Brussels’ persecution of Hungary and war against X could spark ‘yuge’ retaliation
Remix News | November 5, 2024
Today, voters head to the polls to decide who will run the United States for the next four years. If Trump should win, relations with the EU could become extremely tense, as a Trump administration could begin to wield powerful sanctions against countries — and even Brussels itself — it deems to be in violation of democratic principles and protections of free speech.
For one, Brussels has been hitting Hungary with sanctions, freezing billions owed to Budapest over “rule of law” and generally working to oust the ruling government. Viktor Orbán has openly come out in support of Trump, and both of them enjoy a warm relationship, and more importantly, they share the same ideology on many key issues, including migration and a pro-peace path in Ukraine.
It will likely not be business as usual if Trump comes back to power. Countries like Hungary would no longer be facing the full weight of the Western left. In fact, Trump could very well start playing hardball, issuing sanctions, travel restrictions, and new executive orders to prevent democratic backsliding in Europe. Notably, the rule-of-law sanctions being wielded by Brussels against member state governments it deems undesirable would likely be viewed from Washington as an anti-democratic form of blackmail. In turn, the U.S. could quickly counter such moves, including with “rule-of-law” sanctions of its own against Brussels.
If Germany moves to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a Trump administration could move to counter this as well, including with sanctions against Germany due to democratic backsliding. Many may have already forgotten about the commando raid on a German publisher and journalists’ home over the summer. The German government, without so much as a court order, shut down an entire publication overnight. The publisher of Compact magazine, Jürgen Elsässer, was splashed across newspaper and television stations across the country in his bathrobe surrounded by officers in ski masks.
This is not normal behavior for a democratic country, and Trump’s administration may take action if further attempts are made to persecute journalists and shut down the free press in Germany.
https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1813205996531003470
What actions could Trump’s administration take in such a scenario? With Germany cut off from its traditional source of Russian gas, a move to restrict energy exports to Germany would be devastating. In other key areas, Germany and Europe are far more dependent on the U.S. than on vice versa.
Obviously, such a move would come with serious risks, including for the global economy, and potentially sparking a trade war. However, the U.S. would have most of the leverage in such a scenario. Europe needs U.S. energy, end of story.
The EU’s plan to restrict free speech and throttle X with fines could also result in sanctions on European companies, tariffs, and other forms of retaliation. Trump will likely be very willing to defend free speech across the world, especially after his own experience facing censorship across social media, and willing to use U.S. might to ensure this fundamental right on the web. His backers, most notably Elon Musk, will have a strong voice in the administration, and should Trump suddenly grow cold feet, he will face withering pressure from Musk and others.
Under Trump, free speech would still have a chance on platforms like X and others, even if free speech is already limited on those platforms. In turn, European conservatives, libertarians, and those opposed to mass immigration will be allowed to voice their opinions and influence the political debate in the coming years.
There are, of course, many open questions about how relations between Trump and the EU would develop, but it may obviously be a pointless thought experiment. In a matter of hours, days, or even weeks, Kamala Harris may be the decided winner. In such a scenario, the globe can also expect X to be shut down within a year or two, buried under fines and violations of the EU’s Digital Service Act. Brussels will continue to attack conservatives with its powerful sanctions mechanism. New forms of harassment and persecution, including arrests of politicians, journalists, and academics who support the “wrong opinion,” are likely as well.
https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1852324197084668098
The majority of Europeans may not like Donald Trump. As polling shows, Europeans, most notably Western Europeans, are very much opposed. Only a few countries from the east, such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Serbia, support the former president, but in the end, he may be the only thing between a free web and a closed web, especially on the most important topics Europeans are increasingly not allowed to talk about. Furthermore, as opposition to mass immigration grows and other left-liberal agendas, there is no telling where European sympathies will likely be in the coming years.
In short, much is at stake for Europe in the outcome of this vote. The deck remains stacked against Trump. The U.S. voting system is in shambles, with votes being counted for days and weeks after election day, with ballots stuffed in drop boxes weeks before the election, and with ballot harvesters collecting ballots outside of any real oversight. Even basic safeguards like voter ID are nowhere to be found in many states. It will be a miracle if Trump wins, but we’ll know the results soon enough and will have to deal with the outcome — for better or worse.
Moldova’s Socialist Party Says Not Recognizing Voting at Foreign Poling Stations
Sputnik – 04.11.2024
CHISINAU – Moldova’s Socialist Party said on Monday that it does not recognize the voting at foreign polling stations, thanks to which incumbent President Maia Sandu was declared the winner of the presidential election in the country.
Moldova held the runoff of a two-round presidential election on Sunday. With 99.86% of ballots tabulated at the time of the writing, Sandu is in the lead with 55.41% of the vote against her opponent, former Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo, with 44.59%.
“Maia Sandu became the ‘president of the diaspora.’ The Socialist Party of Moldova does not recognize the voting at foreign polling stations, thanks to which Sandu was declared the winner of the elections,” the party wrote on Telegram.
Ukraine to jail people for storing firewood – media
RT | November 4, 2024
The Ukrainian parliament has passed a law introducing criminal liability for storing firewood without proper paperwork about its origin, local media have reported. The country faces an energy crisis in the coming winter, amid the ongoing conflict with Russia.
The Verkhovna Rada, the nation’s legislature, adopted the new rule last month, and it now awaits Vladimir Zelensky’s signature, the outlet Strana said on Sunday.
Ukrainian lawyer Aleksey Kinebas told the public broadcaster Suspilne that once the law comes into force, people could face “either administrative or criminal punishment simply for the storage, transportation or sale of firewood.” Ukraine has criminalized logging without a permit.
“For example, two people, a married couple, store firewood worth over 30,000 hryvnia (around $730) and have no documents showing where they bought it. In this case, they could face from five to seven years in prison,” he said.
The punishment has the potential to be even harsher if the destruction of trees is qualified as leading to severe consequences during wartime, the lawyer said.
According to Kinebas, those storing a smaller amount of firewood without proper paperwork – even if it is just “one trunk, one tree, one stump” – will face hefty fines of up to 34,000 hryvnia (around $825).
The measure will mostly affect the low-income residents of Ukrainian villages, he warned, saying “100% of the population living in rural areas could be indicted” under the new legislation.
Last week, Zelensky said that he is “preparing the country for a winter that will be decisive, which is a big challenge… because this will be the third winter with power outages, with all the difficulties.”
During his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, the Ukrainian leader claimed that 80% percent of the country’s power generation capacity has been destroyed during the conflict with Russia, including all thermal power plants and the largest hydroelectric power plants.
In July, a member of the Ukrainian parliament’s energy and housing utilities committee, Sergey Nagornyak, also predicted a harsh winter and called upon the people to look for homes that they could heat on their own.
Alberta court certifies class-action lawsuit against the provincial government for COVID-19 health orders that impacted businesses during the pandemic
The Canadian Independent | October 31, 2024
Rath & Company, the law firm representing Alberta business owners in a class action lawsuit against the provincial government over COVID-19 restrictions, has cleared a crucial legal hurdle.
Justice Colin C.J. Feasby of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta certified the case, allowing it to proceed as a class action.
The lawsuit, led by plaintiffs Rebecca Ingram and Christopher Scott, challenges the authority of Alberta’s government in implementing business restrictions through Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) orders, which the plaintiffs allege were unauthorized and illegally imposed.
The class action seeks compensation on behalf of a broad group of Alberta business owners, claiming that the health orders, issued ostensibly under public health directives, resulted in devastating financial losses.
In a ruling that highlights concerns around government accountability, the court confirmed that the lawsuit can proceed on multiple claims, including negligence, bad faith, and misfeasance in public office.
The lawsuit’s roots go back to a ruling by Justice Romaine in 2023 (Ingram v. Alberta [2023]), which found that key pandemic health orders were issued outside the legal authority of the Public Health Act. Rather than being made independently by the CMOH, Deena Hinshaw, the orders were shown to have been directed by the Alberta Cabinet, according to Justice Romaine’s findings.
The plaintiffs allege that the CMOH orders were improperly authorized and were issued in a way that obscured Cabinet’s role, thus avoiding political accountability during a critical public health crisis.
A key component of the plaintiffs’ argument is that Alberta’s Cabinet acted in bad faith by issuing these orders under the guise of health directives to avoid democratic oversight. In doing so, they argue, the government failed to protect Alberta business owners’ rights to property and due process under the Alberta Bill of Rights. Justice Feasby’s decision allows these claims, as well as those for punitive damages, to be addressed in court.
The Court’s certification encompasses several types of claims, including allegations of negligence and misfeasance. It specifically allows the plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages, which are intended to hold the government accountable and discourage similar conduct in the future. Unlike compensatory damages that vary by individual losses, punitive damages in a class action address the alleged wrongful intent and actions affecting the whole class.
The certified class includes “all individuals who owned, in whole or in part, a business in Alberta that was subject to full or partial closure, or operational restrictions, mandated by the CMOH Orders between March 17, 2020, and the date of certification.”
Justice Feasby’s decision paves the way for the case to proceed to trial, where the claims and evidence will be examined more closely. The certification does not decide on the merits of the case but rather affirms that the plaintiffs meet the legal threshold to pursue their claims as a unified class.
Rath & Company is encouraging any affected business owners to retain records of losses related to the CMOH orders. They urge those who may be eligible for inclusion in the class action to visit their website for further information on the certification and to access intake forms to join the lawsuit.
You can join the class action at the link below.
https://rathandcompany.com/business-class-action/
You can see the class action certification at the link below.
Victoria Nuland Laments Social Media Won’t Play Censor for the Feds Anymore

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 3, 2024
The original “Russia Gate” might have been debunked a long time ago, but politicians and officials continue to seek to explain their electoral failures by accusing other countries of “meddling.”
There is an even more serious angle to their insistence on this – namely, using it as justification for putting in place what opponents (and a congressional investigation) call the government-Big Tech collusion to censor online speech.
Speaking of meddling – former senior US State Department official Victoria Nuland’s handiwork is probably better known in Europe than in the US, and she is now revisiting the script of (Russian) meddling, but is also complaining that social platforms are not as willing to “work” with the government as before on US presidential elections.
Nuland clearly believes her own freedom of speech has no consequences, so she decided to tell MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “at it again” – and also explicitly accuse X owner Elon Musk of making his platform implicit in this alleged election interference.
“In 2020, the social media companies worked hard with the US government to try to do content moderation, to try to catch this stuff as it was happening,” said Nuland.
Now, laying the groundwork for election interference claims, according to her, Musk is “talking directly to the Kremlin.”
The astonishing accusation goes on to “explain” what exactly Musk and the Kremlin are chatting about. “Every time the Russians put out something, [Musk makes sure] it gets five million views before anyone can catch it,” said Nuland.
The frontal assault on Musk also saw the former official tell Maddow that he is “a new, very powerful tool” in Putin’s hands.
To quote Maddow – “I’m not sure people have absorbed the magnitude of what you’re describing there.”
She, of course, was not dismayed by Nuland’s statements but was with this comment “aiding and abetting” them. Once Nuland was done with linking Musk and Putin, she moved on to President Trump, who she asserted is “taking Putin’s lessons.”
Maddow for her part took this cue to attack Trump as essentially creating “alliances” with what Nuland and Maddow consider to be autocrats. And, the “magnitude of that” is what the MSNBC host was not sure Americans have “absorbed.”
Back to Nuland’s activities in Europe, while she still had an official role. This enabled her to become a key player behind the so-called Steele Dossier, by providing the since-debunked documents to the FBI back in 2016.
Israel: Justice minister seeks to criminalise calls for sanctions against state

MEMO | November 3, 2024
Regarding the WHO ‘Pandemic Agreement’
Negotiating with bullies, liars and thieves is unlikely to be a winning strategy
By Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD | November 1, 2024
There is a lot on the go at the moment, so you may have missed that the World Health Organization’s ‘Pandemic Agreement’ is in the process of being finalised. Scheduled to be finalised by November 11, 2024, the aim is to ‘adopt’ it at a special session of the World Health Assembly in December.
Given that the WHO continues to violate its key objective, which is the highest attainable standard of health for every human being, the WHO can no longer be considered an authority on health, except in the matter of ensuring that it and key individuals within it are held liable for the deteriorating health of the world’s people due to its failed Covid policies.
With regard to the WHO Pandemic Agreement to be finalised by November 11, 2024, I encourage you to consider whether this boy’s club agreement pertains to us at all.
Imagine there is a gang in a school. The gang with their own gang rules set themselves up at the school gate and say, We are in charge of this school. You cannot say this or that anymore, you must follow our gang rules, and you have to buy your lunch from us. Be quiet and don’t ask questions. If you don’t do our bidding, the teachers, whom we control, will force you to and/or detain you.
Would you negotiate with this gang of bullies?
Among our choices when confronted by this WHO gang are the following:
- we can comply and hope they will show mercy;
- we can ask nicely or beg them to reconsider some of their rules;
- we can jump over the school fence to avoid them, and live in daily fear of their vindictiveness;
or…
- we can say to them “This school is a prison, if you like it so much you can keep it!”
Negotiating with bullies, liars and thieves is unlikely to be a winning strategy.
It is time for us to let the WHO and its controllers know that they can make as many agreements as they like, but they are all fake and irrelevant, and have no bearing on us, the people of this beautiful earth.
You can read the document that the WHO aims to ‘adopt’ illegitimately this December here, and read James Roguski’s insights here.
Ireland’s Online “Hate Crime” Law Passes, Sparks Major Future Free Speech Concerns
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 1, 2024
In Ireland, the controversial Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offenses) Act 2024 has become law.
President Michael Higgins on Tuesday signed the bill – as Green Party leader Roderic O’Gorman welcomed the development, and vowed that if still in power after the November election, this party would “certainly” work to get even more “hate speech legislation” adopted.
This remark has to do with a temporary removal of some of the current bill’s controversial provisions, the implication being that those might make a comeback in some “new hate speech” bill.
The parts removed concern some incitement to violence and hatred and hate speech provisions; however, those on hate crime have been left in the text.
Prior to being signed into law, the amended Criminal Justice Act 2024 – known as the “Hate Crime Bill” – cleared the country’s parliament in a 78-50 vote earlier in the month, despite strong criticism both from politicians and free speech groups.
The general argument used by the law’s opponents is that it is criminalizing free speech in a number of ways, with the most ardent critics seeing the legislation as moving Ireland closer to oppression and the rule of tyranny.
One of the controversial parts of the law revolves around the definition of gender, which is both extensive and expansive: “(…) the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”
And if the chosen gender – such as it is defined here, is found to be the reason for “hatred” expressed against someone – then from now on, this is to be treated as an aggravating factor, bringing with it a greater sentence than would have been the case had the “protected characteristics” not played a role in the consideration of an offense.
Speaking of protected characteristics, the act defines them as religion – including “absence of religious belief” – race, ethnicity, gender (as defined), sexual orientation, disability, and also, “references to sex characteristics shall be construed as references to the physical and biological features of a person relating to sex.”
During the debate in parliament, the bill’s sponsors made sure to note that this legislation – in the way it criminalizes certain behaviors – is the first of its kind in Europe.
Brazilian journalist fined, ordered to delete posts over criticizing Israeli war in Gaza
Press TV – November 2, 2024
A Brazilian court has ordered renowned journalist Breno Altman, who has frequently denounced Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, to pay a fine and delete a number of his posts on social media platforms.
Judge Paulo Bernardi Baccarat of the Court of Justice of São Paulo said on Thursday that the founder of the independent news portal Opera Mundi should pay a fine of 20,000 Brazilian reals ($3,407) in compensation for collective moral damages, and remove five posts deemed anti-Semitic.
This is yet another lawsuit against Altman, who is facing several cases in São Paulo courts due to his critical stance regarding the Tel Aviv regime’s devastating and bloody onslaught against Gaza.
In this case, the judge considered a request for censorship and compensation filed by the Brazilian Israelite Confederation (CONIB), which is the central organization of the Brazilian Jewish community.
CONIB asked for 80 thousand reals in compensation, the demonetization of Altman’s profile on social media and the payment of a minimum wage to each Israeli in Brazil.
The pro-Israeli lobby group said Altman should be banned from publishing posts about the Gaza conflict, alleging that his conduct exceeded the limits of freedom of expression, and claimed the journalist could incite hatred towards Jews and Israel with his posts.
Baccarat, however, concluded that there was no reason to pay compensation or remove most of the posts, considering that they were not anti-Semitic but rather political comments.
In other posts, however, he purportedly found racist content, such as the use of the term “rats” in reference to the Israeli military offensives against Palestinian Hamas resistance fighters.
The judge considered the reference to be racist, given that the term “rat” has a historical anti-Semitic association. The request for individual compensation for each Israeli in Brazil, however, was dismissed by the judge.
The journalist’s defense, represented by attorneys Pedro Serrano and Anderson Medeiros, said they will appeal the decision.
The objective, according to them, is to “demonstrate the absolute legality of all posts, supported by constitutional rights that ensure freedom of expression and freedom of thought.”
Back in August, Altman was sentenced to three months in prison for insulting Brazilian economist and former Director of International Affairs of the Central Bank of Brazil, Alexandre Schwartsman, and President of the pro-Israel organization StandWithUs Brazil, André Lajst.
The case also involved social media posts about Israel’s atrocious military campaign in Gaza. The sentence was commuted to a fine.
Government Agents Try to Stir Up Fear of Russian Election Interference a Third Presidential Election in a Row
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | November 1, 2024
For a third United States presidential election in a row, US agents are out warning of Russian election interference.
In the previous two elections the warnings were spurious. Still, the government agents succeeded in raising worry in people’s minds regarding candidate Donald Trump. And they suppressed consideration of information damaging to Trump’s opponents, including through indicating the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop were “Russian disinformation.”
This election, the government agents are at it again. Their latest spurt of relating supposed Russian election interference arrived in a Friday joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This joint statement is one among a series of updates concerning what the press release calls “Moscow’s broader effort to raise unfounded questions about the integrity of the U.S. election and stoke divisions among Americans.”
Yeah, whatever, guys. Have you ever read the story about the boy who cried wolf?
House Floats Law to Make Colleges That Mandated COVID Shots Pay for Vaccine Injuries
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 30, 2024
Colleges that mandated the COVID-19 vaccine would be liable for medical expenses for students who experienced adverse events from the shot, under a bill introduced Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The University Forced Vaccination Student Injury Mitigation Act of 2024 would require higher education institutions to cover medical costs for students who were — or still are — required to get a COVID-19 shot for class attendance and who experienced an injury.
The bill — introduced by Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) — stipulates colleges must cover the medical costs or risk losing all federal funding from the U.S. Department of Education.
“If you are not prepared to face the consequences, you should have never committed the act,” said Rosendale in a press release. “Colleges and universities forced students to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine knowing it was not going to prevent COVID-19 while potentially simultaneously causing life-threatening health defects like Guillain-Barré Syndrome and myocarditis.”
“It is now time,” Rosendale added, “for schools to be held accountable for their brazen disregard for students’ health and pay for the issues they are responsible for causing.”
Reps. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) and Bill Posey (R-Fla.) co-sponsored the bill.
Dr. Joseph Marine, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explained in the press release why he supports the bill:
“COVID-19 vaccine mandates for college students were flawed policies that did not alter the course of the pandemic and were not needed to keep college campuses ‘safe.’ I had to make efforts to prevent my own high school and college-age children from receiving COVID-19 booster shots that they did not want or need.
“It seems reasonable to me that institutions that implemented such policies without a sound medical or scientific rationale should take responsibility for any proven medical harm that they caused.”
If passed, the bill would allow students to submit a formal request for reimbursement, the Washington Examiner reported.
The request would have to include a record of COVID-19 vaccination, certification from a medical provider that the vaccine caused some kind of disease and a detailed account of related medical expenses.
Diseases covered by the legislation include myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barré syndrome and any other diseases that the U.S. Secretary of Education determines to be linked to COVID-19 vaccination.
After the student’s request is vetted to ensure it’s valid and contains sufficient evidence, the college would have to pay the medical costs within 30 days.
It is unclear when a vote on the bill will take place.
CHD took college mandate challenge to U.S. Supreme Court
Rutgers University was the first college or university in the U.S. to mandate the vaccines, threatening to disenroll noncompliant students in the fall 2021 semester. In August 2021, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) sued the university in an attempt to block the mandate.
The case was dismissed in January 2023. After losing on appeal in February, CHD in May asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, but the court declined. Meanwhile, a month earlier, Rutgers abruptly ended the mandate.
Meanwhile, a federal appeals court this summer ruled that employees in the Los Angeles Unified School District can sue the district over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate because the shots don’t prevent transmission.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges that myocarditis and pericarditis may occur after COVID-19 vaccination. And research shows that adolescents and young adults are particularly at risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis.
As of Sept. 27, there were 1,604,710 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of injury or death following a COVID-19 vaccination.
VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirming the reported adverse event was caused by the vaccine. VAERS has historically been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
Meanwhile, citing concerns about the shots’ efficacy and safety, Idaho’s Southwest District Health last week voted to no longer offer COVID-19 vaccines at all 30 locations where it provides healthcare services.
17 colleges still have COVID vaccine mandates
By late May 2021, more than 400 U.S. colleges and universities required students to be vaccinated against COVID-19, The New York Times reported.
As of Oct. 19, 17 of those institutions still have a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for students to be able to enroll or live on campus, according to No College Mandates, a “group of concerned parents, doctors, nurses, professors, students and other college stakeholders working towards the common goal of ending COVID-19 vaccine mandates.”
Lucia Sinatra, co-founder of No College Mandates, said in the press release:
“College students were never at risk of severe injury or death from any variant of the COVID-19 virus and institutions of higher education had this data well in advance of mandating COVID-19 vaccines.”
According to the CDC, age is the “strongest risk factor” for severe outcomes from COVID-19 — meaning that the older a person is, the greater their risk for severe symptoms and death.
The CDC said its National Center for Health Statistics shows that “compared with ages 18–29 years, the risk of death is 25 times higher in those ages 50–64 years, 60 times higher in those ages 65–74 years, 140 times higher in those ages 75–84 years, and 340 times higher in those ages 85+ years.”
In other words, the typical college student — ages 18-22 — isn’t usually at risk of severe disease or death from COVID-19 when compared with older age groups.
Nonetheless, Sinatra said, many colleges imposed “some of the most coercive and restrictive vaccination policies” on college students, stripping them of their “fundamental right to bodily autonomy and informed consent.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

