London police chief attacks journalist’s equipment
RT | August 5, 2024
Britain’s top law enforcement official ripped out a reporter’s microphone after being asked a question about double standards in policing the immigration-related riots across the UK.
Sir Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan Police Service had just left a government meeting in Westminster about handling the unrest when journalists approached him on Monday.
“Are we going to end two-tier policing sir?” a Sky News reporter asked. Rowley responded by destroying his recording equipment and continuing to walk to his car. He took no questions from the press.
Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt described Rowley’s actions as a “petulant, childish even” response to a “perfectly legitimate” question.
“It was a storm in a teacup, but perception is everything,” Brunt said, adding that Rowley’s explanation that he had been in a hurry was “mitigation, not a defense.”
Though the Sky reporter could have pressed charges for assault, criminal damage, or misconduct in public office, he reportedly chose to give Rowley a pass.
Dozens of British towns and cities have seen protests and riots since last Monday, when a British teenager of Rwandan descent killed three children and injured ten others in a mass stabbing in Southport, near Liverpool. While the initial outrage was sparked by a rumor misidentifying the perpetrator as Muslim, demonstrations have since grown into a wider backlash against mass immigration, Islam, and the perception that UK authorities are more concerned with suppressing domestic dissent than tackling immigrant crime.
More than 150 people were arrested on Saturday for rioting in Liverpool, Manchester, Stoke, Leeds and other cities. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed that the rioters will “face the full force of the law.”
Whitehall’s crackdown has prompted Reform Party leader Nigel Farage to suggest that there was “the impression of two-tier policing,” in comparison to the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots related to the death of George Floyd in the US.
“There is no two-tier policing. There is policing without fear or favor, exactly as it should be,” Starmer responded. “So that is a non-issue.”
According to Starmer, a “standing army of specialist officers” will be deployed to deal with the riots. “This is not protest – it is pure violence and we will not tolerate attacks on mosques or our Muslim communities,” he added.
The British government has also said it would “hold to account” social media companies that do not remove “disinformation.”
‘The Movement is Winning.’: Polling Shows Drop in Support for Free Speech
By Jonathan Turley | August 2, 2024
In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about a global anti-free speech movement that is now sweeping over the United States. While not the first, it is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling showing that years of attacking free speech as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens.
As discussed in the book, our own anti-free speech movement began in higher education where it continues to rage. It then metastasized throughout our politics and media. It is, therefore, not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further decline in students’ views concerning the state of free speech on college campuses.
The study shows that 70 percent of students “believe that speech can be as damaging as physical violence.” It also shows the impact of speech codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they “self-censor” during classroom discussions.
Not surprisingly, Republican students are the most likely to self-censor given the purging of conservative faculty and the viewpoint intolerance shown on most campuses.
Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.
Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”
The most alarming finding may be that only 54 percent of students believe that colleges should “allow students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased.” That figure stood at 78 percent in 2016.
The poll follows similar results in a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of the population as a whole. It found that 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. So there is now a majority who believe that the First Amendment, including their own rights, should be curtailed.
The most supportive of limiting free speech are Democrats at a shocking 61%. However, a majority (52%) of Republicans also agreed.
Roughly 40% now trust the government to censor speech, agreeing that they trust the government “somewhat,” “very much,” or “completely” to make fair decisions about what speech should be disallowed.
It is no small feat to convince a free people to give up their freedoms. They have to be afraid or angry. These polls suggest that they appear both very afraid and very angry.
It is the result of years of indoctrinating students and citizens that free speech is harmful and dangerous. We have created a generation of speech phobics who are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle against censorship and speech codes.
Anti-free speech books have been heralded in the media. University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has written how dangerous free speech is for the nation. Her book, “Attack from Within,” describes how free speech is what she calls the “Achilles Heel” of America, portraying this right not as the value that defines this nation but the threat that lurks within it.
McQuade and many on the left are working to convince people that “disinformation” is a threat to them and that free speech is the vehicle that makes them vulnerable.
This view has been pushed by President Joe Biden who claims that companies refusing to censor citizens are “killing people.” The Biden administration has sought to use disinformation to justify an unprecedented system of censorship.
Recently, the New York Times ran a column by former Biden official and Columbia University law professor Tim Wu describing how the First Amendment was “out of control” in protecting too much speech.
Wu insists that the First Amendment is now “beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.” He claims that the First Amendment “now mostly protects corporate interests.”
There is even a movement afoot to rewrite the First Amendment through an amendment. George Washington University Law School Professor Mary Anne Franks believes that the First Amendment is “aggressively individualistic” and needs to be rewritten to “redo” the work of the Framers.
Her new amendment suggestion replaces the clear statement in favor of a convoluted, ambiguous statement of free speech that will be “subject to responsibility for abuses.” It then adds that “all conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.”
Franks has also dismissed objections to the censorship on social media and insisted that “the Internet model of free speech is little more than cacophony, where the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates . . . If we want to protect free speech, we should not only resist the attempt to remake college campuses in the image of the Internet but consider the benefits of remaking the Internet in the image of the university.”
Franks is certainly correct that those “unlikeable voices” are less likely to be heard in academia today. As discussed in my book, faculties have largely cleansed with the ranks of conservative, Republican, libertarian, and dissenting professors through hiring bias and attrition. In self-identifying surveys, some faculties show no or just a handful of conservative or Republican members.
The discussion on most campuses now runs from the left to far left without that pesky “cacophony” of opposing viewpoints.
One of the most dangerous and successful groups in this anti-free speech movement has been Antifa. I testified in the Senate on Antifa and the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with the statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler that Antifa (and its involvement in violent protests) is a “myth.”
In the meantime, Antifa continues to attack those with opposing views and anti-free speech allies continue to “deplatform” speakers on campuses and public forums. “Your speech is violence” is now a common mantra heard around the country.
Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators.
Antifa is now so popular in some quarters that it recently saw two members elected to the French and European parliaments.
Antifa is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. It is laid out in Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” in which he emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
However, the most chilling statement may have come from arrested Antifa member Jason Charter after an attack on historic statues in Washington, D.C. After his arrest, Charter declared “The Movement is winning.” As these polls show, he is right.
Landmark Ruling Strikes Down Warrantless Device Searches of US Citizens at Borders
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 1, 2024
The District Court for the Eastern District of New York has ruled that the US government must reverse course on its policy of warrantless searches of US (and foreign) nationals’ electronic devices as they enter the country.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
This is not the only court decision on this issue, while this particular outcome, requiring that border agents obtain court-issued orders before performing such searches, concerns the district that is the court’s seat – therefore also a major port of entry, JFK International Airport.
It was precisely at this airport that an event unfolded which set in motion a legal case. In 2022, US citizen Kurbonali Sultanov was coerced (he was told he “had no choice”) into surrendering his phone’s passport to border officers.
Sultanov later became a defendant in a criminal case but argued that evidence from the phone should not be admitted because the device was accessed in violation of the Fourth Amendment (which protects Americans against unreasonable and warrantless searches).
Of course, all these envisaged protections refer to US citizens, and even there prove to be sketchy in many instances. Foreign travelers (even though entering the country legally) are effectively left without any protections regarding their privacy.
Sultanov’s argument was supported in an amicus brief filed the following year by the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who said that the First Amendment is violated as well when law enforcement gains access to phones without a warrant since it invalidates constitutional protections of speech, freedom of the press, religion, and association.
The New York Eastern District Court’s decision is by and large based precisely on that amicus brief. One of the arguments from it is that journalists entering the US are often forced to hand over their devices.
The court agreed that “letting border agents freely rifle through journalists’ work product and communications whenever they cross the border would pose an intolerable risk to press freedom,” said Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press attorney Grayson Clary in a press statement.
Meanwhile, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said they were reviewing this ruling – and would not comment on what the agency said are “pending criminal cases.”
Thousands join peace and freedom rally in Berlin
RT | August 4, 2024
Thousands took to the streets of Berlin on Saturday for a “peace and freedom” rally to protest against what was called Germany’s “belligerent” foreign policy and the country’s continued arms supplies to Ukraine.
The event was organized by so-called Querdenker (‘lateral thinking’) groups, a movement initially formed during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to protest against the German government’s lockdown policies and the overall pandemic response. It has since absorbed other government critics. Some German media outlets have referred to the movement as rife with conspiracy theorists or having links to far-right groups.
Some 5,000 people registered for the march, according to the city police. Several local media outlets put the number of participants at 9,000, citing law enforcement estimates. Many people carried blue flags with a white dove of peace, while others had banners and placards that read: “No US missiles on our soil!” “No missiles against Russia!” “No arms shipments to Ukraine and Israel!” or “Peace talks!”
Some demonstrators also carried banners bearing the slogan “Create peace without weapons!” This phrase comes from the 1982 Berlin Appeal, an outspoken petition crafted by two East German dissidents that called for disarmament.
Having started at Ernst Reuter Square in central Berlin, the demonstrators eventually made their way to Tiergarten Park for a rally attended by some 12,000 people, according to police estimates. Protesters called for “regionality, direct democracy and limiting the power” of the government, which, many claimed was filled with “absolute idiots.”
Some of the demonstrators still wanted the government to “bear responsibility” for what they believed were unjust lockdown policies during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Participants also demanded that Germany be “capable of peace instead of being ready for war” in an apparent reference to a statement in June by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius that the nation “must be ready for war by 2029” while advocating military reform and a “new form of military service.” The minister had previously made similar statements, citing the alleged threat posed by Russia in particular.
Some speakers at the rally urged Germany to leave NATO. “We want a government that represents our interests and not that of the USA and big business,” one said, according to local media reports. Thousands of protesters reportedly stayed at the rally site for many hours. Some 7,000 people were still demonstrating in the early evening, according to law enforcement estimates.
The event was largely peaceful, with just a handful of detentions, the police said, adding that most of those detained had violated the rules on banned symbols, such as the logo of the German Compact Magazine, which has been deemed extremist by the country’s domestic security service (BfV).
Some smaller counter protests organized by various left-wing groups were also held in the city on Saturday.
Bringing Back Vaccine Passports
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | August 2, 2024
One of the major authoritarian measures adopted at the beginning of this decade in the name of countering coronavirus was “vaccine passports.” These certifications, on paper or in electronic form, that a person had received the government specified minimum number of experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots were required by select governments across the world for individuals to carry and present at checkpoints in order to go about their activities.
In America, the New York government jumped in early on mandating vaccine passports. Vaccine passports were also implemented by other governments around the world, including in parts of Europe.
Today, most Europeans are over the coronavirus panic. They are enjoying the exercise of freedom unrestrained by coronavirus crackdowns.
Some European politicians, bureaucrats, and their “private sector” partners, however, are jonesing for a return to the crackdown days. The coronavirus crackdowns were in many ways a high point of power for government and of profits for connected companies. Compulsive meddlers and profiteers want that back, and permanent.
Thus, it should be no surprise that a group of five European nations — Belgium, Germany, Greece, Latvia, and Portugal — are working with the European Union on pilot testing a new European Vaccination Card. The card that will be tested in physical and electronic form and will contain individuals’ vaccination records for a variety of shots is intended to be implemented this decade. Michael Nevradakis provides the details in a Tuesday Children’s Health Defense article.
Interestingly, Nevradakis notes in his article that the European Union’s development of the European Vaccination Card dates back to 2018. Much like the September 11, 2001 attacks in America allowed the United States government to implement as the USA PATRIOT Act a wish list of authoritarian legislation that had been sitting on a shelf, the creating of a crisis out of coronavirus allowed for an early testing of vaccine passports. Now, the process continues toward imposing vaccine passports on a permanent basis.
The prospect of vaccine passports is frightening if the vaccine passports serve to restrict people’s activities only because they have not taken mandated shots. That is an extreme violation of free choice. It is also, as was shown with the coronavirus shots that turned out to be both dangerous and ineffective instead of the incessantly propagandized “safe and effective,” a major health threat.
But, vaccine passports, as I wrote an August of 2021 article, can be expected to transform into “everything passports.” Once vaccine passports are put in place for a limited purpose, the temptation will be to start using them to restrict people’s activities based upon innumerable other criteria.
Americans should pay attention to what is happening in Europe in regard to vaccine passports. There are certainly politicians, bureaucrats, and connected companies in America similarly itching to implement such a scheme. They will be looking to European efforts for direction.
Disinformation Board Chief Sued Fox News For Alleging She Was Pro-Censorship. A Judge Agreed With Fox News.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 31, 2024
America’s attempt to set up what critics called the “Ministry of Truth” failed miserably last year when the Disinformation Governance Board was quickly set up as an advisory to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – and then quickly dissolved, under massive public pushback.
The Board’s head was Nina Jankowicz, whose role some of those same critics, among politicians and media among them, summed up as “misinformation czar.”
Let’s say that this is a kind way of saying, “censorship czar.” But, reporting to this effect still personally offended Jankowicz enough to file a defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
And now, a federal judge has dismissed that suit.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
Jankowicz stated in the filing that Fox was making false claims about her intent to censor Americans, denying also that she “wanted to give verified Twitter users, including herself, the power to edit others tweets,” or that she was actually fired (rather than resigning).
The reason she had to leave the Board, Jankowicz asserted, was the “harassment” she endured because Fox published reports that contained those claims.
US District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Colm Connolly, however, dismissed these three arguments. Jankowicz cited 37 statements heard on Fox, but the judge said 36 of them were about the Board in general, not her in particular.
And the one instance that could be construed to refer to Jankowicz (her picture was used to illustrate a report about the Board) doesn’t count, either.
The Fox report said the Board was “dedicated to working with the special media giants for the purpose of policing information.”
The judge decided to express himself plainly: “The statement is not defamatory because it is not false.”
And he didn’t stop there: “The Board was formed precisely to police information and to work with non governmental actors,” Connolly wrote.
The fact that the Board was to “coordinate” with private companies to tackle what they identified as “misinformation”, is an objective that Connolly said is “fairly characterized as a form of censorship.”
As for the claim that Fox lied regarding the Twitter controversy, the ruling reads: “The complaint itself quotes Jankowicz confirming in a Zoom session that she endorsed the notion of having ‘verified’ individuals edit the content of others’ tweets.”
Fox commented on this outcome by saying they were satisfied that the court supported the First Amendment, while Jankowicz told her GoFundMe supporters, who are raising funds for her legal fees, that she would appeal.
The case is just one episode in the legal battles raging in the US, that fall into the broader category of “supercontroversy” that is the the Big Government-Big Tech collusion.
Missouri AG Andrew Bailey Advocates for Tech-State Separation Criticizes, Big Tech Censorship Influence
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 31, 2024
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wants First Amendment free speech protections to be bolstered and believes that the separation of Tech and State ( creating a “wall of separation” between them) is in order.
This is to make sure government censorship is efficiently prevented going forward, he suggested.
Bailey sat down with journalist Tim Pool, and went through a litany of other issues plaguing political and social democratic processes, most clearly visible in what critics of the current White House consider to be the government colluding with social media companies to suppress lawful speech.
Bailey spoke about the Missouri v. Biden case (which reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri) to say that “government coerced censorship” has already been proven, and now that the case has been referred back to a lower court, the discovery process can be used to fully expose what the state AG called, “that vast Censorship Enterprise.”
Regarding the much contested on both sides of the aisle (but for different reasons) Section 230 of the CDA, Bailey agreed with the host that it should not continue in the current form, since platforms are protected for hosting third-party content – and then allowed to freely censor that content.
But the collusion with the government demonstrated in stark terms why Section 230 should be reformed so that it’s “just a shield” for platforms, without also putting the “sword” of censorship in their hands, the interlocutors agreed.
The issue of social media and internet services becoming so widespread they are arguably the most powerful influence on people’s choices – from shopping to politics – means they qualify as the public square.
And on that square, culture can be “fundamentally reshaped,” Bailey said. Platforms banning “misgendering speech” was mentioned as an example.
And back to Section 230, but this time with regards to Wikipedia. Here, the Missouri AG doesn’t believe immunity from the rules should extended to Wikipedia.
This is because whatever is published on Wikipedia is not clearly marked as written by users (such as on social platforms) – this is only visible in the source of a webpage.
“The byline is, ‘from Wikipedia’,” Pool remarked.
“They look like a publisher,” Bailey said, alleging that Section 230 was not designed to protect those.
A majority of Americans now officially meet the definition of “anti-vaxxer”
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | July 29, 2024
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an “anti-vaxxer” as “a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, regulations mandating vaccination, or usually both”:
So, to be an “anti-vaxxer,” per the dictionary, a person needs to only oppose receiving some vaccines. Meaning, a person that opposes receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or an influenza vaccine is an anti-vaxxer. And guess what? The majority of Americans now oppose receiving both of these vaccines.
In fact, according to the CDC, despite spending billions of dollars wildly promoting these products, less than half of Americans received an influenza vaccine, RSV vaccine, and the updated COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, less than 23% of the adult population in the U.S. has received an updated COVID-19 vaccine despite a relentless multi-billion-dollar national promotion campaign.
Not only do a majority of Americans oppose receiving these vaccines, an even greater percentage of Americans no doubt (including some that receive these vaccines) oppose mandating one or more of these products.
The irony is that deciding against being injected with a product after reviewing its clinical trials, post-licensure safety record, lack of liability, etc., is an informed, thoughtful decision. Yet those that mindlessly get every vaccine are the ones painted as making informed, thoughtful decisions?! Hats off to Big Pharma/CDC for convincing so many that up is down and down is up.
The next time someone calls you an “anti-vaxxer” because you have made an informed decision to not receive a medical intervention, let them know that, yes, you did make an informed, independent medical decision. And wish them luck doing the opposite!
You can also let them know that since “anti-vaxxers” are now the majority, you understand their insecurity and hostility. But they shouldn’t worry: the anti-vax majority is not interested in taking away the rights of the pro-vax minority. They can feel free to get (or not get) as many vaccines as they want. We in the majority just ask that they respect our right to do the same.
Evidence indicates federal agencies must have been involved in Trump’s attempted assassination
By Uriel Araujo | July 30, 2024
It has been reported that Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was seen carrying a rangefinder (a device employed to measure distances to remote objects, often used by hunters and military) and was deemed a suspect over 90 minutes before shooting. This has been revealed by newly released text messages exchanged between members of the Beaver County Emergency Service Unit. The messages are clear enough: “he know you guys are up there”, “I did see him with a range finder”. Pictures of Crooks were also shared with Secret Service. Forbes has called this a “possible security lapse”, but in the overall context, such sounds almost like a euphemism. It is far from being the only “lapse” in an increasingly strange case.
One may remember that, as I wrote, according to the FBI, during the Trump rally the would-be assassin was spotted on the roof, holding a weapon, no less than 20 minutes before the shooting, with civilians in the crowd alerting the authorities – and bizarrely nothing was done. Moreover, CNN reported that “forensic analysis suggests that as many as three weapons were fired at the Trump rally.” Stephen Bryen, security expert and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, also takes the possibility of there being at least a second shooter seriously and calls for a “solid FBI investigation with Congressional oversight” on the issue.
On top of all of that, let us consider the following points hyperlinked below – for the sake of brevity I shall not elaborate too much on each, but shall merely present them:
1. The Oversight Project (OP) employed mobile ad analysis in a geo-location investigation and claims to have thusly “tracked devices that regularly visited both Crooks’s home and place of work and followed them.” It leads straight to Washington DC – to a building that happens to house both the Gallery mall and offices of the FBI, of all places: “someone who regularly visited Crooks home and work also visited a building in Washington, DC located in Gallery Place. This is in the same vicinity of a FBI office on June 26, 2023.”
Of course, this is a busy downtown area in DC, and geolocation cannot pinpoint someone to the most precise address. But still, given the context, the coincidence is enough to raise eyebrows. It does not necessarily mean something more sinister: it could just mean that federal agents were monitoring Crooks before the incident – neither scenario looks good, though (the latter would only make the security breach look even stranger). The OP is a pro-“government transparency” initiative by the Heritage Foundation that uses Freedom of Information Act requests.
2. The FBI, after finally having broken into the shooter’s phone device, claims to have found no leads pertaining to motives. The Bureau also claimed that encrypted messaging applications are a “real challenge”. The espionage capabilities of the US federal agencies regarding telecommunications are well known, which makes this claim hard to swallow.
3. Crooks even flew a drone over the rally’s perimeter, on the day of the attempted assassination, and he might have used a ladder to climb the roof.
5. Before the shooter went up, two local officers inside a building overlooking the same roof left their posts, a short while before Crooks started firing.
6. The SS admitted having repeatedly denied requests for extra security at Trump rallies.
All of the above is very hard to explain in terms of a mere “security lapse”. In fact, such a hypothesis sounds even absurd. Had any of that taken place in any other country in the world, the whole international media would be asking questions about authorities being involved or a cover-up. In the US political culture, however, one usually cries “conspiracy theory” to shut down discussion. It remains to be seen whether this will work in this case, though.
If one looks at the timeline, a man (Crooks) was seen acting suspiciously within the Trump’s rally perimeter (60 minutes before the incident); was then spotted walking around with a rangefinder, a telescope-like device (40 minutes before); was later spotted by Secret Service on the roof (20 minutes before), and was even seen by civilians attending the rally who pointed and shouted “he’s on the roof, he’s got a gun” while Trump gave his speech (2 minutes before); and even pointed his rifle at an officer (30 seconds before). Then, of course he fired eight shots at Trump, hurting the former President’s ear (only because Trump tilted his head to read something on a screen) and hitting three civilians – one of them died. Crooks was finally killed by a SS counter-sniper. Before all of this, at no point was he questioned, asked to leave, detained or shot – having been shot down only after attacking the former President.
It is no wonder then the US Secret Service itself is being investigated by Homeland Security, with a probe looking into all these security lapses; and it is no wonder SS Director Kimberly Cheatle finally resigned after appearing under subpoena in front of the House Oversight Committee. As I’ve written, the Secret Service is increasingly under suspicion, amid its several contradictions.
The hard truth is that, considering all of that, some Secret Service role in an attempted assassination is the most likely scenario so far. During a congressional hearing last week, the now-resigned SS Director was asked: “Was there a stand-down order, Ms. Cheatle? Was there a conspiracy to kill President?” It certainly seems so, considering all the above. The Director may have resigned, but the crisis remains – and this is not the only scandal haunting Washington before the upcoming elections.
With an incumbent President whose senility and mental decline has been covered up by the White House’s inner circle, it is even unclear who has been governing the country thus far – with some talking about a “ triumvirate” (referring to Biden’s close advisers Bruce Reed, Mike Donilon, and Steve Ricchetti). One can thereby forecast political instability and turmoil within the United States, including possibly espionage agencies infighting, with unclear and unpredictable consequences foreign policy-wise.
TikTok to Ban Some Criticisms of Zionism Following Pressure from NGO Backed by Former Israeli Intelligence Officials
Meta’s global head of policy development, Dina Hussein (Left), and TikTok’s head of trust & safety partnerships, Valiant Richey (Right), moments after CyberWell founder Tal-Or Cohen spoke on the same panel as part of the September 2023 Eradicate Hate Global Summit.
By Lee Fang and Jack Poulson | July 28, 2024
The popular social media platform TikTok has agreed “off-the-record” to enacting the same ban on many criticisms of the Israeli government as was adopted by Meta on July 9, according to a statement from the head of the Israeli pressure group CyberWell published on Sunday. As uncovered by the authors through two reports earlier this month, CyberWell is an offshoot of the Israeli government intelligence collection effort known as Keshet David (“David’s Bow”), which was itself spun out of a larger government propaganda effort now known as Voices of Israel.
CyberWell is one of many nonprofit advocacy groups that has leveraged its role as a trusted ‘counter-disinformation’ and ‘anti-hate’ partner to press for its public policy aims. As we previously reported, CyberWell’s campaigns have included attempts to ban the popular slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” as well as criticisms of the Israeli government’s wartime propaganda, including demonstrably false claims from government officials surrounding the killing of “dozens” of babies on October 7th. CyberWell has also pressed for a ban on discussions of the Israeli government’s enactment of the so-called ‘Hannibal Directive’ preference of killing its own citizens rather than allowing them to be taken hostage.
Meta’s recent policy change, which was championed by CyberWell, bans many critical uses of the term ‘Zionist’ – a reference to those who call for an independent state in the Middle East which privileges Jews over other ethnic groups. Meta’s decision recognized that ‘Zionist’ can be used “as shorthand to refer to governments, soldiers, or other specific groups” and therefore punted on the question of whether to ban the critique that “Zionists are war criminals.”
Listen to the audio here:
Roughly seventeen minutes into an interview with Canadian political consultant Warren Kinsella published on Sunday, CyberWell chief executive Tal-Or Cohen responded to a question on whether other social media platforms would be following Meta’s ban on many criticisms of Zionism by stating:
“We’re also a trusted partner of TikTok. And we have been assured by TikTok off-the-record, I’ll say off-the-record, that their policy is the same. Meaning they would be treating Zionism in the same way, okay. So I expect that off-the-record you’re going to actually be seeing statements about that in the coming days. On the record, I can tell you that we’ve been reassured by TikTok that they’re looking at this statement by Meta and that they intend to provide clarification to the public on it soon, okay.”
Ms. Cohen continued that CyberWell plans to fight for the same policies at X and Google: “We all need to look at X and at Google and kind of say … this decision has been widely supported by all of the major Jewish organizations, by a coalition known as the IHRA Coalition,” referencing a pressure campaign for social media platforms to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) re-definition of antisemitism, for which CyberWell has served as the data provider.
Cohen further stated that: “The next clear move is to call on all social media platforms to actually recognize what is true, which is that ‘Zionist’ is being used as a codeword to spread antisemitism to speak about Jews in hostile and violent ways, and we expect the digital policies that are in place to be applied equally to this form of hate too.”
The host of the interview, Daisy Consulting Group’s Warren Kinsella, was exposed in 2019 for running a smear campaign known as ‘Project Cactus’ to ‘seek and destroy’ the populist People’s Party of Canada and its leader, Maxime Bernier. A source with knowledge of the campaign asserted that Kinsella’s client was the Conservative Party of Canada.
In addition to its ‘trusted partner’ status with Meta and TikTok, CyberWell has also enjoyed close access to U.S. security officials. Ms. Cohen spoke alongside Meta’s global head of policy development, Dina Hussein, and TikTok’s head of trust & safety partnerships, Valiant Richey, during a panel at the Eradicate Hate Global Summit in late September. Beyond participation from multiple FBI agents and an official from the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which has come under criticism for its expansive methods of opposing online disinformation, the summit’s keynote speakers included U.S. homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and former Israeli interior minister Natan Sharansky.
CyberWell’s leadership includes several former high-level Israeli security officials, such as Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israel’s military intelligence directorate, Aman.
Sharansky was influential in the creation of the IHRA redefinition of antisemitism, which he has described as a reaction to a United Nations-backed criticism of the Israeli government as an apartheid state through the 2001 Durban declaration, as well as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Along with celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Sharansky authored the introduction to a 2019 report from Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs – which originally created Voices of Israel – entitled “Behind the Mask: The Antisemitic Nature of BDS Exposed.”
A subsequent report in early 2021, published jointly by the ministries of strategic and diaspora affairs, “The Hate Factor,” laid out the Israeli government’s strategy for pressuring social media companies to adopt the IHRA redefinition of antisemitism. CyberWell is arguably the embodiment of that strategy.
TikTok and CyberWell did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This article will be amended if comments are received after publication.
Meet the Sentient World Simulation: How the Government Predicts the Future
Corbett Report | July 27, 2024
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
Have you heard of the “Sentient World Simulation”? Do you know that the Defense Department revealed two decades ago that they were working on putting together a real-time model of the earth and every person in it? And do you know that project has effectively been swept under the rug and was never mentioned again? Well, you’re about to! Get ready for this week’s fascinating look back through The Corbett Report archives.
FLASHBACK SHOW NOTES
How the Government Predicts The Future – Inside the “Sentient World Simulation”
Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations
Corbett Report 2012 Data Archive (USB Flash Drive)
TRANSCRIPT
The NSA’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. The building of the massive NSA data center in Utah to permanently store copies of all digital communication sent around the world. The UK government’s “Communications Data Bill” to monitor emails, instant messages and other personal information. What was dismissed as crazy conspiracy theory just over a decade ago has become, in this post-9/11 era, the all-too-familiar stuff of newspaper headlines and talking head reportage.
In fact, it was about a decade ago that the tactic of the intelligence agencies seemed to change. Instead of keeping their activities classified–referring to the NSA as “No Such Agency,” for example, or officially denying the existence of Echelon–the government increasingly began shoving this information in the public’s face.
GLENN GREENWALD: This was the mindset that in 2002 that led the bush administration to dredge up John Poindexter from wherever it was that he was. And he actually they worked for defense contracts and they dredged him up. And he was going to start the program that they called the “total information awareness program.” And the logo—which I actually looked at in the last couple weeks that you should go and look at, just because you won’t believe how creepy it is—has the pyramid with this huge eye hovering over it, this eye that was gonna be the all-seeing eye.
And the only problem with the total information awareness program was that they just put a name on it that was too honest about what it was. It freaked everybody out and so they had to pretend that they weren’t going to go forward with it. But of course what they did was they incrementally and in a very clear way recreated the total information awareness program under a whole variety of different legislative initiatives. And this idea that every single form of technological communication by law must be constructed to permit government backdoor interception and surveillance is an expression of what this surveillance state mindset is: that there can be no such thing as any form of privacy from the US government. That is the mindset that has led the surveillance state to be this sprawling, vast, ubiquitous and always expanding instrument that state and corporate power users employ in order to safeguard their power.
SOURCE: Glenn Greenwald: Challenging the US Surveillance State
Perhaps the scariest thing about something like the Total Information Awareness Office is not merely that it was proposed in the first place, or that it incorporated such blatantly creepy Orwellian imagery to convey its true nature and purpose, but that, as we sit here 10 years later, and as the core functions of the TIA office are now being openly performed by the NSA, DHS and other governmental agencies, people are now actively making excuses for this nightmarish police state.
“If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear” has always been the rallying cry for those who are too afraid of questioning presumed governmental authority to speak out against the surveillance state and the implied assumption of guilt that goes along with it. With feigned bemusement these moral midgets inevitably ask “What’s so bad about the government spying on you, anyway?”
The answer, of course, is that the very question implies that the agencies tasked with carrying out this constant Big Brother surveillance are themselves above reproach, shining lights of moral rectitude who would never abuse this incredible power for nefarious ends. For the unimaginative out there, Hollywood yarns like “Enemy of the State” have provided fictional examples of what can go wrong if someone, somewhere, abuses this power of information and surveillance to target an innocent person in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To be sure, the power that these technologies give for agencies, or corrupt groups within those agencies, to destroy the lives of targeted individuals, is itself a fitting answer to the question of why government surveillance should be troubling to us. But beyond what can happen to specific, targeted individuals in such a scenario, however, is a much larger question: What if this data, our emails, our phone calls, our credit card transactions, our social media posts, our cell phone GPS logs, and all of the hundreds of other pieces of data that are admittedly being collected on us every day, were being fed into a database so gargantuan it contains a digital version of every single person on the planet? And what if that database were being used by the Department of Defense to war game various scenarios, from public reactions to natural disasters to the likelihood of civil unrest in the wake of a declaration of martial law?
Remarkably, this is precisely what is happening.
It is called the “Sentient World Simulation.” The program’s aim, according to its creator, is to be a “continuously running, continually updated mirror model of the real world that can be used to predict and evaluate future events and courses of action.” In practical terms that equates to a computer simulation of the planet complete with billions of “nodes” representing every person on the earth.
The project is based out of Purdue University in Indiana at the Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations Laboaratory. It is led by Alok Chaturvedi, who in addition to heading up the Purdue lab also makes the project commercially available via his private company, Simulex, Inc. which boasts an array of government clients, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, as well as private sector clients like Eli Lilly and Lockheed Martin.
Chatruvedi’s ambition is to create reliable forecasts of future world events based on imagined scenarios. In order to do this, the simulations “gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence.” Although not explicitly stated, the very type of data on digital communications and transactions now being gobbled up by the NSA, DHS and other government agencies make ideal data for creating reliable models of every individuals’ habits, preferences and behaviors that could be used to fine-tune these simulations and give more reliable results. Using this data, the SEAS Laboratory and its Sentient World Simulation offshoot are able to create detailed, operable real-time simulations of at least 62 nations. “The Iraq and Afghanistan computer models,” according to a 2007 Register report on the project, “each has about five million individual nodes representing things such as hospitals, mosques, pipelines, and people.”
At the time of initial reports on the program five years ago, there were only 62 country-level simulations being run by the US Department of Defense. These simulations grouped humans into composites, with 100 individuals acting as a single node. But already at that time, the US Army had used the systems to create a one-to-one level simulation of potential Army recruits. The ultimate aim would be to archive enough data on each individual to be able to make a computer model of everyone on the planet, one that could be used to predict the behaviors and reactions of every single person in the event of various scenarios.
The program can be used to predict what would happen in the event of a large scale tsunami, for example, or how people would react during a bioterror attack. Businesses can use the models to predict how a new product would fare in the market, what kind of marketing plans would be most effective, or how best to streamline a company’s organization.
The original concept paper for the project was published in 2006 and in 2007 it was reported that both Homeland Security and the Defense Department were already using the system to simulate the American public’s reaction to various crises. In the intervening five years, however, there has been almost no coverage at all of the Sentient World Simulation or its progress in achieving a model of the earth.
There is a very good chance that these types of systems are, at least for the moment, pure quackery. Computers are only as valuable as their programming, after all, and the algorithms required to accurately predict responses in chaotic systems with multiple, dimly-understood variables is orders of magnitude beyond what is currently possible. Or is it? One of the great ironies of our time, as Glenn Greenwald goes on to point out in his speech on the surveillance state, is that although we live in a time when it is possible for nebulous government agencies to know every detail of your life, from what you ate for breakfast to where you shopped last night to who your friends are, we are also living in an age of unprecedented ignorance about what are our own governments are actually doing.
GREENWALD: [There’s] one other point that’s worth making about how this works—about how the surveillance State works and how power is exercised through it and this, I think, is probably the most pernicious part—and I refer to this as the one-way mirror. The government’s one-way mirror. At exactly the same time—this is really so remarkable to me—at exactly the same time that the government has been massively expanding its ability to know everything that we’re doing, it has simultaneously erected a wall of secrecy around it that prevents us from knowing anything that they’re doing.
This is the heart of the matter. Somehow we are expected to go along with the sophomoric sophism that “If we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear,” yet at the same time we are asked to believe that the government must keep all manner of information secret from the public in order to carry out its work of “protecting” that public.
If the government has nothing to hide, then why doesn’t it release the notes, memoranda and findings of the 9/11 Commission in full and unredacted?
Why doesn’t it release the records of the JFK assassination investigation instead of arguing, as it is, that those records should once again be removed from a declassification review that is to take place in 2013, 50 years after the assassination itself took place?
Why doesn’t it release the full audit trail of what banks received the emergency TARP funds and in what amounts?
Is it because, after all, the government does have something to hide from the public that are its ostensible masters? Is it because the old maxim that “Knowledge is power” is more true than we could ever know, and that the government’s one-way insistence on transparency for the citizens and opacity for itself is a reflection of the power that it holds over us?
The Sentient World Simulation is just one example of one program run by one company for various governmental and Fortune 500 clients. But it is a significant peek behind the curtain at what those who are really running our society want: complete control over every facet of our lives achieved through a complete invasion of everything that was once referred to as “privacy.” To think that this is the only such program that exists, or even that we have any significant details about the ways that the SWS has already been used, would be hopelessly naive.
So where does this leave a public that is at such a disadvantage in this information warfare? A public that is effectively told that anything and everything they do, say or buy, can and will be catalogued by the a.i. control grid even as the details of that grid are to be kept from them? Unfortunately there is no easy way back from the precipice that we were ushered toward with the creation of the national security state and the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. Perhaps we have already stepped over that precipice and there is no going back in the current political paradigm. These are things for an informed, aware, knowledgeable citizenry to decide through a societal dialogue over the nature of and importance of “privacy.”
But without a general awareness that programs like the Sentient World Simulation even exist, what hope do we have in counteracting it?
Featured Video
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Zeolite Book — First Edition, 2026, Paperback
The volcanic mineral medicine will not patent — for the toxic burden medicine will not name
Lies are Unbekoming – October 30, 2026
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
In 1986, after the Chernobyl reactor failure, the Soviet Union manufactured and distributed natural zeolite at industrial scale — for soil remediation, for livestock feed, for human consumption, for the cleanup itself. Karl Hecht, who had been director of the Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pathophysiology at the Charité of Humboldt University Berlin, spent the six decades after that building the clinical research base — on silicon’s role in human health, on zeolite’s clinical safety, on its applications in ageing. In 2018, Pavelić and colleagues published a comprehensive clinical safety review of natural clinoptilolite in Frontiers in Pharmacology. In 2019, Mastinu analysed its binding affinities. In the Western medical literature, these works sit largely uncited.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a volcanic mineral with six decades of Soviet clinical work behind it, two major peer-reviewed Western reviews, and ongoing clinical use across the former Eastern Bloc, remains almost entirely absent from Western medical practice — and what the toxic burden it’s meant to address actually is.
The Zeolite Book gathers the Soviet clinical record, the Western peer-reviewed studies, three contemporary practitioner voices, and three serious counterviews into one honest treatment. That’s why the book runs to seven appendices. 288 pages, four parts, three practitioner voices, three counterviews, seven appendices. The honest treatment is the argument.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Wrong, AP and NPR: Europe’s 50,000 Heat Deaths Are a Computer-Model Estimate, Not a Real Body Count
- Questioning Your Doctor Is Now Considered A Psychological Problem (Seriously)
- London tourism expo promotes Israeli agency linked to theft of Palestinian land
- Dockworkers launch global strike against Israeli and US military shipments
- Europe facing gas price shock – Gazprom chief
- Ukraine continues recruiting people with disabilities
- Weaponized Journalism: 2021 Sayer Ji Interview with NPR
- Beyond Netanyahu: what Israel’s election means for Palestinians
- Lithuania plans universal conscription
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Ukraine News
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
