Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Massie Taunts AIPAC After Demolishing Primary Challengers

By Tyler Durden | Zerohedge | May 22, 2024

Despite having been targeted by the most powerful, pro-Israel political organization operating in America, libertarian-minded Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie stomped his two Republican primary challengers on Tuesday — and then used social media to mock his Israel-first detractors.

Massie cruised to victory, amassing 76% of the vote, while his two would-be vanquishers roughly split the difference, with Michael McGinnis edging Eric Deters by about 1%. With no Democratic opponent even bothering to take on Massie in November, he’s set up for a sixth term representing Kentucky’s 4th congressional district, which stretches all along the northernmost part of the state.

“Tonight’s victory is a referendum on thousands of independent votes I have cast in Washington DC on behalf of Kentucky’s 4th District,” said Massie.

“I’ve consistently upheld the Constitution by voting for and sponsoring legislation to support the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the right to privacy. I’ve also fought against endless foreign wars, foreign aid and inflationary policies, regardless of who is in the White House.

Earlier this month, the independent campaign-spending arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) announced that it was pouring $300,000 into advertisements on Fox television affiliates across the Bluegrass State. The over-the-top ads said, “Israel, the Holy Land [are] under attack by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah… and Congressman Tom Massie.”

Massie has repeatedly stood out as one of the very few Republicans willing to defy the wishes of the potent pro-Israel lobby. In recent months, he voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would make universities tolerating unacceptable statements about Israel targets of federal civil rights-based punishments. He also voted against the latest, $14.3 billion aid package, noting that “Israel has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the United States.”

After Massie’s lopsided win was apparent, AIPAC tried to downplay the outcome, saying that, rather than trying to oust him in the primary, the group wanted to damage him statewide — clearly in anticipation of a possible Massie 2026 Senate run to take the seat of retiring Senate Majority Leader and quintessential establishment swamp creature Mitch McConnell.

Massie said AIPAC was guilty of “election campaign malpractice.” Referring to the $400,000 total that AIPAC had spent against him recently, he told McClatchy DC, “I’m laughing because it has the same effect as lighting it on fire and burning it… What it could do is up my name ID statewide, but two years from now nobody’s going to remember what the ad was about.”

He also deftly turned AIPAC’s announcement of its attack-blitz into a fundraising opportunity. As word of AIPAC’s  campaign spread on social media and via ZeroHedge and other outlets, more than 1,200 people contributed $101,000 to his coffers in just four days.

On Tuesday evening, Massie seized on AIPAC’s defensive tweet, drawing attention to the fact that it had been “ratio’d” by the Twitterverse.

See also:

System Update | December 2023

May 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

The Closing of the Internet Mind

The definition of online freedom has been depressingly constricted over the last thirty years

By Aaron Kheriaty, Debbie Lerman, Andrew Lowenthal, and Jeffrey Tucker | The American Mind | May 22, 2024

You have surely heard that your search results on Google (with 92 percent share of the search market) reflect not your curiosities and needs but someone or something else’s views on what you need to know. That’s hardly a secret.

And on Facebook, you are likely inundated by links to official sources to correct any errors you might carry in your head, as well as links to corrections to posts as made by any number of fact-checking organizations.

You have likely also heard of YouTube videos being taken down, apps deleted from stores, and accounts being canceled across a variety of platforms.

You might have even adjusted your behavior in light of all of this. It is part of the new culture of Internet engagement. The line you cannot cross is invisible. You are like a dog with an electric shock collar. You have to figure it out on your own, which means exercising caution when you post, pulling back on hard claims that might shock, paying attention to media culture to discern what is sayable and what is not, and generally trying to avoid controversy as best you can in order to earn the privilege of not being canceled.

Despite all the revelations regarding the Censorship Industrial Complex, and the wide involvement of government in these efforts, plus the resulting lawsuits that claim that this is all censorship, the walls are clearly closing in further by the day.

Users are growing accustomed to it, for fear of losing their accounts. For example, YouTube (which feeds 55 percent of all video content online) allows three strikes before your account is deleted permanently. One strike is devastating and two existential. You are frozen in place and forced to relinquish everything–including your ability to earn a living if your content is monetized–if you make one or two wrong moves.

No one needs to censor you at that point. You censor yourself.

It was not always this way. It was not even supposed to be this way.

It’s possible to trace the dramatic change from the past to present by following the trajectory of various Declarations that have been issued over the years. The tone was set at the dawn of the World Wide Web in 1996 by digital guru, Grateful Dead lyricist, and Harvard University fellow John Perry Barlow, who died in 2018.

Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, somewhat ironically written in Davos, Switzerland, is still hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that he founded. The manifesto waxes lyrical about the liberatory, open future of internet freedom:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

And so on it went with a heady, expansive vision–tinged perhaps with a dash of sixties utopian anarchism–that shaped the ethos which drove the building of the Internet in the early days. It appeared to a whole generation of coders and content providers that a new world of freedom had been born that would shepherd in a new era of freedom more generally, with growing knowledge, human rights, creative freedom, and borderless connection of everyone to literature, facts, and truth emerging organically from a crowd-sourced process of engagement.

Nearly a decade and a half later, by 2012, that idea was fully embraced by the main architects of the emergent app economy and the explosion of smartphone use across the world. The result was the Declaration of Internet Freedom that went live in July of 2012 and garnered a great deal of press attention at the time. Signed by the EFF, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, and other liberty-focused organizations, it read:

To be sure, it was not quite as sweeping and visionary as the Barlow original but maintained the essence, putting free expression as the first principle with the lapidary phrase: “Don’t censor the Internet.” It might have stopped there, but given the existing threats coming from growing industrial cartels and the stored-data marketplace, it also pushed openness, innovation, and privacy as first principles.

Again, this outlook defined an era and elicited broad agreement. “Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress,” said Hillary Clinton in an endorsement of the freedom principle in 2010. The 2012 Declaration was neither right-wing nor left-wing. It encapsulated the core of what it meant to favor freedom on the Internet, exactly as the title suggests.

If you go to the site internetdeclaration.org now, your browser will not reveal any of its contents. The secure certificate is dead. If you bypass the warning, you will find yourself forbidden from accessing any of the contents. The tour through Archive.org shows that the last living presentation of the site was February 2018.

This occurred three years after Donald Trump publicly advocated that “in some places” we have to talk about “closing up the Internet.” He got his wish, but it came after him personally following his election in 2016. The very free speech about which he made fun turned out to be rather important to him and his cause.

Two years into the Trump presidency, precisely as the censorship industry started coalescing into full operation, the site of the Declaration site broke down and eventually disappeared.

Fast forward a decade from the writing of the Internet Declaration of Freedom. The year is 2022 and we had been through a rough two years of account takedowns, particularly against those who doubted the wisdom of lockdowns or vaccine mandates. The White House revealed on April 22, 2022 a Declaration for the Future of the Internet. It comes complete with a parchment-style presentation and a large capital letter in old-fashioned script. The word “freedom” is removed from the title and added only as a part of the word salad that follows in the text.

Signed by 60 nations, the new Declaration was released to great fanfare, including a White House press release. The signatory nations were all NATO-aligned while excluding others. The signatories are: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, the European Commission, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, North Macedonia, Palau, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

The core of the new declaration is very clear and represents a good encapsulation of the essence of the structures that govern content today: “The Internet should operate as a single, decentralized network of networks – with global reach and governed through the multistakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.”

The term “stakeholder” (as in “stakeholder capitalism”) became popular in the nineties as distinct from “shareholder” meaning a partial owner. A stakeholder is not an owner or even a consumer but a party or institution with a strong interest in the outcome of the decision-making by the owners, whose rights might need to be overridden in the broader interests of everyone. In this way, the term came to describe an amorphous group of influential third parties that deserve a say in the management of institutions and systems. A “multistakeholder” approach is how civil society is brought inside the tent, with financing and seeming influence, and told that they matter as an incentive to woke-wash their outlooks and operations.

Using that linguistic fulcrum, part of the goal of the new Declaration is explicitly political: “Refrain from using the Internet to undermine the electoral infrastructure, elections and political processes, including through covert information manipulation campaigns.” From this admonition we can conclude that the new Internet is structured to discourage “manipulation campaigns” and even goes so far as to “foster greater social and digital inclusion within society, bolster resilience to disinformation and misinformation, and increase participation in democratic processes.”

Following the latest in censorship language, every form of top-down blockage and suppression is now justified in the name of fostering inclusion (that is, “DEI,” as in Diversity [three mentions], Equity [two mentions], and Inclusion [five mentions]) and stopping dis- and mis-information, language identical to that invoked by the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the rest of the industrial complex that operates to stop information spread.

This agency was created in the waning days of the Obama administration and approved by Congress in 2018, supposedly to protect our digital infrastructure against cyberattacks from computer viruses and nefarious foreign actors. But less than one year into its existence, CISA decided that our election infrastructure was part of our critical infrastructure (thereby asserting Federal control over elections, which are typically handled by the states). Furthermore, part of protecting our election infrastructure included protecting what CISA director Jen Easterly called our “cognitive infrastructure.”

Easterly, who formerly worked at Tailored Access Operations, a top secret cyber warfare unit at the National Security Agency, coined the queen of all Orwellian euphemisms: “cognitive infrastructure,” which refers to the thoughts inside your head. This is precisely what the government’s counter-disinformation apparatus, headed by people like Easterly, are attempting to control. True to this stated aim, CISA pivoted by 2020 to become the nerve center of the government’s censorship apparatus–the agency through which all government and “stakeholder” censorship demands are funneled to social media companies.

Now consider what we’ve learned about Wikipedia, which is owned by Wikimedia, the former CEO of which was Katherine Maher, now slated to be the head CEO of National Public Radio. She has been a consistent and public defender of censorship, even suggesting that the First Amendment is “the number one challenge.”

The co-founder of Wikipedia, Joseph Sanger, has said he suspects that she turned Wikipedia into an intelligence-operated platform. “We know that there is a lot of backchannel communication,” he said in an interview. “I think it has to be the case that the Wikimedia Foundation now, probably governments, probably the CIA, have accounts that they control, in which they actually exert their influence. And it’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’ When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open.”

What happened to Wikipedia, which all search engines privilege among all results, has befallen nearly every prominent venue on the Internet. The Elon Musk takeover of Twitter has proven to be aberrant and highly costly in terms of advertising dollars, and hence elicits vast opposition from the venues that are on the other side. That his renamed platform X even exists at all seems to run contrary to every wish of the controlled and controlling establishment today.

We have traveled a very long way from the vision of John Perry Barlow in 1996, who imagined a cyberworld in which governments were not involved to one in which governments and their “multi stakeholder partners” are in charge of “a rules-based global digital economy.” In the course of this complete reversal, the Declaration of Internet Freedom became the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, with the word freedom consigned to little more than a passing reference.

The transition from one to the other was–like bankruptcy–gradual at first and then all at once. We’ve traveled rather quickly from “you [governments and corporate interests] are not welcome among us” to a “single, decentralized network of networks” managed by “governments and relevant authorities” including “academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others” to create a “rules-based digital economy.”

And that is the core of the Great Reset affecting the main tool by which today’s information channels have been colonized by the corporatist complex.

May 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

From COVID-19 to Campus Protests: How the Police State Muzzles Free Speech

By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | May 21, 2024

The police state does not want citizens who know their rights.

Nor does the police state want citizens prepared to exercise those rights.

This year’s graduates are a prime example of this master class in compliance. Their time in college has been set against a backdrop of crackdowns, lockdowns and permacrises ranging from the government’s authoritarian COVID-19 tactics to its more recent militant response to campus protests.

Born in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, these young people have been raised without any expectation of privacy in a technologically-driven, mass surveillance state; educated in schools that teach conformity and compliance; saddled with a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion; made vulnerable by the blowback from a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies; policed by government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice; and forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences.

And now, when they should be empowered to take their rightful place in society as citizens who fully understand and exercise their right to speak truth to power, they are being censored, silenced and shut down.

Consider what happened recently in Charlottesville, Va., when riot police were called in to shut down campus protests at the University of Virginia staged by students and members of the community to express their opposition to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine.

As the local newspaper reported, “State police sporting tactical gear and riot shields moved in on the demonstrators, using pepper spray and sheer force to disperse the group and arrest the roughly 15 or so at the camp, where for days students, faculty and community members had sang songs, read poetry and painted signs in protest of Israel’s ongoing war in the Palestinian territory of Gaza.”

What a sad turn-about for an institution which was founded as an experiment in cultivating an informed citizenry by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, champion of the Bill of Rights, and the nation’s third president.

Unfortunately, the University of Virginia is not unique in its heavy-handed response to what have been largely peaceful anti-war protests. According to the Washington Post, more than 2300 people have been arrested for taking part in similar campus protests across the country.

These lessons in compliance, while expected, are what comes of challenging the police state.

Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked.

Remember, the First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.”

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

If citizens cannot stand out in the open and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.

After all, living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign.

That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about: it assures the citizenry of the right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.

Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials.

In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.

Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.

Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, or on college campuses, the First Amendment has lost all meaning.

If we cannot stand peacefully outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans.

And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.

The source of the protest shouldn’t matter. The politics of the protesters are immaterial.

To play politics with the First Amendment encourages a double standard that will see us all muzzled in the end.

The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is the final link in the police state chain.

If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

May 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

America’s Constitutional State of Emergency

Perpetual Presidential Emergency Powers and the Undermining of the Constitutional Balance of Power

By Dennis Kucinich | The Kucinich Report | May 23, 2024

More than 23 years ago, George W. Bush, Jr. signed  Presidential Proclamation 7463 declaring that a “national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.”

The White House has demonstrated, in several administrations, both Democrat and Republican, “threat inflation” for the sake of spending endless money on wars, and manipulating fears to hold on to power to continue to spend endless money on even more wars in the ultimate protection racket.

As a result, the constitutional system of checks and balances is being obliterated in favor of an Imperial Presidency, and, as the Constitution is eroded, so too, are our liberties.

The recent chipping away at our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights can be traced directly to the psychology of a “State of Emergency,” which licenses shredding of freedom.

Presidents no longer ask Congress for explicit permission to go to war, as the Constitution requires, under Article 1, Section 8.  Courts have held that once Congress appropriates money for wars, that is  tantamount to congressional approval.

The increased spending for war has militarized our culture, proliferates enemies, creates violence at home and abroad.

We must break this cycle of fear, the endless wars and the emergency powers for Presidents who are not accountable to the Congress, which is directly elected by the people.

Those of us who witnessed the events of 9/11, up close, or from a distance, will never forget the imminent danger, the fear, the grief, the loss, the uncertainty that gripped us in those days. Nor will we forget those whose lives were sacrificed, or those who gave their lives in service to humanity on that day, or those who died following long-term illnesses which began during and after the attacks 23 years ago.

That is why it may surprise some that on September 7, 2023, President Joe Biden proclaimed, “I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.”  

23 years later and trillions upon trillions of dollars spent to “make us safer” and we are still in a “State of Emergency,”  facing the same terror threats?  

America has been in and continues to be in a State of Emergency which has endowed the Presidency with broad powers and undermined the Constitutional role of Congress, while placing presidential emergency declarations on par with congressional declarations of war, under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  Presidents from Bush, Jr., to Biden have all capitalized on declarations of a state of emergency.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government. America’s Founders did not design the Congress to be subordinate to the Presidency, but strong presidents and weak Congresses have created that condition.

According to Congressional Research Service (CRS), there are 106 laws which further empower the executive branch following a presidential declaration of a “National Emergency.”  The Brennan Center for Justice has identified a total of 136 expanded executive powers.  

The emergency powers may not have been used explicitly but their use is authorized once a “National Emergency” is declared.  Among the emergency powers of the President, (as cited by CRS) without a need for congressional permission:

  • Executive ability to detail members of the armed forces to foreign countries, without congressional approval.
  • Undertake military construction.
  • Carry out military construction with NATO funds.
  • Order “Ready Reserve” to active duty for two years, without their consent.
  • Additional penalties for “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.”
  • Lift prohibition on infectious medical waste being dumped in the ocean.
  • Seize, shutdown or appropriate broadcast stations.
  • Suspend laws concerning production and transportation of chemical, biological  and “warfare agents.”

We live in a forever state of emergency, with forever wars, forever fears, forever siphoning off our tax dollars.

Remember:

–    The Bush Administration lied when it claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11,  but proceeded to characterize Iraqis as terrorists in an attempt to justify killing one million Iraqi citizens.

–    Since 9/11, over $8 trillion dollars of our $34 trillion dollar national debt is attributable to wars which never had to be fought, wars which put the lives of America’s brave sons and daughters on the line.

–    The United States shelved diplomacy in favor of weaponry as a means of international relations.

–    At present the USA spends close to one trillion dollars a year for supporting a war machine and that nearly 60% of all discretionary spending goes for preparation for war.

–    The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, (NIE) which was the (closely held) product of all US intelligence agencies, did not identify Iraq as a major threat, because it was not. The publicly available 2024 Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) of the U.S. Intelligence Community brings forth two paragraphs, out of a 41 page report, regarding “global terrorism.”

There was no discussion in the ATA of the basis for President Biden’s most recent declaration of a national emergency and the “continuing and immediate threats” even though the ATA report was being drafted at about the time that the President  continued the “National Emergency” in the name of a 23-year fight against “terrorism.”

The CATO Institute, whose pocket Constitution I carried with me during my years in Congress, suggests amending the National Emergencies Act to rein in Executive power by requiring congressional approval, and putting expiration dates on emergency powers.

Does the US have enemies?  Yes.  Should we be on our guard?  Yes.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

We should also be vigilant against government manipulating our love of country, playing with our fears, in order to control us, or to use us to support the continued erosion of our US Constitution and advance the malevolent ambitions of the military industrial complex, of which President Eisenhower warned in 1961.

May 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Georgian PM accuses EU of ‘blackmailing’ him with assassination threat

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze. © Tobias SCHWARZ / AFP
RT | May 23, 2024

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has claimed that a European commissioner told him he could end up suffering the same fate as Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who survived an assassination attempt last week.

In a Facebook post on Thursday, Kobakhidze said that the unnamed commissioner warned him during a recent phone call that the West would take “a number of measures” against him if his government pressed ahead with a law requiring foreign NGOs in Georgia to disclose their funding.

“While listing these measures, he mentioned: ‘you see what happened to Fico, and you should be very careful’,” he wrote.

Fico was shot multiple times as he met with supporters outside a government meeting in the town of Handlova on May 15. He was rushed to hospital, underwent emergency surgery, and is currently recuperating from his injuries. His would-be assassin – a 71-year-old poet who allegedly disagreed with Fico’s suspension of military aid to Ukraine – has been charged with attempted murder.

Georgia’s parliament passed the ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence Act’ last week. The law requires NGOs, media outlets, and individuals receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as entities “promoting the interests of a foreign power” and disclose their donors.

While the act has been vetoed by Georgia’s pro-Western president, Salome Zourabichvili, parliament is expected to override the veto.

May 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson Sets Record Straight on Allegations of Hosting Russian TV Program

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 22.05.2024

Tucker Carlson has refuted reports that he has become a host on Russian television.

This claim was unequivocally false, the journalist told Sputnik.

“By claiming I work for a foreign government, Newsweek is trying to justify a FISA warrant that would allow the Biden administration to continue to spy on me. It’s disgusting,” he said.

Similarly, in a post on X, Neil Patel, the CEO of the Tucker Carlson Network, said the network “has not done any deals with state media in any country.” He added that “Whoever is currently pretending to be the old Newsweek brand would know that if they had checked with us before printing like news companies are supposed to do.”

Tucker Carlson’s representative Arthur Schwartz also dismissed such reports as “pure nonsense” in an an email to Forbes.

Earlier, Newsweek reported that the US journalist – a former Fox News anchor – was launching his own show on Russian state TV. The unsubstantiated claim that was then widely picked up by users on social media.

Carlson was fired by Fox News in April 2023 after the outspoken anchor spent over two years using his popular prime time “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show to pillory the Biden administration, the military-industrial complex, and US warmongering. He has since launched a new media company and interview show on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Earlier in the year, Carlson said that his lawyers warned him that the United States could arrest him on sanctions violations for conducting an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. However, the pundit said he was happy to face such a risk and rejected the premise of such charges.

On February 9, the American journalist released his interview with Putin, which garnered over 100 million views in 24 hours on X. The long-time TV news anchor said at the time that he organized the interview because he felt it was his journalistic duty to inform Americans about the realities of the conflict in Ukraine and its consequences.

Needless to say, the hypocrisy of Western journalists and legacy media was laid bare in the attack they launched at Tucker Carlson, accusing him as a traitor after the sit-down with the Russian leader.

Furthermore, in a series of clips posted to his internet channel about his experiences from his eight-day stay in Russia, Carlson attempted to debunk myths and stereotypes about Russia and life in the capital in the midst of the West’s sanctions ‘total war’.

May 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

The latest Democracy Perception Index reveals shifts in global perceptions

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | May 21, 2024

The Democracy Perception Index (DPI) issued its 2024 report on 8 May, revealing important and interesting shifts in global perceptions about democracy, geopolitics and international relations. The conclusions in the report were based on the views of over 62,000 respondents from 53 countries, representing roughly 75 per cent of the world’s total population.

The survey was conducted between 20 February and 15 April this year, when the world was largely transfixed by the Israeli war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

It is important to note that the DPI, although informative, is itself conceived in a biased context as it is the product of a global survey conducted by western-based companies and organisations.

The DPI results were published ahead of a scheduled 2024 Copenhagen Democracy Summit, whose speakers will include Hillary Clinton, US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and President of the European Council Charles Michel. The first speaker listed on the conference website is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Founder and Chairman of the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, which commissioned the DPI.

All of this is reflected in the kind of questions which are being asked in the survey, placing greater emphasis on whether, for example, ties should be cut with Russia over Ukraine, and China over a war that is yet to take place in Taiwan. Such major shortcomings notwithstanding, the outcome of the research remains interesting and worthy of reflection.

There are some major takeaways from the report. For a start, there is growing dissatisfaction with the state of democracy, and such discontent is not limited to people living in countries perceived as non-democratic; it also includes people in the US and Europe.

What’s more, democracy, in the collective awareness of ordinary people, is not a political term often infused as part of official propaganda. When seen from the viewpoint of the people, democracy is a practical notion, whose absence leads to dire implications. For example, 68 per cent of people worldwide believe that economic inequality at home is the greatest threat to democracy.

On the question of “threats to democracy”, there is growing mistrust of Global Corporations (60 per cent), Big Tech (49 per cent) and their resulting Economic Inequality (68 per cent), and Corruption (67 per cent). This leads to the unmistakable conclusion that western globalisation has failed to create the proper environment for social equality, empower civil society or build democratic institutions. The opposite, based on people’s own perceptions, seems to be true.

Then we have global priorities which, as seen by many nations around the world, remain committed to ending wars, poverty, hunger, combating climate change, etc. However, this year’s top priority among European countries, 44 per cent, is also centred on reducing immigration, a significant number compared with the 24 per cent who prioritise fighting climate change.

Although the world appears to be divided about cutting ties with Russia and China, the selection of the question again reeks with bias.

The respondents in western countries, who are subjected to relentless media propaganda, prefer cutting such ties, while most people in the rest of the world prefer keeping them. Consequently, due to China’s positive perception in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, the DPI gave Beijing a “net positive”. Russia, on the other hand, is on the “path of image rehabilitation in most countries surveyed with the exception of Europe,” reported Politico.

The greatest decline was suffered by the United States, largely due to Washington’s support for Israel in its ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. “Over the past four years… perceptions of the US’s global influence became more positive – peaking in 2022 or 2023 – and then declined sharply in 2024,” the report concluded.

The large drop took place in the Muslim countries that were surveyed: Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkiye, Morocco, Egypt and Algeria. Some western European countries are also becoming more critical of the US, including Switzerland, Ireland and Germany.

Most people (55 per cent compared with 29 per cent) believe that social media has a positive effect on democracy. Despite growing social media censorship, many in the Global South still find margins in these platforms which allow them to escape official or corporate media censorship. Growing criticism of social media companies, however, is taking place in western countries, according to the survey.

Despite official propaganda emanating from many governments, especially in the west, regarding the greatest threats to world peace, the majority of people want their governments to focus on poverty reduction, fight corruption, promote economic growth, and improve healthcare and education, while working to reduce income inequality. “Investing in security and defence,” came seventh on the list.

Finally, people in countries which have an overall negative perception of the United States include some of the most influential global and regional powers, such as China, Russia, Indonesia, Austria, Turkiye, Australia and Belgium.

Despite massive media propaganda, censorship and scaremongering, people around the world remain clear on their collective priorities, expectations and aspirations, which are real democracy, social equality and justice. If these collective yearnings continue to be denigrated and ignored, we should expect more social upheaval, if not outright insurrections and military coups in coming years.

May 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

A Global Censorship Prison Built by the Women of the CIA

Is building a slave state for Big Daddy the apex achievement of feminism?

By Elizabeth Nickson | Welcome to Absurdistan | May 18, 2024

The polite world was fascinated last month when long-time NPR editor Uri Berliner confessed to the Stalinist suicide pact the public broadcaster, like all public broadcasters, seems to be on. Formerly it was a place of differing views, he claimed, but now it has sold as truth some genuine falsehoods like, for instance, the Russia hoax, after which it covered up the Hunter Biden laptop. And let’s not forget our censor-like behaviour regarding Covid and the vaccine. NPR bleated that they were still diverse in political opinion, but researchers found that all 87 reporters at NPR were Democrats. Berliner was immediately put on leave and a few days later resigned, no doubt under pressure.

Even more interesting was the reveal of the genesis of NPR’s new CEO, Katherine Maher, a 41-year-old with a distinctly odd CV. Maher had put in stints at a CIA cutout, the National Democratic Institute, and trotted onto the World Bank, UNICEF, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Technology and Democracy, the Digital Public Library of America, and finally the famous disinfo site Wikipedia. That same week, Tunisia accused her of working for the CIA during the so-called Arab Spring. And, of course, she is a WEF young global leader.

She was marched out for a talk at the Carnegie Endowment where she was prayerfully interviewed and spouted mediatized language so anodyne, so meaningless, yet so filled with nods to her base the AWFULS (affluent white female urban liberals) one was amazed that she was able to get away with it. There was no acknowledgement that the criticism by this award-winning reporter/editor/producer, who had spent his life at NPR had any merit whatsoever, and in fact that he was wrong on every count. That this was a flagrant lie didn’t even ruffle her artfully disarranged short blonde hair.

Christopher Rufo did an intensive investigation of her career in City Journal. It is an instructive read and illustrative of a lot of peculiar yet stellar careers of American women. Working for Big Daddy is apparently something these ghastly creatures value. I strongly suggest reading Rufo’s piece linked here. It’s a riot of spooky confluences.

Intelligence has been embedded in media forever and a day. During my time at Time Magazine in London, the bureau chief, deputy bureau chief and no doubt the “war and diplomacy” correspondent all filed to Langley and each of them cruised social London ceaselessly for information. Tucker Carlson asserted on his interview with Aaron Rogers this week that intelligence operatives were laced through DC media and in fact, Mr. Watergate, Bob Woodward himself, had been naval intelligence a scant year before he cropped up at the Washington Post as ‘an intrepid fighter for the truth and freedom no matter where it led.’  Watergate, of course, was yet another operation to bring down another inconvenient President; at this juncture, unless you are being puppeted by the CIA, you don’t get to stay in power. Refuse and bang bang or end up in court on insultingly stupid charges. As Carlson pointed out, all congressmen and senators are terrified by the security state, even and especially the ones on the intelligence committee who are supposed to be controlling them. They can install child porn on your laptop and you don’t even know it’s there until you are raided, said Carlson. The security state is that unethical, that power mad.

Now, it’s global. And feminine. Where is Norman Mailer when you need him?

At the same time, at the same time, Freddie Sayers, the editor-in-chief of Unherd, testified in Parliament on the Global Disinformation Index which had choked Unherd’s ability to grow. Unherd had hired three advertising firms who were, one after the other, unable to place ads. The third sourced the problem to the Index, which had deemed his interviews with journalist Katherine Stock about the problems faced by young people transitioning their sex, had made him persona non grata for all advertising agencies across the world. Eerily, that same week, Katherine Stock was awarded a high honorable mention in the National Press Awards for her work.

Here is Clare Melford, the fetching chief of the Global Disinformation Index, a woman seemingly bent on sterilizing confused children, Yet another non-profit authoritarian working for a mysterious Big Daddy. Who the hell trained her?

On Tuesday this week, out pops Europe’s headmistress, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Politico.eu, complaining about “Russia” and “right-wingers” sowing distrust of Europe’s election processes. She is, she says, launching a new war on Disinformation. Most importantly, no more reporting on migrant assaults. This seems to be their new crusade. Please note the halo over her Christed head. Honestly, they are shameless, vain, silly creatures with limited bandwidth. Other than obedience to some grim reaper.

Said Politico :

“She promised to set up “a European Democracy Shield,” if reelected for a second term, to fight back against foreign meddling.

EU cybersecurity and disinformation officials expect a surge in online falsehoods in the 20 days prior to the European Parliament election June 6-9, when millions of Europeans elect new representatives. Officials fear that Russia is ramping up its influence operations to sow doubt about the integrity of elections in the West and to manipulate public opinion in its favor.”

By the way, madam, western election integrity has been thoroughly compromised by the men who tell you what to do. More than half of us think elections are stolen. More than half. That’s not disinformation, it’s math.

This week Michael Shellenberger, who is the acknowledged lead in the take-down of the global censorship complex, had a look at Julie Inman Grant, another American Barbie, now Australia’s “e-safety commissioner,” with ties to the WEF. Grant had demanded that X censor a migrant stabbing, and X refused. Grant, as Shellenberger describes, is the Zelig of internet history tinkering in the bowels of said internet until she burst onto the public stage as Australia’s chief censor, bent on building a global online safety network.

Working for Big Daddy is apparently something these ghastly creatures value.

At a recent government hearing, she announced, “We have powerful tools to regulate platforms with ISP blocking power, and can collect basic device information, account information, phone numbers and email addresses, so that our investigators can at least find a place to issue a warning.” Grant went on to say they could compel take-downs, fine perpetrators and fine content hosts.

The Daily Mail had a ball with Inman Grant, mocking her and pointing out that she was wasting taxpayer money on a game of whack-a-mole.

Nevertheless, Grant takes herself very very seriously and since she is accreting power at a massive clip, so must we.

Grant’s network of independent regulators is called the Global Online Safety Regulators Network. “We have Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK and Fiji so far, with others observing. Canada is coming along,” she preens, “and is about to create a National Safety Regulator.” Canada’s proposed censorship program is so draconian you can be jailed for something you posted online years ago. And the government proposing it is so unpopular, it will be lucky to hang onto 20 seats in the next election.

There are literally hundreds of these women. Why? Why?

At a meeting this year of the World Economic Forum, Věra Jourová, from the European Commission, outlined just how exciting she and her team found the tools she is being given. “We can,” she said, “influence in such a way the real life and the behavior of people!” She sighed with excitement after this sentence. Jourova was caught last September trying to spread yet another Russia hoax. You have only to hear censorship plans uttered in a central-European accent to really understand what is happening here.

As terrifying as this all seems, and it is terrifying, it is instructive to look at the ruination of the career of America’s chief censor, Renée DiResta. DiResta, as research head of the Stanford Internet Observatory, is now being sued for abuse of power and unethical behavior that violates the constitution. Spookily, DiResta soared from “new mom” to providing the intellectual under-pinnning for censorship, until she headed up the Stanford Internet Observatory during Covid, where she was instrumental in censoring vaccine and Covid “disinformation.” People thought her backstory contrived and in fact, Shellenberger found that she was, unmistakably another CIA trained censor of inconvenient information under the guise of “safety.”

At this point, every time you hear the word ‘safety”, it’s best to check your ammunition supply. Said Shellenberger:

As research director of Stanford Internet Observatory, DiResta was the key leader and spokesperson of both the 2021 “Virality Project,” against Covid vaccine “misinformation” and the 2020 “Election Integrity Project.”

Shellenberger goes on to look into DiResta’s work history and finds a lot of congruence with CIA operations.

But then I learned that DiResta had worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The journalist Matt Taibbi pointed me to the investigative research into the censorship industry by Mike Benz, a former State Department official in charge of cybersecurity. Benz had discovered a little-viewed video of her supervisor at the Stanford Internet Observatory, Alex Stamos, mentioning in an off-hand way that DiResta had previously “worked for the CIA.”

In her response to my criticism of her on Joe Rogan, DiResta acknowledged but then waved away her CIA connection. “My purported secret-agent double life was an undergraduate student fellowship at CIA, ending in 2004 — years prior to Twitter’s founding,” she wrote. “I’ve had no affiliation since.”

But DiResta’s acknowledgment of her connection to the CIA is significant, if only because she hid it for so long. DiResta’s LinkedIn includes her undergraduate education at Stony Brook University, graduating in 2004, and her job as a trader at Jane Street from October 2004 to May 2011, but does not mention her time at the CIA.

And, notably, the CIA describes its fellowships as covering precisely the issues in which DiResta is an expert. “As an Intelligence Analyst Intern for CIA, you will work on teams alongside full-time analysts, studying and evaluating information from all available sources—classified and unclassified—and then analyzing it to provide timely and objective assessments to customers such as the President, National Security Council, and other U.S. policymakers.”

At this juncture it is a race, as the intelligence community moves to shut down the revelations of its manipulations and machinations, and people injured by the vaccine and the flagrant abuse of election integrity move to fight them. It is instructive to note that DiResta, while apparently soaring to the heights of journalism at Wired, the New York Times, the Atlantic, selling her safety/censorhip program, cannot seem to get actual people to read or subscribe to her Substack. DiResta, like so many women in power now, are in reality, talentless cutouts for a hidden and malignant agenda.

An agenda that the people of the world roundly hate. I have just one final thing to saw to these truly dreadful human beings. My God is stronger than whatever demon or predator you obey. And as a woman, I am ashamed of each and every one of you. To use one of your awful phrases: Do Better.

May 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brussels should remember that Europeans are sovereign, not the EU treaties or the Eurocrats

BY GRZEGORZ ADAMCZYK | REMIX NEWS | MAY 17, 2024

In an interview with Tygodnik Solidarność weekly, Prof. Ryszard Piotrowski, a constitutional lawyer from the University of Warsaw, expressed his concerns over the legal challenges posed by the implementation of the European Green Deal. He believes that these challenges threaten the legal identity and autonomy of both the European Union and Poland.

The professor emphasized the foundational role of dialogue in Polish law, noting that European laws are becoming increasingly incomprehensible and detached from the real needs of European citizens.

He argued that the perception of Europeans as subordinates to the European Parliament and the European Council, rather than as sovereigns over the treaties, poses a significant threat. “The sooner we understand that we, as Europeans, are not servants to the treaties and the European Parliament, the better it will be for Europe,” he stated.

He also questioned whether the Green Deal’s objectives align with the Polish constitution, which mandates environmental protection guided by the principle of sustainable development. According to him, the current shape of EU climate policy contravenes this principle by jeopardizing overall economic growth and thereby the security of citizens.

Piotrowski additionally highlighted that the Green Deal threatens essential social rights guaranteed by the Polish constitution, such as housing, energy, and communication security.

“We have a right to energy security, and its violation threatens democracy itself because democracy without a socio-economic dimension is devoid of meaning,” said the professor. Furthermore, he noted that the Green Deal also threatens the principle of subsidiarity, which aims to empower citizens and their communities.

Adding to the urgency of his concerns, Professor Piotrowski pointed out that the implementation of the Green Deal might weaken Poland’s defensive capabilities at a time when a military conflict looms near its eastern border. He criticized Europe’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine, arguing that despite European treaties pledging to promote peace, the current approach could lead to tragic consequences for Europe.

“Contrary to what European treaties stipulate and what they commit Europe to, it has chosen to speak of war instead of striving for peace. Such actions have always ended tragically for Europe,” the professor warned.

May 18, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Moscow responds to latest EU ban on Russian media

RT | May 18, 2024

Russia’s State Duma chairman has accused the EU of censoring alternative opinions and curtailing freedom of speech, with the goal of deceiving citizens.

Vyacheslav Vlodin was commenting on Brussels’ latest ban on Russian media outlets, which has sparked a warning of countermeasures from the Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

On Friday, the European Council announced it was suspending the broadcasting activities of four additional media organizations, claiming that they “spread and support” Russian propaganda.

The blacklist includes RIA Novosti news agency, newspapers Izvestia and Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and the Czech-based portal Voice of Europe.

Writing on Telegram on Saturday, Volodin described the move as showing the EU’s desire “to close access to objective and reliable information” for residents of member states.

According to the lawmaker, “the policy of double standards has become an integral part of European structures” as they only “talk about freedom of speech, but do not tolerate it in reality”.

Officials in Brussels have no arguments to convince EU citizens that they are right and as soon as they see any problems, they just block “any alternative point of view, destroy freedom of speech, and violate the right to freely disseminate and receive information,” Volodin stressed.

“In fact, they introduce censorship with the only purpose – to deceive their citizens and stay in power,” he argued.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, commenting on Brussels’ move, noted that Moscow has repeatedly warned the EU that “repressive measures” against Russian media will not go unanswered.

“Ignoring these warnings forces us to take countermeasures, which will follow inevitably,” the ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova said on Friday.

According to the diplomat, Brussel’s decision is proof “of the neglect by the EU and its member states for their international obligations in the field of ensuring media pluralism and another example of the degeneration of democratic societies” in the West.

Since the Ukraine conflict escalated into open hostilities in February 2022, the EU has barred several Russia-associated media outlets from engaging with audiences in member states. Even hosting content made by the targeted organizations is illegal in the bloc.

Moscow has also taken a harsh stance on Western media. Citing anti-Russian sentiment, misinformation and censorship, the national media regulator has barred access to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the websites of the BBC, Deutsche Welle, along with other media outlets.

May 18, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Labor strike in 10 California universities demands the right to protest for Palestine

Palestinian Information Center – May 18, 2024

Around 48,000 workers at 10 universities affiliated with the University of California system and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the state of California, USA, voted to begin a strike in defense of the right to protest for Palestine.

This follows campaigns of arrests and attacks on students in tents, who are demanding an end to the Israeli aggression on Gaza, following the university administration’s failure to address complaints regarding the handling of pro-Palestinian protests.

Activists promised that the union vote on starting the strike next Monday represents a historic decision that may push unions in other universities and labor unions to strike in defense of students’ right to protest for the Palestinian cause.

The announcement of the strike comes two days after the vote of the academic workers at the University of California, where the union considered it a result of changes to the university system’s policies regarding freedom of expression and discrimination in pro-Palestinian speeches, and allowing attacks on protesters during their sit-ins.

In this context, high schools in the state of Wisconsin joined schools in the state of Illinois in student protests at American universities, by walking out of classrooms after the second or third period, and organizing marches inside schools to demand an end to the aggression on Gaza.

May 18, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Pro-Israeli billionaires fuel NYC Mayor crackdown on Columbia students

Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2024

A coalition of billionaires and influential business figures, aiming to influence American public opinion regarding the Israeli war on Gaza, urged New York City’s Mayor in private last month to deploy police to quell pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University, The Washington Post reported, citing communications obtained and individuals familiar with the group.

Business leaders, including Daniel Lubetzky, founder of Kind Snack company, hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb, billionaire Len Blavatnik, and real estate investor Joseph Sitt, convened for a Zoom video conference with Mayor Eric Adams on April 26. This meeting took place about a week following the Mayor’s initial dispatch of New York police to Columbia’s campus, as indicated in a log of chat messages.

During the call, some participants discussed the possibility of making political contributions to Adams, as well as strategies for exerting pressure on Columbia’s President and trustees to authorize the Mayor’s deployment of police to address protesters on campus, according to summaries of the chat messages as reported by The Post.

A member of the WhatsApp chat group said, as quoted by The Post, that he “contributed” $2,100, the maximum allowable amount, to Adams during that month.

Additionally, some members expressed willingness to fund private investigators to aid the New York police in managing the protests, as indicated in the chat log. A member reported in the chat that Adams accepted this offer. However, a spokesperson for City Hall claimed that the New York Police Department has not utilized private investigators for managing protests.

Business leaders, Mayor Adams navigate crackdown on US students

The messages detailing the conversation with Adams were part of a vast collection of WhatsApp exchanges involving several prominent business leaders and financiers across the US. This group includes individuals such as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, and Joshua Kushner, founder of Thrive Capital and brother of Jared Kushner, who is the son-in-law of former President Donald Trump.

Individuals with direct access to the chat log provided its contents to The Post under the condition of anonymity, as the chat was intended to remain private. Members of the group confirmed the existence of the chat and their contributions.

The chat was initiated by an associate of billionaire and real estate magnate Barry Sternlicht, who opted not to directly participate but communicated through the associate, as indicated in the chat messages and confirmed by a person familiar with Sternlicht, as per the report.

In an October 12 message, one of the initial messages in the group, the associate, posting on behalf of Sternlicht, informed others that the group’s objective was to “change the narrative” in support of “Israel”.

Stretching beyond New York

Formed shortly after October 7, the chat group’s influence has extended far beyond New York, reaching the highest echelons of the Israeli government, the American business sphere, and prestigious universities, The Washington Post reported.

May 17, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »