Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Moldova bans second pro-Russian party ahead of pivotal election

Al Mayadeen | September 27, 2025

Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission has barred another pro-Russian political force, Greater Moldova, from contesting in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, citing evidence of illicit financing, officials confirmed on Saturday.

The decision, taken late Friday, marks the second time in just days that a pro-Russian party has been excluded, intensifying concerns over foreign influence, the integrity of the electoral process, and Moldova’s long-term EU aspirations.

According to the commission, the ban followed findings by police, security, and intelligence services that Greater Moldova had engaged in illegal financing and received money from foreign sources. Officials alleged that the party distributed funds to sway voters and concealed financial resources.

Party leader Victoria Furtuna denounced the ruling as politically motivated and vowed to challenge it in court, the Moldpress news agency reported.

Authorities suspect that Greater Moldova was effectively continuing the activities of the previously outlawed party of Ilan Shor, the fugitive businessman living in Moscow who has been accused of corruption but denies any wrongdoing.

Wider context

Sunday’s parliamentary vote is widely viewed as a watershed moment for the former Soviet republic, which is also a candidate for EU membership.

Since 2021, the ruling pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), led by President Maia Sandu, has commanded a parliamentary majority.

However, recent opinion polls suggest the PAS could lose ground as opposition parties tap into public frustration over high living costs, rising poverty, and economic stagnation.

Analysts warn that a weakened PAS may be forced into coalition rule, potentially complicating its target of securing EU accession by 2030.

The exclusion of Greater Moldova comes just a week after another pro-Russian faction, Heart of Moldova, part of the Patriotic Bloc, was also banned from participating in the vote.

Moscow, for its part, maintains it does not interfere in Moldova’s internal affairs.

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

Netanyahu admits Israel weaponizes social media to manipulate US public opinion

Press TV – September 27, 2025

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has admitted that his regime has been using social media platforms to dominate US political discourse and secure unconditional support for its genocidal war on Gaza.

Speaking at a closed-door meeting with US influencers at Israel’s Consulate General in New York, Netanyahu was filmed describing social media as “the most important weapon … to secure our base in the US.”

The head of the Israeli regime singled out TikTok as “the most important purchase going on right now,” claiming that whoever controls this Chinese app will wield “consequential” influence.

He also claimed that gaining influence over TikTok and X would allow Israel to “get a lot.”

Netanyahu’s remarks came just a day after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order certifying a deal to transfer TikTok’s US operations to an American investor consortium including Oracle, Michael Dell, and Rupert Murdoch.

Concerns have since mounted that Oracle founder Larry Ellison—a staunch supporter of the Israeli regime—could ensure the platform’s power is exploited to advance the regime’s coordinated propaganda efforts.

The move comes as Israel faces mounting isolation over its genocidal war on Gaza, where more than 65,600 Palestinians—most of them women and children—have been killed since October 2023.

At the 80th UN General Assembly this week, Netanyahu addressed a largely empty hall after numerous delegations staged a walkout in protest of his regime’s war on Gaza, now entering its third year.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 1 Comment

Digital ID UK: Starmer’s Expanding Surveillance State

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | September 26, 2025

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer came into office promising competence and calm after years of alleged political chaos.

What has followed is a government that treats civil liberties as disposable.

Under his watch, police have leaned on broad public order powers to detain people over “offensive” tweets.

Critics argue that what counts as “offensive” now changes depending on the political mood, which means ordinary citizens find themselves guessing at what might trigger a knock on the door.

This is happening while mass facial recognition cameras are being installed in public places.

The pattern is clear: expand surveillance, narrow dissent, and then assure the public it is all in the name of safety and order.

Against that backdrop, a digital ID system looks less like modernization and more like the missing piece in an expanding control grid.

Once every adult is forced to plug into a centralized identity wallet to work, rent, or access services, the state’s ability to monitor and sanction becomes unprecedented.

Starmer’s Labour government is dusting off one of its oldest obsessions: the dream of tagging every citizen like a parcel at the post office.

The latest revival comes in the form of a proposal to create mandatory digital ID cards, already nicknamed the “Brit Card,” for every working adult in the country.

The sales pitch sounds noble enough: crack down on illegal work, cut fraud, plug loopholes. The real effect would be to make ordinary life a permanent identity check.

Officials want job applications, rental agreements, and other basic transactions to be filtered through a government database, accessed through an app.

This, the people are told, will finally stop the shadow economy of dodgy employers. If that logic sounds familiar, it is because it is the same rationale Labour used for its last ID card scheme in the 2000s, a project that ended up in the political landfill in 2010 after enough voters realized what was happening.

“Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure,” Starmer said in his announcement. “And it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly – rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.”

Campaigners and data rights groups are not buying the rebrand.

For Liberty’s Gracie Bradley cut straight to the point: the new version “is likely to be even more intrusive, insecure and discriminatory” than the one the country already threw out a decade ago.

That does not bode well for a government trying to convince citizens this time will be different.

Rebecca Vincent of Big Brother Watch spelled out where this all leads: “While Downing Street is scrambling to be seen as doing something about illegal immigration, we are sleepwalking into a dystopian nightmare where the entire population will be forced through myriad digital checkpoints to go about our everyday lives.”

Her warning does not require much imagination. Britain has a spotty track record on protecting sensitive data.

A poll commissioned by Big Brother Watch found that nearly two-thirds of the public already think the government cannot be trusted to protect their data. That is before any giant centralized ID system is rolled out.

Privacy advocates see this as a recipe for disaster, arguing that hackers and snooping officials alike will treat the system as a buffet of personal information.

Former Cabinet Minister David Davis, one of the longest-serving critics of ID schemes, described the risks as existential. “The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,” he said, noting the government has not explained how or if it would compensate citizens after the inevitable breach.

Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, issued a blunt forecast of where the “Brit Card” could lead.

She warned it could extend across public services, “creating a domestic mass surveillance infrastructure that will likely sprawl from citizenship to benefits, tax, health, possibly even internet data and more.”

In other words, once the pipes are laid, the water does not stop at employment checks.

Labour, of course, has been here before. The last time it rolled out ID cards, in 2009, the experiment barely survived a year before being junked by the incoming Conservative-led coalition as an “erosion of civil liberties.”

Labour is leaning heavily on polling that allegedly suggests up to 80 percent of the public backs digital right-to-work credentials.

Starmer himself recently adopted that framing. Earlier this month, he claimed digital IDs could “play an important part” in tackling black market employment.

He is pushing the case again at the Global Progress Action Summit in London, noting that “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did 20 years ago.”

What complicates the sales pitch is Labour’s own history of skepticism. Both Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper previously raised concerns about ID systems and their potential for government overreach.

That past caution has not stopped the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, from becoming one of the loudest champions of the plan. She recently declared the system “essential” for enforcing migration and employment laws.

Labour-aligned think tanks are also providing cover. Labour Together released a report describing digital ID as a “new piece of civic infrastructure,” with the potential to become a routine part of life.

***

Tony Blair has reemerged as a central architect of Britain’s dystopian digital future.

Through his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the former Prime Minister is pushing the nationwide digital ID system, pitching it as the backbone of a tech-enabled state.

With Keir Starmer now in office, Blair’s vision is no longer an abstract policy paper. It is edging into reality with a new host.

For Blair, digital ID is not about convenience. It is about rewriting how government functions and can be what he calls a “weapon against populism.”

He has argued that a leaner, cheaper, more automated state is possible if citizens are willing to give up parts of their privacy. “My view is that people are actually prepared to trade quite a lot,” he once said, suggesting that resistance will dissolve once faster services are dangled in front of the public.

This project is not limited to streamlining bureaucracy. His version of efficiency is a frictionless state that also monitors, verifies, and restricts in ways that would have been inconceivable before the digital era.

With Starmer’s government now developing a digital ID wallet and considering a national rollout, Blair’s agenda is closer to official policy than ever. Marketed as modernization, the plan points toward a permanent restructuring of the relationship between citizen and state, locking personal identity into a centralized system that future governments will be able to expand at will.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

‘Digital Chokehold’: Tool Developed by Tech Giants to Stop Terrorists Enables Mass Surveillance, Censorship

The Defender | September 24, 2025

Most people have no idea how far-reaching modern digital surveillance has become. In the wake of the Epstein scandal and the rise of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, the public has largely accepted new monitoring tools as necessary to fight crimes against society’s most vulnerable.

That acceptance has allowed governments and Big Tech to quietly deploy one of the largest surveillance infrastructures in human history — an invisible, always-on monitoring system that watches nearly everything we send, store and share online.

PhotoDNA: Trojan horse for scanning everything 

At the heart of this infrastructure is PhotoDNA. Developed by Microsoft in 2009, PhotoDNA generates a digital fingerprint, or hash, for every image or video uploaded to participating platforms, which include Google, Meta, Apple, Dropbox, Twitter, Discord and many more.

These hashes are compared against a shared global database of known child sexual abuse material. If a match is found, the platform automatically flags, quarantines or reports the file.

The database is continuously updated and instantly synchronized across all partners, allowing near real-time takedowns.

This was sold to the public as a tool exclusively for catching predators. But the technology itself can’t discern the difference between illegal images and political speech. And over time, the scope of its use has quietly expanded.

From predators to ‘extremists’: enter GIFCT 

In 2017, tech giants — Meta, Microsoft, YouTube and Twitter (now X) — founded the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT). Publicly, its mission was noble: stop terrorists from using digital platforms to recruit, organize or spread propaganda.

Privately, however, GIFCT built something far more powerful — a centralized global database of “objectionable content” — modeled after PhotoDNA but repurposed for ideological policing.

Here’s how GIFCT works:

  • When one partner flags content as “extremist” or “terrorist,” GIFCT generates a hash, a string of characters used to create a unique digital fingerprint for data (a file, photo or data) that can’t be decoded. A hash is obtained by running a mathematical formula over the data.
  • That hash is instantly shared across all member platforms.
  • Any matching content is blocked, throttled or erased in real time — often without informing the user.
  • The flagged account may also be shadow-banned (hidden without the user’s knowledge), suspended or referred to law enforcement.

The system’s integration across multiple companies and platforms effectively bypasses borders, legal jurisdictions and constitutional protections. Once content enters the GIFCT database, it can vanish from the internet everywhere at once.

The silent redefining of ‘extremism’ 

GIFCT’s power becomes more troubling when we examine how “extremism” is defined.

In 2021, internal GIFCT documents revealed discussions about expanding its hash database beyond terrorism to include:

“Fringe groups [whose] non-violent ideologies … are on the periphery of social movements or larger organizations, with more extreme views than those of the majority.”  (“Broadening the GIFCT Hash-Sharing Database Taxonomy,” p.53)

This is a turning point. It moves GIFCT from targeting violent threats to monitoring dissenting ideas.

Civil rights groups, health freedom advocates, independent journalists, whistleblowers and reformers — anyone operating outside mainstream consensus — could now be flagged, throttled or silenced under GIFCT’s framework.

And because private companies make these decisions in closed-door sessions, there is:

  • No public oversight.
  • No appeal process.
  • No democratic accountability.

The mechanisms of invisible control 

GIFCT’s technology operates quietly in the background, shaping information flows without most users realizing it:

  • Shadow banning: content gets published but algorithmically suppressed, so almost no one sees it.
  • Real-Time erasure: posts or videos vanish instantly across multiple platforms if hashed.
  • Behavioral profiling: data about what you read, share and discuss can be tied to “risk profiles.”
  • Proactive takedowns: artificial intelligence, or AI, now predicts “likely extremist content” before it’s even posted. What began as a fight against terrorism has evolved into an unprecedented capability for narrative control — one where Big Tech and government-backed nongovernmental organizations quietly manage what the world can see, share and believe.

The threat to civil rights and social reform 

Surveillance networks like GIFCT don’t just monitor — they shape activism itself. By algorithmically suppressing controversial, dissenting or reformist voices, these systems can:

  • Preemptively neutralize protest movements before they organize.
  • Silence journalists who challenge entrenched power.
  • Marginalize minority political perspectives.
  • Narrow public debate until only approved narratives remain visible.

This has profound consequences for democracy and civil liberties. History shows us that nearly every major social reform — civil rights, women’s suffrage, LGBTQ rights, antiwar movements — began as fringe positions.

If today’s automated surveillance systems had existed decades ago, many transformative reforms might never have gained visibility.

Without transparency and democratic oversight, GIFCT risks creating a digital chokehold on cultural evolution itself.

What must be done 

To preserve free speech, open debate and the possibility of reform:

  • Congress must act to place limits on GIFCT’s scope and require full public transparency.
  • Privacy and civil rights organizations must be empowered to audit GIFCT’s hash lists and review what’s being censored.
  • Users must have due process rights — the ability to appeal labels, removals and bans.
  • Citizens deserve public reporting on who decides what gets suppressed and why.

A choice between freedom and control 

The question is no longer whether you have “something to hide” but “who gets to decide what is hidden?”

What began as a narrowly focused child protection tool has grown into a globally integrated surveillance apparatus capable of monitoring nearly all speech, thought and dissent online.

If we fail to act, GIFCT and its partners will continue to quietly rewrite the boundaries of acceptable discourse — undermining civil rights movements, weakening reform efforts, and placing democratic freedoms in the hands of unelected private boards.

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.

September 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Google admits Biden regime pressured content removal, promises to restore banned YouTube accounts

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 23, 2025

After years of denying bias, Google now concedes that it gave in to pressure from the Biden White House to remove content that did not breach its own rules.

The admission comes alongside a promise to restore access to YouTube accounts permanently removed for political speech related to COVID-19 and elections, topics where government officials had applied behind-the-scenes pressure to control the narrative.

This move follows sustained scrutiny from the House Judiciary Committee, which Reclaim The Net covered extensively, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), who issued a subpoena and spearheaded an investigation that revealed the extent of government influence on content moderation decisions at Google.

In a letter from its legal representative, Google confirmed that it faced pressure from the federal government to suppress lawful speech.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Google revealed that it had been contacted multiple times by top federal officials regarding content on its platforms, even when that content did not break any rules.

The company stated that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.”

According to the company, this outreach took place in a broader political climate that made it difficult to operate independently.

Google noted that “The political environment during the pandemic created significant pressure on platforms, including YouTube, to address content that some deemed harmful.”

While describing the situation, Google made clear its disapproval of such efforts, stating bluntly that “This pressure was – and remains – unacceptable and wrong.”

In response to this period of politicized enforcement, the company said it is now taking steps to reverse prior censorship decisions.

As part of that process, Google confirmed that “Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”

The letter also clarified YouTube’s approach to content moderation, explicitly rejecting the use of outside arbiters. “YouTube does not use third-party fact checkers to determine whether content should be removed or labeled,” the company said.

Acknowledging the role of political diversity on its platform, Google stated that “YouTube values conservative voices on its platform. These creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse.”

The company concluded with a broader statement rejecting government interference in lawful online speech, saying that “The federal government should not play a role in pressuring private companies to take action on lawful speech.”

The revelations echo findings in the Murthy v. Missouri case, where lower courts found that federal agencies had taken on a role similar to an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” While the Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, the core issues around government pressure on speech remain unresolved.

The investigation into Google is part of a broader probe into how tech firms handled information related to the 2020 election, COVID-19, and high-profile political topics such as Hunter Biden’s laptop. The committee’s findings show a pattern of censorship aligned with political objectives.

September 24, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Propaganda, Cognitive Warfare, and Europe’s Path to Self-Destruction

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – September 24, 2025

Media narratives, a superiority complex, and psychological battles are shaping Europe’s future. Europe’s self-image as a “garden” blinds it to global realities, while irrational narratives about war risk accelerating its own decline.

Jowett and O’Donnell (2012), scholars in the field of political communication and propaganda studies, define propaganda as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”
Propaganda has always been a weapon of war, but in today’s Europe, and especially Germany, it has reached new levels of sophistication. What once targeted foreign adversaries is now increasingly directed at domestic populations.

Supported by mainstream media, NATO strategies, and elite consensus, propaganda in Europe has become less about informing citizens and more about shaping their cognitive environment.

The German scholar Dr. Jonas Tögel calls this phenomenon “cognitive warfare,” a deliberate attempt to mold the thoughts, emotions, and even instincts of entire populations.

In this article, I intend to examine the current status of propaganda in Germany and Europe, its aims and self-destructive trajectory, NATO’s role in weaponizing cognition, and the cultural mindset that enables Europeans to view themselves as a “garden” surrounded by the “jungle.”

Drawing on the voices of Dr. Tögel, interviewer and scholar Pascal Lottaz from the Institute for Neutrality Studies at Kyoto University, and the German philosopher Hans-Georg Moeller, I explore where this propaganda is leading Europe and whether there is room for optimism.

The Present State of Propaganda in Germany and Europe

Dr. Jonas Tögel’s analysis shows that German media today is more propagandistic than at any point since the Cold War. In his study of Tagesschau, Germany’s most-watched evening news program, he found systematic framing: starting with seemingly neutral reporting, then subtly guiding viewers toward one-sided conclusions. Russian war crimes are emphasized, Ukrainian war crimes are ignored, and Russia’s demands are depicted as irrational, while Ukraine’s are legitimate.

This is not accidental. Tögel highlights that Germany spends over €100 million annually on “public relations,” a euphemism for state-funded propaganda. Intelligence services monitor narratives circulating in the media and deploy rapid countermeasures when alternative views gain traction.

NATO itself has established “centers of excellence” dedicated to narrative warfare, while European laws, such as the Digital Services Act, create the legal infrastructure for controlling online dissent, according to the scholar.

In short, propaganda in Germany today is not just biased news; it is a coordinated, professional, and well-funded campaign that blurs the line between information and psychological operations.

NATO’s Cognitive Warfare: Turning Inward

Traditionally, propaganda was aimed at foreign enemies. Today, NATO openly describes “cognitive warfare” as a new battlefield domain, alongside land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. The sixth domain is the human mind itself.

According to Tögel, NATO’s resilience strategy requires “resilient citizens,” defined not as people capable of independent thought, but as individuals who “think and feel the right things.” In practice, this means shaping public opinion to ensure alignment with NATO objectives, while dismissing dissent as “Russian disinformation.”

The hypocrisy is striking: Western leaders claim to defend democracy and open discourse by censoring dissenting voices. As Tögel notes, this inversion—“defending freedom through censorship”—is not hidden in shadowy rooms but discussed openly at NATO conferences. Citizens are told cognitive warfare is a defense against foreign manipulation, yet in reality, their own minds are the battlefield.

Censorship in the West is becoming more overt. The Trump administration’s Pentagon policy now requires journalists to obtain authorisation before reporting some or even unclassified information, or risk losing access. “Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” according to a Pentagon memo.

Why Do Europeans Believe Their Own Propaganda?

One of the striking questions raised is why Europeans so readily trust their own propaganda, while viewing manipulation as something that happens only “elsewhere.” This is a question I have posed many times, but I never receive an answer, only offended looks.

According to Tögel, part of the answer lies in professionalization: German TV debates and news are carefully staged to create credibility. By starting with neutral reporting (the “foot-in-the-door” technique), audiences are more likely to accept biased conclusions later.

Another factor is sociological. Journalists often operate as freelancers or contractors, meaning their livelihood depends on fitting the expectations of editors. This creates a “natural mechanism,” as Lottaz puts it, where conformity is rewarded and dissent punished. Over time, propaganda becomes less about direct orders and more about systemic self-censorship.

The consequences are dangerous: public fear of Russia is deliberately cultivated, not to encourage peace negotiations, but to sustain support for weapons deliveries and military escalation. Statistically, higher levels of fear correlate with greater public acceptance of war and loss of their welfare.

German Innocent Arrogance and European Superiority

Hans-Georg Moeller of the University of Macau offers another dimension: the cultural mindset that underpins Europe’s propaganda. He describes Germany’s attitude as “innocent arrogance,” the assumption that German superiority, once based on nationalism, now manifests through the European Union.

Germany projects moral superiority onto Europe, framing the EU as a “garden” surrounded by a chaotic “jungle,” as put forward by Josep Borrell. This worldview assumes Europeans are enlightened guardians of civilization, while the rest of the world lags behind.

Moeller recalls the German politician who complained to Namibia’s president that there were more Chinese than Germans in the country, a remark rooted in colonial nostalgia and superiority, forgetting that Namibians have not forgotten the genocide that colonial Germany committed there.

This European arrogance blinds policymakers to global realities. While Europe clings to moral rhetoric, countries like China are overtaking it in modernization and development. Believing their welfare state is eternal, Europeans underestimate their vulnerability. As Moeller warns, this superiority complex leaves Europe “caught off guard,” unprepared for a shifting global order.

Propaganda as Self-Destruction

Both Tögel and Moeller converge on a disturbing conclusion: propaganda is not strengthening Europe but accelerating its decline because it impedes its leaders and citizens from seeing reality.

By framing the Ukraine war as a “battle for democracy” without realistic goals, European leaders are gambling with their own destruction. Unlike the U.S. or Russia, any escalation would devastate Europe directly.

Moreover, propaganda fosters irrationality. While Russia and China (and the U.S. in certain measure) act according to geopolitical logic, Europe clings to emotional narratives that contradict themselves: Russia is both weak and about to conquer Berlin; Ukraine is both winning and desperately dependent on aid to survive. These contradictions are sustained only through constant manipulation.

The welfare state, once Europe’s crown jewel, faces strain from ballooning military spending. Germany alone spends around €200 billion annually on defense, diverting resources from schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and pensions. If propaganda continues to suppress dissent, citizens may realize too late that their security and prosperity were sacrificed on the altar of illusions, according to the scholars.

Reasons for Optimism?

Despite this grim picture, Tögel offers a cautious hope: awareness is growing through independent media, alternative research channels, and citizen activism are exposing the mechanics of propaganda. He insists that if the public demands peace, political elites must eventually follow.

The optimism lies not in NATO or European elites, but in ordinary citizens reclaiming their capacity for reason. The antidote to propaganda is pluralism: exposure to multiple perspectives, critical debate, and genuine democracy where decisions about war and peace rest with the people, not with insulated elites.

Conclusion

Propaganda built through one-sided news and debates in Germany and Europe today is unprecedented in scale, sophistication, and self-destructive potential. It sustains irrational policies, suppresses dissent, and blinds Europeans to global geopolitical realities. NATO’s cognitive warfare, far from defending democracy, undermines it by targeting the minds of its own citizens with the excuse to protect them.

Hans-Georg Moeller’s critique of German arrogance reveals the deeper cultural logic: Europe’s superiority complex sustains the illusion that it is the “garden” of civilization, even when it is being overtaken by others.

Where is this leading? Unless Europeans wake up, the result may be a decline in economic, political, academic, and even civilizational terms. But if awareness spreads, if citizens reclaim their role as decision-makers, propaganda could yet collapse under the weight of its contradictions or still revive the democratic spirit that propaganda was meant to silence. The other possibility is to continue down the path of self-destruction.

September 24, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Pro-Israel tech giant to take over TikTok’s US algorithm to censor Gaza genocide

Press TV – September 23, 2025

A pro-Israel American company is supposed to provide data security and recreate an algorithm for the new US version of TikTok as part of attempts to censor the occupying regime’s genocide of Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, a report says.

The move was prompted following the forthcoming sale of the popular Chinese-owned social media application to US investors, with the financial news outlet Bloomberg citing a White House official as saying on Monday that the arrangement with Oracle Corp. seeks to ensure US control of TikTok’s algorithm, which recommends videos and determines what users in the US see on their feeds.

Under a proposed agreement, owners of the US-based TikTok would lease a copy of the algorithm from its Chinese parent, ByteDance Ltd., that Oracle would then retrain “from the ground up,” according to the official.

“Data from US users would be stored in a secure cloud managed by Oracle with controls established to keep out foreign adversaries, including China,” the official was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.

“Beijing-based ByteDance would not have access to information on TikTok’s US subscribers, nor would it have any control over the algorithm in the US.”

The White House official underlined, “Oracle, the US security partner, will operate, retrain, and continuously monitor the US algorithm to ensure content is free from improper manipulation or surveillance.”

Austin-headquartered Oracle, which is controlled by its founder, Larry Ellison, already provides cloud services for TikTok and hosts user data in the US and other countries as part of a multibillion-dollar partnership dubbed “Project Texas.”

Ellison is one of Silicon Valley’s most pro-Israel figures and has made significant donations to the so-called charity “Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF)”, which supports the Israeli occupation soldiers and is involved in funding emergency medical supplies and mental health treatment to those wounded in the Gaza Strip.

After the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza in October 2023, Ellison pledged Oracle’s support for the occupying regime with cloud and cybersecurity infrastructure, highlighting his commitment to Israel’s military and tech sectors.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement says that US tech companies, notably Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Cisco, Oracle, and IBM, “are deeply complicit in atrocity (including apartheid and genocide)” for providing cloud infrastructure and AI technologies to the Israeli occupation army.

Social media companies, including TikTok, employ large numbers of former intelligence officers from Israel’s Unit 8200.

The Israeli regime also lobbies social media companies to remove pro-Palestine content, giving Tel Aviv significant influence over censorship decisions at the major US social media platforms.

In 2024, US Congress enacted the “TikTok divest-or-ban” law after Jewish lobby groups were ruffled by the large numbers of young American people viewing and sharing videos of Israel’s mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Access to TikTok was briefly blocked for US users in January as the ban came into effect. However, President Donald Trump issued an extension for a deal to be reached, allowing access to resume after just one day.

The move comes as the Israeli regime persists in its systematic oppression of Palestinians by worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and launching a full-scale ground invasion across the territory.

Disturbing images and videos depicting emaciated children, relentless bombardments, and widespread destruction continue to surface on social media platforms, shedding light on the dire situation faced by Palestinians in the region.

Backed by the US, Israel launched its onslaught on Gaza on October 7, 2023, after Palestinian resistance fighters waged the surprise Operation al-Aqsa Flood against the Zionist entity in response to the regime’s decades-long campaign of bloodletting and devastation against Palestinians.

The Israeli military has so far killed more than 65,300 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

Thousands of victims are also feared trapped under rubble, inaccessible to emergency and civil defense teams due to relentless Israeli attacks.

September 23, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Israeli army raids Birzeit University in occupied West Bank

Palestinian Information Center – September 22, 2025

RAMALLAH – In a pre-dawn raid on Monday, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) stormed Birzeit University in Ramallah, deploying dozens of soldiers, military vehicles, and a surveillance drone.

Local sources said troops broke through the university gates from multiple directions after detaining campus security guards. Soldiers ransacked university facilities, destroyed student movement displays, tore down banners supporting Gaza and honoring martyrs, and defaced national slogans.

The IOF also posted leaflets inside the campus, directly threatening the Islamic Bloc, the student arm of Hamas, and warning against its activities. Resistance-themed posters and flags were confiscated.

Ghassan Barghouthi, the Dean of Student Affairs at Birzeit University, reported that 11 IOF vehicles entered the campus. Soldiers assaulted five members of the university’s security staff, leaving them with bruises and injuries.

He said several faculties and facilities were raided, including the arts and literature buildings, as well as Naseeb Shaheen Theater.

Barghouthi added that murals inside the theater were vandalized, along with exhibits prepared for welcoming new students. The murals, he noted, depicted the destruction of academic institutions in Gaza.

Meanwhile, the IOF detained Birzeit student Youssef al-Haj Mohammed after raiding his home in the village of al-Mughayir, northeast of Ramallah.

September 22, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Another Canadian Antisemite

By David Skrbina | The Occidental Observer | September 19, 2025

As a small break from the tedium of the Charlie Kirk fiasco, here’s a little news item from Canada that didn’t quite make its way into the broader MSM. On Monday September 15, CBC Radio broadcast a French-language television program Sur le Terrain (‘On the Ground’), hosted by Christian Latreille, that covered Marco Rubio’s latest visit to Israel. Their correspondent in Washington was a female reporter, Elisa Serret, who has served as a national correspondent for the CBC for over 10 years. By all accounts, she is an experienced and well-respected journalist.

At one point in the program, Latreille asked Serret why Americans “have such difficulty distancing themselves from Israel, even in the most difficult moments”—such as in the midst of an ongoing genocide. She replied:

My understanding, and that of multiple analysts here in the United States, is that it is the Israelis, the Jews, that heavily finance American politics. There is a big machine behind them, making it very difficult for Americans to detach themselves from Israel’s positions. It is really the money here in the United States. The big cities are run by Jews. Hollywood is run by Jews.

Well. What impudence: to speak some truth, live, to a national television audience. Predictably, the Canadian Jewish Lobby jumped all over this incident. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) declared that “antisemitism is absolutely unacceptable” and called for “immediate and unequivocal condemnation from all relevant [Canadian] leaders.” In an online statement, the group said that “Antisemitism is corroding the fabric of society”; they demanded that the CBC “take concrete steps to ensure that neither such comments—nor the systemic issues that enabled them to be aired—are ever allowed again on Canadian airwaves.” The B’nai Brith of Canada said it was “deeply irresponsible and dangerous,” calling her remarks “textbook antisemitic conspiracy theories.” They demanded an on-air retraction stating that the comments were “false, hateful, and unacceptable.”

Also predictably, Canadian authorities immediately caved in to pressure. Writing on X, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said “The words used last night were pernicious antisemitic tropes and have absolutely no place on Canadian airwaves.” A few hours later, the CBC released a statement saying that Serret’s analysis “led to stereotypical, antisemitic, false, and harmful allegations against Jewish communities.” Conservative deputy leader and Jewish lesbian Melissa Lantsman called for her to be fired. Serret was, of course, promptly “relieved of her duties until further notice.” The Canadian Jewish Lobby, it seems, has nearly as much power internally as the US Jewish Lobby has here.

We can understand the Lobby’s reaction—it definitely makes things look bad for the Jews. “Antisemitic” (yes, thankfully), “harmful” (yes), “hurtful” (yes)… but “false”? That is, was she wrong? Did Serret speak some actual truth, or was it all just “trope”? Let’s walk through each of her assertions.

First: “Israelis/Jews heavily finance American politics.” This is undeniably true. According to a 2020 report by Jewish researcher Gil Troy, American Jews provide a huge proportion of political donations: around 25% for Republicans and 50% or more for Democrats. Indeed, the Democrats are particularly captive to Jewish money; other sources claim that their Jewish share runs “as much as 60%,” “over 60%,” up to 70% of “large contributions,” and perhaps as high as 80-90% for certain elections.[1] Such figures are surely underestimates, given how much dark money and laundered donations make their way into politicians’ pockets.

But Republicans are obviously not free from such influence. Trump received considerable funding from wealthy Jews, including the likes of Bernie Marcus (deceased), Miriam Adelson (Sheldon Adelson’s wife; Adelson is deceased), Carl Icahn, Paul Singer, Robert Kraft, Steve Witkoff, Howard Lutnik, Jacob Helberg, Bill Ackman, Ron Lauder, and Marc Rowan. Most notably, in the latter phases of last year’s election, Miriam Adelson made good on her pledge of $100 million to Trump’s campaign.

Let there be no doubt: Jews are the dominant donors in American politics for both parties, and this is a key factor underlying the subservient compliance of our elected officials.

Second: “a big machine.” The US Jewish Lobby is indeed a big machine, centered on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. AIPAC has its own political action committee (the “AIPAC PAC”) to make donations, and its own super-PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP); jointly, these two components spent at least $125 million in the last election cycle. AIPAC has minders or staff members in the offices of nearly every Congressman, and it works to defeat unfriendly legislators—most recently, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman. Other influential Jewish groups include the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Council of Presidents (COP), the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), the Orthodox Union (OU), and the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI). Other groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) receive considerable Jewish funding and thus work to serve Jewish interests. Additionally, we have “liberal” Jewish organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and J-Street that work to advance Jewish aims. A big machine indeed.

Third: “very difficult for Americans to detach.” Most Americans, especially the young, are increasingly moving toward anti-Israel and even anti-Jewish views. US approval for Israeli actions in Gaza recently hit a new low of 32%, down from 50% early in the conflict. Only 9% of those 18-34 approve of the actions, showing a notable “detachment” among American youth. A recent poll showed that 30% of Americans believe that “Jews have too much power.” And perhaps most notoriously, a 2023 survey found that 20% of American youth believe that the Holocaust was “a myth.” The American people, especially the youth, do not find it very hard to detach from the Israeli megalith.

American politicians, however, are another story. Having been heavily funded, and even pre-selected, to be pro-Israel and pro-Jewish, Congressmen routinely vote 80%, 90%, even 100% in favor of Jewish interests. Apart from a few renegades in the US House, like Thomas Massie and Rashida Tlaib, Congress is thoroughly unable to detach from Jewish interests. The two major parties, who disagree on nearly every other point, readily find common ground when it comes to Jewish and Israeli concerns.

The only real “detachment” problem in the US today is the one from Jewish money in politics. Excluding such money would be obvious in any rational governmental system. Unfortunately today in the US, we are governed by an irrational system, one in which the process of change is corrupted and blocked by the same money that creates the problem in the first place. In other words, wealthy Jews, who now effectively control Congress and the Executive branch, will naturally stop any efforts to reform the system in such a way that might decrease their power. They control both the system and the means to change the system; this is political corruption beyond belief, and it suggests that only governmental collapse or civil war will improve things.

Fourth: “it is really the money.” Yes, as noted above. American Jews own or control as much as 50% of the $175 trillion in total personal wealth in this country. They comprise half or more of the richest Americans, including the new #1, Larry Ellison, who recently clocked in at $390 billion[2] and is now buying up media. If the 6 million or so Jewish-Americans own or control, say, $90 trillion, this yields a staggering average of $15 million in assets for every Jewish man, woman, and child. The average Jewish family of four thus holds about $60 million in wealth. Little wonder that they can afford such hefty political donations.

Fifth: “the big cities are run by Jews.” Serret has overreached here a bit. Of the 50 largest cities in the US, only three have Jewish mayors: San Francisco (Daniel Lurie), Louisville (Craig Greenberg), and Minneapolis (Jacob Frey). But several other large cities have significant Jewish populations and thus are certainly run in accord with their interests, including New York (10.8% Jewish, for the larger metropolitan area), Miami (8.7%), Philadelphia (6.8%), Boston (5.2%), Los Angeles (4.7%), Washington DC (4.7%), and Baltimore (4.1%). (I would note that, based on empirical and anecdotal evidence, for any demographic unit in which Jews exceed even 1%, they certainly dominate political and economic activities.) Additionally, there are a number of Jewish governors, and they clearly have influence over the major cities in their respective states: Jared Polis (Colorado); J. B. Pritzker (Illinois); Josh Green (Hawaii); Josh Shapiro (Pennsylvania); Josh Stein (North Carolina); and Matt Meyer (Delaware). On the other hand, there are large cities with relatively few Jews, including Indianapolis, Memphis, and Austin. Thus, it is something of a mixed bag, but Jewish interests unquestionably dominate in New York, LA, Miami, DC, Philly, San Francisco, and Boston.

Sixth: “Hollywood is run by Jews.” Nothing more need be said. Actually, it would have been better if Serret had said, “American media is run by Jews”; we can infer that this is what she meant. One need only look at the largest media conglomerates: Disney/ABC, run by Bob Iger, Alan Horn, and Alan Braverman; Warner Discovery, run by David Zaslav; NBC/Universal, run by Mark Lazarus, Bonnie Hammer, and via Comcast, Brian Roberts; and Paramount, run by Shari Redstone. Furthermore, the new Skydance/Paramount corporation will be run by billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, David, and his new management team includes Jeff Shell, Josh Greenstein, and Dana Goldberg. Case closed. This lock on American media, which includes news and entertainment, explains why most Americans are utterly unaware of the situational dominance by Jews. Very little truth slips out; and when it does, as in this case, the censors and “editors” step in to squelch the story and contain the damage.

Elisa Serret is a heroine. We owe her much gratitude for her few seconds of truth-telling on a national media stage. For now, the Jews have black-bagged her, but we can only hope that she reemerges stronger than before—perhaps as a new media star in North America, perhaps as a new, strong voice in defense of truth, honesty, and justice.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a retired professor of philosophy. For more on his work and writings, see www.davidskrbina.com

Notes

[1] Cited in Washington Post (13 Mar 2003, p. A1); Jewish Power in America (2008) by R. Feingold, p. 4; The Hill (30 Mar 2004, p. 1); Passionate Attachment (1992) by Ball and Ball, p. 218—respectively.

[2] Ellison regularly swaps places with Elon Musk, depending on the vagaries of the stock market. If one man owns nearly half a trillion dollars, we can easily see how 6 million Jews might own $80 or $90 trillion.

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Estonia about to ban Russian Orthodox Church

By Lucas Leiroz | September 20, 2025

The Baltic countries continue to advance their Ukrainization process, adopting increasingly anti-Russian measures. Now, the country’s authorities are targeting the Russian Orthodox Church, passing laws that will restrict the religious rights of more than 250,000 Orthodox believers in Estonia. The goal is to achieve complete de-Russification, eliminating any common cultural ties with Russia—including the religious affiliation of a substantial portion of the Estonian population.

The Estonian parliament recently passed a law prohibiting religious groups from maintaining ties with foreign entities considered “threats to national security.” In practice, this description serves only one purpose: to ban Russian Orthodoxy because of its ecclesiastical affiliation with the Moscow Patriarchate.

Moreover, the law was approved by parliamentarians despite intense criticism from the country’s president, Alar Karis. The president argues that the measure is unconstitutional and violates the principles of religious freedom, in addition to directly affecting the Orthodox Church, which is the largest Christian denomination in Estonia. Since April, the president has twice refused to sign the law, but parliament continues to insist on passing the bill repeatedly, openly defying him.

The bill passed with a landslide: 63 votes in favor to just 15 against. This explains the high and worrying levels of Russophobia in Estonian society—as well as in all the Baltic countries, which have deliberately decided to erase the Soviet past and break the historical relations with Russia in exchange for integration with the Collective West, following a path extremely similar to that which led Ukraine to the current war.

Karis currently has two options. He can obey parliament and ratify the law, which in practice will mean officially implementing a regime of religious persecution against Orthodox Christians; or he could refer the law to the country’s supreme court for judges to assess its compliance with constitutional norms. If the judges rule that the law is constitutional (which is likely, considering that many of these judges also have pro-Western and anti-Russian ideological preferences), pressure from parliament for approval will continue and grow increasingly. Karis may even begin to suffer reprisals, such as the loss of support from several parliamentary groups, until he finally agrees to enact the law.

The local jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church is trying to negotiate an amicable solution to the problem with politicians. In recent documents and statements, the local Orthodox clergy have omitted mention to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate and reaffirmed their broad rights of ecclesiastical autonomy. But even this is not considered sufficient by Estonian parliamentarians, who demand a complete break with the Moscow Patriarchate—which is obviously rejected by religious leaders, as it would be an act of schism.

Attacking the Orthodox Church is a way of attacking the Russian people themselves. By doing so, the Estonian authorities are attempting to destroy Russian identity, which has religion as one of its strongest cultural traits. The history of the Russian people is almost entirely marked by the religious factor. From the Christian conversion of ancient Slavic tribes to the present day, Orthodox Christianity is inseparable from Russian ethnocultural identity. There is no relevant political factor or “security issue” in the affiliation of Estonian Orthodox Christians to the Moscow Patriarchate. The real objective behind the law is simply to endorse Russophobia and undermine the identity of ethnic Russians living in Estonia.

In recent years, Ukraine has passed several similar laws, thus legitimizing the persecution of Orthodox Christians within its territory. Over 80% of Ukraine’s population is Orthodox, but even this doesn’t prevent the government from attacking churches, arresting clergy, and persecuting the faithful. In practice, some signs of persecution have existed since 2014, with churches being destroyed and religious people murdered in Russian-majority regions. It’s important to note, however, that although Ukraine has maintained an openly anti-Russian stance, it only recently enacted an official ban on Orthodoxy—already during the war with Russia. On the other hand, Estonia is banning the Orthodox Church even though it isn’t engaged in any military conflict with Russia, demonstrating that the level of authoritarianism and Russophobia in the Baltic states is truly worrying.

Obviously, this situation raises legitimate concerns for Moscow. Russia has an obligation to ensure the safety of its people in the post-Soviet space. 27% of Estonia’s citizens are native Russian speakers, while 16% of the country’s population is Orthodox. If the current persecution escalates to more advanced levels, such as attempts to physically eliminate ethnic Russians—as occurred in Ukraine—Russia will have no choice but to use any means necessary to save its people.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Bipartisan Push in Congress to Weaken Section 230, Expand Online Surveillance, and Increase Platform Liability

Calls for platform accountability came with few answers about who decides what speech is acceptable

Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2025

During this week’s testimony before both chambers of Congress, FBI Director Kash Patel and several lawmakers made a concerted push to weaken protections for online platforms, advance surveillance partnerships, and promote government intervention in digital speech spaces.

The hearings revealed a rare bipartisan consensus around dismantling Section 230 and tightening control over how people interact and communicate online.

In the Senate, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham opened his questioning by linking online platforms to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, then repeatedly pressed Patel on whether the internet was a breeding ground for radicalization and crime.

Throughout their exchange, Graham blurred the lines between criminal behavior, such as grooming or inciting violence, and broad categories like bullying.

“Is there any law that can shut down one of these sites? For bullying children or allowing sexual predators on the site,” Graham asked.

He repeatedly implied that websites hosting objectionable content should be held legally responsible, asking, “Would you advocate a sunsetting of Section 230 to bring more liability to the companies who send this stuff out?”

Patel replied, “I’ve advocated for that for years.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a legal provision that protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users.

It allows websites, forums, and social media services to host a wide range of speech without being treated as the publisher of that content. If Section 230 were repealed or weakened, platforms would face significant legal risk for everything users say or share.

This could push companies to aggressively censor user content to avoid lawsuits, leading to broader suppression of speech, fewer places for open dialogue, and less room for dissenting or controversial viewpoints online.

When Graham demanded action against platforms that allow bullying or grooming, Patel suggested that platforms cannot be sued under current law, adding that the explosion of AI-generated abusive material had worsened the problem.

Note that Section 230 does not give platforms immunity from federal criminal law. If a website is knowingly hosting or involved in illegal content, such as child exploitation, terrorism, or sex trafficking, it can already be held criminally liable under existing statutes.

Patel called the situation a “public health hazard” and stated, “I think not only are some of these sites designed to be addictive, unfortunately, the reality is some of these sites are designed to generate income, and many people are generating income based on this illegal trade.”

The hearing offered no engagement with the consequences of gutting Section 230. Instead, there was a clear push to strip away those protections in the name of safety.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, echoed that sentiment. “For years I have supported repealing Section 230,” she said, arguing that the law is outdated and was crafted for a different era.

While she prefaced her comments by claiming to oppose censorship, her solution was the same as Graham’s: eliminate legal protections for platforms to create a “better environment online.”

Klobuchar veered into broader political territory, citing a wave of threats and violence targeting lawmakers.

She asked Patel to commit to conveying her concerns to the White House and emphasized a need to “move forward” on both speech laws and gun control measures.

Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn seized the opportunity to promote the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

KOSA is a proposed law that presents itself as a measure to protect children but would fundamentally alter the structure of the internet by encouraging surveillance, forced identity verification, and government-influenced content moderation.

While the bill mandates that platforms shield minors from content deemed harmful, such as material linked to mental health concerns, it also gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to penalize companies over subjective definitions of what constitutes harm.

KOSA directs federal agencies to develop age verification systems at the device or operating system level, setting the stage for a national digital ID regime that would eliminate online anonymity and expose users to deeper tracking and data collection.

Despite revisions and corporate endorsements, the bill continues to raise alarms among civil liberties advocates who warn it would pressure platforms to over-censor, chilling free speech under the pretense of child safety.

Blackburn described platforms like Discord as enablers of predation, referencing the Kirk assassination, and asked Patel what Congress could do to give the FBI more power.

Patel responded with a call for financial crackdowns and more legal obligations for tech companies, stating, “Nobody’s being held accountable. They’re making money and our youth is dying.”

During his exchange with Rep. Brandon Gill, Patel made one of the most interesting comments of the hearing.

Patel called for expanding surveillance partnerships between the government and private tech companies, including gaming and social media platforms.

“There is no way to triage the amount of information generated on these sites by the FBI alone,” Patel said.

He advocated renewing a law that allows companies to report users to the FBI without fear of liability, framing this corporate-government alliance as essential to national security.

This approach would effectively deputize tech companies as enforcers. No concern was raised about how such partnerships could be abused to monitor lawful political activity or dissent.

Despite the repeated invocation of safety and child protection, the hearings presented little evidence that any of the proposed changes would meaningfully prevent crime.

Instead, lawmakers from both parties appeared eager to empower both the FBI and online platforms to act as gatekeepers of acceptable discourse, with Patel affirming at every turn that the Bureau would welcome such powers.

The push to overhaul Section 230, pass KOSA, and institutionalize surveillance under the banner of public-private “partnership” may signal a dangerous change in how speech is treated online.

Rather than protect fundamental rights, lawmakers are pushing to dissolve long-standing legal safeguards in pursuit of control over what people are allowed to say, and where they’re allowed to say it.

September 19, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

California governor set to sign bill restricting teaching of Palestinian history in schools

By Brooke Anderson | The New Arab | September 16, 2025

Rights advocates are raising concerns over what they say could be a troubling precedent if a bill is signed restricting the teaching of Palestinian history in classrooms in California.

The bill, AB 715, was voted through in the state’s Democratic-majority senate and assembly late Friday night and is now set to be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Those opposing the measure have argued that it could stifle classroom discussions on Palestinians, Islamophobia and other sensitive topics; equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism; and make instructors vulnerable to complaints by imposing vague rules.

Over the last several months, it has faced strong opposition from more than 100 grassroots organisations, including the California Teachers Association, the California Faculty Association, California Federation of Teachers, Association of California School Administrators, California School Boards Association, California Nurses Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union. They have staged regular demonstrations at the state capitol in Sacramento.

Those supporting the bill include the Jewish Federation, the Jewish Community Relations Council, Mosaic United and the Anti-Defamation League. Though they were far fewer, they were able to exert more influence.

“They’re passing anti-education bills. The organising around it has been strong. The entire education community is against it, but it was still passed,” Mirvette Judeh, chair of the Arab American Caucus of the California Democratic Party, told The New Arab.

“They’re not listening to voters. This is a bill that’s unconstitutional. Today it’s education about Palestinian history. Tomorrow it could be something else. To punish teachers to teach about genocide is absolutely insane,” she said.

“History is history. It has to be taught. If people were taught about this in school, the mass dehumanisation of Palestinians would not be happening. They’re taking our rights here at home. This is your America. Take it back,” said Judeh, herself a Palestinian American.

So far, the governor has not indicated whether he will sign the bill, and civil rights advocates that oppose it are hoping there’s still a chance he will not sign it.

“Lawmakers heard overwhelming opposition—8 to 1 from public commenters—and warnings from their own colleagues about the bill’s chilling effect on education. Yet they advanced it anyway,” Hussam Ayloush, CEO of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a public statement.

“This is now Governor Newsom’s test. He can either side with educators, civil rights advocates, and students whose voices are at risk of being silenced—or he can greenlight censorship that will make classrooms less free and less inclusive,” Ayloush added.

If signed, which could happen as early as this week, the bill’s supporters hope that it could be a blueprint for other states to pass similar legislation. This bill comes four years after the introduction in grade schools of ethnic studies, which have included material on Palestine, leading to controversy and the introduction of AB 715.

In other news related to free speech, a new bill introduced in Congress by Representative Brian Mast of Florida would allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to strip immigrants of US citizenship if what they say is deemed to be terrorism. The move, which has been condemned by free speech advocates such as the ACLU, appears to be aimed at student activists.

September 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Islamophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment