Media Hall Monitors Are Annoyed About Investigations Into Demonetization Bias
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 31, 2024
A trade group representing the advertising industry, currently under scrutiny by Congress for possibly coordinating with large companies to demonetize conservative and independent media, has expressed concerns over the impact of this probe on their operations.
The group, identified by sources as the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), told Business Insider that the congressional actions led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) are hampering their ability to focus on new initiatives.
Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has accused GARM of preventing companies from placing ads with media outlets that are seen as promoting “misinformation,” specifically targeting mainstream conservative platforms such as Fox News, The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and more.
Jordan contends that the group’s actions go beyond concerns over “brand safety” and veer into outright censorship of conservative and other disfavored viewpoints.
The sources within GARM lamented the diversion of major corporations into partisan conflicts, which they believe could harm their reputation and alienate consumers. They also expressed fears about potential lawsuits arising from document disclosures which could demonstrate that their brand safety initiatives are driven by partisan motives.
In response to the grievances aired by GUILD members, a Judiciary Committee spokesman highlighted the irony in large corporations feeling harassed by these inquiries, dismissing the notion as “laughable” given the evidence of long-term bias and censorship against conservative entities by GARM members.
Victoria’s Premier unveils new parliamentary role to change men’s behavior, researching internet and social media
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 30, 2024
Australian politics is simply a gift that keeps on giving. Over the last years, several draconian measures have been enacted, from the pandemic to free speech restrictions, and now the time has come to establish a parliamentary role the focus of which will be to change people’s behavior.
Specifically – men’s behavior. This is happening in the state of Victoria, where Premier Jacinta Allan was proud to announce the role has been entrusted to MP Tim Richardson. Richardson’s official title is Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behavior Change.
It’s a first in Australia, and that’s another thing Allan was happy to point out. The result of Richardson’s work should make Victoria safer for women and children, the premier stated.
One of the snarky reactions to the announcement left on Instagram wondered if Richardson will, as part of his efforts to change men’s behavior, work to “teach men they cannot identify as women.”
But that is highly unlikely what Allan has in mind – instead she spoke about stopping “the tragedy of deaths of Victorian women at the hands of men” and building “respectful relationships.”
Yet, how is Richardson supposed to influence such things and do a better job than say, the police, or therapists? Apparently, he will deal with social media and the internet – that Australian authorities at various levels are positively obsessed with, in terms of attempts to control them.
Allan said Richardson will “focus largely on the influence the internet and social media have on boys” and their “attitudes” toward women.
The MP confirmed his appointment, opting for a statement strong on sloganeering that said, “We know that the time to act on men’s violence against women is now and it starts with us men and boys.”
Aside from the fact that “the time” to act against that and other types of violence is surely “always” – it remains largely unclear from these announcements how exactly Richardson’s activities will help with this matter.
What has been revealed is that the Victoria MP will work with the state’s Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence Vicki Ward.
Australians must be hoping that Richardson will on one hand be successful – and on the other, that the “focus on the influence the internet and social media have” will not be taken as yet another formalized way for the Australian authorities to further crack down on online speech and communications.
Alternative Media Giants Sue The Censorship Industrial Complex
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 29, 2024
In a new lawsuit, Webseed and Brighteon Media have accused multiple US government agencies and prominent tech companies of orchestrating a vast censorship operation aimed at suppressing dissenting viewpoints, particularly concerning COVID-19. The plaintiffs, Webseed and Brighteon Media, manage websites like NaturalNews.com and Brighteon.com, which have been at the center of controversy for their alternative health information and criticism of government policies.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
The defendants include the Department of State, the Global Engagement Center (GEC), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and tech giants such as Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), Google, and X. Additionally, organizations like NewsGuard Technologies, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) are implicated for their roles in creating and using tools to label and suppress what they consider misinformation.
Allegations of Censorship and Anti-Competitive Practices:
The lawsuit claims that these government entities and tech companies conspired to develop and promote censorship tools to suppress the speech of Webseed and Brighteon Media, among others. “The Government was the primary source of misinformation during the pandemic, and the Government censored dissidents and critics to hide that fact,” states Stanford University Professor J. Bhattacharya in support of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs argue that the government’s efforts were part of a broader strategy to silence voices that did not align with official narratives on COVID-19 and other issues. They assert that these actions were driven by an “anti-competitive animus” aimed at eliminating alternative viewpoints from the digital public square.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs have suffered substantial economic harm, estimating losses between $25 million and $50 million due to reduced visibility and ad revenue from their platforms. They also claim significant reputational damage as a result of being labeled as purveyors of misinformation.
The complaint details how the GEC and other agencies allegedly funded and promoted tools developed by NewsGuard, ISD, and GDI to blacklist and demonetize websites like NaturalNews.com. These tools, which include blacklists and so-called “nutrition labels,” were then utilized by tech companies to censor content on their platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration between government agencies and private tech companies constitutes an unconstitutional suppression of free speech.
A Broader Pattern of Censorship:
The lawsuit references other high-profile cases, such as Missouri v. Biden, to illustrate a pattern of government overreach into the digital information space. It highlights how these efforts have extended beyond foreign disinformation to target domestic voices that challenge prevailing government narratives.
Webseed and Brighteon Media are seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief to prevent further censorship. They contend that the government’s actions violate the First Amendment and call for an end to the use of these censorship tools.
As the case progresses, it promises to shine a light on the complex interplay between government agencies, tech companies, and the tools used to control the flow of information in the digital age. The outcome could have significant implications for the future of free speech and the regulation of online content.
Case of 14-Year-Old Vaccinated for COVID Against His Will Headed to North Carolina Supreme Court
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | May 28, 2024
The North Carolina Supreme Court on May 23 agreed to hear the case of a Guilford County teenager who was given a COVID-19 vaccine against his will and without parental consent in August 2021, according to Carolina Journal.
The court’s decision to take up the case comes after a North Carolina appeals court ruled against the teen and his mother in March, upholding a lower court’s dismissal of their lawsuit.
Tanner Smith, then 14 years old, was instructed to get tested for COVID-19 at a Guilford County Schools vaccination site in order to continue playing football.
Despite Smith’s objections and the lack of parental consent, clinic workers administered a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, which at the time was available only under emergency use authorization (EUA).
In its unanimous ruling against Smith and his mother, Emily Happel, the appeals court found that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act shielded the defendants — Guilford County Board of Education and Old North State Medical Society — from liability in the lawsuit.
Commenting on the case, attorney Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense, emphasized its significance for parental rights and the scope of the PREP Act’s liability shield.
“The North Carolina Supreme Court is the highest court so far to review parental rights vis-à-vis the PREP Act,” he told The Defender.
Flores argued that while the PREP Act is a “turbo-charged product liability immunity statute,” it should not shield “willful misconduct, fraud, breach of contract, undisclosed ingredients, false advertising — and certainly must not continue to abolish parental rights.”
Court recognized ‘egregious’ conduct but was ‘constrained’ by PREP Act
On August 19, 2021, Guilford County Schools sent a letter to Smith’s mother and stepfather about a “recent COVID-19 cluster” involving his football teammates. The letter recommended Smith report for a COVID-19 test to continue participating on the team.
The letter stated that testing would occur at Northwest Guilford High School on August 20, 2021, and that Old North State Medical Society would conduct the testing.
When Smith arrived at the testing site, workers gave him a form to fill out, which he believed to be related to the COVID-19 test.
Unbeknownst to Smith and his family, the site also operated as a COVID-19 vaccination clinic. Clinic workers attempted to contact Smith’s mother to obtain consent for administering the vaccine but were unsuccessful.
Despite the lack of parental consent and Tanner’s own objections, one of the clinic workers instructed another to “give it to him anyway,” and Tanner was injected with a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
In August 2022, Emily Happel and Tanner Smith sued the Guilford County Board of Education and Old North State Medical Society, alleging battery and violations of their constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs argued that administering the COVID-19 vaccine without consent violated Tanner’s bodily autonomy rights and Emily’s parental rights under the North Carolina Constitution.
However, in February 2023, a lower court dismissed the case, citing the immunity provided by the federal PREP Act. The defendants argued that the PREP Act shielded them from liability for claims related to the administration of covered countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 vaccine, during a declared public health emergency.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ March decision affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.
In its opinion, the court acknowledged the “egregious” nature of the conduct alleged in the case but found itself “constrained” by the broad immunity provided by the PREP Act.
The court held that both the Guilford County Board of Education and Old North State Medical Society were covered persons under the PREP Act and that the immunity applied to claims related to the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.
The court noted that the PREP Act preempted state laws, including North Carolina’s statute requiring parental consent for EUA vaccines to minors.
‘We will win in the end’
Following the Court of Appeals decision, Emily Happel and Tanner Smith petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to hear their case.
The plaintiffs contended that the lower courts’ decisions have rendered North Carolina’s parental consent statute “totally useless” and “a law of aspiration, with no consequence for its blatant violation.”
David “Steven” Walker, attorney for the plaintiffs, wrote that the case:
“… involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State — the interplay between duty of the courts of North Carolina to remedy constitutional and other legal violations and a federal law that defendants purport forecloses that opportunity. …
“The trial court and the Court of Appeals interpreted the PREP Act so broadly as to shield nearly every act, no matter how egregious, from any legal consequence.”
On May 23, 2024, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, focusing solely on the specific issue from Happel and Smith’s appeal concerning “Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred when they determined that the PREP Act provided immunity to the defendants for constitutional violations and pre-empted all state law claims.”
The court’s decision to hear the case sets the stage for a potential landmark ruling on the scope of the PREP Act and its impact on state laws protecting parental rights.
Eight Republican members of the North Carolina House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The legislators, represented by attorney B. Tyler Brooks of the Thomas More Society, argued that they have a “special interest in protecting the fundamental rights of the parents they represent and for whom the General Assembly has recently enacted legislation on the very subject embraced by this appeal.”
The law in question, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.5(a1), specifically prohibits the conduct of the clinic workers in this case. It states:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a health care provider shall obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering any vaccine that has been granted emergency use authorization and is not yet fully approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to an individual under 18 years of age.”
Flores said the legislators’ “expertly drafted” brief “dismantles the lower courts’ finding that PREP extinguishes applicable state law” and that its “mere filing … reaffirms my conviction that we will win in the end.”
Flores is no stranger to challenging the PREP Act’s liability shield. In May 2023, he sued the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) on behalf of George Watts, Jr., a 24-year-old who died from myocarditis complications after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Flores argued the DOD engaged in willful misconduct by continuing to distribute the EUA version of the vaccine after the FDA granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine.
EUA vaccines have a lower bar for safety and effectiveness. Watts delayed taking the vaccine until after FDA approval of Comirnaty, but the DOD did not make the approved vaccine available.
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.
Global Elections Face Growing Censorship Threat: The Rise of “Prebunking”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 28, 2024
The feverish search for the next “disinformation” silver bullet continues as several elections are being held worldwide.
Censorship enthusiasts, who habitually use the terms “dis/misinformation” to go after lawful online speech that happens to not suit their political or ideological agenda, now feel that debunking has failed them.
(That can be yet another euphemism for censorship – when “debunking” political speech means removing information those directly or indirectly in control of platforms don’t like.)
Enter “prebuking” – and regardless of how risky, especially when applied in a democracy, this is, those who support the method are not swayed even by the possibility it may not work.
Prebunking is a distinctly dystopian notion that the audiences and social media users can be “programmed” (proponents use the term, “inoculated”) to reject information as untrustworthy.
To achieve that, speech must be discredited and suppressed as “misinformation” (via warnings from censors) before, not after it is seen by people.
“A radical playbook” is what some legacy media reports call this, at the same time implicitly justifying it as a necessity in a year that has been systematically hyped up as particularly dangerous because of elections taking place around the globe.
The Washington Post disturbingly sums up prebunking as exposing people to “weakened doses of misinformation paired with explanations (…) aimed at helping the public develop ‘mental antibodies’.”
This type of manipulation is supposed to steer the “unwashed masses” toward making the right (aka, desired by the “prebunkers”) conclusions, as they decide who to vote for.
Even as this is seen by opponents as a threat to democracy, it is being adopted widely – “from Arizona to Taiwan (with the EU in between)” – under the pretext of actually protecting democracy.
Where there are governments and censorship these days, there’s inevitably Big Tech, and Google and Meta are mentioned as particularly involved in carrying out prebunking campaigns, notably in the EU.
Apparently Google will not be developing Americans’ “mental antibodies” ahead of the US vote in November – that might prove too controversial, at least at this point in time.
The risk-reward ratio here is also unappealing.
“There aren’t really any actual field experiments showing that it (prebunking) can change people’s behavior in an enduring way,” said Cornell University psychology professor Gordon Pennycook.
Former Biden Homeland Security Official Criticizes Free Speech, Cites “Disinformation” Impact on Election Security
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 28, 2024
A former Biden administration official has declared that disinformation around elections is “becoming the norm rather than the exception.”
Samantha Vinograd, until recently of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also asserted that these days, because of what she considers to be election disinformation, “there is an unprecedented level of physical threats” while the US information ecosystem is “incredibly vulnerable.”
Dramatic and alarmist statements like this may be necessary to justify the rest of Vinograd’s message, which in effect attacks free speech, as it is legally protected in the US.
Appearing on CBS, Vinograd – who was until last December Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention – warned that the First Amendment might protect free speech, but that engaging in free speech is apparently not “cost-free.”
The Face the Nation hosts framed the problem as, essentially, federal laws (the Constitution) protecting speech, but the damage being done at the state level – and then what states, who organize elections, can do to fix that “problem.”
Spreading lies about candidates, as they put it, was given as an example of legal, protected speech becoming an issue by having the ability to create “a threat at the state level” – and asked Vinograd who she thought was supposed to correct the situation.
Vinograd – who has been bouncing between various administrations (including those of Bush and Obama, and private companies like Goldman Sachs and Stripe before landing at Biden’s DHS) – seemed to suggest that Big Tech (i.e., social media companies) should be assisting the government.
The federal government said Vinograd, “should not be the omnipresent fact checker for the American people.”
And even though, according to her, the government is debunking information about elections that is deemed to be inaccurate, social media companies “should be thinking about what kinds of election disinformation violate their terms of service.”
It’s difficult not to take this as a not-so-veiled added pressure on social platforms to not only continue with censoring content but perhaps expand it in terms of what qualifies as election disinformation.
Either way, Vinograd is in favor of enlisting “every American” to help out as well (although it is not clear in what specific way), invoking even the concept of patriotic duty.
And Vinograd did not miss the opportunity to assert that election misinformation threats are now of such magnitude as to present a national security issue.
The Drive for War
By Craig Murray | May 18, 2024
The collective shrug with which the Western media and political class noted the attempted assassination of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has been telling.
Can you imagine the outrage and emotion that would have been expressed by Western powers if not Fico but a pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian leader within the EU had been attacked? The new orders for weapons that would have been presented to the arms manufacturers, the troops that would have been deployed, the sabres that would have been rattled?
Instead we have the media telling us that Fico opposed sending arms to Ukraine and opposed threatening Russia. We are told he did not accept the mainstream narrative on Covid vaccinations. The media do not quite say he deserved to be shot, but they come very, very close.
Fellow EU leaders followed correct form in making statements of shock and disgust at the attack on Fico, but they were formal and perfunctory. The “not actually one of us” message was very clear.
There are now an ordered set of neoliberal beliefs to which anybody in a Western nation participating in public affairs must subscribe, or they are beyond the pale.
Not to subscribe to all of these beliefs makes you a “populist”, a “conspiracy theorist”, a “Putin puppet” or a “useful idiot”.
These are some of the “key beliefs”:
No. 1) Wealth is only created by a small number of ultra-wealthy capitalists on whom the employment of everybody else ultimately depends.
No. 2) The laws governing financial structures must therefore tend to concentrate wealth to these individuals, so that they may deploy it as they choose.
No. 3) State-created currency must only be concentrated in and distributed to private financial institutions.
No. 4) Public spending is always less efficient than private spending.
No. 5) Russia, China and Iran pose an existential threat to the West. That comprises both an economic threat and a physical, military threat.
No. 6) Colonialism was a boon to the world, bringing economic development, trade and education to people of inferior cultures.
No. 7) Islam is a threat to Western values and to world development.
No. 8) Israel is a necessary project for spreading Western values to the uncivilised Middle East.
No. 9) Security necessitates devoting very substantial resources to arms production and the waging of continual war.
No. 10) Nothing must threaten the military and arms industry interest. No battle against corruption or crime can override the need for the security military industrial complex to be completely unchallenged and internally supreme.
Dependent Orthodoxies
Within this architecture of belief, other orthodoxies hang dependent, such as the correct way to respond to a complex pandemic, or support for NATO and impunity for the security services. (Support for Israel is probably better portrayed as a dependent point, but with the subject of Gaza so prominent at the moment I have figuratively moved it into the main structure.)
Any deviation on any point of belief is a challenge to the entire system, and thus must be eradicated. You will note there is no room whatsoever, within this architecture of thought, for values like freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. They simply do not fit. Nor is it possible within this architecture to incorporate actual democracy, which would give people a choice of what to believe.
If you accept this architecture of thought, then you must argue that the genocide in Gaza is a good thing, and it threatens the entire structure if you state that it is not a good thing. That is why we have witnessed the spectacle of politicians defying and then repressing their own people, willing to place all of their political capital at the service of genocidal Zionism.
Words struggle to convey the horrors we have all seen from Gaza, and in no way does it lessen the terrible suffering nor the extent of the crime to observe that it has caused a major rift in the neoliberal belief system which cannot be hidden from the people.
Gaza has ramifications leading to questioning throughout the system. Why is Tik Tok being banned, to stop people getting information on Gaza? Why is it a problem that the platform is owned by China?
What has China done that makes it an enemy? China has no military designs on the West. Of recent purchases most of us have made of physical goods, a high proportion have come from China. Why is an important trade partner an “enemy”?
Why is Russia our enemy? The notion that the Russian army is going to land on the Wash is utterly implausible. The Russian state, over centuries and wildly differing regimes, has never had the slightest desire to invade the British Isles. In the U.K., under various governments, for almost three centuries charlatans have been claiming a threat of Russian invasion to justify higher defence expenditure.
Why the need to have “enemies” at all?
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support.
Remembering Those Who Died for Our Government
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | May 28, 2024
Each Memorial Day, countless Americans recite the standard mantra that has been inculcated within their minds from the first grade of the public (i.e., government) schools to which their parents were forced to send them: American soldiers who died in America’s wars died to protect our freedoms and defend our country.
Each Memorial Day, it is worth reminding ourselves that such is simply not the case. American soldiers who died in those wars died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
And, yes, our government and our country are two separate and distinct entities, a phenomenon reflected by the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects our country from our government.
Afghanistan. The Taliban government never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The reason that the U.S. government went to war against Afghanistan was that the Taliban regime refused to comply with President Bush’s unconditional extradition demand, which the Taliban regime had the right to do given that there was no extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan. Thus, U.S. soldiers who died in Afghanistan died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
Iraq. Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Thus, U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
Vietnam. North Vietnam and the Vietcong never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
Korea. North Korea never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
World War II. While Japan did attack the United States, it was not with the intent of invading and conquering the United States. Japan’s aim was simply to knock out the U.S. Pacific Fleet to secure oil from the Dutch East Indies. The attack was a response to President Roosevelt’s oil embargo, whose aim was to provoke Japan into attacking the United States, as a “back door” to getting the U.S. embroiled in the European War against Germany, which the vast majority of Americans opposed. While a German victory over the United States in Europe combined with a Japanese victory in the Pacific might well have threatened people’s freedom here at home, it is worth reminding ourselves that American soldiers died as a result of FDR’s success in securing U.S. intervention into the war.
World War I. Germany never attacked or invaded the United States and had no interest in a war against the United States. President Wilson intervened in the European conflict with two war aims: make this the war to end all wars and to make the world safe for democracy. Thus, U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
Spanish-American War. The Spanish Empire never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Thus, U.S. soldiers died for their government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.
It’s also worth reminding ourselves that the government for which U.S. soldiers have died conscripted many of them to fight in the war in which they died. When a government has to force people to fight its wars, that’s a pretty good sign that soldiers have actually died for nothing.
As Ukrainian casualties soar, EU will move to conscript European youth to fight, warns Hungarian FM
Remix News | May 27, 2024
Ukraine’s high causality rates combined with its struggle to conscript its own population means the EU will increasingly move to conscript European youth, mostly in the geographical proximity of Ukraine, to fight against Russia, said Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó following a meeting with EU foreign ministers.
“Ukrainian casualties are becoming more and more unbearable, Ukrainian men are not being allowed out of Ukraine, and now they want to conscript European youth into the war. And obviously, as the escalation hits this neighborhood first, one can almost clearly hear the argument that the soldiers should be sent from the geographical proximity first. All this means that they want to send Central European youth, including Hungarian youth, to the war with mandatory European conscription,” said Szijjártó during an interview with Hungarian media.
The Hungarian foreign minister said he would be firmly opposed to any efforts to institute a European mandatory conscription effort, stating: “Hands off Central Europeans, hands off Hungarian youth, we will not allow Hungarian youth to be involved in the war, because this is not our war.”
Szijjártó did not disclose which foreign ministers or member states are exploring the possibility of a European conscription effort, but recently, several countries have said they would consider sending their own troops to Ukraine if Russia had a breakthrough on the Ukrainian front, including France and more recently, the Baltic states.
However, a long-term goal of the left-liberal establishment in Brussels is the creation of an EU military force, including removing the decision-making process about defense from member states and centralizing it in Brussels. Under such a proposal, a potential conscription effort could arise that applies to all EU member states.
Szijjártó described an extremely intense atmosphere at the Council of Foreign Ministers in Brussels before the European Parliament elections. He stated that the mood turned sour when those present began to talk about the release of €6.5 billion for Ukraine, which the Hungarian foreign minister rejected, saying it would only escalate the war. However, his position came under extreme pressure from a number of other countries.
“And there was a big mess here. The German, Lithuanian, Irish, Polish and other colleagues fell against me in this matter, but this could not shake our position, despite the shouting of Europe’s pro-war politicians,” he said.
“They think that if they shout from many directions, then I will say that it is good, it is fine. However, they should already know us well enough to know this won’t happen,” he added.
Record numbers of ‘external and internal enemies’ threaten EU – Macron
RT | May 26, 2024
The EU is facing a record number of “external and internal enemies,” who pose an existential threat to the bloc, French President Emmanuel Macron has said, doubling down on a warning he’d given earlier, that “our Europe” could end up dying.
Macron made the remarks while speaking alongside Germany’s head of state, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, on the first of his three-day state visit. The two attended the Festival of Democracy, held in Berlin’s government quarter, to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the country’s constitution.
“I think that we are experiencing a moment in our Europe which is existential because I really believe that our Europe can die,” Macron stated, referring to a keynote speech he’d delivered in April.
The French president urged a vote for pro-EU forces in the upcoming European elections, warning the bloc has “never had so many enemies inside and outside” as it has now. The purported internal enemies are apparently European nationalists, with their rise raising questions about democracy itself, Macron asserted.
“There is a form of fascination with authoritarianism which is born in our own democracies … which also feeds nationalism and other extremes on our continent,” he claimed.
Macron painted a grim picture of “nationalists” entering government, alleging that they would have failed to tackle Covid-19 and shown “no capacity to respond to migration challenges,” climate change issues, and so on.
“We would have abandoned backing Ukraine against Russia, which all the nationalists in our countries support. And, therefore, history would have not been the same,” the president alleged.
“For all these reasons, it is important to vote in the Europeans,” he concluded.
The call was backed by Steinmeier, who said that the mere fact that Macron had shown up at the Festival of Democracy was somehow “a signal that we need an alliance of democrats in Europe.”
Featured Video
America Racing to Strategic Defeat in Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
An Expert Military Analysis of War with China
Actually, None is Necessary
By Fred Reed • Unz Review • December 13, 2020
The Correlation of Armed Forces: U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $634.8 billion in 2019. Exports were $163.0 billion; imports were $471.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $308.8 billion in 2019. Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $76.7 billion in 2019. Services exports were $56.5 billion; services imports were $20.1 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $36.4 billion in 2019.
There is talk within the Washingtoniat of a possible war with China. Steve Bannon, who apparently was dropped on his head as a child, actually favors such a war. We hear the usual shoo-the-boobs alarm about how the Chinese are doing something terrible and we must gird our loins and American values and show them what for, bow wow, woof. The danger is that the current game of who-blinks-first in Asian waters might actually provoke a shooting war. You know the kind of thing: One warship refuses to get out of the way of another, a collision ensues, some retard lieutenant who signed up on waivers opens fire, and we’re off and running. It is not a good idea to let children play with matches.
The said war is discussed either in emotional terms by idiots or in purely naval terms by those familiar with such things, so we hear of the First Island Chain and the Second Island Chain and whose missiles against the other’s missiles and so on. This would be appropriate if we were fighting World War Two again. Which we aren’t. Let’s take a quick-and-dirty look at how such a war might go.
To begin the war, America would overestimate itself and underestimate China. This is doctrine in the Pentagon. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Suicide Should Not Be a Government Service
- Rethinking America’s greatest threat: Iran vs. Israel-Firsters
- Iran accuses adversaries of false flags to strain Turkey ties
- Poland rules out sending Patriot missiles to US/Israel amid war on Iran
- Tehran approves new Hormuz plan with major restrictions
- No Threat Can Force Iran’s Surrender /Trita Parsi & Lt Cl Daniel Davis
- UK’s New Pandemic Plan Would Turn Big Tech Into a Mass Location Tracking Network
- Growing insecurity, soaring prices fuel protests in north as regime bans evacuation: Sources
- Iran denies responsibility for ‘depraved’ attack on Kuwait desalination plant
- Bring The Troops Back. End This War Now!
- If Americans Knew
- Carrying life under fire: Israeli invasion of Lebanon leaves pregnant women facing deadly risks
- Champagne all around for the new death penalty (for Palestinians) law – Not a ceasefire Day 172
- Why are Palestinian books struggling to be seen on Amazon?
- The Line Between Affinity and Conspiracy
- As Iran targets US military bases, will they be relocated to Israel? Not a ceasefire Day 171
- Will Trump Go Kamikaze?
- Is the University of Florida Shutting Down College Republicans over Israel Criticism?
- Jewish extremist arrested over alleged plot to firebomb Palestinian activist Nerdeen Kiswani’s home
- More than half of Palestinian child detainees have no charges
- The More Murderous Israel Gets, The More We Hear About “Antisemitism”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
Aletho News 