Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ireland Moves to Legalize Spyware Use by Police

The bill turns state hacking from a covert act into an accepted instrument of law

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | January 23, 2026

Irish police could soon be granted the legal authority to infiltrate phones and encrypted messaging services under new government legislation that would formally approve the use of spyware.

The proposal, contained in the forthcoming Communications (Interception and Lawful Access) Bill, has provoked concern among civil rights groups who say the plan risks eroding basic digital privacy.

Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan has said the new powers are “long overdue,” arguing that they are necessary to deal with organised crime and national security threats that rely on encrypted communications.

The plan would, for the first time, provide An Garda Síochána (the main law enforcement and security agency in the state) with a legal basis for using what the government calls “covert surveillance software” to monitor devices.

This could include collecting information from phones or laptops, recording communications, or interfering with computer networks thought to be used for unlawful purposes.

Officials have indicated that similar powers exist in other countries, though reports suggest the technology under consideration resembles Pegasus, the Israeli-made spyware that was unlawfully used by police to monitor citizens and foreign nationals.

The Department of Justice has said any use of such spyware would be subject to strict judicial authorization.

Under the Bill, investigators could access both the content of communications and the associated “metadata,” which records who contacted whom, when, and from where.

Agencies would also have to declare whether any privileged material, such as communications involving journalists or lawyers, might be affected by their applications.

Officials continue to present the legislation as a practical response to modern crime. Yet this framing ignores what is actually at stake: a quiet authorization for state hacking of private devices.

For years, Ireland has criticized other nations for digital overreach, from the misuse of facial recognition abroad to the abuse of spyware uncovered in Europe.

Now, its own government is preparing to legalize similar tools under the banner of security. The right to communicate privately is one of the last real protections citizens have from constant scrutiny.

If this Bill passes in its current form, that protection could quietly disappear, not through scandal or crisis, but through a line in legislation that makes surveillance a normal feature of everyday life.

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report

The Cradle | January 22, 2026

A multi-year investigation by Citizen Lab has found that Jordanian security agencies used Israeli-made Cellebrite phone-extraction technology to pull data from civil society activists and journalists without consent, according to a report published on 22 January.

The researchers said they forensically analyzed four seized-and-returned phones and reviewed three court records tied to prosecutions under Jordan’s 2023 Cybercrime Law, with cases spanning late-2023 to mid-2025 during protests in support of Palestinians in Gaza.

Citizen Lab said it identified iOS and Android “Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)” that it attributes “with high confidence” to Cellebrite’s forensic extraction products, describing the work as evidence that authorities extracted data after detentions, arrests, and interrogations by the General Intelligence Department (GID) and the Cybercrime Unit.

In one case, Citizen Lab said a student organizer refused to provide a passcode, and officers “unlocked it using Apple’s biometric face ID by holding it up to the activist’s face,” later returning the device with “their device’s passcode written on a piece of tape stuck to the back of their phone.”

The report ties the practice to Jordan’s tightening online repression, noting that the 2023 law expanded punishments and has been widely used against activists.

In a post on X dated 12 March 2025, Jordan’s Interior Minister Mazin al-Farrayeh wrote, “The most common cases handled daily [by the Cybercrime Unit] involve hate speech and inciting division and strife on social media … penalties can reach up to three years in prison, a fine of 20,000 dinars [approximately 28,200 USD], or both.”

Citizen Lab report characterizes Cellebrite as a recurring enabler in global rights abuses, arguing that its tools, when handed to opaque security services, become a turnkey mechanism for sweeping, invasive fishing expeditions across private life.

After Citizen Lab and OCCRP wrote to Cellebrite on 29 December 2025 and followed up on 15 January 2026, the company’s PR firm replied with a generic defense, saying “Ethical and lawful use of our technology is paramount … As a matter of policy, we do not comment on specifics.”

Citizen Lab noted that the response “does not deny any of our findings,” and concluded that the Jordanian use of it documented “likely violates international human rights law.”

Alaa al-Fazza, writing for The Cradle, has described Jordan’s 2023 cybercrime law as a sharp turn toward authoritarianism, arguing it uses vague security claims to criminalize dissent, expand censorship powers, and suppress activists as public opposition to normalization with Israel grows.

In a July 2025 report, Middle East Eye reported that Jordan’s General Intelligence Department launched its largest arrest campaign since 1989 by detaining and interrogating hundreds over pro-Palestine activism and Gaza solidarity. The detainees were held without charge amid claims the crackdown was driven by pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Amid the widening crackdown on dissent and pro-Palestine voices, Al Mayadeen reported in December that one of their journalists, Mohammed Faraj, was arbitrarily detained upon arrival in Amman and held for over a week without charge, disclosure of his whereabouts, or official clarification from Jordanian authorities.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Australia Passes New Hate Speech Law, Raising Free Speech Fears

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

Australia’s federal Parliament has enacted a broad new legal package targeting hate, antisemitism, and extremism, passing the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 with strong majorities in both chambers.

The bill has several implications regarding free speech.

The House of Representatives approved it 116 Ayes to 7 Noes, and the Senate passed it 38 Ayes to 22 Noes, sending it into law after an expedited process in response to rising public concern about hate-motivated violence.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The government framed the legislation as part of its response to the deadly December terror attack at Bondi Beach that left 15 people dead and focused debate on enhancing public safety and national unity.

Attorney General Michelle Rowland and other ministers repeatedly described the new framework as needed to strengthen legal tools against violent hate and extremism.

In earlier official statements, Rowland said of the proposal: “Once these laws are passed, they will be the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

Under this new law, a range of conduct tied to hatred or perceived threat can trigger criminal liability, including organizing, supporting, or being involved with groups that authorities designate as engaging in hate-based conduct.

A new framework allows the Australian Federal Police Minister to recommend that such groups be listed as “prohibited hate groups.” Being a member of such a group, recruiting, training, or financially supporting it are offenses with penalties that can extend up to 15 years in prison.

The Bill grants the executive branch power to designate organizations as prohibited hate groups through regulation. This decision is made by the AFP Minister, based on reasonable satisfaction, with advice from intelligence agencies.

Crucially, the legislation explicitly removes any requirement for procedural fairness in this process.

An organization may be listed even if:

  • No criminal conviction has occurred
  • The relevant conduct occurred before the law existed
  • The organization is based outside Australia
  • The evidence relied upon is classified and undisclosed

Once an organization is listed, the consequences are severe. Membership, recruitment, training, funding, or providing support becomes a serious criminal offense carrying lengthy prison terms.

The criminal provisions for hate conduct are built around whether specific public behavior would cause a reasonable person in the target group “to feel intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

This standard can apply even where there is no evidence that anyone actually experienced fear or harm. The definition is tied to subjective perceptions of risk, rather than solely observable incitement to violence.

The Bill expands the “reasonable person” test used in hate-related offenses. Speech may now be criminal if a so-called reasonable person in the targeted group would consider it offensive, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating. Violence or threats of violence are not required.

This standard introduces subjectivity into criminal law. Political speech on immigration, religion, nationalism, or identity frequently causes offense or humiliation to some audiences.

Under this framework, harsh criticism, protest slogans, or satire could attract criminal liability based on emotional impact rather than demonstrable harm.

A democratic society depends on the ability to offend, challenge, and provoke. Criminalizing offense risks sanitizing public debate into only what is officially acceptable.

The legislation also expands the existing ban on “prohibited hate symbols,” creating criminal offenses for displays of banned symbols unless justified on narrow grounds such as religious, academic, journalistic, or artistic use.

While proponents argue this targets conduct that fuels hatred, similar symbolic bans in other jurisdictions such as Germany have often ensnared educational or historical contexts.

The Bill also significantly alters existing offenses relating to prohibited symbols. Previously, exemptions for religious, academic, artistic, or journalistic purposes operated as clear carve-outs. Under the new framework, the defendant bears the evidential burden of proving that their conduct was for a protected purpose and was not contrary to the public interest.

This reversal matters. The presumption shifts from lawful expression to presumed criminality unless the speaker can justify themselves after the fact.

Journalists must demonstrate that they were acting in a professional capacity and that their reporting met an undefined public-interest standard. Artists, educators, and researchers face similar uncertainty.

Such burden-shifting mechanisms are well known to chill speech, particularly in investigative journalism and political commentary where legal certainty is essential.

Migration rules have been significantly altered. The law amplifies the Home Affairs Minister’s powers to refuse entry or cancel visas for non-citizens judged to be associated with extremist groups or hate conduct.

Free speech defenders have warned that the combination of low subjective thresholds and expanded administrative powers creates risks that lawful expression, dissenting views, or controversial speech could be swept into criminal or immigration sanctions.

They argue that this effect stems from how the law equates emotional or perceived intimidation with actionable hate, a departure from frameworks where provable harm or incitement to violence is required.

Taken together, these provisions produce a powerful chilling effect across political communication, journalism, academic inquiry, religious teaching, and civil association.

The cumulative structure of the Bill incentivizes silence, conformity, and disengagement from controversial debate. In a country that relies on an implied, rather than explicit, freedom of political communication, this legislation tests the outer limits of democratic tolerance.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Miami Beach Resident Questioned by Police After Facebook Post Criticizing Mayor Steven Meiner

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

A confrontation over a Facebook comment has drawn attention after two Miami Beach police detectives appeared at a resident’s home to question her about remarks critical of Mayor Steven Meiner.

Raquel Pacheco, who once ran for the Florida Senate as a Democrat and has been openly critical of Meiner, posted a comment on one of his social media updates alleging that the mayor “consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way…”

Shortly afterward, officers arrived at her residence. In a video she recorded, one detective cautioned her that such a statement “could potentially incite somebody to do something radical.”

Police later clarified that the exchange was not tied to any criminal probe, but the encounter has raised concerns about policing free expression.

In a letter addressed to Police Chief Wayne Jones, FIRE described the officers’ actions as “an egregious abuse of power” that “chills the exercise of First Amendment rights and undermines public confidence in the department’s commitment to respecting civil liberties and the United States Constitution.”

Aaron Terr, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s director of public advocacy, accused the department of using its authority to discourage lawful speech.

“The purpose of their visit was not to investigate a crime. It had no purpose other than to pressure Pacheco to cease engaging in protected political expression over concern about how others might react to it,” Terr wrote. “This blatant overreach is offensive to the First Amendment.”

FIRE’s letter urged the department to acknowledge publicly that Pacheco’s post is constitutionally protected and to ensure that “officers will never initiate contact with individuals for the purpose of discouraging lawful expression.”

The organization also asked for copies of departmental rules and training materials dealing with police responses to protected expression, adding that the resident’s statement does not fit the legal definition of a “true threat.”

Chief Jones, in a written response, maintained that the detectives acted appropriately and on his directive alone. “At no time did the Mayor or any other official direct me to take action,” he said, adding that his department “is committed to safeguarding residents and visitors while also respecting constitutional rights.”

A police spokesperson confirmed that Meiner’s office had flagged the Facebook comment for review but declined to provide further details.

Requests for additional records, including internal communications between the mayor’s office and the police, remain pending.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s AI Policing Plan Turns Toward Predictive Surveillance and a Pre-Crime Future

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

Let me take you on a tour of Britain’s future. It’s 2030, there are more surveillance cameras than people, your toaster is reporting your breakfast habits to the Home Office, and police officers are no longer investigating crimes so much as predicting them.

This is Pre-Crime UK, where the weight of the law is used against innocent people that an algorithm suspects may be about to commit a crime.

With a proposal that would make Orwell blush, the British police are testing a hundred new AI systems to figure out which ones can best guess who’s going to commit a crime.

That’s right: guess. Not catch, not prove. Guess. Based on data, assumptions, and probably your internet search history from 2011.

Behind this algorithmic escapade is Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has apparently spent the last few years reading prison blueprints and dystopian fiction, not as a warning about authoritarian surveillance, but as aspiration.

In a jaw-dropping interview with former Prime Minister and Digital ID peddler Tony Blair, she said, with her whole chest: “When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.”

Now, for those not fluent in 18th-century authoritarian architecture, the Panopticon is a prison design where a single guard can watch every inmate, but the inmates never know when they’re being watched. It’s not so much “law and order” as it is “paranoia with plumbing.”

Enter Andy Marsh, the head of the College of Policing and the man now pitching Britain’s very own Minority Report.

According to the Telegraph, he’s proposing a new system that uses predictive analytics to identify and target the top 1,000 most dangerous men in the country. They’re calling it the “V1000 Plan,” which sounds less like a policing strategy and more like a discontinued vacuum cleaner.

“We know the data and case histories tell us that, unfortunately, it’s far from uncommon for these individuals to move from one female victim to another,” said Sir Andy, with the tone of a man about to launch an app.

“So what we want to do is use these predictive tools to take the battle to those individuals… the police are coming after them, and we’re going to lock them up.”

I mean, sure, great headline. Go after predators. But once you start using data models to tell you who might commit a crime, you’re not fighting criminals anymore. You’re fighting probability.

The government, always eager to blow millions on a glorified spreadsheet, is chucking £4 million ($5.39M) at a project to build an “interactive AI-driven map” that will pinpoint where crime might happen. Not where it has happened. Where it might.

It will reportedly predict knife crimes and spot antisocial behavior before it kicks off.

But don’t worry, says the government. This isn’t about watching everyone.

A “source” clarified: “This doesn’t mean watching people who are non-criminals—but she [Mahmood] feels like, if you commit a crime, you sacrifice the right to the kind of liberty the rest of us enjoy.”

That’s not very comforting coming from a government that locks people up over tweets.

Meanwhile, over in Manchester, they’re trying out “AI assistants” for officers dealing with domestic violence.

These robo-cop co-pilots can tell officers what to say, how to file reports, and whether or not to pursue an order. It’s less “serve and protect” and more “ask Jeeves.”

“If you were to spend 24 hours on the shoulder of a sergeant currently, you would be disappointed at the amount of time that the sergeant spends checking and not patrolling, leading and protecting.”

That’s probably true. But is the solution really to strap Siri to their epaulettes and hope for the best?

Still, Mahmood remains upbeat: “AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces,” she told MPs, before adding that it needs to be accurate.

Tell that to Shaun Thompson, not a criminal but an anti-knife crime campaigner, who found himself on the receiving end of the Metropolitan Police’s all-seeing robo-eye. One minute, he’s walking near London Bridge, probably thinking about lunch or how to fix society, and the next minute he’s being yanked aside because the police’s shiny new facial recognition system decided he looked like a wanted man.

He wasn’t. He had done nothing wrong. But the system said otherwise, so naturally, the officers followed orders from their algorithm overlord and detained him.

Thompson was only released after proving who he was, presumably with some documents and a great deal of disbelief. Later, he summed it up perfectly: he was treated as “guilty until proven innocent.”

Mahmood’s upcoming white paper will apparently include guidelines for AI usage. I’m sure all those future wrongful arrests will be much more palatable when they come with a printed PDF.

Here’s the actual problem. Once you normalize the idea that police can monitor everyone, predict crimes, and act preemptively, there’s no clean way back. You’ve turned suspicion into policy. You’ve built a justice system on guesswork. And no amount of shiny dashboards or facial recognition cameras is going to fix the rot at the core.

This isn’t about catching criminals. It’s about control. About making everyone feel watched. That was the true intention of the panopticon. And that isn’t safety; it’s turning the country into one big prison.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Ukraine aid critic quits as president of EU country

Bulgaria’s Rumen Radev, a critic of the bloc’s policies, has cited ‘oligarchy’ undermining the country’s democracy

RT | January 20, 2026

Bulgarian President Rumen Radev has announced his resignation, saying the political class has “betrayed” voters, citing “oligarchy” and fueling speculation that he is poised to create his own party ahead of snap parliamentary elections.

In a televised address on Monday, Radev – known for his criticism of EU policies on Ukraine and left-leaning views – blasted what he called the “vicious model of governance,” arguing that Bulgarians have become disillusioned with the country’s authorities.

Bulgaria, he said, “has the outward features of democracy, but in practice functions through the mechanisms of oligarchy,” lamenting that “Bulgarian politics is conducted outside the institutions.”

Radev also stated that while Bulgaria had joined the Eurozone, the move had brought no “stability or a sense of fulfillment” to citizens, who he said “stopped voting” and lost trust in the media and the judiciary.

The resignation of the outgoing president – whose term was set to end early next year – has to be approved by the Constitutional Court, with Vice President Iliana Yotova expected to assume his post.

Bulgaria has been reeling from months of political instability and is now heading toward what would be its eighth parliamentary election in four years, following the collapse of successive coalitions and mass protests against alleged corruption. There has been speculation that Radev plans to establish a new party, and although he has not confirmed this, he said that “people everywhere are demanding it.”

Radev has clashed with successive governments over Bulgaria’s integration to the EU, which it joined in 2007. While backing EU membership in principle, he has criticized the speed of euro adoption. Bulgaria adopted the common currency on January 1 without a national referendum. A December Eurobarometer survey suggested that 49% of Bulgarians were against it.

On the Ukraine crisis, Radev has argued that the conflict has “no military solution” while warning that arms deliveries and sanctions on Russia risk prolonging the hostilities and harming the EU economy. He has also opposed Ukraine’s push to join NATO.

Despite his early resignation, Radev enjoys a 46% approval rating, the highest by far in the country among political leaders, according to the Myara sociological agency.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

New study shows that toxic gas can form in cows’ stomach when being fed Bovaer with certain feed

By Peter Imanuelsen | The Freedom Corner | January 19, 2026

There have been many reports lately of cows suddenly collapsing and becoming sick after being fed with Bovaer.

This caused the largest dairy producer in neighbouring Norway to pause the use of Bovaer.

Farmers have been in despair as their herd has been suffering after Denmark introduced new laws mandating methane reducing feed to cows to reduce climate emissions.

Now there is a new study from Denmark showing some very interesting and disturbing findings.

You can say that perhaps the ”conspiracy theorists” were right once again. I was one of the first to warn about Bovaer years ago.

After the reports of collapsing cows, SEGES innovation, a Danish agricultural research organization has conducted investigations into Bovaer and what they found is very alarming. You probably won’t read about this on the mainstream media, so I will share it with you here.

SEGES put out an online questionnaire where farmers could report problems with Bovaer.

Responses came in from around 39% of all milk supplying herds in Denmark. Shockingly, 434 out of 644 herds were reported to have REDUCED milk yield. That is a whopping 67.4% that had reduced milk yields.

This suggests that there is impaired rumen function in the cows.

410 herds reported digestive and metabolic disorders, including poisoning symptoms and fever.

According to SEGES innovation, giving Bovaer in combination with a feed that is high in sulfur, often from rapeseed products, was linked to increased reports of feeding and metabolic disorders in cows.

Bovaer inhibits methane production, that is in fact the whole point of Bovaer. But this increases the availability of hydrogen in the stomach of the cow. If the cow then has lots of sulfur from the feed containing rapeseed, this can cause hydrogen sulfide to form.

Hydrogen sulfide is a TOXIC gas and is dangerous for humans and animals.

This is what happens when you try and mess with what God created. The cows are getting unintended side effects because someone thought it was a good idea to remove the methane that is naturally produced in the cows’ stomach.

This reaction and creation of this toxic gas in the cows stomach is now being described as a possible explanation as to why cows are becoming sick after eating Bovaer.

SEGES is therefore recommending a pause in the use of Bovaer until autumn 2026 for cows eating feed with large portions of rapeseed, pending experiments being done at Aarhus university.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Europe Economic Panic

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 18, 2026

When a prime minister advises his staff to rest because the coming year will be much more difficult, it is neither black humor nor fatigue. It is a moment of sincerity, the kind that only emerges when internal projections no longer support the public narrative.

Giorgia Meloni was not addressing the electorate. She was addressing the machinery of the state itself, the administrative core charged with implementing decisions whose effects can no longer be hidden. Her observation was not about a normal increase in workload. She was talking about constraints, about limits being reached, about a Europe that has moved from crisis response to a phase of controlled contraction, fully aware that 2026 is the year when deferred costs will eventually converge.

What has leaked out is what European ruling circles have already understood: the Western strategy in Ukraine has run up against material limits. Not with Russian messages, not with disinformation, not with populist dissent, but with steel, ammunition, energy, manpower, and time. Once these realities assert themselves, political legitimacy begins to erode.

The EU cannot sustain this war economically. Europe can strike poses of readiness. It cannot manufacture war.

After years of high-intensity conflict, both the US and Europe are rediscovering a long-forgotten truth: wars of this nature cannot be sustained with speeches, sanctions, or the abandonment of diplomacy. They require bullets, missiles, trained personnel, maintenance cycles, and industrial production that consistently exceeds battlefield losses. None of this exists, not in sufficient quantities, and it is not feasible in the timeframe preached in Brussels.

Russia is producing artillery ammunition in quantities that Western officials now openly admit exceed NATO’s total production. Its industrial base has shifted to near-continuous wartime production, with centralized procurement, streamlined logistics, and state-led manufacturing, without even total mobilization. Estimates place Russian production at several million artillery shells per year, already delivered, not just projected.

Europe, meanwhile, spent 2025 congratulating itself on targets it is structurally incapable of achieving. The EU’s stated commitment of two million shells per year depends on facilities, contracts, and labor that will not be available by the decisive period of the war, if ever. Even if achieved, the figure would still be less than Russian production. The US, despite emergency expansion, expects about one million shells per year once full ramp-up is complete, and only if that happens. Even on paper, combined Western production struggles to match what Russia is already producing in practice. The imbalance is clear.

This is not just a deficit, but a misalignment of timing. Russia is producing now. Europe is planning for the future. And time is the only factor immune to sanctions.

Washington, in fact, cannot indefinitely compensate for Europe’s eroded capacity because it faces its own industrial difficulties. Patriot interceptor production remains in the order of a few hundred per year, while demand simultaneously concerns Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the replenishment of US stocks: an imbalance that, as Pentagon officials admit, cannot be resolved quickly. Shipbuilding tells a similar story: submarines and surface ships are years behind schedule due to labor shortages, aging infrastructure, and skyrocketing costs, pushing significant expansion toward 2030. The assumption that America can indefinitely support Europe is no longer in line with reality. This is a systemic Western problem.

Unfounded war rhetoric

European leaders talk about a “state of war” as if it were a rhetorical position, but in reality, it is an industrial condition that Europe does not meet.

New artillery lines take years to reach stable production. Air defense interceptors are produced in long, batch-based cycles, not in sudden spikes. Even basic components such as explosives remain a critical issue, with plants that closed decades ago only now reopening and some not expected to reach full capacity until the late 2020s. This timeline is in itself an admission.

Europe’s weakness is not intellectual, but institutional: huge sums have been authorized, but procurement inertia, fragmented contracts, and a depleted supplier base have meant that deliveries are years behind schedule. France, often described as Europe’s most capable arms manufacturer, is capable of building advanced systems, but only in limited quantities, counted in dozens, while a war of attrition requires thousands. EU ammunition initiatives have expanded capacity on paper, while the front has exhausted ammunition in a matter of weeks.

These are not ideological shortcomings, but administrative and industrial failures, which are exacerbated in stressful situations. It is yet another example of the failure of European Community policy, so much so that the structural contrast is stark. Western industry has been optimized for shareholder returns and peacetime efficiency, while Russian industry has been reoriented to withstand pressure. NATO announces aid packages. Russia counts deliveries. You can already guess what the outcome of this situation will be, right?

This industrial reality explains why the debate on asset freezing was so important and why it failed. Europe did not pursue the seizure of Russian sovereign assets out of legal ingenuity or moral determination, but because it needed time: time to avoid admitting that the war was unsustainable in Western industrial terms, time to replace production with financial maneuvers.

When the effort to confiscate some €210 billion in Russian assets failed on December 20, blocked by legal risks, market repercussions, and opposition led by Belgium, with Italy, Malta, Slovakia, and Hungary opposing total confiscation, the Brussels technocracy settled for a reduced alternative: a €90 billion loan to Ukraine for 2026-27, with interest payments of around €3 billion per year. This further mortgages Europe’s future. This is not a strategy, but emergency triage. A collapsing political hospital. Pure panic.

Narrative, crisis, disaster

The deeper reality is that Ukraine is no longer primarily a military dilemma, it is a question of solvency. Washington recognizes this, because it cannot absorb the reputational discomfort, but they cannot take on unlimited responsibility forever. A way out is being explored, discreetly, inconsistently, and shrouded in rhetorical cover.

Europe cannot admit the same necessity, because it has ultimately adopted ‘Putin’s version’, i.e. it has framed the war as existential, civilising, moral – but do you remember when European politicians enjoyed calling Putin crazy for talking about a clash of civilisations?

Compromise has become appeasement, negotiation surrender. In doing so, Europe has eliminated its own escape routes. Well done, ladies and gentlemen!

On the narrative front, greetings to all. The aggressive enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act has less to do with security than with containment: building an information perimeter around a consensus that cannot survive open scrutiny. Translated: censorship as a solution. The truth of the matter must not be made known, and those who try to do so must be suppressed in an exemplary manner. This also explains why regulatory pressure now extends beyond European borders, generating transatlantic friction over freedom of expression and jurisdiction. Confident systems welcome debate. Fragile ones suppress it. In this case, censorship is not ideology, but a form of insurance.

The information crisis, rest assured, will very soon become… a social crisis ready to detonate into domestic conflict.

And the crisis is also one of resources and energy. We are witnessing the securitization of decline, whereby obligations are postponed while the productive base needed to sustain them continues to shrink. It’s a cat chasing its tail. Here too, you know how it will end, don’t you?

Europe has not only sanctioned Russia. It has sanctioned itself. European industry will continue to pay energy prices well above those of its competitors in the United States or Russia throughout 2026. Take a trip around Europe, read the headlines in local newspapers, look at people’s faces: the fabric of small and medium-sized enterprises, the true beating heart of entire EU countries, is quietly disappearing. And this is logically reflected in large companies too. This is why Europe cannot increase its production of ammunition and why rearmament remains an aspiration rather than a concrete operation.

Energy, we said. Low-cost energy was not a convenience, it was essential. If it is eliminated through self-inflicted damage, the entire structure is emptied. Even the most ambitious plans preached for years, such as the IMEC corridor, are still a mirage. There is a stampede towards Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to try to scrape together a few kilowatts. A ridiculous attempt to save what is now tragically unsalvageable.

China, observing all this, represents the other half of Europe’s strategic nightmare. It controls the world’s deepest manufacturing base without having entered into a position of war. Russia does not need China’s full capacity, only its strategic depth in reserve. Europe has neither.

A frightening 2026

2026 therefore looks set to be a terrible year, I’m sorry to say. The European elites find themselves losing control on three fronts at once. On finance, because the budget will be bitter and the money for the insane support to Kiev will no longer be the same. On narrative, because the question citizens will ask themselves will be ‘what was the point of all this?’. On the cohesion of the Alliance, both NATO and the EU, because Washington’s disengagement will force a review of the balance of power on the European continent to the point of no return and, perhaps, a break between the two sides divided by the ocean.

Panic, again. Not a sudden defeat, but the slow erosion of legitimacy as reality creeps in through gas that costs as much as gold, closed plants, empty stockpiles, obsolete rifles, and a future that is turning away.

This is not just a difficult situation for Europe, but a matter of civilization. A system incapable of producing, supplying, speaking honestly, or retreating without collapsing in credibility has reached its limit. When leaders begin to prepare their institutions for worse years, they are not anticipating inconveniences, but recognizing structural failure.

Empires proclaim victory loudly. Declining systems quietly lower expectations or, in this case, momentarily say the quiet part out loud. But the truth is that nothing is the same as before, and it is obvious.

For most Europeans, the reckoning will not come as an abstract debate about strategy or supply chains, but as a simple realization: this was never a war they consented to. It did not defend their homes, their prosperity, or their future. And so, again, how do you think it will end?

An ideological war has been fought in the name of imperial ambition and financed through declining living standards, industrial decline, and the prospects of their children. In the name of big pro-European capital, of the privileged few with robes, stars, and crowns.

For months, even years, it was said that “there was no alternative” and that this was the only course of action. And now?

Europeans are tired. They want peace, stability, and the quiet dignity of prosperity: affordable energy, a functioning industry, and a future unencumbered by conflicts they NEVER chose and, above all, they do not want the decline of millennia-old civilizations.

And when this awareness has taken hold, when the fear has faded and the spell has been broken, the question Europeans will ask themselves will not be technical or ideological. It will be existential. And all existential questions lead to radical choices, even terrible ones.

May this dramatic fear keep the mad leaders of this Europe awake at night.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

The War On Free Speech In Australia Is Getting Cartoonishly Absurd

By Caitlin Johnstone | January 17, 2026

A mentally disabled Australian woman is being prosecuted for antisemitic hate crimes after accidentally pocket-dialing a Jewish nutritionist, resulting in a blank voicemail which caused the nutritionist “immediate fear and nervousness” because she thought some of the background noises in the recording sounded a bit like gunshots.

We’re being told we need more of this. There’s “hate speech” legislation presently in the works to make this worse. Australia’s controversial Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill appears to be explicitly crafted to dramatically increase the scale, frequency and consequences of the exact sort of dynamics we’re seeing in this case, and to eradicate opposition to Israel throughout the nation.

This is how overextended Australia’s freakout over “antisemitism” already is. You can literally just be sitting there not saying or doing anything and still find yourself getting arrested and prosecuted for an antisemitic hate crime. They have the authority to do this presently, under the laws that already exist. The argument for this bill is that our present horrifyingly tyrannical and abusive system is insufficiently authoritarian and tyrannical, and that prosecutors need more power to police speech far more forcefully.

Australians are being asked to trust a system that would take a woman with an intellectual disability to prosecution in a court of law over an accidental butt-dial to a person of Jewish faith with the authority to send people to prison for years over their political speech. And this is happening after we just spent years watching Australian authorities roll out authoritarian measures to stomp out criticism of Israel and quash protests against an active genocide.

This is madness, and it needs to be brought to a screeching halt. Immediately. This entire country has lost its damn mind.

The Bondi attack isn’t the reason, it’s the excuse. All these laws being rolled out to stomp out criticism of Israel in Australia were sought for years before the shooting occurred.

Immediately after the attack last month I tweeted, “Not a lot of info about the Bondi shooting yet but it’s safe to assume it will be used as an excuse to target pro-Palestine activists and further outlaw criticism of Israel in Australia, as has been happening to a greater and greater extent in this country for the last two years.”

They could have proved me wrong, but instead they’ve spent this entire time proving me one hundred percent correct. The frenzied efforts to crush anti-genocide protests and silence speech that is critical of Israel and Zionism in these subsequent weeks has plainly established this.

There is no connection between pro-Palestine demonstrations and the Bondi attack. None. It had nothing to do with Palestinians, and it had nothing to do with anti-genocide demonstrations. It’s a completely made-up claim that Israel’s supporters have been circulating in Australian consciousness through sheer repetition. They’re just pretending to believe it’s true in order to promote the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Israel’s supporters need to use propaganda, deception, censorship and oppression to promote their agendas, because it’s all they have. They don’t have truth. They don’t have arguments. They don’t have morality. All they have is brute force. They are shoving support for Israel and its atrocities down our throats whether we like it or not, and if we refuse what we’re being force-fed they will punish us. That’s the only tool in their toolbox.

This needs to be ferociously opposed. The more Israel and its supporters work to assault our right to oppose their abuses, the more aggressively we need to oppose them. We are no longer fighting against war and genocide in the middle east, we are fighting against an assault on our own civil rights. It’s personal now. They’re coming for us directly.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

South Korean court sentences former president Yoon to five years in prison over martial law bid

Press TV – January 16, 2026

A South Korean court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison in the first of several trials stemming from his short-lived declaration of martial law in December 2024.

On Friday, the Seoul Central District Court handed down a five-year term after finding Yoon guilty of obstructing justice, including ordering Presidential Security Service agents to block authorities from arresting him following his impeachment, as well as fabricating official documents and bypassing required legal procedures for imposing martial law, such as convening a full cabinet meeting.

Judge Baek Dae-hyun stated that Yoon had abused his authority and showed no remorse, repeating only “hard-to-comprehend excuses.”

The judge emphasized that Yoon, despite his supreme duty to uphold the Constitution and rule of law as president, had instead disregarded them, causing grave damage to the legal system. The ruling described his culpability as “extremely grave.”

Yoon, a former prosecutor and legal expert who maintains his innocence and insists his actions were within presidential constitutional authority, has seven days to file an appeal.

His supporters, gathered outside the courthouse, fell silent upon hearing the verdict before erupting into chants of “Yoon again!”

Yoon’s legal team criticized the decision as politicized, arguing it blurs the line between legitimate exercise of presidential powers in a crisis and criminal liability.

One lawyer warned that if upheld, the ruling would prevent future presidents from acting decisively in emergencies.

This verdict is the first in a series of eight criminal trials facing the ex-president. His brief martial law decree on December 3, 2024, sparked massive protests, a parliamentary standoff, his eventual impeachment, removal from office, and arrest.

In a separate, more serious case, prosecutors have demanded the death penalty for Yoon as the alleged “ringleader of an insurrection” related to the martial law attempt, citing his lack of remorse and the severe threat posed to democratic rule. That ruling is scheduled for February 19.

Legal experts consider an actual execution highly unlikely, as South Korea has maintained an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment since 1997, with no executions carried out in nearly three decades.

In another related case, Yoon faces charges of ordering drone flights over North Korea to deliberately heighten tensions and create a pretext for declaring martial law on December 3, 2024.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

Scott Ritter says he was ‘de-banked’

RT | January 15, 2026

Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, RT contributor and critic of American foreign policy, has said he has been “de-banked” and that US federal authorities are likely behind his bank’s decision.

Ritter served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. He opposed the 2003 US invasion, arguing that Saddam Hussein’s government did not possess weapons of mass destruction, contrary to Washington’s now-debunked claims. He later became an independent journalist and political commentator and has cooperated with international media, including RT.

On Thursday, Ritter wrote on his website that “today my banking institution of 26 years, Citizens Bank, declared that they were ending their banking relationship with me.”

“My accounts were zeroed out without explanation,” he added.

Ritter said the move may have been a unilateral de-risking decision by Citizens Bank, but that it “does not preclude federal involvement.”

He noted that the “Northern District of New York empaneled a Grand Jury targeting me back in August 2024,” on suspicion of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He believes federal authorities had obtained all his banking information through Grand Jury subpoenas.

“What I am beginning to suspect is that someone in the FBI, fully armed with the totality of my banking transactions… “tipped off” Citizen’s Bank about “suspicious activity” that resulted in Citizen’s Bank issuing a SAR [Suspicious Activity Report],” Ritter wrote.

Ritter said donations he received and subsequent cash withdrawals before his three trips to Russia in 2025 may have triggered the move. He added that he had carried $10,000 in cash each trip because Russia is “disconnected from the Western digital economy.”

According to Ritter, the “purpose of “de-banking” is to harass a targeted individual,” even in the absence of evidence pointing to any criminal activity.

In June 2024, Ritter’s passport was seized by the US government when he attempted to board a flight to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Several months later, FBI agents searched Ritter’s home, which he described as an “act of intimidation” for his journalistic work. Ritter said the agents accused him of working “on behalf of the Russian government,” an allegation he has denied.

January 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive

Australia’s hate law rewrites justice into a guessing game where imagined offense can cost you five years of your life

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 13, 2026

On January 12, Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stepped to the podium and announced what she called “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

The government plans to push its Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 through Parliament on January 20, turning Australia’s speech laws into something that reads more like a psychological test than a criminal code.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here (and the memorandum here.)

The same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was praising Iranians “standing up for their human rights,” his government was preparing to criminalize speech at home even when no one’s rights or feelings had actually been touched.

The bill’s centerpiece is a new racial vilification offense. It bans “publicly promoting or inciting hatred” based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, with penalties of up to five years in prison.

The measure’s core novelty is what it removes: proof of harm.

It’s “immaterial,” the draft says, whether “the conduct actually results in hatred” or whether anyone “actually” feels intimidated or fears harassment.

The courts will instead consider what a hypothetical “reasonable” member of the targeted group would feel, even if no such person exists in the case.

Prosecutors, the explanatory note clarifies, “would not be required to prove” any real fear at all.

The message: you can go to prison for causing theoretical discomfort in a theoretical person.

Rowland’s bill doesn’t stop at the town square or the street corner. It explicitly defines a “public place” to include any form of electronic communication, including social media, blogs, livestreams, recordings, and content posted from private property if the public can see it.

In other words, the living room webcam and the backyard podcast are now public arenas. A joke, a meme, or an overheard rant could be weighed for its impact on an imaginary “reasonable person” who never existed.

That five-year penalty isn’t for causing harm; it’s for crossing a line no one can quite locate.

The one solid shield in this maze of liability is religion. The offense “does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

Everyone else is left to improvise a defense under the general “good faith” clauses.

The memorandum calls this exemption “peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant,” which is legalese for: you better prove your sermon was holy enough.

The government has built a speech hierarchy, placing priests and imams on the top shelf and comedians and columnists in the discount bin.

The Combatting Hate bill reads like the product of a government that wants to be applauded for standing up to bigotry but can’t resist the lure of control.

It recasts expression as a form of potential violence, with guilt determined not by actions or consequences but by how a hypothetical observer might feel.

The Combatting Hate bill takes the already broad category of “prohibited hate symbols” and turns it into a legal booby trap.

Under the amendments, anyone accused of displaying one must now prove their own innocence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty would now be reversed.

The government boasts that the law “removes the current requirement…for the prosecution to disprove the existence of a legitimate purpose” and instead “reverses the burden of proof to require the defendant to provide evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility of the existence of a legitimate purpose for display.”

In plain language, the accused must demonstrate that they had a permitted purpose, such as education or historical context, before prosecutors even have to make their case.

Police can demand the removal of online material and seize physical items.

The likely effect is predictable: artists, academics, and journalists will think twice before touching any material that could be misinterpreted.

The courtroom will not even need to convict. The process itself becomes the punishment.

The bill goes further with a new power to designate “prohibited hate groups.” The Australian Federal Police Minister can create these listings without hearings or due process. The statute leaves no ambiguity: “The AFP Minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”

This power does not stop at the Australian border. The listings can reach backward in time and across borders. The bill allows an organization to be blacklisted if it “has advocated (whether or not in Australia)” conduct that qualifies as hateful, even if that conduct “occurred before subsection (1) commences.”

That means a person can be prosecuted for speech or association that was entirely legal when it occurred. The past is no refuge, and geography offers no escape.

Once a group lands on the list, the penalties multiply. According to the government’s own factsheet, “The maximum penalties for these offences range from 7 to 15 years imprisonment.”

Membership can mean seven years. Providing support, training, recruitment, or funding can mean fifteen. The memorandum quietly adds that the Director-General of Security’s advisory role in the process is also exempt from procedural fairness.

The bill presents itself as protection, but is written in language that is surprisingly reckless and shamelessly authoritarian.

It reads like the product of a government comfortable with punishing ideas instead of actions. The text removes the need for evidence of harm, rewrites fear as a legal standard, and shifts the burden of innocence onto the accused.

Its tone is revealing. The clauses are direct and unapologetic, describing censorship powers and reversed burdens as if they were routine administrative steps.

There is no hesitation or recognition of limits, only the steady assumption that control is an acceptable substitute for trust.

This legislation normalizes the management of thought through regulation. The state positions itself as the final arbiter of acceptable speech, using fear as both the metric and the motive.

Once written into law, that kind of authority rarely asks permission to grow.

January 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »