Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!

By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | December 31, 2025

As EU narratives collapse, desparate leaders are planning more tyrannical measures to keep it all from sinking.

Currently, EU leaders are fuming that US officials would be so audacious as to accuse them of practicing censorship. Yet, when it comes to suppressing open discussions and differing viewpoints on major issues, things are in fact worse than most people think. And, it’s about to get even worse.

A recent (indirectly EU-funded) report released earlier this year shows how the EU is planning to broaden censorship to include the topics of climate and energy science.

In the “Harmful Environmental Agendas and Tactics” (HEAT) report, published by EU DisinfoLab and Logically, its authors investigate how climate-related misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) are strategically used to undermine climate policy in Europe, specifically in Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Climate science skeptics threaten democracy

The report argues that climate disinformation has moved beyond simple science denial and has become a tool for broader political and social polarization.

Outright denial of climate change, the authors claim, is being replaced by narratives focused on “climate delay.” These often acknowledge climate change but attack the feasibility, cost, and fairness of solutions, e.g., they claim green policies will bankrupt households or destroy industries.

The enemies

The report identifies four main pillars driving these agendas:

  1. The Conspiracy Milieu: Distrust of elites and “deep state” narratives (e.g., the “Great Reset”).
  2. Culture War/Partisan Discourse: Framing climate action as an authoritarian or elitist project.
  3. Hostile State Actors (HSAs): Significant involvement of Russian-linked networks (e.g., Portal Kombat) that use localized domains like Pravda DE to amplify divisive climate content.
  4. Big Oil Alignment: Narratives that align with fossil fuel interests, even if direct corporate attribution is often obscured.

In Germany, for example, there are attacks on the Energiewende (energy transition) and the Building Heating Act.

In France, there are links between climate policy and the “Yellow Vest” movement or anti-elitist sentiments.

Meanwhile, the “nitrogen crisis” has been reframed as “government land theft” in the Netherlands. 

European leaders are convinced that their policies have nothing to do with all the failure going on. In their eyes, it’s all the fault of unruly citizens and their disinfoarmtion campaigns.

The report’s key recommendations

The authors call for decisive institutional and platform-level action to treat climate disinformation as a structural threat and a danger to democracy. This all needs to stop!

Platforms must act!

The primary recommendation is for the EU to explicitly recognize climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the Digital Services Act (a.k.a. by critics the Digital Censorship Act). This would force so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) to take proactive measures and conduct risk assessments.

The authors also call for mandating algorithm audits and public reporting on content moderation, specifically for climate content. It’s time to crack down on skeptics, they say. 

“Independent” auditors

Moreover “independent researchers” are to be provided with access to disaggregated platform data to track how these narratives spread.

Another recommendation is calling for the labelling and limiting the reach of “ideological or sponsored” climate disinformation.

“Trusted flaggers”

The authors also are calling for greater monitoring of Russian-aligned and other hostile state operations that exploit climate debates to weaken EU democratic resilience.

Another step suggested to counter “climate disinformation” is the establishment of reporting channels for civil society organizations (so-called “trusted flaggers”) to flag coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) and harmful narratives to regulators.

“Prebunking”

Also “prebunking” campaigns aimed at proactively educating the public on disinformation tactics before they are exposed to them—especially in lower-educated rural and working-class areas that are frequently targeted.

December 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

The new German totalitarianism

The German liberal order resorts to totalitarianism to preserve the hegemony of its elites

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 30, 2025

Mentioning “totalitarianism” in Germany quickly forces our minds to associate it with the Nazi period in that country’s history. 12 years during which Germany was under the command of Hitler and his party; a command that culminated in the Second World War and the greatest military hecatomb in human history. Indeed, historically, and thanks to figures like Hannah Arendt, the political category of “totalitarianism” has been restricted to the manifestations of illiberal political theories, such as fascism and communism. Liberalism, on the other hand, could not, it never could, it could never be totalitarian; that would be a “contradiction in terms.”

However, a closer look would quickly point out that many post-war Western philosophers, particularly Jewish ones like Karl Popper and Theodor Adorno, in dealing with attempts to understand Germany’s fascist turn, argued that legalistic concerns would have prevented the state from removing from the political game a political force, like Nazism, which very obviously intended to liquidate democracy and, therefore, put an end to the political game as such. This is the so-called “paradox of tolerance.” Popper, from the right, and Adorno, from the left, both agree in defending that the liberal-democratic state must be intolerant towards the “intolerant”; that is, to pursue, silence, and liquidate, without formalist concerns, any figure or political group that openly opposes the fundamental values of liberal democracy and human rights.

Very obviously, we can see that this is an attempt to philosophically legitimize the establishment of a totalitarian regime under the justification of defending “democracy” against fascists and/or communists. Despite its specific emphasis on rational deliberation, even Jürgen Habermas, the philosophical “pope” of German democratic liberalism, places the enemies of liberal society outside the umbrella of tolerant society, insofar as, if tolerated, they themselves would lead to the end of tolerant society.

The evident risk, nonetheless, lies in the decision that designates a figure, group, or ideology as “contrary to the liberal system.” In the 21st century, neither in Germany nor anywhere else in Europe, is there a serious and grave threat of the rise of openly fascist or communist political groups. Thus, at every moment, it is necessary to make a judgment about the possibility of an analogy between each political challenge to the existing order and the historical anti-liberal ideologies.

Since the definitions of fascism and communism are obviously imprecise (each theorist, each academic, etc., has their own definition of these ideologies), accusing an opponent of being “fascist” or “communist” is easy. And with that, it becomes possible to construct the possibility of silencing and excluding the opponent from the public sphere.

The German state, therefore, has all the necessary theoretical foundation to justify the persecution of citizens who oppose its designs and values.

And now it has the technical and legal means to discover who all the “enemies of tolerant society” are among its citizens.

In December 2025, the Berlin House of Representatives passed an amendment to the General Law on Security and Public Order that significantly expands state surveillance capabilities. The amendment introduces several tools that are, to say the least, controversial, such as authorizing police forces to install spyware on the smartphones and computers of “suspicious” citizens, as well as to intercept encrypted communications. If these actions are not feasible remotely, the new regulations allow police forces to secretly break into citizens’ homes to install the spyware physically.

Another innovation is the possibility for police forces to access traffic data from cell towers for all devices in a specific area and moment, without the need for specific judicial authorization. With this, the police could map the movements of any citizen during protests and public events. Furthermore, the legislation also authorizes the collected data to be used for training artificial intelligence systems.

This is a clear institutional slide toward totalitarianism. It is impossible to twist the narrative to deny, therefore, the possibility of liberalism also degenerating into totalitarianism, just as this possibility is recognized for fascism and communism. However, the regulations in question will only apply to the state of Berlin; it is not a change at the federal level.

But it may only be a matter of time. A similar bill is advancing in the Bundestag that promotes mass monitoring at the federal level, with the possibility of chat controls, weakening encryption, and digital and physical invasions of citizens’ property.

This intensification of state surveillance is no coincidence. It appears at a time when the legitimacy of the German liberal republic is being questioned by its citizens, disheartened by the achievements of recent decades, mass immigration, rising violence, and a clear effort by the government to push its citizens into a conflict with Russia. Questioned and under the threat of the rise of anti-system political forces, the German liberal order resorts to totalitarianism to preserve the hegemony of its elites.

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

The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?

By Alan Mosley |The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025

Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?

The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.

A law that leaves little wiggle room

In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.

The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.

Pam Bondi’s dodgy compliance

By December 19 the department had released tens of thousands of pages but withheld the bulk of the material. Observers noted that many records were heavily blacked out and that the department offered no written justifications for redactions. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged that more documents would be released later, effectively moving the deadline. Massie and Khanna argued that this flouts the statute and have drafted impeachment articles and are weighing inherent contempt. Bondi’s department claims it can withhold materials under common‑law privileges, such as deliberative-process and attorney‑client privilege, even though the statute expressly demands release of “internal DOJ communications” and other decision‑making records. Critics argue that by invoking judge‑made privileges to avoid a law that overrides them, Bondi—who reports directly to Donald Trump—puts the president’s political interests ahead of statutory obligations.

Congress’ options, and why they seldom work

Congress has three enforcement tools: criminal contempt referrals, civil lawsuits, and inherent contempt arrests. The first two depend on the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute its own leaders. Inherent contempt—a forgotten power to arrest defiant officials—has not been used since 1935, but Khanna says it is on the table. Past episodes illustrate why penalties are rare. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about mass surveillance and faced no charges. CIA officials destroyed videotapes documenting torture, yet prosecutors declined to prosecute. FBI agents misused warrantless surveillance authorities, but no one has been held accountable. The pattern is clear: when officials break the rules, investigations are slow, referrals go nowhere, and political leaders quietly move on. As whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack noted, there is a double standard: government officials can lie to Congress with impunity while those who tell the truth are indicted. This inversion of accountability encourages lawlessness within the executive branch and chills those who might expose wrongdoing.

Legal experts note that Congress could also sue to compel disclosure or hold Bondi in criminal contempt, but because the Justice Department prosecutes contempt and is headed by the same officials refusing to comply, those routes are circular. The only truly independent remedy—directing the House sergeant at arms to arrest Bondi and hold her until she obeys—has not been used in nearly a century and would provoke a constitutional crisis. This institutional timidity emboldens agencies to treat congressional mandates as advisory and ensures that accountability remains elusive.

What accountability looks like

Khanna and Massie have urged Congress to impeach Bondi or her deputy, use inherent contempt to detain them, and refer the matter for prosecution. Those remedies would test whether Congress is willing to use dormant constitutional powers. Citizens who value liberty should demand action. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now tells us that blacked‑out pages constitute transparency. Without accountability, the executive branch will continue to flout the law. Bondi may work for Trump, but the buck stops with the president who appointed her. If Congress and voters do nothing, future transparency laws will be meaningless, and the war state will remain healthy at our expense.

Accountability requires more than rhetoric. Congress must be willing to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives—by using inherent contempt, cutting funding, or refusing to confirm officials who flout the law. Voters should demand that elected representatives of both parties stop hiding behind national security and confront a Justice Department that acts as if it is above the law. The stakes extend beyond Epstein; they touch on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the very idea of self‑government. When a cabinet official appointed by the president can ignore a clear statutory mandate and the president remains silent, it signals that the executive branch believes itself sovereign. If we shrug, we will continue down the path where laws are for the governed, not the governors.

Citizens who value liberty and limited government should pay attention. When laws are ignored without consequence, the effect is to normalize lawlessness. The Massie–Khanna legislation was not meant to be a suggestion; it was a mandate that passed the House 427-1 and the Senate unanimously. If Congress does not enforce it, future transparency laws will be toothless, and the bureaucracy will continue to protect its own at the expense of truth. In the long run, a free society cannot survive if the government decides which laws apply to its friends and which apply to everyone else. Accountability is not partisan, it is a principle. Without it, injustice will remain healthy and unchallenged, and the rest of us will continue to pay the price.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

WHO Instructs Governments to Track Online Anti-Vaccine Messaging in Real Time with AI: Journal ‘Vaccines’

Believe in vaccines or be targeted

By Jon Fleetwood | December 29, 2025

The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded that governments surveil online information that questions the legitimacy of influenza vaccines and that they launch “countermeasures” against those who question the WHO’s vaccine dogma, in a November Vaccines journal publication.

The WHO’s largest funders are the U.S. government (taxpayers) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In the November publication, the WHO representatives do not argue for their beliefs in vaccines.

They do not attempt to interact with arguments against vaccines.

Instead, they call for governments to use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor online opposition to injectable pharmaceuticals, and to develop ways to combat such opposition.

There is no persuasion, only doctrine.

The WHO paper reads:

“Vaccine effectiveness is contingent on public acceptance, making risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) an integral component of preparedness. The research agenda calls for the design of tailored communication strategies that address local sociocultural contexts, linguistic diversity, and trust dynamics.”

“Digital epidemiology tools, such as AI-driven infodemic monitoring systems like VaccineLies and CoVaxLies, offer real-time insight into misinformation trends, enabling proactive countermeasures.”

The WHO starts from the assumption that all vaccine skepticism is inherently false, pushing surveillance tools to track and catalog online dissent from those rejecting that creed.

The goal is not finding middle ground or even fostering dialogue.

It’s increasing vaccinations.

“The engagement of high-exposure occupational groups as trusted messengers is recommended to improve uptake.”

To accomplish this, governments “should” align “all” their messaging with the WHO’s denomination of vaccine faith.

“All messaging should align with WHO’s six communication principles, ensuring information is Accessible, Actionable, Credible, Relevant, Timely, and Understandable, to strengthen public trust in vaccination programmes.”

The WHO’s faith system requires not only that its own followers but also non-followers inject themselves with drugs linked to injuries, diseases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

If your posts online oppose that faith system, they are targeted and labeled as “misinformation.”

You require “behavioural intervention.”

You must be “counter[ed].”

“Beyond monitoring misinformation, participatory communication models that involve local leaders, healthcare workers, and veterinarians have shown measurable improvements in vaccine uptake and trust. Evidence-based behavioural interventions can complement these approaches to counter misinformation.”

The WHO is outlining an Orwellian control system where dissent is pathologized, belief is enforced by surveillance, and governments are instructed to algorithmically police thought in service of pharmaceutical compliance.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Ireland’s Simon Harris to Push EU-Wide Ban on Social Media Anonymity

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

Ireland’s next term leading the European Union will be used to promote a new agenda: an effort to end online anonymity and make verified identity the standard across social media platforms.

Tánaiste Simon Harris said the government plans to use Ireland’s presidency to push for EU-wide rules that would require users to confirm their identities before posting or interacting online.

Speaking to Extra.ie, Harris described the plan as part of a broader attempt to defend what he called “democracy” from anonymous abuse and digital manipulation.

He said the initiative will coincide with another policy being developed by Media Minister Patrick O’Donovan, aimed at preventing children from accessing social media.

O’Donovan’s proposal, modeled on Australian restrictions, is expected to be introduced while Ireland holds the EU presidency next year.

Both ideas would involve rewriting parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, which already governs how online platforms operate within the bloc.

Expanding it to require verified identities would mark a major shift toward government involvement in online identity systems, a move that many privacy advocates believe could expose citizens to new forms of monitoring and limit open speech.

Harris said his motivation comes from concerns about the health of public life, not personal grievance.

Harris said he believes Ireland will find allies across Europe for the initiative.

He pointed to recent statements from French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who he said have shown interest in following Australia’s lead. “If you look at the comments of Emmanuel Macron… of Keir Starmer… recently, in terms of being open to considering what Australia have done… You know this is a global conversation Ireland will and should be a part of,” he said.

Technology companies based in Ireland, many of which already face scrutiny under existing EU rules, are likely to resist further regulation.

The United States government has also expressed growing hostility toward European efforts to regulate speech on its major tech firms, recently imposing visa bans on several EU officials connected to such laws.

Despite this, Harris said Ireland does not want confrontation. “This is a conversation we want to have now. We don’t want to have it in an adversarial way. Companies require certainty too, right?” he said, emphasizing that Ireland remains committed to being a reliable home for international tech firms.

He also spoke in support of O’Donovan’s age-verification proposal, comparing it to other legal age limits already enforced in Ireland. “We have a digital age of consent in Ireland, which is 16, but it’s simply not being enforced,” he said.

From a civil liberties standpoint, mandatory identity checks could fundamentally alter the online world.

Requiring proof of identity to speak publicly risks silencing individuals who rely on anonymity for safety, including whistleblowers, activists, and those living under political pressure.

Once created, systems of digital identity are rarely dismantled and can easily be adapted to track or restrict speech.

Harris said that voluntary cooperation by technology companies could make legislation unnecessary. “These companies are technology companies. They have the ability to do more, without the need for laws,” he said, suggesting platforms could use their own tools to manage bots, algorithms, and age verification.

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

Hungary vows to defy immigrant scheme

RT | December 29, 2025

Hungary has vowed a “revolt” against the EU in 2026, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, declaring that Budapest will lead a rebellion against the bloc’s new Migration Pact.

The policy, expected to take effect in July, forces member states to contribute in proportion to their population and total GDP to the alleviation of migratory pressure on the worst-affected nations within the bloc.

Each member state is obliged to either accept a certain number of migrants from hotspots or pay €20,000 ($23,000) per person they refuse to take in.

”Just as in 2025, we will not allow a single migrant into Hungary in 2026 and we will not pay a single forint from Hungarians’ money,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook on Sunday, blasting the requirement as “absurd.”

The EU mandate clashes with Hungary’s own tough national measures, which include border fences and a rejection of mandatory quotas. The stance has already led Brussels to penalize Budapest, with the European Court of Justice forcing it to pay a daily penalty of €1 million since June 2024 for non-compliance.

Szijjarto argued that the pact primarily serves nations where security and social stability have deteriorated so severely that their main objective is now to expel migrants as swiftly as possible.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban previously warned that Hungary will not comply with the new EU requirements, condemning the policy as “outrageous.” Orban is known for his staunch criticism of EU policies, including those related to migration and the Ukraine conflict.

Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have also opposed the EU migration pact. Warsaw and Bratislava have demanded an exemption, and the new government in Prague wants the policy renegotiated.

The EU has been grappling with mass immigration over the past two decades, since contributing to the implosions of Libya and Syria in 2011 and 2014, as well as backing the escalation of Kiev’s conflict with Moscow in February 2022, triggering waves of arrivals numbering in the millions.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

Italy arrests Palestinian activist amid crackdown on anti-Israel voices

Palestinian activist Mohammed Hannoun
Press TV – December 28, 2025

Italian authorities have detained prominent Palestinian activist Mohammed Hannoun as European countries mount a crackdown on voices exposing Israel’s genocidal crimes against the oppressed nation.

Hannoun, president of the Palestinian Association in Italy, was arrested along with eight other people on Saturday for allegedly financing the Palestinian Hamas resistance group through charities.

In a statement, prosecutors claimed that the activist is the “head of the Italian cell of the Hamas organization.”

They also alleged that the suspects had sent about 7 million euros ($8.2 million) to “associations … owned, controlled, or linked to Hamas.”

However, Hannoun’s lawyer Fabio Sommovigo said that the funds were collected peacefully for humanitarian purposes, adding that the case was based on the Israeli authorities’ interpretation of money movements.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has faced backlash for her pro-Israel stance during the regime’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, expressed her “appreciation and satisfaction” for the arrest operation.

Born in Jordan in 1962, Hannoun has been residing in the Italian port city of Genoa for many years.

He is an architect by profession and has organized and taken part in public demonstrations, solidarity initiatives, and awareness campaigns in support of the Palestinian cause.

He had previously described Hamas as a legitimate political actor, saying, “I am simply a Palestinian who has been engaged for decades in the struggle for the rights of his people. Hamas received more than 70 percent of the vote in Gaza and the West Bank, so it is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. And I am a sympathizer of Hamas, just as I am of every faction that fights for my rights.”

The arrests come at a time when certain European countries have stepped up efforts to silence pro-Palestinian activists and groups through judicial proceedings, forced dissolutions, and account freezes.

The same European states are complicit in Israel’s war crimes as they maintain their economic and military ties with the criminal regime, which has killed 71,266 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in Gaza since October 7, 2023.

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

NSW Premier Admits New “Security” Bill Restricts Civil Liberties, Promises More “Hate Speech” Laws Ahead

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025

Lawmakers in New South Wales wrapped up the year by rushing through security legislation that broadens police powers and imposes new limits on protest activity and expression.

Passed in an extraordinary sitting of Parliament just before Christmas, the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 represents one of the most far-reaching state security expansions in recent years.

Under the new law, the display of a symbol belonging to a “prohibited terrorist organization” can now lead to a prison term of up to two years.

Police officers are also granted authority to order individuals to remove face coverings if they are attending a demonstration or public event and the officer “reasonably suspects” they may commit an offense.

The legislation also permits police to halt public gatherings in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Although the bill is not framed as a censorship measure, it introduces powers that could intersect with the expanding use of surveillance technologies.

By compelling people to show their faces during political demonstrations, the law effectively weakens the ability of citizens to shield themselves from biometric tracking at a time when facial recognition systems are increasingly used by both law enforcement and private entities.

Premier Chris Minns has openly acknowledged that the law curtails individual freedoms. “These are extraordinary measures, I acknowledge that. I know that not all Australians that live in NSW support these changes, but we have decided it’s the best way of ensuring we do everything possible to keep the people of NSW safe,” he said following the bill’s passage.

Minns further conceded that the process was accelerated, crediting bipartisan cooperation for allowing the legislation to pass so quickly. “I know that that happened in a short space of time. I know that the negotiations and the talks had to happen over a short space of time, but we appreciate the goodwill in which we were able to get much-needed reform in New South Wales through the Parliament,” he stated.

He justified the timing by saying, “We couldn’t wait, this was urgent.”

When pressed about why the measures were bundled into a single omnibus bill, Minns admitted that time was the deciding factor. “If it had been cut up into its component parts, we would have been here way past Christmas… maybe people who oppose elements of those changes would have loved that, because it would have meant that the passage of the bills would have been stalled.”

The Premier did not shy away from admitting that rights were being limited in the process. “I accept, I guess, the implicit criticism that this does restrict rights, whether it’s for protests or guns,” he said. “But in these circumstances, we’ve got a higher obligation to the public… our number one obligation is to keep the public safe.”

Minns also signaled that more legislation is on the horizon, confirming that the government intends to introduce new “hate speech” laws in the coming months. “I want to make it clear that this isn’t the end of change… we’re currently looking at other areas of the law that are urgently required to confront hate speech, confront Islamist terrorism in our community,” he said. “Hate speech leads to hateful actions… and we’re prepared to take action and steps to keep the community safe.”

While the Premier frames the agenda as necessary to safeguard citizens, the process reflects a deeper shift toward governance by emergency.

Parliament’s decision to fast-track legal powers during a holiday recess, without full debate or public review, raises serious questions about transparency and proportionality.

The rapid normalization of police discretion over identity and assembly carries lasting implications for privacy and dissent.

As soon as governments assert the right to define and control “hate speech” or to compel identification at protests, the boundaries of lawful expression narrow quickly. A response to terrorism may end up reshaping the basic relationship between the individual and the state.

More: Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”

December 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025

American Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers has sharply criticized British and European speech regulators for attempting to extend their laws to US-based platforms, calling it a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.

She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.

Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”

Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.

The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.

That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.

She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are… trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.

On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.

“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.

Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.

Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.

She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage… about American political controversies… and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”

Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.

Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.

“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”

Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.

Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.

More: EU Launches New Push For Digital ID Age Checks and Big Tech Probe Under Digital Services Act

December 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

SANCTIONED: Col Jacques Baud Explains Being the EU’s TARGET

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – December 23, 2025

Col Jacques Baud explains that on December 12 he learned via Radio Free Europe that his name would appear on an EU sanctions list. After contacting his embassy in Brussels (where he lives), he received no follow-up. On December 15 the EU formally published the sanctions, which served as the only notification. Since then, his bank accounts have been frozen and he is banned from traveling within the EU, preventing him from returning to his home country.

He says he is accused of spreading pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation, including allegedly promoting a conspiracy theory that Ukraine orchestrated its own invasion by Russia in 2022. He strongly denies this, stating that he merely quoted remarks made in 2019 by Oleksiy Arestovych, then an adviser to President Zelensky, about the risk of war if Ukraine pursued NATO membership. He emphasizes that quoting a Ukrainian official is being treated as evidence of acting as a Russian agent, despite his claim that he has no ties to Russia.

The speaker stresses that he was never warned, contacted, or given a chance to respond by EU, Belgian, or Swiss authorities before the sanctions were imposed. He argues the decision is political, not legal: there was no court ruling, no charges under any law, no right to defense, and no real avenue for appeal.

He further explains that he deliberately avoided appearing on Russian media, refused invitations from outlets like RT, and bases his work largely on Ukrainian and U.S. sources to maintain academic objectivity. He insists propaganda itself is not a crime under European law and says he has always tried to use precise, nuanced language in his analysis.

Overall, he presents his case as evidence of a serious erosion of democracy and free speech in Europe, arguing that objective analysis of the Russia–Ukraine war is being labeled “pro-Russian.” He describes the sanctions as effectively confiscating his livelihood without due process and says he is now struggling to meet basic needs, pending a possible humanitarian exemption to access limited funds for essentials like food.

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!! Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavis…

December 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Video | | Leave a comment

How reporting facts can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist

By Jonathan Cook – December 22, 2025

Starmer’s government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it.

The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.

And lo behold, here we are.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.

Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.

But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.

It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.

When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.

The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance – violence – against an occupying army.

But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.

Now journalists, human rights activists and lawyers face a legal minefield every time they try to talk about the Gaza genocide, the trials of people accused of belonging to Palestine Action, or the hunger strikes of those on remand over attacks on weapons factories supplying killer drones to Israel.

Why? Because saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence. Any journalist, human rights activist or lawyer making factual observations risks 14 years behind bars.

Few seem to have understood quite what impact this is having on public coverage of these major issues.

A month and a half into the hunger strike by eight members of Palestine Action – the point at which people are likely to start dying – the BBC News at Ten finally broke its silence on the matter. That was despite the hunger strike being the largest in UK history in nearly half a century.

There are clear political reasons why the BBC had avoided this topic for so long. It prefers not to deal with matters that directly confront the legitimacy of the government, which funds it. The BBC is effectively the British state broadcaster.

But in a naturally spineless organisation like the BBC, the legal consequences have clearly weighed heavily too. In a recent short segment on the hunger strike, BBC correspondent Dominic Casciani carefully hedged his words and admitted to facing legal difficulties reporting on the strike.

In these circumstances, news organisations make one of two choices. They simply ignore factual things because it is legally too dangerous to speak truthfully about them. Or they lie about factual things because it is legally safe – and politically opportune – to speak untruthfully about them.

The so-called “liberal” parts of the media, including the BBC, tend to opt for the former; the red-tops usually opt for the latter.

The government itself is taking full advantage of this lacuna in reporting, injecting its own self-serving deceptions into the coverage, knowing that there will be – can be – no meaningful pushback.

Take just one example. The government has proscribed Palestine Action on the grounds that it is a terrorist organisation. It has justified its decision by implying, without producing a shred of evidence, that the group is funded by Iran, and that its real agenda is not just criminal damage against arms factories but against individuals.

Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment.

Were I to conduct an investigation, for example, definitively showing that Palestine Action was not funded by Iran – proving that the government was lying – it would be a terror offence to publish that truthful information. Why? Because it would almost certainly “encourage support” for Palestine Action. There is no fact or truth exemption in the legislation.

Similarly, the government has suggested that the current “Filton Trial” – which includes discussions of events in which a police officer was injured during a struggle over the sledgehammers being used to destroy the Elbit factory’s weapons-producing machinery – demonstrates that Palestine Action was not just targeting property but individuals too.

Were I to try to make the case that the alleged actions of one individual – only one person is charged with assault – prove nothing about the aims of the organisation as a whole, I would be risking a terrorism conviction and 14 years’ imprisonment. Which is one, very strong reason not to make such an argument.

But in the absence of such arguments, the reality is that social media is awash with posts from people echoing outrageous official disinformation. This spreads unchallenged because to challenge it is now cast as a terrorism offence.

In truth, since proscription, any statements about the political aims of a deeply political organisation like Palestine Action occupy a grey area of the law.

Is it a terrorism offence to point out the fact, as I have done above, that Palestine Action targeted Elbit factories that send killer drones to Israel for use in Gaza. In doing so, may I have “recklessly” encouraged you to support Palestine Action?

Can I express any kind of positive view about the hunger strikers or their actions without violating the law?

The truth is that the law’s greyness is its very point. It maximises the chilling effect on those who are supposed to serve as the public’s watchdogs on power: journalists, human rights groups, lawyers.

It allows the government – through compliant police forces – to selectively pick off those dissenting individuals it doesn’t like, those without institutional backing, to make examples of them. This is not conjecture. It is already happening.

The abuse of the Terrorism Act discourages research, analysis and critical thinking. It forces all journalists, human rights activists and lawyers to become lapdogs of the government. It creates a void into which the government can spin events to its own advantage, in which it can avoid accountability and in which it can punish those who dissent. It is the very antithesis of democratic behaviour.

This ought to appall anyone who cares about the truth, about public debate, about scrutiny. Because they have all been thrown out of the window.

And in proscribing Palestine Action, the government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation and thereby make it impossible to defend that group.

That is what authoritarian governments do. That is exactly where Britain is now.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 23, 2025

Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla will have to appear in person in the Netherlands to testify at a hearing in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit, a Dutch court ruled late last month.

The court order relates to a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. One of the victims has since died.

The lawsuit centers around the question “of whether the COVID-19 injections are a bioweapon,” Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant reported. In addition to Gates and Bourla, the suit names 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.

De Andere Krant said last month’s ruling “is a significant setback for the defendants, who are accused of misleading victims about the ‘safety and effectiveness’ of the vaccines.” However, it “remains to be seen” whether the defendants will comply with the court’s order and appear at next year’s hearing.

The defendants may face additional legal challenges in Dutch courts in the new year. A second lawsuit, filed in March by three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims in the Netherlands, presents a similar set of allegations and names the same defendants.

At a press conference last week, Dutch attorney Peter Stassen, who represents the vaccine-injured plaintiffs in both cases, earlier this month petitioned the courts in both cases to hear in-person testimony by five expert witnesses regarding the safety and efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Stassen, oral hearings will be held in both cases next year, but hearing dates have not yet been scheduled. Stassen seeks to consolidate the cases.

The expert witnesses include:

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
  • Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
  • Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
  • Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Earlier this month, Stassen and the expert witnesses released a series of YouTube videos presenting their evidence and proposed testimony.

Plaintiffs ‘victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth’

Both lawsuits have taken a circuitous path in the Dutch court system.

In October 2024, the District Court of Leeuwarden rejected Gates’ motion to dismiss the case, ruling that it has jurisdiction over Gates and ordering Gates to pay the defendants’ legal fees.

In June 2025, the plaintiffs increased their claims against the defendants and petitioned the court to accept the expert witnesses’ testimony.

On Dec. 7, Stassen submitted written statements and the recorded video statements by the expert witnesses to the District Court of Leeuwarden.

The second lawsuit kicked off in March with an application for preliminary evidence proceedings. In August, the District Court of Leeuwarden denied the application, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary hearing while attempting to join the 2023 lawsuit.

In September, Stassen filed an appeal, alleging that the court did not afford the plaintiffs a fair trial, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and calling upon the court to allow the expert witnesses to testify in court.

During last week’s press conference, Stassen said the plaintiffs — and the broader public — “are victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth.”

“By suppressing the truth, my clients were misled. Had they not been misled, they would not have gotten the COVID-19 shot, a shot that the suppressors of the truth still tout as a safe and effective vaccine to this day,” Stassen said.

Expert witnesses: COVID shots ‘indistinguishable from bioweapons’

During the press conference, Stassen also noted his efforts to have the Dutch courts accept his expert witnesses’ in-person testimony. He said the witnesses intend to present evidence showing that the COVID-19 shots:

  • Are “indistinguishable from bioweapons.”
  • Offer “no health benefits whatsoever.”
  • Are “neither safe nor effective.”
  • Were released in the U.S. under emergency use authorization, “a legal status that removes the enforcement of the pharmaceutical law and consumer safeguards by the FDA,” or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
  • Are “by design, intended to cause the damage described in the package insert and reports as ‘side effects’” — including, “sudden death, heart failure, cancer, and the most horrific diseases.”
  • Are a “key component” of the “Great Reset,” “a military project in which NATO plays a significant role.”

In their video statements, the experts questioned the safety of the COVID-19 shots and the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sansone told The Defender that he and the other expert witnesses are advocating to testify in court, as this “can be more influential” than written testimony.

Sansone said he intends to provide evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are bioweapons that violate the Biological Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — the latter authored by late University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, Ph.D., an expert witness in the original lawsuit who died in January.

“Governments, healthcare facilities and the media deliberately concealed this information from the public, showing clear criminal intent,” Sansone said in his video.

Latypova told The Defender the lawsuits are the only ones worldwide alleging that “COVID was not a public health event but a government ‘project’ that resulted in mass casualty that can be characterized as ‘genocide,’ or more broadly, ‘democide’ of the population.”

In her statement, Latypova alleged that “military governance and contracting were used to develop, procure, deliver, distribute these shots all over the world” — and to bypass standard regulatory oversight procedures for pharmaceutical products.

“There is substantial evidence of non-compliance with good manufacturing practices, which is the law that governs pharmaceutical purity and honesty in labeling all over the world,” Latypova said.

Watt said the vaccines were a component of a broader effort by political, military and pharmaceutical actors to deceive the public, using the pandemic as a pretext.

“Communicable disease and pandemic threats are political fabrications based on widespread use of intentionally deceptive diagnostic testing devices for the purposes of instilling public fear and justifying vaccination and biodefense programs,” she said.

According to Fitts, global central banks and financial institutions were involved in these efforts. She said the pandemic represented an “egregious misuse of healthcare policies to implement economic and political agendas” with the goal of engineering a “Great Reset” of the global financial system.

Yeadon said that since 2020, he has attempted to warn the public that the COVID-19 vaccines are designed to “lower the fertility [rate] and [people’s health] and reduce population.”

He said that even though he was censored on social media for making such comments, “this is what I have watched happen all around me for five years.”

Pfizer CEO sought to block expert witnesses, dismiss lawsuits

Stassen said that several of the defendants, including Bourla, Rutte and the Dutch state, sought to block the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Gates was the only defendant who “deferred to the court’s judgment on this point,” Stassen said.

In September, Gates and Bourla submitted written statements of defense.

In his statement, Gates said he does not have any connection to or influence over the policies of international bodies such as the World Health Organization, either personally or through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bourla said the court “has been sufficiently informed and can dismiss the claims without the need to order an oral hearing.”

In a previous statement submitted to the District Court of Leeuwarden last year, Bourla denied that he was liable for the injuries and damages the plaintiffs sustained and maintained that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective.”

In June, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state. He remains confined in a high-security prison.

De Andere Krant reported that earlier this month, van Kessel’s pre-trial detention was extended until February, despite “a complete lack of convincing evidence.”

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.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »