‘Persecute’ Russian speakers – ex-Ukrainian deputy speaker
RT | October 11, 2025
Kiev should launch a full-blown crackdown on Russian speakers, threatening them with financial and criminal penalties if they are reluctant to use Ukrainian, a former deputy parliamentary speaker said on Friday.
Koshulinsky, who held his post from 2012 to 2014 and remains a senior figure in the far-right Svoboda party, told local media that “discomfort for people who use the language of the occupiers” must be imposed.
”Deny education, deny work, punish with money, remove from positions … Only in this way will we oblige those people who do not honor or respect Ukrainians… These people do not understand other measures besides discomfort and financial or criminal persecution,” Koshulinsky said. He added that what he calls “the Moscow language” helps Russia “spread its narratives” among Ukrainians.
Last month, language ombudsman Elena Ivanovskaya warned that harsh or coercive methods to impose Ukrainian on the country’s large Russian-speaking community could backfire on the government. She said proposals for “language patrols” are both unrealistic and potentially destabilizing, calling instead for slower but steadier measures to promote Ukrainian among children.
Ivanovskaya also sounded the alarm over the fact that the use of Russian is on the rise in daily life, particularly among younger Ukrainians, adding that it was caused by the population growing accustomed to the conflict with Russia.
Following the Western-backed coup in 2014, Kiev has adopted a series of policies aimed at curbing the use of Russian in public life – making Ukrainian mandatory in schools and state institutions, significantly tightening quotas on Russian-language media and cultural products, and restricting Russian books and music.
Russia has condemned Ukraine’s language policies, accusing it of pursuing “a violent change of the linguistic identity” of its population.
West turning internet into ‘tool of control’ – Telegram founder
RT | October 10, 2025
Western surveillance and censorship is eroding digital freedom and is turning the internet into a “tool of control,” Telegram founder Pavel Durov has warned.
The Russian-born billionaire has long portrayed Telegram as an outpost for free speech and privacy, contrasting it with what he describes as authoritarian censorship efforts by Western governments.
“Our generation is running out of time to save the free Internet built for us by our fathers,” Durov said in a statement on Telegram on Friday, marking his 41st birthday.
“What was once the promise of the free exchange of information is being turned into the ultimate tool of control,” he added, noting that nations once considered free are adopting authoritarian digital practices. He cited measures such as digital IDs in the UK, compulsory online age verification in Australia, and the mass scanning of private messages in the EU.
Durov said people have been misled by the West into believing that their mission is to dismantle traditional values – privacy, sovereignty, free markets, and free speech – and by doing so, society has embarked on a path of “self-destruction.”
“A dark, dystopian world is approaching fast – while we’re asleep. Our generation risks going down in history as the last one that had freedoms – and allowed them to be taken away… We are running out of time,” he said.
Durov has long clashed with Western governments over Telegram’s policies, facing fines in Germany for not removing ‘illegal’ content and criticism in the US for allegedly enabling extremist groups.
Last year, he was arrested in Paris and charged with complicity in crimes linked to Telegram users, but was released on bail. He called the case politically motivated. He later accused French intelligence of pressuring him to censor conservative content during elections in Romania and Moldova, and condemned France for waging “a crusade” against free speech.
Durov has also warned that EU laws such as the Digital Services Act and the AI Act are paving the way for the centralized control of information.
UK universities spied on students for arms firms supplying Israel: Report
Press TV – October 8, 2025
Leaked emails have revealed that UK universities spied on students’ social media and chat groups at the request of arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.
According to internal correspondence obtained by The Guardian and Liberty Investigates, several universities assured these weapons manufacturers that they would keep watch over students’ online activity to detect and preempt potential protests.
Over the past two years, large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations have taken place across UK campuses, with students demanding an end to arms sales to the Israeli regime.
In one case, a university responding to a weapon manufacturer’s “security questionnaire” said it would conduct “active monitoring of social media” to detect any planned protests against Rolls-Royce during a careers fair.
Rolls-Royce, the UK’s second-largest arms manufacturer, directly supplies key components for Israeli military vehicles. Its German subsidiary, MTU, also produces engines used in Israel’s battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and warships.
Loughborough University told a recruitment firm running a “Rolls-Royce roadshow” that its security team was conducting “active monitoring of social media … to provide early intelligence about protests.”
Emails from Heriot-Watt University suggest that Raytheon UK requested the university to “monitor university chat groups” on its behalf before a careers fair — and the university agreed to “implement the measures you have suggested.”
Similarly, Glasgow and Cardiff universities faced pressure from major UK aerospace firms — BAE Systems and Leonardo — to track online activity before career events. Some events were later moved online after potential protests were identified.
The UK also supplies BAE-made components to a global pool of F-35 fighter jets that Israel can access.
The surveillance of students’ social media has sparked outrage among advocacy groups, who argue that universities should support peaceful protest, not criminalize it.
Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, called the universities’ actions “utterly shameful,” adding that “so many universities have spent time and resources surveilling students who are engaged in peaceful protest against genocide.”
Data compiled by Liberty Investigates shows that one in four UK universities — 37 out of 154 — launched disciplinary investigations into pro-Gaza student and staff activists between October 2023 and March 2025, affecting up to 200 people.
The United Kingdom maintains close political and military ties with Israel, including arms sales, intelligence sharing, and military partnerships.
British arms companies continue to provide key components for Israeli military vehicles, fighter jets, and naval vessels — a relationship that human rights groups say makes the UK complicit in the regime’s war crimes in Gaza.
Are You On a Secret TSA Watchlist?
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | October 7, 2025
In 1999, the Supreme Court recognized that the “‘constitutional right to travel from one State to another’ is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.” Unless, of course, federal agents secretly disapprove of you, your beliefs, or your suspected connections.
The Transportation Security Administration has vexed Americans for more than twenty years. Last week, three separate idiotic TSA surveillance programs were exposed by Congress and the Trump administration.
In 2021, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) created a secret watchlist of individuals who publicly opposed President Joe Biden’s COVID mask mandate. Operation Freedom to Breathe resulted in dozens of individuals being either banned from flying or hit with additional groping or patdowns. As journalist Matt Taibbi reported, “12 were placed on a watch list for removing their masks in-flight,” which a TSA memo characterized as “an act of extreme recklessness in carrying out an act that represents a threat to the life of passengers and crew.” That covert crackdown only ended when a federal judge struck down Biden’s mask mandate in April 2022. Only in Washington would an edict to banish all dissidents be labeled Operation Freedom to Breathe.
The Biden’s TSA secretly condemned hundreds of people allegedly linked to the January 6, 2021 Capitol protests. TSA approved “enhanced screening” and watchlists for anyone “suspected of traveling to the National Capital Region” for that protest, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed. TSA bloated the list of January 6 suspects by tapping a George Washington University database of alleged extremists—which was as credible as randomly selecting names of Trump donors. A TSA privacy officer protested, “TSA is punishing people for the expression of their ideas when they haven’t been charged, let alone convicted of incitement or sedition.”
New dirt also came to the surface about the Quiet Skies program, which sent TSA air marshals to covertly surveil travelers on the flimsiest pretexts. If you fell asleep or used the bathroom or glared at noisy kids during a flight, those incriminating facts might have been added to your federal dossier. Air marshals noted whether suspects gained weight or were balding or were paranoid about the undercover federal agents who followed them into the parking lot to their cars. If you fidgeted, sweat, or had “strong body odor”—BOOM! the feds were onto you. Air marshals also zeroed in on “facial flushing,” “gripping/white knuckling bags,” “face touching,” or “wide open, staring eyes,” and “rapid eye blinking.”
Quiet Skies, which cost $200 million a year, was scandalized last year after it targeted former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (currently the Director of National Intelligence) after she criticized Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Turns out Quiet Skies was also tracking three Republican congressmen prior to the program being abolished in June. TSA has not yet revealed the names of those congressmen.
Legions of women bitterly complain on social media about TSA screeners molesting them. But if a woman pushes a TSA screeners hands away from her breasts, then she can placed on the TSA secret “95 list” of potentially troublesome travelers. TSA’s official watchlist defines troublemaker to include someone who merely “loiters” near a TSA checkpoint or demonstrates any “concerning behavior.” Any behavior which is “offensive [to the TSA] and without legal justification” can get a person secretly listed, according to a confidential TSA memo. TSA assistant administrator Darby LaJoye told Congress that any traveler who demonstrated “concerning” behavior can be secretly placed on the list. “Concerning behavior” is vague enough to add 10,000 chumps a day to the watchlist. The TSA would have been more honest if it announced that anyone who fails to instantly and unquestioningly submit to all TSA demands is guilty of insubordination.
TSA can also place someone on the watchlist simply because they are “publicly notorious.” Did getting denounced by TSA chief John Pistole in 2014 for “maligning” and “disparaging” TSA agents in an op-ed qualify me for the list and endless TSA supplemental patdowns when I travel? The Brennan Center for Justice warned that TSA could add “pretty much anyone with even a modest public profile, such as journalists or activists,” to the “95 list.” ACLU attorney Hugh Handeyside warns that the new watchlist “permits TSA officials to blacklist people for conduct that could be wholly innocuous. This is conduct that’s so completely subjective, and in many cases likely completely innocent, it just gives officers too much latitude to blacklist people arbitrarily and to essentially punish them for asserting their rights and in doing anything other than complying with officers’ demands.”
There are other TSA surveillance programs and watchlists that desperately need sunshine if not legal de-lousing. A 2023 report by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee noted that “U.S. travelers may be screened for at least 22 different reasons.” An Iron Curtain of secrecy covers the operation:
“The executive branch has revealed hardly any information about what watchlists it maintains, who is included, and why or how those lists are used.”
DHS receives requests from almost 20,000 people a year complaining about being banned from flying or subjected to enhanced screening, and 98% of those people are not on terrorist watchlists, according to TSA.
The Senate report revealed the existence of TSA’s Security Notification List which “includes individuals who may pose a threat to aviation security, but who do not warrant additional screening.” So if they pose a threat to airline safety, why are they permitted to fly? The report noted:
“These individuals may seek to intentionally evade or defeat security measures or may attempt to disrupt the safe and effective completion of screening…Individuals on this list may not be referred for additional screening solely by virtue of their placement on this list, but TSA personnel may be given forewarning of their travel.”
Is this simply the “Bad Attitude List” or the “Give Hell to Anyone Who Complained Since 9/11 List”?
The Senate report warned, “A watchlist that is not properly maintained… breaks the trust with innocent Americans who get caught up in this net with no way out.” TSA watchlists are perilous to freedom because TSA proudly hires many employees who failed every intelligence test they ever took. “Senator Ted Kennedy and former U.S. Representative John Lewis, and even babies, have been stopped at airports because they shared biographical information with individuals on the [No Fly] terrorist watchlist,” the Senate report noted.
How many other secret watchlists has TSA or DHS not yet revealed? We have no idea how many Americans’ rights and liberties continue to vanish into TSA black holes.
Endless false alarms at TSA checkpoints are a clue that the agency is still on par with a drunk blindfolded person swinging at a pinata. Airport security seems like a perpetual psycho-pathological experiment to determine how much degradation Americans will tolerate. Despite squeezing millions of butts and boobs, TSA has never caught a real terrorist. After pointlessly groping millions of Americans, TSA has no excuse for groping millions more.
Free Speech After Charlie Kirk: an American Lesson for Pam Bondi, Donald Trump & Netanyahu
By Ilana Mercer | LewRockwell.com | October 4, 2025
Let us be clear about what freedom of speech à la America truly means:
The words people speak, chant, write and tweet; the beliefs they are known to hold, the flags they fly or burn, the symbolic, non-violent ceremonies and rituals they enact, the insignia, paraphernalia; the goose-stepping, Hitler salutes they muck around with—provided no physical aggression is involved (violence against animals included), all this counts as protected speech, licit in natural law.
So long as oddities and idiosyncrasies, whether performed alone or in groups, thoughts harbored privately or shared in public—so long as no violence accompanies such speech or behavior; so long as your mitts stop at the next man’s face (or at the next mutt’s fury face, Kristi Noem): SPEECH. It’s all speech. It should be free, unfettered and as wild and as wanton as can be.
At their worst, expressions of ostensible antisemitism, Naziism, racisms or other antipathies amount to thought crimes, nothing more, if expressed as a belief system severally or collectively, rather than in palpably violent actions. Whether your thoughts are spoken, chanted, written or preached; be they impolite or impolitic: they are, at worst, no more than thought crimes.
Thought crimes are nobody’s business in a free society. Thought crimes ought to be ferociously protected by a free people. By logical extension, any accusations of antisemitism, Naziism or other antipathies and racisms, are especially suspect when emitted as a meme from American institutionalized power structures.
One such obscenely wealthy and worthless power structure is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or Defamation League—a more apt moniker once suggested by Elon Musk, before he joined the ADL in severely censoring some speech on the X platform. The ADL is a meddlesome shakedown operation, in the mold of the Southern Poverty Law Center (“Smear Artists for the Total State,” wrote Tom DiLorenzo). It has taken it upon itself to decide who lives and who dies socially and financially on the basis of the unfortunate individual’s ideas, spoken and written.
In the American tradition, thoughts and words spoken or written that are politically impolite—again, racism; Naziism, antisemitism—retain protected status as speech beyond the adjudication of law-makers, bureaucrats, mediacrats, educrats and technocrats.
Sniffing out racists or anti-Semites is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting, libertarian-minded Americans, or any American, for that matter. Like creedal libertarians, Americans don’t, or should not, prosecute thought crimes or persecute thought “criminals.”
Ours should be The Skokie Standard of free speech and thinking (which I articulated in August 2022). What is The Skokie Standard of free speech? In 1978, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took a stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The Skokie Standard of free speech is one that champions unpopular expression, and vigorously defends all marginalized speakers and thinkers, rather than purveying and protecting state and corporate ideology du jour.
Let me repeat what the Skokie Standard of free speech stands for here: However which way they are grouped, the words people individually or collectively speak, chant, write and tweet; the beliefs they are known to hold, the flags they fly or stomp, the symbolic, non-violent ceremonies, rituals and protests they perform; the insignia, paraphernalia, the goose-stepping, Hitler salutes they dick around with—provided no physical aggression is involved, all that counts as protected speech.
Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, RIP, got it. On May 2, 2024, Kirk wrote the following: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi doesn’t get it. No wonder even Glenn Greenwald, once a practicing constitutional attorney—and a man of manners and decorum—regularly appends “dumb” and “lacking any grasp of constitutional law” to any mention of Bondi, who said this after Kirk’s murder:
The Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech… There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — [for that] in our society,” Bondi told a podcaster likewise cerebrally compromised.
If you thought the nation’s chief law enforcement officer had blurted out on an impulse such promises of unconstitutional hate-speech prosecutions; I’m sorry to say that Bondi only doubled down. In scant regard for the letter and spirit of American constitutional law, she advised employers, on September 15, of their “obligation to get rid of people who are saying horrible things.”
While “The First Amendment doesn’t stop private employers from choosing to fire people for speech; it can be illegal for the government to use its power to pressure a private company into firing a staff member.” In America, not even do celebrations of Kirk’s assassination count as threats of violence or incitement to violence. In fact, “government retribution for speech,” lambasted U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, “is directly forbidden by the First Amendment.”
For our libertarian purposes, moreover, speech should never be defended by deploying a contents-driven defense, such as that a book, an utterance or their author must be spared on account that the person is good and his words are not racist and are against bigotry.
The Argument from Freedom means arguing process, not content. Racism, (alleged) antisemitism or Naziism in targeted literature or in protests should always and everywhere be a peripheral issue. Or, preferably, no issue at all.
The Argument from Freedom means arguing not over the contents of publications like Mein Kampf or the merit of protests for Palestine, but for their publication and practice irrespective of their contents. Which is why I say freedom’s argument is an argument from process, not content.
Freedom makes the case for an unfettered free market in ideas, good and bad. Freedom argues for politically impolite books to be published and read freely. It demands that all offensive literature be available to the free men and women who inhabit the free society. And not because of history; so that we don’t forget it or repeat it. Rather, freedom needs no justification. It is an end unto itself. You are deficient in American solidarity if you don’t stand up for non-violent protest and all speech.
Liberty is a simple thing. It’s the unassailable right to shout, flail your arms, and verbally provoke people in power, unmolested. Tyranny is when those small things can get you assaulted, incarcerated, injured, deported, even killed.
Ultimately banning books or proscribing speech and speakers as the kangaroo courts of Britain, Europe and Canada do legally, assumes a lack of choice and agency among ostensibly “free” human beings. It’s also predicated on the acceptance of a higher authority which decides for the rest of us which cultural products are fit for our consumption.
I thus put it to you, dear reader, left and right, that speech restrictions stateside in the form of the Antisemitism Awareness Act mirror the worst of British and western Europe’s anti-speech tribunals. Tabled by a Republican and a Democrat, S. 4127, which mercifully is still in committee, would embed state agitprop throughout American education. For posterity. Aside being in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Antisemitism Awareness Act would utterly enervate discourse in our country and criminalize vast tracts of speech as well as proscribe actions that are licit in constitutional and natural law.
Left, Right and libertarian; we can and must, then, join in unapologetically rejecting the very idea of policing, purging, persecuting or prosecuting people for holding and expressing politically unpopular ideas in action or in speech.
Mexico Bill Proposes Prison for AI Memes Mocking Public Figures
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | October 6, 2025
Mexico’s Congress is once again at the center of a free speech storm.
This time, Deputy Armando Corona Arvizu from the ruling Morena party is proposing to make it a crime to create or share AI-generated memes or digital images that make fun of someone without their consent.
His initiative, filed in the Chamber of Deputies, sets out prison terms of three to six years and fines for anyone who “create, manipulate, transform, reproduce or disseminate images, videos, audios or digital representations” made with artificial intelligence for the purpose of “ridiculing, harassing, impersonating or damaging” a person’s “reputation or dignity.”
Read the bill here.
The punishment would increase by half if the person targeted is a public official, minor, or person with a disability, or if the content spreads widely online or causes personal, psychological, or professional harm.
The bill presents itself as protection against digital abuse but is, as always, a new attempt at censorship.
The initiative would insert Articles 211 Bis 8 and 211 Bis 9 into the Federal Penal Code, written in vague and sweeping terms that could cover almost any form of online expression.
It makes no distinction between a malicious deepfake and a harmless meme.
By criminalizing content intended to “ridicule,” the bill allows courts or public figures to decide what counts as ridicule. That opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.
There are no explicit protections for parody, satire, or public-interest criticism, all of which are essential to a free society.
Even more troubling, the law increases penalties when the alleged victim is a public servant.
That provision could turn the law into a tool for politicians to insulate themselves from criticism, since any joke, meme, or cartoon could be claimed to harm their “dignity.”
Mexico has long relied on humor as a form of political expression.
Memes, cartoons, and viral jokes often serve as the public’s way of questioning authority. Turning that humor into a potential crime would be a serious step backward.
Instead of making the internet safer, this measure could create a chilling effect that discourages users from speaking or joking freely for fear of prison time.
This is not the first time Morena has tried to police online humor. Former Puebla governor Alejandro Armenta introduced what became known as the Censorship Law, which sought to punish people for “insulting or offending” others online.
The watchdog group Article 19 warned that its broad language could easily be used against journalists or ordinary citizens.
Earlier this year, Ricardo Monreal suggested an Anti-Memes Law that would have required humorous posts to be labeled as “memes” to avoid penalties. Public outrage forced him to abandon the idea.
Corona’s proposal follows the same path under a new label. While it claims to address the dangers of AI manipulation, its vague wording threatens free expression instead of safeguarding it.
Oracle execs: Love Israel or maybe this isn’t the job for you
Employees who disagreed were reportedly referred to company mental health services
By Eli Clifton | Responsible Statecraft | October 3, 2025
TikTok’s impending sale to a group of U.S. investors led by Oracle was supposed to alleviate concerns about foreign influence over the popular social media platform. But a series of statements in Israeli media outlets by company executives including Executive Vice Board Chair and former CEO Safra Catz, reveal the company’s commitment to Israel is “unequivocal” and is not shy about squelching criticism of Israel internally.
These statements raise questions about how Oracle might exercise its impending ownership role at TikTok, a platform popular with young adults who are often critical of U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza and Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians, which a U.N. commission recently characterized as a “genocide.”
In 2021, Catz visited Israel as her first trip outside the U.S. after the COVID-19 pandemic. Calcalist, an Israeli publication, reported on remarks by the Oracle CEO:
When asked about the protests against Israel organized by employees at Google and Apple, Catz said that “when you connect with Oracle you understand that we are committed to the U.S. and Israel. We are not flexible regarding our mission, and our commitment to Israel is second to none. This is a free world and I love my employees, and if they don’t agree with our mission to support the State of Israel then maybe we aren’t the right company for them. Larry (Ellison, co-founder of Oracle) and I are publicly committed to Israel and devote personal time to the country and no one should be surprised by that.”
In a 2024 interview with Calcalist, Catz emphasized that one of her first actions after the October 7th 2023 Hamas attack was to send the message to Oracle’s clients around the world – including, presumably, in many countries where Oracle holds government contracts – that the technology company prioritizes Israel. She said:
“So what we did was first sort of hug our employees, hug my Oracle employees by doing everything we could think of and put on our website ‘We stand with Israel’, not only on our Israeli website or even on our American website, but on our websites around the world in the local language. And as you know, we operate in a lot of countries. And it was very important for us to make sure we made a powerful message about how important Israel is and what the difference is between good and evil.”
Head of Oracle Israel Eran Feigenbaum reinforced the messages delivered by Catz in a 2023 interview with the Israeli publication Ynet. Feigenbaum said:
“I couldn’t fathom a global company offering more support to Israel than Oracle. It’s an incredible opportunity to lead the Israeli branch with the backing of a global powerhouse. Oracle’s leadership, including the fact that Larry himself has an Israeli origin, has consistently demonstrated unequivocal support for Israel. So much so, that employees not aligning with support for Israel may find Oracle isn’t the right fit.”
The message from higher ups at Oracle that anything less than total prioritization of Israeli interests is unwelcome behavior appears to be reinforced through the company’s human resources department. An anonymous Substack, Oracle For Palestine, written by a group of Oracle employees, claims that “our leadership’s unquestioning public support for Israel” has led to a failure of the company to address the one-sided political positions taken by top management and the discrimination faced by employees who don’t share the political views of management.
“In response to legitimate concerns, many of us have been referred to internal mental health resources rather than having those concerns addressed appropriately,” said the group in a post last year.
Catz’s comments as well as the anecdote about Oracle staff being referred to mental health resources were all celebrated in a Times of Israel blog post by Oracle employee Ivan Bassov.
“Oracle has been refreshingly clear and consistent under the leadership of our CEO, Safra Catz,” wrote Bassov. “She has repeatedly articulated both her personal commitment and Oracle’s commitment to Israel.”
Bassov appeared to corroborate the anonymous Substack’s claims and endorsed Oracle’s treatment of his “anti-Israel” colleagues, writing, “Well, if sending these ‘activists’ to therapy instead of resetting the company’s moral compass counts as ‘repression,’ then maybe the company’s judgment was sounder than they think.”
Earlier this week, Responsible Statecraft reported on a leaked email from the hacked email account of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. “We have all been horrified by the growth of the BDS movement in college campuses and have concluded that we have to fight this battle before the kids even get to college,” said an email appearing to originate from Catz to Barak in 2015. “We believe that we have to embed the love and respect for Israel in the American culture.”
Sources familiar with the matter “could not confirm the authenticity of the email” and Oracle declined to comment about Catz’s statements. However, review of Catz’s public statements, as well as those from another executive at Oracle, reveal similar biases in favor of Israel and even clearer expressions of Oracle’s prioritization of Israel over any other countries or corporate interests.The track record of Oracle executives demanding commitment to Israel from staff around the world raises a number of questions:
How does Oracle address situations in which U.S. interests, or the interests of any other country in which the company operates, are in conflict with Israel’s interests?
Will these statements of unequivocal support for Israel translate into restrictions on speech critical of Israel on TikTok under Oracle’s ownership?
An Oracle spokesperson did not respond to these questions.
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
FBI Breakup Ends SPLC and ADL Direct Influence
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 5, 2025
The FBI has officially ended its partnership with both the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), following years of mounting concern over the influence of partisan organizations in shaping federal intelligence and domestic “extremism” policy, which has resulted in online censorship.
FBI Director Kash Patel condemned the SPLC’s direction, describing it as a “partisan smear machine” and calling its involvement in federal intelligence work unacceptable.
He pointed specifically to the group’s so-called “hate map,” which has long been used to label mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as equivalent to violent hate groups.
“Their so-called hate map has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence,” Patel stated. “That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership.”
The bureau confirmed it no longer shares information or maintains any intelligence products from the SPLC.
It has also cut off contact with the ADL, a group that, while ostensibly focused on combating antisemitism, has frequently advocated for censorship of speech it deems problematic, particularly online.
Both organizations were previously consulted by the FBI in identifying and monitoring alleged extremist threats.
That practice came under fire after the bureau’s Richmond office cited the SPLC in a controversial 2023 memo suggesting that traditional Catholics could be tied to radical activity.
The document called for agents to cultivate informants within Catholic churches.
The backlash led Patel to publicly reject the use of ideologically driven outside groups in FBI operations.
“I made it clear that the FBI will never rely on politicized or agenda-driven intelligence from outside groups—and certainly not from the SPLC,” Patel said. “All ties with the SPLC have officially been terminated.”
Originally known for battling white supremacist groups through litigation, the SPLC has since shifted its focus toward labeling conservative advocacy organizations as dangerous.
Over time, its “hate map” has become a blacklist used by corporations, financial services, and online platforms to restrict access and support for those groups.
More recently, the group listed Turning Point USA shortly before the assassination of its founder, free speech advocate Charlie Kirk.
The SPLC has maintained that not all Christian groups are included in its listings. For years, it pointed to Focus on the Family as an example of one that was not. That changed in 2024 when Focus was added to the map.
The ADL supported the STOP HATE Act, which seeks to pressure online platforms to remove “disinformation” and what it calls “hate speech.” The bill’s language raises obvious concerns about vague definitions and potential abuse.
Both organizations have held sway not just over federal agencies, but also over powerful private institutions.
Amazon, Eventbrite, Hyatt Hotels, and PayPal have all relied on the SPLC’s hate designations to determine which groups can use their services.
The now-discontinued AmazonSmile program excluded organizations listed by the SPLC, while major charitable foundations have blocked funding to those targeted by the group.
Federal agencies under the Biden administration have also shown a willingness to coordinate with the SPLC.
In a 2021 donor meeting, the group’s then-president said that many agencies had proactively reached out to solicit its input on shaping domestic terrorism policy.
That cooperation continued even after the SPLC labeled the parental rights group Moms for Liberty a hate group in 2023, followed by a briefing with the Department of Justice.
Ukraine’s SBU Abducted Kharkov Residents Who Criticized Regime Online
Sputnik – 05.10.2025
People who made critical posts related to the Ukraine’s authorities are being abducted, Anastasiya Bykova, the administrator of a closed chat for the city’s residents, told Sputnik. These people had posted photos in the chat that could reveal their location, she added.
The chat admin also described an incident in which the SBU contacted her and asked her to pass along a “hello” to one of the chat members, who was being held in a pretrial detention facility.
Besides, she revealed that the SBU spent about an hour and a half exhibiting her father’s beating on a video call and demanded that she hand over her Telegram account, which had admin access to the Kharkov chat, and collect information on the movement of Russian military equipment.
Bykova, who lives in Russia’s Shebekino, claims her Telegram account was repeatedly accessed from devices in Kiev and Odessa.
The Met police chief proves he’s as dishonest and racist as the force he leads
By Jonathan Cook | October 4, 2025
Sir Mark Rowley claims he is worried about rising ‘community tensions’. But the only tensions he cares about are those belonging to an imaginary community he has created of a Jewish hive mind
Once again, the BBC laps up outright disinformation from Sir Mark Rowley, police commissioner of the institutionally racist and corrupt Met. Watch this short clip from the BBC News at Ten last night:
1. Rowley demands supporters of Palestine Action cancel or delay their protest today, after the Manchester synagogue attack, because the timing appears “antisemitic”.
How to untangle this nonsense?
a) The only possible way to interpret Rowley’s argument is that he believes every British Jew identifies and supports Israel’s mass slaughter of children in Gaza and therefore, out of respect for their grief at the Manchester attack, we ought not to protest against the slaughter in Gaza. That undoubtedly makes Rowley the antisemitic one.
b) Even were his deeply antisemitic idea true – that British Jews are an unthinking herd of genocidal monsters – Rowley assumes that we ought to be okay with this: we should just keep quiet about Israel murdering 100 or so Palestinians every day in Gaza, and starving and ethnically cleansing the rest of the population, because it would supposedly offend Britain’s Jewish community to do otherwise.
c) Rowley wants the protesters to take a time-out of a few weeks, even while Israel refuses to take any time-out on murdering Palestinians. Nor is the British government taking a time-out in arming Israel and providing it with intelligence to carry out the genocide. Rowley is suggesting we should simply quieten down for the next few weeks, even as 100 Palestinians are killed each day, before heading back to the streets. He thereby sends an unequivocal message that Palestinian life is worthless – and he does it while claiming we are the racist ones.
2. Rowley claims he wants this weekend’s protests stopped because of the danger they will raise “community tensions, which is my concern”.
And yet from everything he says, the only community’s “tensions” he appears to care about are those of an imaginary one he has created of a Jewish hive mind.
What about the tensions of Palestinian communities, of wider Muslim and Arab communities, of human communities, of those parts of the Jewish community opposed to Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, produced by watching children being torn to shreds by bombs Britain is helping to supply to Israel, by seeing world citizens – including British citizens – being abducted in international waters by Israel as they try to break Israel’s illegal starvation-siege of Gaza?
Does Rowley care about these communities and their tensions, tensions that will only heighten if they are denied their long-established democratic rights to go out on to the streets to protest – rights that have already been aggressively whittled away by successive British governments?
3. Rowley says he finds it “bewildering” why more than 1,000 people would want to get arrested for “supporting a terrorist organisation” – and berates them for taking up police resources at a time when those resources are needed elsewhere.
And yet, Rowley knows there is nothing “bewildering” about their protests. These thousands of British citizens, and millions behind them who are less courageous, are prepared to risk jail, and damage their careers and their futures, with a “terrorism” conviction. They are prepared to do so because they believe the proscription of Palestine Action – the first such proscription in British history for a direct-action group following in the tradition of the Suffragettes – is an assault on our fundamental right to protest, and to protest against the criminality of our own institutions, in this case institutions actively supporting a genocide in Gaza.
If Rowley does not believe he has the resources to arrest the 1,000-plus people who will be sitting quietly in Parliament Square today holding placards opposing the genocide, then he can simply let them be. The sky will not fall in. No one will get hurt. There will be no threat to either public or national security.
The true danger – the danger that Rowley and the government of Sir Keir Starmer really worry about – is that ever more people are beginning to understand that we are ruled by a gang of authoritarian, genocide-assisting criminals.
UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025
The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.
But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”
The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”
A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.
A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.
According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.
As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.
However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.
Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.
“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.
The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.
According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.
Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.
Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.
Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”
Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.
According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.
Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’
The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.
According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.
Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.
Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.
However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.
“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”
Bruner told The Defender :
“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.
“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”
Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”
Hinchliffe said:
“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”
Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.
The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.
According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”
Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.
“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”
Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’
London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.
“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.
“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”
Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.
According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:
“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”
Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.
U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.
Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.
“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”
The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.
Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy
In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.
According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.
Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.
Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”
“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.
In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.
In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.
According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.
In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.
The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”
Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.
The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.
“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.
Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?
Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.
In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.
Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”
Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.
Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.
“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Larry Ellison funded Rubio’s political rise after vetting him for ‘loyalty to Israel’
The Cradle | October 3, 2025
Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of tech giant Oracle, vetted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his support of Israel before making large donations to the senator from Florida’s 2016 presidential election campaign, Drop Site news reported on 3 October.
Leaked emails released by an Iranian hacker group, Handala, show that Ellison discussed Rubio’s loyalty to Israel with Ron Prosor, who at that time served as the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
In April 2015, Ellison and Prosor exchanged several emails discussing Rubio and whether the senator would be an advocate for Israel.
After Ellison met Rubio for dinner, Prosor sent a message to Ellison asking how their meeting went.
“How was the conversation with Mario Rubio. [sic] Did he pass your scrutiny? Did you have a chance to talk about Israel? Would love to chat.”
Ellison responded by saying, “Hi Ron. Great meeting with Marco Rubio. I set him up to meet with Tony Blair,” adding, “Marco will be a great friend for Israel.”
At the time, Rubio was seen as a strong challenger in the Republican presidential primary, which was ultimately won by upstart candidate Donald Trump.
Ellison then donated $4 million to Rubio’s presidential campaign, making him among the top donors of the 2016 cycle.
Since that time, Rubio has been a staunch advocate for Israel and is currently helping Ellison in his goal of building a media empire and taking control of Gaza.
Drop Site notes Rubio has played a role in helping Ellison take control of TikTok, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views as crucial to influencing young people in the US to support Israel.
While under Chinese ownership, TikTok allowed relatively free criticism of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
Ellison is seeking to expand his influence over the traditional media in the US as well. His son David is moving to take control of CBS News, CNN, Warner Brothers, and Paramount, and will reportedly install pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss as editor of CBS News.
Ellison is also seeking to benefit from post-war Gaza reconstruction through former UK prime minister Tony Blair and the institute he heads.
Blair is seeking to lead a committee that US President Donald Trump plans to establish to rule Gaza and oversee the reconstruction of the enclave once it has been emptied of its roughly 1.7 million Palestinian inhabitants.
Drop Site notes further that Trump’s son-in-law, New York real estate investor Jared Kushner, tasked the Tony Blair Institute this spring to develop a plan for post-war Gaza.
As Secretary of State, Rubio is in a position to influence the plans for Gaza and help determine who will benefit financially from Trump’s plan to build a high-tech city, the “Riviera of the Middle East,” on stolen Palestinian land.
If Blair is given the role of overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction, Ellison will have strong influence in the enclave. Drop Site observed that the “Tony Blair Institute has effectively become an offshoot of Oracle,” following donations of $350 million from Ellison.
Ellison has long been a supporter of Israel. At a 2014 fundraiser attended by other pro-Israel billionaires, he declared that “there is no greater honor” than supporting the Israeli military.
In 2017, Ellison donated over $16 million to the Friends of the IDF, the largest-ever donation to the organization. Ellison is also good friends with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been a guest at Ellison’s private island in Hawaii.
