or at least contain MAGA. As Hillary Clinton put it one month before the 2024 election, allowing free speech on social media was too dangerous because it means “we lost control.”

Luckily free speech mostly prevailed during that time period, but Clinton was right: The free flow of news and ideas coming from populist social media and alternative podcast worlds would end up helping to defeat Democrats in 2024.

Democracy prevailed, despite Democrats being so eager to suppress it.

Now, President Donald Trump is behaving like these Democrats.

The ACLU’s Allegra Harpootlian writes, “On March 25, [Rümeysa Öztürk] was planning to go to an iftar dinner with friends. Instead, while walking near her apartment, she was approached and then grabbed by a hooded man. Other figures soon closed in, including several wearing face coverings and dark clothing. Finally, one officer flashed a badge…”

Öztürk has not been charged with a crime. By all of the available evidence, she is seemingly being held for being a co-author of an op-ed that was critical of the Israeli’s government’s actions in Gaza.

Öztürk is but one of a number of those in the United States on student visas who have been arrested without charge for criticizing Israel’s government. Secretary of State Marco Rubio now brags that he has revoked over 300 student visas. “It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day,” Rubio said at a press conference in March.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” he said.

You’re a “lunatic” if you criticize Israel’s government?

Rubio continued, “At some point, I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.”

They should be charged with vandalism if they are literally tearing this up. But it was not clear that physical destruction or violence is what Rubio meant.

“We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not become a social activist that tears up our university campuses,” he added. “And if we’ve given you a visa and you decide to do that, we’re going to take it away.”

To note, the Supreme Court decided long ago that anyone in the United States has First Amendment protections, citizen or not.

Rubio would add, “We don’t want it in our country. Go back and do it in your country. But you’re not going to do it in our country.”

The Trump administration framing the suppression of free speech as a matter of non-citizens’ rights vs. those of citizens is a cheap way of ignoring the First Amendment, no different than the Biden administration holding up the supposed threats of “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the name of doing the same.

Republicans and Democrats have created spectres supposedly so threatening to convince enough people that the First Amendment no longer applies.

Bullshit.

Many Republicans right now argue that criticizing Israel’s government is inherently anti-semitic, which is about as ridiculous as arguing that every conservative talk host who criticizes the United States government is anti-American.

And if they genuinely were anti-semitic, that’s still protected by the First Amendment.

“Hate speech” is protected speech. Do Trump Republicans now agree with Biden-Harris Democrats like Tim Walz that there are no First Amendment protections for hate speech?

Apparently they do.

With Trump’s speech precedent, it’s not hard to imagine a future President Harris targeting conservative college students who challenge DEI or trans ideology. Leftists could argue—and do—that speech against minorities or LGBTQ members constitutes violence and therefore, somehow, falls outside of First Amendment protections.

So many of the Republicans who defend the arrest and deportation of those who criticize Israel’s government sound pretty much like identity politics-driven lefties. Their subjects are different but the logic is the same. Safe spaces, all around.

There are other examples of where the Trump administration has reneged on his free speech promises, and now just offers mirror images of Joe Biden’s censorship regime. I’m just focusing on one aspect.

One glimmer of hope is that while Democrats appeared to have reached a consensus over the last decades that censorship is a positive good, there is a loud and growing debate on the right over Trump’s affronts to free speech, with some of the most high profile personalities pushing back.

Still, Donald Trump campaigned vowing to protect the First Amendment. He’s not delivering. Quite the opposite.

He should do what he promised, not just be another Joe Biden.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

European Union To Use Digital Services Act to Crack Down on Online Vaccine “Misinformation”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 28, 2025

The European Union has begun wielding the controversial censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), to intensify its crackdown on what it labels “misinformation” about immunization efforts. Framing the campaign as necessary for safeguarding democracy, the European Commission pointed to the European Democracy Action Plan and a reinforced Code of Conduct on Disinformation as foundational measures. According to the Commission, these initiatives, aligned with the DSA, create a “strong framework” to regulate content across major online platforms and search engines.

Citing a sharp rise in measles cases across Europe, the Commission has drawn renewed attention to immunization programs. A health spokesperson, speaking to Vaccines Today, warned, “The Commission is very concerned by the spike in reported measles cases in Europe – particularly as the number doubled in 2024 compared to 2023.” The spokesperson noted that the institution is actively cooperating with national health authorities and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to manage the outbreaks.

The Commission argues that low vaccination rates, described as “sub-optimal” coverage, are enabling the spread of diseases like measles, which can otherwise be prevented through “safe and efficient vaccination.” Efforts are reportedly underway to support national governments in strengthening immunization programs and ensuring a steady vaccine supply across the EU while cracking down on critical online speech.

Public distrust in health authorities and vaccination campaigns is being framed as the root cause of falling immunization rates. EU officials are quick to blame what they term “misinformation” and “disinformation,” suggesting that any narrative diverging from official positions is inherently dangerous.

The Commission emphasized, “Protecting Europe from the harmful effects of disinformation, information manipulation, and interference is a high priority for the Commission,” making clear its commitment to aggressively policing speech under the guise of public health.

Meanwhile, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU’s diplomatic and intelligence apparatus, has ramped up its monitoring and analysis of information flows. Working hand-in-hand with member states and international organizations, it now targets so-called disinformation across an expanding array of policy areas, raising serious concerns about political overreach.

Alongside its censorship push, the Commission continues to roll out a series of public relations campaigns intended to shepherd citizens toward preferred viewpoints. Initiatives like United in Protection promote vaccination using “reliable, evidence-based information,” though what qualifies as “reliable” is determined solely by authorities. The EU has also created the European Vaccination Information Portal and collaborated with bodies such as the ECDC and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to saturate public discourse with officially approved messages.

Vaccination advocacy has been woven deeply into EU policy frameworks. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and the EU4Health Program are now tied to vaccine promotion, with projects like Overcoming Obstacles to Vaccination aiming to remove barriers to vaccine access, all while dismissing legitimate public hesitations as obstacles to be overcome rather than concerns to be addressed.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

France using the ‘terrorism’ charge to silence criticism of crimes in Gaza: French lawyer

French political scientist Francois Burgat
MEMO | April 29, 2025

French lawyer Rafik Chekkat said today that the charge of “terrorist propaganda” is being used in France to silence those who speak out about crimes committed by Israel in Gaza.

French political scientist Francois Burgat, known for his work on the Arab world, was detained on 9 July 2024, in Aix-en-Provence on charges of “terrorist propaganda.” His arrest followed a complaint by the European Jewish Organisation (OJE) over social media posts he shared in January 2024 about Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

“The two most commonly used charges to silence those who respond to the crimes committed in Gaza are ‘terrorist propaganda’ and ‘incitement to hatred and discrimination,’” said Chekkat, one of Burgat’s lawyers and a member of the Marseille Bar Association.

“Sometimes you are prosecuted under one charge, sometimes the other, and sometimes even both simultaneously,” he added.

Burgat was released the same day he was arrested and appeared before a judge at the Aix-en-Provence Criminal Court last week.

The prosecution has requested an eight-month suspended prison sentence, a €4,000 (about $4,550) fine, and a six-month ban on posting on X.

“Despite being an expert on terrorism-related issues, he is now being prosecuted for ‘terrorist propaganda’,” Chekkat said.

The court is expected to announce the verdict in Burgat’s case on 28 May.

Chekkat argued that Burgat’s case is part of a broader pattern of cracking down on criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The law regarding “terrorist propaganda”, he explained, was originally designed to combat terrorist organisations’ recruitment efforts in online environments but is now “being used to suppress dissenting voices on the issue of Palestine.”

“This is just the visible tip of the oppressive iceberg. That is to say, not only are publicly known figures involved here, but also many lesser-known individuals,” he said.

“Sometimes activists, and sometimes people not affiliated with any group — even ordinary individuals — have been questioned, prosecuted, and some have even been convicted of terrorist propaganda,” he added.

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

Former Biden “Disinfo” Board Chief Urges EU to Resist Criticism on Censorship Laws

In Strasbourg, Jankowicz rewrites the script, casting Washington as the villain in Europe’s censorship push.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 24, 2025

Former head of former President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, has found a new audience for her political and ideological narratives – and it’s EU institutions.

Jankowicz – known by her critics as “Biden’s disinformation czar” (or at least, would have been one, had the Disinformation Governance Board not been so short lived) – this week spoke at a meeting of a European Parliament committee dedicated to EU Commission’s latest censorship initiative, “the European Democracy Shield.”

The meeting was called to discuss risks to democracy, in this case, what the bloc considers to be Russian disinformation campaigns, but Jankowicz focused on the US administration, referring to her country as “another autocracy” that she wants the EU to “stand firm against.”

Jankowicz took the opportunity to warn that the US administration is “undoubtedly preparing a pressure campaign” to make the EU abandon (censorship) rules like the Digital Services Act (DSA). In the same breath, she also claimed that Washington will pressure Brussels to “end support for Ukraine, to stop holding Russia to account.”

Jankowicz had trouble keeping to the theme of the meeting, namely, “Russian hybrid threats,” and kept returning to her anti-Trump agenda, stating that just as Russia, China, Iran, and others are busy with their “interference campaigns” – in the US, “homegrown anti-democratic forces have launched a coordinated campaign to undermine researchers, journalists, advocates and civil servants who work to expose their lies.”

She was also critical of US tech giants accusing them of being complicit in creating “global instability” and again went back to Trump, his administration’s supposed “capture” of major social networks, only to conclude that neither are interested “in preserving democracy.”

Jankowicz singled out US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his decision to shut down the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) Hub, which was a rebrand of the also disbanded Global Engagement Center (GEC), a State Department entity involved in flagging social media posts for censorship.

But to Jankowicz, the steps the current administration has been taking to dismantle the intricate and documented system of online censorship is done merely “under the guise of protecting free speech.”

Jankowicz also told the EP commission that she supported 51 former intelligence officials who penned a letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop story was “disinformation” – a claim that has since been debunked, but at the time, just before the 2020 election, led to widespread censorship of the New York Post article on the subject.

“A valid expression of free speech,” is how Jankowicz views the letter.

April 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »