The Zionist lobby put the final nail in the coffin of my career, here are the details
By Doc Malik | September 4, 2025
In November 2023, complaints were made about me from within my hospital, most likely by other staff, other doctors, who I suspect were sympathetic to Israel. Just before my suspension from the Princess Grace Hospital, two jewish surgeons contacted me to complain that I had Eva Bartlett on my podcast. The very next day, I was suspended. That was no coincidence.
And my story is not unique.
The Price of Speaking Out
Take Dr Rameh Aladwan, a Palestinian British trauma and orthopaedic surgeon. For almost two years she has been harassed, attacked, threatened. Attempts were made to strip her of her licence, her livelihood, even her home. Her crime? Speaking out against the genocide in Palestine.
In my case, my “sin” was hosting Eva Bartlett, an independent journalist. She stated that Israeli officials, after October 7, openly called for ethnic cleansing of Gaza. That was factually correct. I simply gave my guest the freedom to speak. For that, I was punished in my personal life, outside of my medical work. You can watch the episode here.
I was suspended for five months. Cleared at the end, yes, but by then my career was destroyed. And all this came after earlier suspensions for speaking out against the COVID gene jabs, transgender mutilation surgery, and finally the persecution of Palestinians.
The Hidden Hand
The Zionist lobby is powerful. Finance, media, culture, medicine, judiciary, they have influence in every corner. They whisper in shadows, smear your name, use policies, regulations, and institutions to destroy you. They rarely confront you face to face.
After waiting over a year, I finally obtained my file from the Princess Grace Hospital: 154 pages. Almost all of it was just my CV, contract, and medical records. One or two letters about my suspension. No evidence of who complained. No record of how the decision was made. No outcome of the investigation.
And then there were eight completely blacked-out pages.
What are they hiding? Who are they protecting?
A Sign of the Times
My case, Dr Rameh’s case, and the persecution of academics like David Miller all point to one truth: we do not live in a free society. Question the Zionist regime, question its influence on our country, and you will be labelled antisemitic and persecuted.
Criticising Israel is NOT the same as criticising all Jews. That distinction should be obvious. But they have made it otherwise. And that is dangerous.
We are told to worry about migrants invading our nations. Yes, to some extent. But that is not the real story. The invasion already happened. Our institutions are captured. Every branch: who are you not allowed to criticise?
There lies the real problem.
Here is the original letter announcing my suspension.
Here is the outcome of my investigation that I received 6 months after my suspension, and was sent to me by accident. Within minutes of receiving the copy of the investigation I was told to delete it as it had been sent in error. Please note I was NOT invited to defend myself, provide evidence or challenge the accusations.
Here is the investigation they did NOT want me to see.
The Smear
Who brought my podcast “to the attention of the Division president and CEO with a suggestion that Mr Malik’s podcasts express “anti-Israel hate much of which include deliberately false narrative”.
The claim was made that “the specific concern was around Mr Malik’s ability to be impartial in treating any Jewish patients.”
Think about that.
In 25 years of practice, I have never treated any patient differently based on colour, sex, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, or religion. Not once. I have never received a single complaint on those grounds. On the contrary, I have treated many Jewish patients over the years, who left glowing reviews and referred their friends and families to me.
To suggest that my criticism of a government could mean I would treat Jewish patients improperly is not only false, it is offensive. If I criticise the UK government, does anyone imagine I would mistreat English patients? If I criticise Saudi Arabia, would I treat Saudis with prejudice? Of course not. I am perfectly capable of separating governments from people. That is basic human decency. And when those governments wage wars on others, kill innocents, or carry out genocide, then yeah, I will not keep my mouth shut.
And yet this was the narrative used against me.
Perhaps this is why the hospital refused to release the outcome of their so-called investigation. An “investigation” in which I was never invited to participate, never allowed to present evidence, never given the chance to defend myself against anonymous accusations.
The Verdict They Buried
And here is the most damning part. In the summary of the investigation itself, the key line reads:
“As part of my investigation, I watched the full podcast interview with Miss Bartlett. Having done so, I find that at no point during the podcast interview with Ava Bartlett did Mr. Malik express anti-Semitic or hateful views. I consider Mr. Malik’s attempts to adopt a balanced position, and he clearly refers to the October 7, 2023 attack as a massacre and a tragedy, and laments the killings of Israeli civilians and children. Whilst he does refer to Hamas as freedom fighters, he does so in the overall context of both sides suffering as a result of the protracted conflict. I do not find that the podcast contained anti-Israeli hate… Given his attempts to adopt a balanced position in his interview as regards the current conflict in the Middle East, I do not consider Mr. Malik’s ability to be impartial in treating any Jewish patients to be adversely affected. I was not presented with any evidence that Mr. Malik’s impartiality in this regard was adversely affected.”
In other words, even their own process exonerated me. No hate. No anti-Semitism. No evidence whatsoever that my ability to treat patients impartially was in doubt.
And yet I was still suspended. My career was still destroyed.
What does that tell you about the real forces at play here?
What happened to me is not just about one surgeon, one hospital, or one podcast. It is about the kind of society we now live in. A society where speaking the truth about powerful interests can cost you your career, your reputation, even your freedom.
When institutions redact evidence, silence dissent, and smear critics with false accusations, we should all be alarmed. Because if they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.
Freedom of speech is not the right to repeat approved slogans. It is the right to question, to challenge, to criticise, even when it makes people uncomfortable. Especially then.
Whether it be challenging lockdowns, masking, experimental jabs, wars, or genocides.
We must defend that principle. If we allow it to be eroded, if we allow powerful lobbies to decide who may speak and who must be silenced, then we are already living in captivity.
The real invasion has already happened. The question is: will we wake up and see it?
Britain’s Example Vindicates Rand Paul’s Opposition to ‘Kids Online Safety Act’
By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | September 4, 2025
In July 2024, Rand Paul (R-KY) was one of only three senators who voted against the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), legislation that sought to protect children from harmful material online. The other two were Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Senator Paul said of his decision:
“How would platforms comply with KOSA’s requirement to mitigate and prevent undefined harms such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders? Should platforms stop children from seeing war coverage because it could lead to depression? Should pro-life messages be censored because platforms worry it could impact the mental well-being of teenage mothers? Would sites permit discussion of a teenager overcoming an eating disorder?”
Fair questions, all. KOSA passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion in the Senate but has not advanced through the U.S. House. Paul’s problem with it, with giving the government this power, was the many potential unintended consequences—ones that his senate colleagues apparently didn’t even consider.
Yet, Senator Paul’s worries are being proven in real time in the United Kingdom where their Online Safety Act (OSA) has just gone into effect, creating all sorts of problems, great, small, and dangerous.
Wikipedia has threatened to throttle traffic coming from the UK due to the law, where the platform is expected to block minors from “harmful” content, including articles covering “Bulimia nervosa” and “Oxford child sex abuse ring.”
A student might need to research eating disorders or child sexual abuse for educational purposes, but if Wikipedia allows this access, the platform could face fines of eighteen million in British pounds, or 10% of the website’s annual revenue.
Companies aren’t going to want to subject themselves to that kind of punishment.
How would—how can—Wikipedia actually police this? How would the many social media companies be able to keep tabs on the endless labyrinth of potentially worrisome material shared by millions on their platforms and the ages of users who have access to them?
The downsides to such laws are almost impossible to predict. Thanks to OSA, British users who did not want to verify their age have lost access to Spotify. The same was true for some Brits and pizza delivery. No pepperoni pie for you, young lad. Don’t worry, it’s for your own good.
The backlash against OSA has been significant. U.S.-UK dual citizen Liz Mair reported at Real Clear Policy:
“VPN apps, which allow a user to disguise their actual location, became the most downloaded apps in the UK—as Brits sought to dodge the restrictions. And in a matter of days, 500,00 Brits—approaching 1 percent of the population of England—signed a petition urging Parliament to debate a repeal of the law (10,000 signatures are all it takes to force an official response from the government; after 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider a debate).”
So far, Paul’s KOSA worries looks prescient.
But the unforeseen negative effects of OSA get worse than pizza delivery and streaming services. Far worse.
There is a “Grooming Gangs” scandal in the United Kingdom that is a threat to young women and girls. Mair notes that with the OSA:
“… there have also been some really serious, adverse effects that actually could jeopardize, not enhance kids’ safety. It all demonstrates what many of us who criticized the law when it was a bill, and who have criticized the US companion bill, KOSA, have been saying for a long time: One man’s definition of ‘protecting’ children online can easily wind up hurting kids when a well-intentioned rule comes into effect.”
She’s not wrong.
“If you read up on the scandal, you will discover that it’s not really about ‘grooming’ at all, and much more about really horrific mass rape and abuse of kids orchestrated by gangs here in Britain,” Mair writes.
She notes as a practical matter:
“Maybe tween and teenage girls in areas where these gangs have operated don’t need to be exposed to every last detail, but surely they need to have some idea of the fact that if they accept gifts from an older ‘boyfriend,’ the end result may be really, really atrocious, almost unthinkable abuse—and not groping or unwanted kissing (and not just by the ‘boyfriend’ but dozens of his ‘friends’)?”
This is an important point. Shouldn’t young British girls be able to learn about the methods used by men who might harm them? But instead are being shielded by harsh but useful information in the name of protecting them?
In reality, is OSA really just making kids more vulnerable?
These are the sorts of problems Sen. Paul warned about with KOSA.
Politicians in both parties are always quick to support any legislation that is intended to “protect” children. But maybe they should pause and think about what the negative effects could be, for even a second? Thinking is not popular among politicians and this is bipartisan, with KOSA being co-sponsored by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
Americans of a certain age will recall the PATRIOT Act ushered in rapidly after 9/11 to supposedly better “protect” us was done so by overwhelming majorities in both parties. But instead of targeting foreign terrorists, that law ended up being used more to go after drug dealers.
Giving the federal government these sorts of extra-constitutional powers is never a good idea, and can be used against political opponents across the ideological spectrum depending on which party is in power. As Paul wrote in opposing KOSA, “This bill does not merely regulate the internet; it threatens to suppress important and diverse discussions that are essential to a free and healthy society. That is why a legion of advocacy groups on the left and the right, such as Students for Life and the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose KOSA.”
Rand Paul is right about KOSA and how it might not only harm liberty but endanger Americans if it passes.
The United Kingdom’s example should be proof enough.
Jailing of Euroskeptic Moldovan politician is ‘repression’ – EU lawmaker
RT | September 5, 2025
The seven-year prison term handed to Euroskeptic Moldovan politician Evgenia Gutsul is an attempt to “repress” the opposition in the country, French European Parliament member Thierry Mariani has said.
Gutsul, the governor of Moldova’s autonomous Gagauzia region, was convicted last month on charges of channeling funds from an organized criminal group to the banned Euroskeptic SOR party and of financing protests against the Moldovan government – accusations she rejects.
Mariani, a member of the French right-wing National Rally party, weighed in on the case in a post on X on Thursday, writing:
“After Romania, the Eurocratic judicial repression is falling on the opposition in Moldova. On the eve of her birthday, support for Evgenia Gutsul, governor of Gagauzia, unjustly sentenced to seven years in prison for having defended political pluralism in her country.”
Gutsul has consistently advocated closer ties with Russia, and has described the proceedings as a “political execution” carried out “on orders from above.” Her sentencing triggered protests outside the courthouse in Chisinau, where hundreds of supporters denounced what they said was political repression by Moldova’s pro-Western government.
Russia has also condemned the ruling. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the decision was “an example of blatant and unlawful pressure on political opponents” and accused Moldova of suppressing dissent ahead of elections.
Gutsul has served as the head of Gagauzia, an autonomous and predominantly Russian-speaking region in southern Moldova, since winning the 2023 election as the SOR candidate. The party was banned the same year over allegations of illicit financing from abroad. Gutsul campaigned on promises of closer ties with Russia, in contrast with the pro-Western stance of the government of President Maia Sandu.
Exposing Jewish Exceptionalism In Canadian Media
The misguided belief in eternal Jewish victimhood is being weaponized to help allow Israel’s genocide to continue
By Davide Mastracci ∙ The Maple ∙ September 3, 2025
Over the past decade, I’ve written extensively on the pro-Israel bias in Canadian media. This article will focus on something different, but which helps shape the bias: Jewish exceptionalism.
You can find articles about how various -isms and -phobias impact Canadian media: homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, classism, racism, sexism, etc. And yet, there’s little out there on Jewish exceptionalism, which is increasingly being analyzed by commentators outside of the country.
Jewish exceptionalism is the belief that Jewish people as a demographic are eternally and ontologically oppressed, no matter the circumstances, and as such should be treated differently. Jewish exceptionalists refer to antisemitism as the “oldest hatred,” and treat it as though it’s the only one powerful enough to make its targets a permanently marginalized group.
This incorrect analysis fails to take into account the status of Jewish people in Canada and elsewhere over at least the past few decades. While Jews remain the targets of alleged hate crimes (though reports on the issue vastly overstate the reality), they face no systemic discrimination and generally fare exceptionally well in Canada and elsewhere on all other markers used to measure oppression. As a point of comparison, few that anyone would take seriously argue that dozens of churches being burned down in acts of arson since 2021 make Christians an oppressed group in Canada.
This article will illustrate how Jewish exceptionalist sentiment underlies much of the discussion in Canadian media involving Jewish Zionists by outlining five tropes, providing examples of them in mainstream publications and explaining how they smuggle in the idea that Jewish people are exceptional and should be treated as such. The tropes are: ‘Jewish-owned business’; ‘blood libel’; ‘Jewish state’; ‘Jewish neighbourhood’; ‘list of Jews.’
While this article could have been written at any point in recent years, I’ve done so now because Israel, the state claiming to represent Jews and which enjoys widespread support from them according to polling, is committing a genocide in the name of Jewish supremacy, the most explicit form of Jewish exceptionalism. Those who defend Israel and seek to undermine the pro-Palestine movement also utilize arguments that rely on Jewish exceptionalism to do so.
As such, these tropes deserve to be identified and refuted because they strengthen narratives defending the worst atrocity of our time: Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
‘Jewish-Owned Business’
The term “Jewish-owned business” appeared in Canadian newspapers 70 times between Oct. 7, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2025, according to the Canadian Newsstream database. This represents about 78 per cent of the times it had ever been used in Canadian newspapers up to that point.
Since October 7, the term has typically been used in reference to businesses that happen to be owned by Jewish people being targeted by pro-Palestine protesters. Those using the term typically employ the following logic in their articles: 1) the owner of a business is Jewish; 2) their business is being protested or boycotted in some form; 3) the action is happening because the owner is Jewish; 4) therefore, the protests are morally wrong and potentially illegal, and should be condemned.
As an example, a March 2024 editorial in The Globe and Mail erroneously stated as a fact that, “An Indigo bookstore in Toronto was vandalized, because the chain’s founder is Jewish,” and then added, “A democratic country cannot let this stand. And yet it is happening right before our eyes.”
There are genuine historical examples of Jewish businesses being protested or boycotted because of their owners’ religious backgrounds, such as in Nazi Germany, and they have justifiably received widespread condemnation. And yet, despite the explicit comparisons to these examples that commentators will make to generate an emotional response and demonize pro-Palestine protesters, the most high-profile instances of this sort of rhetoric being used in Canadian media have been cases where the owner’s religious identity had nothing to do with the protests and/or boycotts of their business.
In the case of Indigo, as I wrote in October 2024, “the store was targeted because Indigo CEO Heather Reisman is behind the HESEG Foundation, which offers a range of perks to so-called ‘lone soldiers’ who travel to Israel from abroad to join the army.” And as I wrote in October 2023, Café Landwer, an Israeli chain of restaurants, has been boycotted because its co-founder and CEO served in the Israeli military and it opened a location in Jerusalem atop the remains of a Muslim cemetery, among other reasons.
If you revisit the logic I outlined above, and remove the claim the business is being targeted because its owner is Jewish (which is clearly not the case with Indigo and Café Landwer), it breaks down to: the owner is Jewish and therefore their business should not be targeted. The implication here is that it’s OK to target businesses owned by other demographic groups, but not ones owned by Jewish people.
There are cases in Canadian media where this point is made explicitly.
In a March 2024 Toronto Star article, columnist Andrew Phillips writes, “It should have been obvious that an event featuring two such controversial leaders would be targeted by protesters, especially since pro-Palestinian demonstrators have been taking every opportunity to go into the streets and make their views known. And in this case it was a legitimate time and place to protest. They weren’t demonstrating outside a Jewish-owned business, a Jewish community centre, Mount Sinai Hospital or a synagogue in Thornhill, as happened on Sunday. All those should be out of bounds for protests about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and the thousands of civilian deaths it’s caused.”
This is an astonishing claim. Others have made the point a bit more subtly.
Former Liberal MP and now Toronto Star columnist and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center CEO Michael Levitt wrote in an October 2023 article: “What Jews are now seeing in Canada is reason for serious concern, including for the safety of their children at schools and universities. It’s the source of tremendous anguish and pain. Anguish and pain from seeing demonstrators converge on Café Landwer in downtown Toronto, calling for a boycott of a Jewish-owned business.”
And in a November 2023 National Post article, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather wrote, “The worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust somehow unleashed a wave of hate in Canada and around the world. Demonstrations have taken place outside an antisemitism conference in Ottawa, as well as a Jewish community centre in Toronto. Some demonstrators have called for the boycott of a Jewish-owned business.”
In both cases, the authors don’t make an attempt to prove the businesses in question are being boycotted because of their owners’ religious backgrounds, or even make that claim. Instead, the simple fact that a Jewish-owned business is being targeted is portrayed as a problem, with the implication being that doing so is out of bounds because the owner is Jewish.
The fact that antisemitic boycotts of Jewish businesses existed in the past when Jews were an oppressed group is used to imply or state that any boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses now must be hateful as well, despite the fact that the boycotts have nothing to do with the owners’ religious identities. This is Jewish exceptionalism.
‘Blood Libel’
The Holocaust Encyclopedia defines “blood libel” as “the false allegation that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish, usually Christian children, for ritual purposes.”
“Blood libel” appeared in Canadian newspapers 123 times between Oct. 7, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2025, according to the Canadian Newsstream database. I came across just two examples among the 123 of a writer arguing a pro-Palestine commentator invoked what could be interpreted as a version of a blood libel in their writing/speech. (One of them happened to be Norman Finkelstein in 2019.) In the vast majority of cases, the term was used to refer to individuals and/or organizations alleging Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza — allegations that don’t include claims of Israel killing Palestinian children to use their blood for ritual purposes.
Blood libel has a historical definition of which these authors are or should be aware. The discourse pointed to by these authors almost never meets this definition, and they do not make any attempt to prove that it does. And yet, they still wield this accusation.
The writers who use the term “blood libel” will argue I’m being disingenuous here, and that the term now means something else: accusing Jews of anything they’re not guilty of, which leads to Jewish people as a whole facing potential retribution. They are partially correct, as this is how they generally use the term now, though writers don’t note this change in their work when doing so. And yet, the fact that this is the case is actually an example of Jewish exceptionalist thought at work.
“Blood libel” was coined to refer to Jewish people in the Middle Ages — a genuinely oppressed group — being blamed for something of which they weren’t guilty. The term is now used freely by pro-Israel commentators as if nothing has changed since then.
In fact, much has: Jewish people are no longer an oppressed group, and are the beneficiaries of Jewish supremacy in Israel; the allegations made against the Jewish people who make up the vast majority of the Israeli army and political system are credible; the people making these allegations don’t argue the aggressors commit their alleged crimes because they’re Jewish. Despite all of this, “blood libel” is constantly used in Canadian media in an attempt to counter serious allegations against Israel.
National Post comment editor Carson Jerema, for example, wrote in a December 2023 article, “Hamas is using its population as a human shield to blame Israel for civilian deaths and to perpetuate the blood libel that the Jewish state is committing genocide, and the nonsense left is eating it up without question.”
Former Conservative MP and Cabinet member Joe Oliver wrote in a May 2024 National Post article: “Many people buy into the hideous blood libel of genocide of which Israel has been accused since October 7.”
And in a May 2024 article in The Globe and Mail, Noah Richler, the son of Mordechai Richler, wrote, “The blood libel of the Middle Ages makes Israelis in Gaza the deliberate, premeditated mass murderers not just of children and babies but, in the wake of the bombing of a fertility clinic, Jews wilfully slaughtering their enemies even before they are born.”
In calling these charges blood libels (a historic, antisemitic trope), the writers seem to believe it’s antisemitic for people to accuse Israel of genocide — not simply wrong on a factual basis, but inherently antisemitic. They do so because they seem to buy into Jewish exceptionalist thought, where Jewish people are always an oppressed victim group, unable to be oppressors in the way others can be.
I’ve never come across this type of claim in mainstream Canadian publications about another group.
A June 2021 article from The Conversation states, “In addition to the February [2021] motion against China’s treatment of its Uyghur population, Canada recognizes seven other genocides: the Holocaust during the Second World War, the Armenian genocide, the Ukrainian famine genocide (Holodomor), the Rwandan genocide, the Srebrenica massacres, the mass killing of the Yazidi people and the mass murder of the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar.”
There are groups of people for each of these events who allege they don’t meet the criteria for genocide. But I’ve yet to find mainstream discussion that posits the allegations of genocide are in-and-of themselves hateful against the ethnic/religious group whose members are accused of perpetrating the genocide. For example, I haven’t found articles in any mainstream Canadian outlets alleging that it’s hateful against Russians, Hutus or Turkish people to accuse the states and/or forces purporting to represent them of committing genocide, nor any willingness to treat such claims from the fringes seriously.
As such, Israel is clearly treated as an exceptional state: writers see its Jewishness as making it incapable of genocide, and therefore imply it’s inherently antisemitic to make such an accusation regardless of the clear evidence for it and abundant examples of it being made against forces representing other religious and ethnic groups.
‘Jewish State’
The term “Jewish state” appeared in Canadian newspapers 1,514 times between Oct. 7, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2025, according to the Canadian Newsstream database. A review of these usages in the “commentary” category of articles revealed that the phrase was often used by supporters of Israel defending it against heinous crimes.
This type of usage may be disorienting for some readers, who don’t comprehend why those who support Israel and purport to want to defend Jews everywhere continuously bring up the state’s Jewishness in discussions of its atrocities where it’s not relevant. This would intuitively make sense if done by an antisemite, for example, but why would someone — Jewish or otherwise — who claims to want the best for Jewish people do it?
In some cases, the term is used to imply or outright state that Israel is only being accused of crimes because it’s a “Jewish state.” But as the evidence of Israel’s crimes has mounted, and the term continues to be used, it has become clear that it’s often employed to imply that Israel can’t be guilty of its alleged crimes because it is a “Jewish state,” or that its status as a “Jewish state” makes such allegations ridiculous.
For explicit Jewish supremacists, this implication comes from the belief that Jewish people are superior to others or that Israel’s victims aren’t fully human. For Jewish exceptionalists, it stems from the belief that Jews are eternal victims, and therefore Israel can’t be guilty of the crimes of which it is accused because it is a “Jewish state.”
There are hundreds of examples of “Jewish state” being used in Canadian media.
A November 2023 article from National Post deputy comment editor Jesse Kline uses the term four times, each in a sentence where he responds to Israel being accused of a crime:
- “In reality, Al-Ahli was just a test run, a prelude to a concerted Hamas campaign to falsely accuse the Jewish state of committing war crimes against vulnerable civilians while covering up its own violations of international law”;
- “And the same Hamas run health ministry that perpetrated the Al-Ahli fraud to incite violence against Israelis is now using Israel’s attempts to dismantle those terrorist assets to perpetuate the lie that the Jewish state is committing some sort of ‘genocide’ in Gaza”;
- “It then quoted the director of Shifa Hospital, who claimed Israel was ‘launching a war on Gaza City hospitals,’ and accused the Jewish state of targeting a school (even though Gazan schools have been closed for some time)”;
- “It also accuses Israel of committing war crimes – without, of course, providing any evidence – and calls on the media to use false and inflammatory terms such as ‘apartheid,’ ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide’ when describing the Jewish state.”
There’s no apparent reason to use the term at all in the article, much less on four separate occasions. So the fact that it’s used, and the specific manner in which it is, is revealing: it’s employed to cast doubt on the idea that Israel committed the crimes of which it’s accused. And, as my search revealed, it’s not merely some tic Kline has in his writing: there are many other examples.
In a January 2024 Toronto Star article, former Israeli diplomat Daniel Taub wrote, “Far from being motivated by any humanitarian concern for the Palestinians, the South African initiative is a brazen attempt to weaponize a term coined to describe the worst crime committed against the Jewish people themselves and use it against the Jewish state in order to deprive it of the ability to defend itself.”
Avi Benlolo, the founder and CEO of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, claimed in a January 2025 National Post article, “Trudeau’s criticism of Israel’s military response to Hamas, his government’s ban on arms exports to Israel and his tacit support for legal actions against the Jewish state have emboldened antisemitic rhetoric and actions within Canada.”
And Jay Solomon, the chief advancement officer for Hillel Ontario, claimed in a May 2025 National Post article about the BDS movement: “Let’s be clear: targeting the world’s only Jewish state for economic punishment – especially while ignoring or excusing the abuses of countless other nations – is not a principled stand for justice.”
It’s also worth noting that none of the organizations accusing Israel of genocide or other crimes have alleged its Jewishness makes it more likely of such behaviour. Instead, they’ve analyzed the evidence and come to the conclusion that Israel is guilty of the crime, without any irrelevant reference to the state’s Jewishness.
In essence, the organizations accusing Israel of genocide argue that it’s capable (and guilty) of committing crimes any other sort of state could and/or has. Israel’s defenders are the ones that bring up its Jewishness, and they do so to imply that it makes Israel a victim regardless of the circumstances. This is Jewish exceptionalism.
‘Jewish Neighbourhood’
The term “Jewish neighbourhood” appeared in Canadian newspapers 135 times between Oct. 7, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2025, according to the Canadian Newsstream database.
The phrase ‘x neighbourhood’ is not uncommon in Canadian media. However, the way it’s generally used differs in some important ways from how it’s used when referring to areas with what commentators regard as significant Jewish populations.
Generally, when something is referred to as an “x neighbourhood” it is merely descriptive, referring to the demographic makeup of an area. For example, a February 2025 National Post article refers to the Glen Park area in Toronto as once being a “sleepy Italian neighbourhood,” likely because its ethnic makeup in the 2001 Census was nearly 40 per cent Italian. I’m still not a fan of using this sort of language to describe neighbourhoods or countries, but it’s at least a descriptive statement based on a factual finding.
In contrast, “Jewish neighbourhood” is often used in a manner that goes beyond descriptive usages into prescriptive territory, stating or implying that non-Jewish people (including those who live in the neighbourhood) should behave in a certain way when in the area.
Here are several examples of the term being used in this manner.
In a January 2024 National Post article, Joel Kotkin wrote, “The Liberals also seem to worry as much about Islamophobia as the far more widespread problem of antisemitism, as demonstrated by the recent lawsuit filed by Jewish students at McMaster University alleging that they have been subjected to rising levels of hate. Perhaps sharing in this good cheer, Toronto police even brought coffee to pro-Hamas demonstrators blocking an overpass in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood.”
In a November 2024 Toronto Sun article, columnist Brian Lilley wrote, “Are Jews being treated differently in Canada? Absolutely, and not in a good way. From local police to the federal government, Jews are clearly not the chosen people of Canadian government officials. […] Last Sunday, as a group of pro-Hamas types gathered at Bathurst St. and Sheppard Ave. W. – a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood – it was a Jew who was arrested.”
And in a December 2024 Toronto Sun article, reporter Joe Warmington wrote, “There was more recognition by police of the concern some Jewish residents, including Councillor James Pasternak, had expressed about pro-Hamas demonstrators aggressively coming into a Jewish neighbourhood disrupting a weekly, peaceful vigil for 100 hostages still held in Gaza.”
In all of these examples, “pro-Hamas” is used to demonize the pro-Palestine protesters in question and portray them as a threat. In doing so, and by highlighting what they perceive as the “Jewish” character of the neighbourhoods in question, the writers imply that it’s a problem for pro-Palestine people to exercise their Charter right to protest in certain areas, simply because more Jewish people may live there than in the average Canadian neighbourhood. And in other examples, it’s sometimes stated or implied that them doing so is the equivalent of Kristallnacht, an absurd comparison that can only be made due to Jewish exceptionalism.
This argument is problematic enough on its own, including when you consider that the areas in question are nowhere near majority Jewish anyways (not that this would make it alright). For example, York Centre, the Toronto ward where Pasternak serves as councillor, was 7.5 per cent Jewish as of 2021 (with larger populations of Filipinos at 13.4 per cent and Italians at 9.1 per cent).
It becomes more disturbing when you consider the demographic makeup of pro-Palestine protests, which, anecdotally, often have a disproportionate share of Arabs relative to Canada’s population. With this in mind, it’s difficult to avoid drawing comparisons to how so-called “Jewish neighbourhoods” in occupied Jerusalem are discussed, with the implication being that force should be used to keep undesirable outsiders away from Jews.
In Jerusalem that looks like attacks from the military and settlers, while in Canada it comes in the form of baseless arrests from police (and sometimes violence from others as well). In Jerusalem, the motivation for this violence is that Jews are entitled to the area and as such it should be cleansed for them, while in Canada the implication is that Jewish people’s supposed eternal status as exceptional victims means extraordinary measures need to be taken to prevent what they see as demographic threats from interacting with them.
To expand on this point, and help demonstrate that it’s not merely some abstract situation, consider the implementation of “bubble zones” in Toronto (which received explicit editorial support from The Globe and Mail on at least two occasions).
In May, Toronto city council passed a by-law allowing for protesters to be barred from being within 50 metres of institutions that successfully apply for the status. While the by-law was framed as being something that could protect people belonging to all communities, in reality it was sought after by the Israel lobby to make protests near some venues that have been linked to Israel illegal.
The first bubble zones were announced in July, and unsurprisingly, 19 of the 21 were centred on Jewish institutions. It’s possible the list may expand to include more institutions from other communities in the future, but as it stands, Toronto’s city council passed a motion that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association referred to as an example of “punitive laws that give municipalities and the police the discretion to broadly restrict peaceful expression,” in effect giving privileged status to Jewish institutions. This happened in part due to the prevalent belief in Jewish exceptionalism.
‘List Of Jews’
In February, I released Find IDF Soldiers, a database based entirely on public information that now contains profiles of 163 Canadians who joined the Israeli military at any point in their lives.
In order for someone to be included in the database, three criteria needed to be met: 1) being Canadian; 2) having served in the Israeli military; 3) having this service already be public.
Every single person on the list thus far is at least partially Jewish, and I haven’t refrained from pointing this out where relevant, including an analysis article presenting my findings on what the typical Canadian Israeli military member looks like.
The fact that the list is entirely Jewish should not be a surprise to anyone. As I wrote on the site: “Jews are the only ones able to immigrate to Israel as citizens due solely to their ethnoreligious background. That accounts for all of the soldiers who were born in Canada and immigrated to Israel later on — they could only do so in the way they did because they’re Jewish. As per the few soldiers in the project who were born and raised in Israel and moved to Canada later, all of them happened to be Jewish. This isn’t a surprise given the demographic makeup of Israel, and the fact that only Jews (74 per cent of the population as of 2023), Druze (just under 2 per cent of the population) and Circassians (0.05 per cent of the population as of 2024) are required to serve in its military.”
As I noted in the analysis article accompanying the database, the average Israeli military member from Canada is a white, Jewish man, born and raised in Canada, who grew up in the Greater Toronto Area in a wealthy neighbourhood, attended private Jewish schools for elementary and/or high school (costing as much as $24,000 per year), had white-collar professionals as parents, and chose to become a lone soldier. This is generally an incredibly privileged group of people willingly deciding to join the Israeli military.
And yet, despite all of this, much of the criticism the project received in mainstream media and elsewhere revolved around the false claim that I was somehow reviving Nazi-era tactics against Jews.
For example, a February National Post article contained a quote from one of the military members saying, “I think there’s a pretty dark historical precedent for making lists of Jews. That’s what it immediately reminded me of, a database of Jews.”
A March article from The Canadian Jewish News (CJN), meanwhile, contained multiple quotes to this effect. Another one of the Israeli military members, speaking on the project, said, “It was literally a list of Jews. That’s all it was. Good for you, you put a list of Jews together. That’s what you did. Like the SS.” Later, CJN stated the member said there was “never a good reason to make a list of Jews,” and then quoted them saying, “There’s a very dark history with that. People think it’s only the Holocaust—it’s not only the Holocaust…It was during the Spanish Inquisition, it was any time there was a need to round up Jews, lists were made. So Jews and lists—not a good thing.”
The article also quoted a professor of journalism at Toronto Metropolitan University and a former senior CBC News producer who said the project is “ethical, if abhorrent,” adding, “It’s ethical because it’s deemed to be in the public interest in some quarters. But it’s abhorrent because we’ve seen where lists of Jews have led in the past.”
There are many more examples of this sort of framing being used when discussing the project in international media, which I have compiled. They include headlines such as, “There’s a New ‘Jew List’ in Canada,” “Repackaging of Nazi-era tactics in a modern context” and “‘We Know What Jew Lists Mean’: Canadian Database of IDF Soldiers Sparks Alarm in Jewish Community.”
This whole saga is an incredibly straightforward example of Jewish exceptionalism. People cynically or genuinely alleged that a journalist creating a database of mostly privileged people on the basis of their participation in the Israeli military for journalistic purposes was in any way comparable to the Nazis compiling information on a systemically oppressed group based solely on their ethnoreligious identity with the intent to harm them.
The fact that this allegation has been taken seriously instead of being mocked is only possible thanks to the widespread belief in Jewish exceptionalism among Canada’s media class.
There are various reasons why writers may believe in Jewish exceptionalism and cling on to it in their writing.
A group of former Jewish-school students I spoke with earlier this year recounted being “brainwashed” with the idea of Jewish exceptionalism throughout their time in the institutions.
For some, Israel’s actions may have finally become too abhorrent to attempt to defend with any sort of logic or facts, and so a reliance on a non-material analysis that doesn’t need any correspondence with the real world can be useful.
Some non-Jewish commentators claim to be wracked with a sense of guilt for a time when systemic antisemitism did actually exist, and operate accordingly.
Others may be concerned about the personal consequences of stepping outside the Jewish exceptionalist framework, which applies to a much broader section of the political spectrum than many would like to admit.
Regardless of the reason, the effect of Jewish exceptionalism is to strengthen Zionist arguments and weaken the pro-Palestine movement by getting it to treat Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and alleged antisemitism as if they’re equally dangerous and urgent problems.
They aren’t. The paranoid spectre of antisemitism is being cynically weaponized to help allow the genocide to continue unabated, and it’s doing the people of Gaza a disservice to pretend otherwise.
The End of the Free, Global Internet
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | September 1, 2025
It appears that the free global internet, such as it was, which many of us loved and grew up with, is nearly dead. Long gone are the days of anonymous IRC chats or where only paranoiacs thought their emails were monitored. The growing standard is the government demanding websites know who you are all the time to “protect” you from a myriad of trivial things such as “hate speech” or videos of people eating too much.
As has become common, it is not any of the “authoritarian” states we hear about leading the way to the end of internet freedom, but instead the ethnic European parts of the former British Empire. The United Kingdom itself has just implemented legislation which demands all users upload ID to show they are over eighteen when using anything it deems “dangerous,” while Australia is restricting all of those sixteen and under from having social media accounts whatsoever, again to protect them primarily from thoughts the government dislikes. The British legislation is particularly dangerous as it is expected that sites based anywhere in the world comply with expansive moderation rules, while Australia’s law is a blanket ban on social media usage for an age category. In both cases, however, they kill internet anonymity and set a terrible precedent.
The internet has been under siege from many directions for many years. It is true that America’s regime change class found free internet useful for “Color Revolutions” and did at times use it to undermine foreign governments. As a consequence, it has historically acted as a defender of internet freedom when it advances other objectives. Thus, something like “The Great Firewall of China” which we were conditioned to care about, though it did not impact anyone outside of China.
The attacks on the internet have only grown more blatant, such as in Brazil where Judge Alexandre de Moraes has been on a rampage trying to “protect” the public from political speech he dislikes. In the United States, however, the bigger problem was originally just collecting enormous amounts of data secretly, which they did while encouraging people to use the internet however they wished—creating all the more data. The attempts at algorithmic mind control pushed by the Joe Biden administration and complacent—or enthusiastic—tech companies was again done while purporting to be for a free internet. Despite government hypocrisy and abuses, the internet remains the greatest communication tool in human history and we should protect it at all costs, while remaining mindful of government data collection activities, information control, and regime change operations.
The British and Australian laws are all the more nefarious as they impact almost all internet activity, and of course, they use the classic line “Won’t someone think of the children!” Age verification for pornography is one thing—that brings the internet in line with the laws of the physical world where you can’t walk into a store and buy that content without an adult ID; but this is much broader. As a recent Politico article explains, as well as pornography, there are age verification limits on, “hate speech, content promoting drugs and weapons, online harassment and depictions of violence… Large platforms restricted everything from X posts on Gaza to subreddits on cigars, and blocked content entirely in certain cases.” As Kym Robinson recently explained, they are rapidly medicalizing internet use and making it about physical and mental health, which for eKarens is an endless justification for meddling. In short, nearly anything fun or interesting could be considered adult content and the sites themselves are being made to police this or face significant fines, which intentionally creates a situation where cautious site owners will expand it past anything the government demands. No reasonable man can have any faith in any supposed privacy protections which are said to stop governments from accessing the ID used to age verify an account.
It’s easy as an adult to forget the experience of being a child, and imagine children lack the ability to understand anything about the world around them, when in fact they are learning such things at a rapid pace. It happens to be the case that I was twelve in the year 2000 when the first major law on this topic went into effect in the United States: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA.] This law, in its original form, stopped kids under thirteen from having accounts on any website without a parent’s permission. To recover your email address your parent had to put in credit card information, which many were hesitant to do back then in an era where online shopping was still fairly rare. The thing about that though was the sites simply removed the option to sign up if you were under thirteen and had no verification option, so no one’s privacy was made worse; it was just annoying and condescending towards children.
What is notable about this is that at the time I wrote a persuasive speech for English class against this law. I have a reason to remember at age twelve that my classmates and I were able to understand the policy being unfairly implemented and I was able to write a formal argument against it. Now, being a parent instead of a twelve-year old, I certainly have some different views about what is appropriate for children, but the ability of children to understand what is going on around them is greater than commonly realized. The Australian Communications Minister tried to defend their ban on all social media use, including YouTube, for kids under sixteen by likening it to teaching your kid to swim in the pool before putting them in the ocean with the sharks and rip currents. In fact it is the exact opposite: it throws kids right in at sixteen with no experience when they are the most irresponsible and difficult to control.
What is the most nefarious about these “age verification” laws is that the United Kingdom and Australia both regularly arrest internet users for posts that they don’t like. The end of anonymity will kill the most valuable discourse coming from either country. Both of these countries in many ways seem completely defeated and devoid of the love of liberty, but in fact have thriving and creative “anon” communities still carrying the fire of freedom. The ability to express opinions and tell the world what is happening will all but disappear under a regime where you have to verify your age to use Spotify—not to mention how ridiculous it is to ban seventeen-year olds from using Spotify even if it impacted no one eighteen and above. Everything that has happened up to now shows that age verification laws in these countries will set the stage for an even larger crackdown on all unapproved thoughts.
Something I have noticed in my time on this Earth is that you can tell a lot by a man for how he uses the term “the Wild West.” It is generally either used by liberty lovers to mean, “You’re allowed to do what you want and it’s awesome,” or by sniveling Mandarins to mean “This is terribly dangerous and needs to be regulated.” I have long feared a future where the young say that the internet used to be like the Wild West and view this as scary and dangerous. Now, the younger generation seems to be coming up tired of the schoolmarm government, but it will be a hard fight to keep any of the internet’s Wild West charm as it is consumed by meddlesome nanny states.
If these laws in the United Kingdom and Australia are allowed to stand it will represent a major step in a perhaps irreversible process whereby the internet will become ever more broken up by the country of the user, and in most of them much less free. I would be able to take some comfort in the idea that this could send people back to the pubs to talk in person, but the Brits are also cracking down on pub banter, and I somehow doubt other states are far behind them.
Canadian Hikers Get the COVID-Style Tyranny Treatment
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | September 1, 2025
Canadian politicians are creating one bonfire after another of freedom and individual rights. COVID crackdowns established persecution precedents that politicians in some provinces refuse to allow to gather dust. Politicians are claiming the right to financially cripple anyone who makes a single misstep in violation of the latest idiotic decrees.
On August 5, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston decreed a $25,000 fine for anyone walking in the woods or otherwise violating a new prohibition that covered both government and private lands. The prohibition will continue until October. Houston declared, “Most wildfires are caused by human activity, so to reduce the risk, we’re keeping people out of the woods until conditions improve. I’m asking everyone to do the right thing—don’t light that campfire, stay out of the woods and protect our people and communities.”
Canadian politicians are exploiting wildfires the same way that former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau exploited COVID to lockdown the entire nation. One critic on X/Twitter scoffed that “the province needs 10 weeks of no walking in the woods to flatten the curve”—paralleling the “two weeks to flatten the curve” crapola that initially sanctified the most onerous COVID restrictions. During the pandemic, Nova Scotia heavily fined citizens caught walking their dogs or exercising in park.
The government failed to document how the environmental peril situation this year was fundamentally different than in previous years. Author Peter Clark observed, “Fears of arson or climate hysteria appear to be behind bans on fishing & hiking in Nova Scotia’s forests. Canada’s forest fires have fallen almost half in the last 40 years & seem unrelated to weather or climate.” At the same time that Nova Scotian politicians are treating every resident and visitor like an arsonist, Canadian governments have let actual arsonists go free with legal wrist slaps.
Canadians are denouncing the new decree as “climate confinement”—an ominous development in a nation whose politicians have long swooned over the World Economic Forum. According to Travel and Tour News, “Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has officially ended, the consequences of restrictive policies are still being felt. With domestic travel restrictions now in place due to wildfire risks, many Canadians feel that their freedom to explore their country has been drastically reduced.”
“They’ve turned the great outdoors into the Forbidden Forest,” scoffed one critic. A photography website warned: “Photographing in the Woods in Nova Scotia Is Currently Illegal.” The government decrees provoked a firestorm of opposition:
“How does hiking in the woods with my dogs come across as a fire hazard?”
“Please tell me the difference between a trail and an unpaved road.”
“I’m confused. We’re banned from the woods? Half of us live in the woods.”
Nova Scotia established a snitch line so people could report neighbors or hooligans who strolled in the woods, and it quickly received thousands/tens of thousands of complaints.
Many opponents of the anti-hiking decree would support a government ban on campfires or other fires in areas at risk of wildfires. But defenders of the ban have gone stir crazy (maybe they have been inside too long?). They have claimed that “hikers could cause fires by dropping water bottles that might, in a remote theoretical scenario, focus sunlight like a magnifying glass.” Also, hiking in the woods might cause an asteroid to hit the earth, so better safe than sorry.
Canadian political mania has gone even further than in the progressive states south of the U.S.-Canadian border. Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation warns that “governments and institutions have embraced what’s been called safetyism: the belief that safety, especially from physical or emotional harm, should override all other values, including freedom, autonomy and open debate. When safety becomes the highest good, risk becomes intolerable, state control is normalized ‘for your own good,’ and dissent is cast as dangerous.”
But according to some Canadian political scorecards, the risk of wildfires apparently nullifies the risk of tyranny. And since there will always be a risk of wildfires, tyranny will be a small price to pay for any purported risks politicians choose to suppress.
The pre-emptive repression of hikers and dog walkers is symptomatic of regimes that feel entitled to unlimited power. The same mindset is driving Canada’s persecution of the leaders of the COVID lockdown protests. According to Canada’s top prosecutors, the only thing worse than tyranny is “mischief.” And the worst possible “mischief” is objecting to tyranny.
The Canadian government is seeking an eight year prison sentence for one of the leaders of the COVID “Freedom Convoy” protest that riled Ottawa in early 2022. In April, a court ruled that Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were not guilty of obstructing police or intimidation during the demonstrations. But they were convicted of “mischief” — in part because the truckers in the forty mile convoy honked their horns to protest some of the most oppressive COVID mandates in the world.
After Trudeau dictated that all truck drivers who cross the U.S. border must get COVID vaccines, a protest quickly snowballed and landed in Canada’s capital. Trudeau responded by invoking the Emergencies Act, effectively dropping a legal nuclear bomb on his opponents. Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that the government was “broadening the scope of Canada’s… terrorist-financing rules so that they cover Crowd Funding Platforms and the payment service providers they use.” The Trudeau government did not formally redefine horn honking as a terrorist offense but that didn’t impede their crackdown. Banks were authorized to freeze the personal accounts of anyone suspected of donating to the truckers. No court order was necessary to strip suspected COVID dissidents of their property. The government conscripted towing companies to cart away the trucks of the protestors.
Actually, the COVID vaccines were catastrophically failing to prevent infections at the same time Trudeau dropped an iron fist on anti-vax protestors. Almost 90% of Canadian adults had been vaccinated by the start of 2022 but COVID cases were soaring, setting records almost every week. Even though he was vaxxed and boosted, Trudeau himself came down with COVID during the trucker protest.
In January 2024, a Canadian federal judge ruled that Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act had been unreasonable, illegal, and unconstitutional. Trudeau’s regulations “criminalized the attendance of every single person at those protests regardless of their actions.” The judge slammed “the absence of any objective standard” for freezing bank accounts. There was no “threat to the security of Canada” – regardless of Trudeau’s panic about so many Canadians scoffing at his decrees and his majesty. But the court decision provided no relief for any of the victims whose bank accounts were unjustifiably seized or whose freedom and privacy was shredded.
Unless it is overturned, the Nova Scotia ban on hiking, photographing, and dog walking will set a precedent that will ravage far more Canadian freedom. Such policies will create toxic legal precedents that could prove far more disruptive in this nation than the occasional smoke from Canadian wildfires.
Israeli Sex Criminals Flout American Justice
By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | August 31, 2025
When I saw her name was Sigal, I knew she was trouble.
I’m referring to Sigal Chattah, Acting US Attorney for the state of Nevada. It was on her watch that Tom Alexandrovich, arrested August 6 for soliciting sex with a 15-year-old, was allowed to flee to Israel two days later.
Alexandrovich is not just any Israeli. He is head of the Technological Defense Division at the Israel National Cyber Directorate (INCD).
Apparently Alexandrovich’s job description includes censoring Americans who are critical of Israel. In a viral X post by Shaun King, Alexandrovich is seen on Israeli television bragging about submitting 40,000 social media takedown requests on behalf of Israel with a 90% success rate. In the clip, Alexandrovich says he and the INCD censor social media users worldwide who post things that might “lead to demoralization” of Israeli genocide perpetrators.
Ironically, Alexandrovich, or someone like him, nearly censored Shaun King! When King posted the Israeli TV clip in which Alexandrovich brags about censoring critics of Israel, X immediately took down the post. Undaunted, King re-posted the clip. Again, it was quickly nuked. All day long King kept trying to post the clip. After more than 17 unsuccessful attempts, King’s post finally stayed up and went viral.
Why are Israeli sex criminals allowed to flee the US with impunity so they can return to their jobs in Israel censoring American social media users? In Alexandrovich’s case, the fact that the Acting US Attorney for Nevada, Sigal Chattah, is herself Israeli, probably has something to do with it.
As acting U.S. Attorney, Chattah had the authority to pursue federal charges carrying a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence. Instead, she chose to leave the case to local prosecutors, who inexplicably slipped up and forgot to confiscate Alexandrovich’s passport and impose electronic monitoring. The fact that Las Vegas was founded and is still run by a Jewish organized crime syndicate may help explain the oversight.
Alongside helping accused sex criminals escape justice, Sigal Chattah spends her spare time advocating for genocide. Al-Jazeera reports: “On her now-deleted personal X account, Chattah has referred to Palestinians in Gaza as ‘animals,’ called for wiping the territory ‘off the map,’ and suggested that ‘even the children’ in the enclave are ‘terrorists.’”
Sigal Chattah isn’t the first Israeli extremist Trump appointee to abuse an American law enforcement position. She isn’t even the first one named Sigal! In 2017, Trump appointed Israeli-born Sigal Mandelker to head the Treasury Department’s sanctions program. From that perch, Mandelker proceeded to slap “terrorist” designations on peaceful NGOs, including the Iranian-based New Horizon group that sponsored five conferences I attended beginning in 2013. Thanks to Mandelker, I was contacted by the FBI and told that if I attended the next New Horizon conference I would be arrested upon my return to the US. I asked the FBI agent why Israel gets to prevent Americans from attending scholarly conferences, and naturally didn’t receive a straight answer.
The two Sigals’ cases are unfortunately typical. Israelis, including the very worst Jewish-American sex criminals (who are automatically considered presumptive Israeli citizens) have been abusing the American legal system for decades. A 2020 CBS News investigation found numerous cases of pedophiles who brutally raped children as young as four and then fled to sanctuary in Israel. A group called Jewish Community Watch was then trying to track down sixty such individuals. According to CBS, “JCW’s chief operating officer Shana Aaronson… says there are elements of the Jewish community in the U.S. that are willing to help pedophiles escape.” (Elements like Sigal Chattah?)
Such degeneracy shouldn’t surprise us. Israel is the world capital of human trafficking and organ trafficking. It is the only nation on earth where prison guards caught on camera raping prisoners to death with sticks are national heroes. It is the only nation on earth where polls show that six out of ten men say forced sex with an acquaintance is not rape. It is the only nation on earth where a popular “right to rape” movement enjoys the support of much of the mainstream media. It is the only country on earth where all foreign agricultural workers are raped: “100% of Thai women working in Israeli agriculture report being sexually assaulted — 654 of 654 surveyed.” And of course it is the only nation on earth ever to commit a live-streamed genocide—a genocide that has been in high gear for almost two years, but which began with the Nakba (Palestinian Holocaust) of 1948.
It is long past time for the United States to declare war against the genocide-perpetrating perverts, annihilate their crime base in Occupied Palestine, and arrest the treasonous fifth column that has hijacked our country to enable crimes against humanity.
Ukraine takes new step towards banning its largest Christian church
RT | August 29, 2025
Kiev has taken another step toward banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) by officially declaring it linked to Russia. The ruling paves the way for a full ban on the country’s largest religious institution through the courts.
Vladimir Zelensky’s government has been increasingly taking aim at the UOC in recent years, a policy that has hardened in light of the conflict with Russia. Several of its churches have been seized, and criminal cases have been opened against clerics.
This week, Ukraine’s State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience posted a statement on its website saying that the UOC had been found to be associated with “a foreign religious organization whose activities are banned in Ukraine.”
A law enacted last year allows religious organizations affiliated with governments Kiev deems “aggressors” to be banned. Zelensky has defended the measures as necessary to protect the country’s “spiritual independence.”
The UOC has been de facto independent from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) since the 1990s, but maintained the canonical connection.
The UOC, which says it is being persecuted by the government, rejects the decision, a church representative told local media, adding that it has appealed it in court.
UOC Metropolitan Onufry, whose Ukrainian citizenship was revoked last month by Zelensky, has refused to comply with the government’s order to “correct violations,” the state agency claimed.
The ROC has maintained that banning the UOC would be a violation of religious rights. The UN and international human rights organizations have also accused Kiev of overreach and interference with the freedom of religion.
The Ukrainian government officially supports the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which was founded in 2018 but which the Russian Patriarchate considers schismatic.
The proposal Russia made to Ukraine this past June to settle the conflict included a clause calling for restrictions on the UOC to be lifted.
Berlin police: The violent enforcers of Germany’s Staatsräson
By Timo Al-Farooq | Al Mayadeen | August 29, 2025
In March 2008, former chancellor Angela Merkel uttered an innocuous word that fifteen and a half years later would become the moral justification for two successive German governments to aid and abet “Israel’s” war of extermination in Gaza, occupied Palestine: “Staatsräson”, meaning “reason of state.”
Singing revisionist praises to the Zionist project in front of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, she derived from Germany’s “special historical responsibility” for the Jewish holocaust in Europe a moral imperative to safeguard “Israel’s security.”
“[T]his historical responsibility is part of the reason of state of my country,” Merkel proclaimed, thus retroactively birthing a nomenclature for decades of (West) German diplomatic and military support for “Israel’s” brutal history of ethnic cleansing, military occupation and apartheid.
As “Israel’s” genocide by bombs, bullets and forced starvation intensifies and the IOF is set to invade Gaza City in what Palestinian Youth Movement describes as a “campaign to bring the entirety of the Strip under the total subjugation of the Zionist army”, chancellor Friedrich Merz reiterated his government’s continued support for the Israeli regime in a TV interview earlier this month.
Weighted knuckle-gloves
Nowhere is Germany’s enforcement of its über-Zionist Staatsräson more visible than on the streets of the capital Berlin, home to the largest Palestinian community in Europe, where the city-state’s police have gained unparalleled notoriety for their brutal crackdowns on pro-Palestine protests.
Every other day, deeply disturbing video footage of aggressive officers in riot gear manhandling peaceful anti-genocide protesters with a reckless abandon that only a culture of impunity can embolden is posted to social media by those who are meticulously documenting Germany’s post-October 7 free-fall from a minimum-standard democracy to a quasi police state.
In yet another scandalous escalation of Berlin’s thuggish state brutality against pro-Palestine protesters, shocking social media footage shows police beating an Irish activist bloody at a civil disobedience action on August 28 against “Israel’s” deliberate killings of Palestinian journalists.
Far from ensuring public order and safety, as should be policing’s purpose in any civilised country, Berlin’s badge-wearing goon squads violently arrest non-violent people of conscience, be they men, women, children, or disabled, simply for exercising their right to freedom of speech.
The police’s confrontative combat gear, which includes weighted-knuckle gloves, is indicative of their violent mandate and penchant for hooliganism. Prohibited in some jurisdictions and classified as dangerous weapons, the gloves used by Berlin police are filled with quartz sand and can inflict severe injuries.
In a recent aggravated battery case involving an individual who used this type of glove to beat his victim, Germany’s highest appellate court ruled that twenty blows with weighted-knuckle gloves are indicative of attempted murder, reports the news website Legal Tribune Online.
Lawless law-enforcement
Despite Germany’s Staatsräson being a political philosophy with no legal responsibilities arising from it, Berlin police continue to interpret it as the law of the land in their nihilistic and racist fight to crush public opposition to “Israel’s” German-backed annihilation of the Palestinian people.
The German insanity of treating the traditional liberation slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as antisemitic hate speech or even as a trademarked symbol of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Germany, is a case in point.
Despite numerous court rulings that say it is not a criminal offence to express these words in speech and writing, police in Berlin continue to arrest people who do so.
Two instances illustrate just how far post-October 7 policing has gone from enforcing laws to breaking them and even making them up, thus violating the separation of powers that distinguishes democracies from autocracies in the state’s attempts to criminalise anti-Zionism.
On July 30, prominent human rights defender Yasmin Acar was acquitted by a Berlin court for using the slogan “From the river to the sea.” The presiding judge even praised Acar’s political activism as “highly esteemed.”
This did not stop police from arresting supporters who had gathered in front of the courthouse for chanting the exact same slogan.
This absurdity is not accidental. Unfazed by the court’s ruling, the Berliner Polizei doubled down in a widely condemned public service announcement posted on X ten days later, implying that they would not obey the law in the context of Palestine solidarity.
“The slogan ‘From the river to the sea’ is deemed a criminal offence by Berlin’s public prosecutor’s office. Please refrain from this expression. We are obligated to prosecute crimes and take appropriate police-related measures,” the statement read.
In functioning democracies, prosecutors are supposed to make decisions based on legal standards, not act as self-appointed law-makers. But Germany is no functioning democracy anymore: Fanatic adherence to “Israel”, even as it perpetrates a colonial genocide which knows no red lines other than the gleefully spilled blood of native Palestinians, has seen Germany swiftly regress toward its authoritarian ways of yore.
As for Berlin’s uniformed street-brawlers who make up the lowest echelons of the police hierarchy and are thuggishly enforcing the red herring of “Israeli security” at Palestine liberation protests while “Israel” wipes Palestinians off the face of Gaza’s once fertile earth, their gross misconduct shows just how far the already oppressive institution of policing has gone rogue, its behaviour more apropos of a criminal organisation than of a law-enforcement agency.
In light of this post-October 7 hyper-metamorphosis, the “Ganz Berlin hasst die Polizei!” (All of Berlin hates the police) chants protesters strike up whenever another one of theirs is brutalised by Staatsräson’s cowardly foot soldiers, have become the relatable soundtrack of resistance to German complicity in “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza and to the reawakening of fascist muscle memory at home.
Video confirms Israeli troops fired three tank shells at Gaza’s Nasser Hospital
The Cradle | August 28, 2025
New video shows that a double-tap attack carried out by Israeli forces on a hospital in Gaza involved three separate munitions, one in the first strike and two in the second, CNN reported on 28 August.
The 25 August attack on Nasser Hospital in the southern city of Khan Yunis in Gaza killed 22 people, including health workers, emergency response crews, and five journalists.
On the morning of the strike, Reuters journalist Hossam al-Masri was operating a live stream from an exterior stairwell on the top floor of the Nasser Hospital.
At 10:09 am, an Israeli munition targeted Masri, killing him and one other man.
Journalists and rescue workers rushed to the stairwell to look for survivors.
At 10:17 am, as rescue workers were carrying a body down the stairwell, a second and third Israeli strike, just milliseconds apart, targeted the stairwell, killing 20 more.
“One shell hits the staircase where first responders had gathered; a fraction of a second later, another explodes at almost the same spot,” CNN wrote, describing the video.
N.R. Jenzen-Jones, director of Armament Research Services, said the munitions were likely fired by two separate tanks at the same time.
“The impact of two projectiles at nearly the exact same moment suggests two tanks may have fired on the target simultaneously,” Jenzen-Jones told CNN. “It’s hard to read too much into that, but it suggests a more carefully coordinated attack, rather than a single vehicle firing at a ‘target of opportunity.’ Modern tank guns, supported by the sensors and systems of modern tanks, are very precise.”
“In gruesome video filmed after the second and third strikes, scores of bodies can be seen on the staircase on both the top floor and the floor below,” CNN added.
The five journalists killed were Reuters journalist Hossam al-Masri, Al Jazeera cameraman Mohammad Salama, Independent Arabia and AP journalist Maryam Abu Daqqa, and NBC journalist Muath Abu Taha.
Journalist Ahmad Abu Aziz later succumbed to his wounds, which were sustained in the same attack.
The fourth-floor balcony and staircase area of the Nasser Hospital was frequently used as a live camera position by Reuters, AP, and other international media outlets. Journalists also gathered in the stairwell to try to get cell service to upload their reports.
Israeli military spokespersons have repeatedly changed their story to deflect blame for the apparently deliberate killings at Nasser Medical Complex, the only hospital still operating in southern Gaza.
As international condemnation grew following the strike, the Israeli military claimed that Hamas was using a camera on the stairwell to monitor its troop movements, even though only the Reuters camera was present.
The military then claimed that six of the those killed were “terrorists” from Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).
However, Sky News examined social media pages and obituaries for each of these six people and found that only one, Omar Abu Teim, had been a resistance fighter.
An Israeli security official speaking with CNN acknowledged that Israeli forces received authorization to strike the camera with a drone. The source said Israeli forces instead fired two tank shells, the first at the camera and the second at the crowd that gathered on the stairwell to help with rescue efforts.
“The shocking thing is why the Israeli air forces hit the journalists on the fourth floor. And when we sent our humanitarian staff to rescue them, they attacked them again,” stated Dr Mohammed Saqer, Director of Nursing at Nasser Hospital.
“What’s the point of this? Why do you insist on killing us? We are working in a humanitarian area, in a health facility. We should be protected according to international regulations and rules,” Saqer added.
The Palestinian ambassador to the UN told the Security Council on Thursday that the Israeli military’s recent “double tap” strike on the Gaza hospital was “premeditated.”
“The second strike on Nasser hospital was a premeditated strike on medics and journalists who arrived at the scene after the first strike,” stated Riyad Mansour.
“While the world demands a permanent ceasefire, Israel continues its crimes. Where else is the killing of so many civilians and journalists tolerated?”
European economies and societies are broken
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 28, 2025
In recent days, one alarming report after another has emerged about the European economies. The political elites and their mouthpieces, the mainstream media, can no longer ignore it. Things are not going well—and that is putting it mildly. The situation is bad and will get worse. This is something some of us had anticipated for quite some time, and alert economists have been saying and warning about.
Let’s start with one of the richest countries in Europe: the Netherlands. Although small in size, the wealth enjoyed by elites and, to some extent, citizens some twenty years ago was enormous. I would even venture to say that, in some respects, the Netherlands was richer than Switzerland.
But due to many factors—bad politics, and the emergence of countries like China and, to a certain extent, India and Russia, whose economies have become stronger and their citizens richer—the Netherlands is now on the verge of collapse, like almost all wealthy EU countries, or rather, Western countries.
Dutch politics has been unstable for years. There are simply too many parties, too many opinions, and too much division. While the older, established parties remain strong in terms of seat count, they cannot truly govern. Moreover, there is the “manufactured” housing crisis caused by the insane nitrogen policy, the refugee crisis that causes daily street violence and the murder of women and children, and then there are the agendas of the WEF and the UN that have to be pushed through due to the advancing artificial intelligence (AI) frenzy. It is a cocktail of unrest and division. Also, let us not forget the increasing criminality of the Moroccan mafia: the underworld has now penetrated into the upper world.
The new elections (the last one was in 2023) and the government, which did not take office until 2024, have been ineffective. The population is being misled and distracted by the supposed war Russia is planning to start. So, parties like the established Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) are devising new plans. This party, which is well in the lead, wants to introduce a “freedom tax” to increase the defense budget so they can wage “war” or defend themselves against the greatest threat: Russia.
Then we come to the worst, “sickest” kid in the class: Germany. The welfare state is “no longer financially viable,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a BlackRock man, in recent interviews. Of course, it is no longer financially viable—one does not have to be an economic whiz kid to see that, with so many migrants contributing little to nothing but receiving money from the state.
The country has been slowly spiraling toward the abyss since 2015, a process that can no longer be stopped; politicians and elites do not want to stop it. They talk a lot but essentially do nothing. The famous German car industry is ruined, the chemical industry is ruined, and with it, many suppliers.
The most foolish thing Germany could do economically was to stop buying Russian gas. Now they have a major problem: like the rest of Europe, they have to buy expensive LNG from the U.S. The costs are skyrocketing, to put it mildly.
Recently, after all the government’s lies and manipulation, the truth about how Germany, or rather its citizens, should survive the winter came to light. Many gas storage facilities in Germany are currently significantly emptier than in previous years. The Greens, who want to gradually phase out gas, are warning in the Bundestag about the consequences of a cold winter. The Greens’ policies have effectively ruined Germany, with incompetent politicians like Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck. Both have resigned and emigrated abroad, leaving behind a political and economic disaster in Germany.
That other major country in Europe, France, with a president (Macron) who thinks that France is still a great power like it was in the time of the Sun King—Louis XIV or Napoleon—is doing just as badly. According to media reports there, the economy is also struggling. At the end of the first quarter of 2025, French public debt stood at €3,345.4 billion, or 113.9% of GDP.
That the French are arrogant (not all of them, of course) is a well-known fact in Europe and perhaps beyond. But Macron is taking it too far. In a recent interview, Macron called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “predator, a monster at our gates.”
This comes after the disgusting display in Paris at the Olympic Games (in 2024), where satanic rituals mixed with religion were on display, which many countries and citizens expressed their horror about. Now he has the arrogance to make these public statements. If you thought Zelensky was stupid with his statements, Macron is his equal in this.
The countries I mentioned are, or rather were, the “running economic engines” of the EU, the economic heart of Europe, which actually paid for the poorer countries in the south, such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, and especially Greece, a country that went bankrupt in 2008.
Europeans all witnessed the misery in Greece: pensioners eating from garbage bins, entire shopping streets closed, poverty everywhere. Now we see it happening in the heart of the EU economy. Germany has become almost unlivable, especially in the major cities.
The same street scene: retirees who should actually be enjoying a well-earned rest collect plastic bottles for the deposit money, and now, if the government has its way, they will have to do a year of compulsory military service. Imagine this—you just do not want to imagine it…
Europe has lost its prosperity; its culture is being swallowed up by the many migrants who bring their own, and instead of assimilation, these cultures foreign to Europe now predominate. In their foolish attitude and, above all, the indoctrination of many years, politicians now believe they live in a “multicultural” entity. But this is not the case; integration has failed, and European citizens are paying the price for their inaction and for allowing this situation to escalate.
Politicians across Europe, especially in the Western EU countries I mentioned, are seeking a way out—to save their own skins, not so much for their people (in fact, the majority do not care about the people)—but to escape the financial malaise and the people’s anger. They have now resorted to the war agenda that followed the COVID-19 agenda (partly a social behavioral project), the war agenda that was implemented immediately after the launch of the Russian Special Military Operation (SMO).
The Eastern EU countries—Poland, which is currently experiencing the same problems as the Western EU countries: refugees and increased drug use—are the worst when it comes to Russophobia. I am referring specifically to the Baltic States: small but powerful in hatred, and above all, the countries with the most Nazi and fascist supporters. Nazism has never been eradicated there, just like in Western Ukraine.
With this hatred of Russia, they have infected all of Europe, thus playing into the hands of the political elites of Western Europe, who eagerly participate in demonizing Russians—even though some countries and their populations actually have nothing against Russians and have only now been forced by their governments to think, and even worse, hate, about Russia.
The European elites must now also consider the role they will play, now that it is painfully clear that the era of colonization and imperialism is nearly over. Because of this painful geopolitical and economic truth, they are now oppressing their own people, partly succeeding with the “new migrants” who fear for their residency and visas.
But the true indigenous European population is slowly but surely realizing that freedom of speech and press no longer exists, that their democratic rights have been taken away, and that life has become very difficult. This is leading to major conflicts, especially in the once so “free” Netherlands, where people could essentially say anything, even if it was inappropriate. Very turbulent times are ahead, and unfortunately, we are already seeing Europe collapse… just like the Roman Empire when it collapsed; things can happen quickly.
Compound Crime: Three wounded journalists being denied medical evacuation
Palestinian Information Center – August 27, 2025
GAZA – The Palestinian Journalists Protection Center (PJPC) issued an urgent appeal on Wednesday, demanding the immediate medical evacuation of several Palestinian journalists who sustained severe injuries in a direct Israeli strike on the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip.
In a press statement, PJPC confirmed that three journalists suffered life-threatening injuries that also jeopardize their professional futures. The wounded journalists are Mohammed Fayeq, who is suffering from partial paralysis that could become total; Jamal Baddah, whose right leg was amputated; and Hatem Omar, who sustained shrapnel wounds to the head.
The center stressed that the ongoing refusal to allow medical evacuation for the wounded journalists constitutes a “compound crime,” adding to the long list of Israeli violations against Palestinian journalists, who have paid a steep price while covering the war in an effort to bring the truth to the world.
PJPC urged international media organizations and press freedom bodies to take immediate action and pressure for the urgent evacuation of the injured journalists so they can receive proper treatment outside Gaza, before it is too late.
On Monday, 20 Palestinians were killed, including journalists and civil defense workers, in a double Israeli airstrike that targeted the Nasser Medical Complex in southern Gaza.
Featured Video
Col Doug Macgregor: America’s Back to ENDLESS WARS
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu: Leave No Palestinian or Arab Alive
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Germany demands UN Rapporteur… papasha408 on Israel Demanding that Iran Lim… Coronistan on Why can’t western leaders acce… John Edward Kendrick on German government ‘embezzling’… loongtip on Von der Leyen to have new secu… papasha408 on First Gaza, then the world: Th… papasha408 on Is Nixing Aid to Israel a Pois… papasha408 on Japan to Sign Up For NATO’s Uk… Redracam on Iran Willing to Dilute Enriche… loongtip on When Threats Replace Evid… loongtip on Zelensky tried to kill the cha… eddieb on I might get killed for posting…
Aletho News- Ukraine to ban Russian literature – culture minister
- 40 State Attorneys General Want To Tie Online Access to ID
- Col Doug Macgregor: America’s Back to ENDLESS WARS
- Villains of Judea: Haim Saban
- Germany demands UN Rapporteur Albanese resign, joining France
- Hamas official says Netanyahu joining ‘peace council’ is a farce
- Israel Demanding that Iran Limit the Range of Missiles to 300 Kilometers
- Why can’t western leaders accept that they have failed in Ukraine?
- German government ‘embezzling’ taxpayer money to fund Ukraine – veteran politician
- Russian Soldiers Tortured in Secret Ukrainian Prisons
- If Americans Knew
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- Haim Saban: Billionaire for Israel
- Rafah e-wallet plan highlights Israel’s deepening financial occupation
- Viral post claims Netanyahu sought legal approval, igniting speculation about Israel’s organ harvesting
- AIPAC Has a New Opponent: PAL PAC
- Right-Wing Catholic Off Trump Religion Panel After Israel-Gaza Remarks at Antisemitism Event
- Jewish terrorism, apartheid rule the West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 125
- Why Israel persecutes children like my son Shadi
- In Gaza, One Man Is Searching for the Remains of His Family With a Flour Sifter
- Horrific situation in Gaza, West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 124
- No Tricks Zone
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
Aletho News 