What REALLY Got Gina Carano Cancelled
Don’t believe the lies about “racism”, the actress and former athlete has been found guilty of wrongthink. Nothing more.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 11, 2021
We don’t comment on pop-culture much, but as the incredibly fine line between politics and entertainment begins to fade totally out of existence the overlap becomes harder and harder to ignore.
Plus, sometimes something is just so unfair you have to take a moment to correct the record.
Actress and former MMA fighter Gina Carano has lost her role in Disney’s hit Star Wars spin-off “The Mandalorian”, lost out on her own spin-off series and been dropped by her agent.
All this is the result of a series of social media posts described as “abhorrent” in a press release from LucasFilm:
Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
But what did Carano actually say?
Well, the post is deleted but there are screencaps available. Here’s the “abhorrent” text:
Because history is edited, most people today don’t realise that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbours hate them simply for being Jews.
How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.”
Is this “abhorrent”? Is this “denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities”?
Obviously not. It’s an entirely historically accurate statement, making a broader point about the dangers of dehumanising large groups of people.
It’s not racist. It’s not racist to compare modern society to Nazi Germany. It’s not racist to warn against what you perceive as burgeoning fascism.
It’s. Not. Racist.
More than that, it’s actually anti-racist.
But if “go home in peace and love” can become “inciting violence”, or spending Passover with the “wrong kind of Jews” can be “Antisemitism”, than I guess “hey you shouldn’t hate people for being different” can be racist.
As I wrote yesterday, reality itself is under a prolonged assault, and we have to struggle to stick up for what words mean. For what is real.
But, if Carano didn’t say anything racist, why has she actually been fired?
Well, this is not the first time she has courted controversy on social media. She has made many posts critical of enforced mask-wearing, questioning the Covid vaccine, suggesting the 2020 election may have been rigged, and just generally not buying into pandemic hysteria. (Just yesterday, she was posting that Epstein didn’t kill himself. Which he obviously didn’t).
According to The Hollywood Reporter, LucasFilm have been “looking for a reason to get rid of her for months”. Which is even stronger evidence that this has nothing to do with any supposed “racism”, and everything to do with rigidly enforcing a consensus.
Gina Carano didn’t say anything racist and she was not fired for saying anything racist. She was fired for being just a bit of an outsider. For thinking for herself, a little, and expressing those thoughts.
It’s another example of the real purpose of identity politics, and its weaponisation as “cancel culture”. It’s all about stifling actual honest discussion. Slamming the Overton window shut. Branding everything even passingly controversial “offensive”, no matter how illogical, nonsensical or backwards it may seem. About making people afraid to honestly express themselves, for fear of the mob.
To finish, let’s pay one last visit to Gina Carano’s “abhorrent” social media, and quote something she shared on Instagram several months ago. Another example of the type of thinking that is the true target of “cancellation”:
If you go to the southwest desert and catch 100 red fire ants, as well as 100 large black ants, t can catch about 100 red fire ants that live in the southwestern desert and also about 100 of those large black ants, and put them in a jar, at first, nothing will happen.
However, if you violently shake the jar and dump them back on the ground the ants will fight until they eventually kill each other.
The thing is, the red ants think the black ants are the enemy and vice versa when, in reality, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar.
This is exactly what’s happening in society today:
Liberal vs Conservative
Black vs White
Mask vs Anti Mask
The real question we should be asking ourselves is who is shaking the jar and why?
Guardian writer insists cancel culture doesn’t exist, gets whacked by Big Israel
By Helen Buyniski | RT | February 11, 2021
The meaning of ‘free speech’ is devolving rapidly, with an ever-widening swathe of journalistic content deemed deplatform-worthy, but one writer’s run-in with the Israeli lobby should remind us where “cancel culture” began.
Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson, a columnist for the Guardian, tripped over Tel Aviv’s time-honored third rail back in December. He was incensed – as any sane American might be – by the truly preposterous piles of money that were being bundled off to Israel as part of what was supposed to be an omnibus spending bill combined with Covid-19 stimulus passed by Congress as a life-raft for a desperately needy American populace. So he sent out a tweet.
Robinson’s tweet – which wryly suggested “it’s the law” that “the US Congress is not actually allowed to authorize any new spending unless a portion of it is directed toward buying weapons for Israel” – was a joke that took a moment to recognize as a joke, given its resemblance to reality, as the best satire often is. But, at some point, he seemed to get cold feet, following up the tweet with a qualifier noting while it wasn’t really the law, it was “at least so customary as to be functionally identical” to it.
Apparently smelling weakness (and finding satire a wholly inappropriate pastime for a Guardian columnist), the Guardian’s US editor ordered him to delete the tweets, declaring they were not “helpful to public discourse.” One might ask how 95 percent of what’s printed in the Guardian is helpful to public discourse, but one would probably not receive a reply. The email also included what seemed to be a forwarded message from some humorless individual who denounced the tweets as “clearly anti-Semitic,” arguing they were “saying that the only Jewish state controls the most powerful country in the world” and were liable to “inform murderous hatred.”
“Delete this and apologise,” the nameless critic demanded.
Robinson at this point was going to get fired no matter what. He could have stood his ground, explaining to his editor that only the unsigned letter-writer had claimed “the only Jewish state controls the most powerful country in the world,” a conclusion which was nowhere to be found in Robinson’s tweets. He could have pointed out that deeming criticism of Israel “anti-Semitic” was itself anti-Semitic, because plenty of Jews disapprove of the sociopathic actions of the Israeli government and don’t appreciate being used as human shields for those actions. Or he could have just said “no.”
Instead, he went the route traveled by so many journalists desperate to save their jobs, deleting the tweets, groveling at the feet of his editor, and even asking for guidance from the Guardian on what was off-limits – only to be told there was no such code, just an “unwritten one.” Thus was Robinson sucked into the apology vortex that has destroyed so many upwardly-mobile political and media figures – including UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – who’ve dared to oppose the “war crimes” of a foreign country.
After weeks of emails going unreturned, Robinson was informed his services would no longer be needed.
His fate certainly had a ring of poetic justice – his last column published by the Guardian denied the existence of “cancel culture,” gloating that “bigots like Jordan Peterson” aren’t owed a platform after some employees at the publisher who’d already inked a deal with Peterson complained.
However, the Israeli lobby has been bullying journalists since long before “cancel culture” had a name, as Robinson himself documented in a typically long-winded piece posted to his website after he discovered his groveling had been for naught. Indeed, today’s “cancel culture” practitioners most likely learned their craft from observing the craven sneak-attacks practiced by the Lobby that dare not speak its name.
Like the Israeli lobby’s defenders, cancel culture practitioners pile on their targets without regard for logic, fact, or common sense. They hammer away at not only their victim, but their victim’s employer until it becomes easier to just give them what they want, even if the “offensive” statement that started the controversy was utterly unimpeachable.
Robinson’s criticism of the US dumping billions of taxpayer dollars at the feet of Israel while millions of Americans struggled to make ends meet was accurate, as most job-killing jabs at Israel are. Because there is no way of justifying the expenditure of $3.8 billion per year on a country that deliberately antagonizes its neighbors in order to justify the purchase of more American weaponry, Israel’s defenders merely lob the same “anti-Semitism accusation” grenade, again and again. As former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni has freely admitted, “it’s a trick, we always use it.”
“The ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong.”
It doesn’t matter if the critic of Israel is himself or herself Jewish, either: The list of Jewish critics of the Israeli government’s heinous crimes, all dismissed as “self-hating Jews,” could fill a book (whose publication would no doubt be censored). The Israeli government does not represent the Jewish people, no matter how hard it pretends to, and to suggest it does is itself anti-Semitic.
Unfortunately, the American establishment is utterly unwilling to stand up to these bullies for fear of being smeared as anti-Semitic itself, leading to the spectacle satirized so well in a New York Times cartoon from two years ago – one which also got its creator fired.
It’s a trick they will keep using until someone in the media establishment grows a backbone. As more and more self-styled aggrieved groups pick up on how ‘cancel culture’ works, eventually journalists will be unable to speak at all.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Responds to being Kicked off Instagram

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | February 11, 2021
Earlier, I wrote about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the founder and chairman of Children’s Health Defense being kicked off Facebook-owned social media website Instagram on Thursday, purportedly because he posted misinformation related to coronavirus vaccines.
Here is an update: Kennedy has written a strong response to the removal, discussing the nature of his posts at Instagram, relating the debate stifling effect of Instagram’s action, and pointing to the fact that both he and Informed Consent Action Network founder Del Bigtree were removed from Instagram just 15 minutes before they were to air a webinar featuring doctors and other individuals discussing matters related to coronavirus vaccines.
In his statement Kennedy writes:
Every statement I put on Instagram was sourced from a government database, from peer-reviewed publications and from carefully confirmed news stories. None of my posts were false. Facebook, the pharmaceutical industry and its captive regulators use the term ‘vaccine misinformation’ as a euphemism for any factual assertion that departs from official pronouncements about vaccine health and safety, whether true or not.
Further, states Kennedy, “the mainstream media and social media giants are imposing a totalitarian censorship to prevent public health advocates, like myself, from voicing concerns and from engaging in civil informed debate in the public square.” That assessment is in line with my take in my earlier article.
Regarding the timing of Kennedy and Bigtree’s removal from Instagram, Kennedy writes:
Instagram deplatformed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and HighWire host, Del Bigtree, just 15 minutes before they were to air the webinar, ‘COVID Vaccine on Trial, If You Only Knew’ highlighting COVID concerns, injuries, mechanisms and other facts from four MDs, several Ph.D.s and leaders from the vaccine-injured community. COVID-19 vaccines use novel technology never before used in a human population. With that comes great unknown risks. The people of the world deserve to have this crucial information to protect their health and that of their children.
Read Kennedy’s complete statement here.
Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Banned From Instagram Days After Outlining Bill Gates’ Global Domination Efforts
By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 11, 2021
Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, has been banned from Facebook owned Instagram just days after he penned a comprehensive account of Bill Gates’ attempt to monopolise and dominate global food production and public health programs.
Kennedy had 800,000 subscribers on the platform, which has said that he was banned for “repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the #coronavirus or #vaccines.”
It also emerged that just hours before the account was taken down, The Washington Post lobbied Facebook to take action against Kennedy, after he posted a section of a video from the “Planet Lockdown” movie.
The film was made by Catherine Austin Fitts, and seeks to expose connections between Big Tech and the federal government and how they are engineering a system of planetary control.
Sections of the movie present arguments that the COVID vaccination push is being controlled by an elite cabal, and that the vaccines are part of a push toward synthetic biology, which can be patented, and has been claimed to cause infertility.
Kennedy has been outspoken on his opinions regarding vaccines for some time.
While Kennedy still remains on Facebook and Twitter, both have pledged to crack down on information relating to claims about vaccines that do not align with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other governmental health authorities’.
Trump’s show trial is just the next step in a very American coup
As Biden consolidates his power, the war on populism becomes a fully fledged assault on reality itself.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 10, 2021
Donald Trump is no longer President, but the battle to overcome his “fascism” still rages on. Armed with nothing but the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the military, the entirety of the mainstream media, and all the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, The Resistance is gearing up for one last battle.
Despite leaving office without a whiff of the fascist coup everyone was talking up for so long, Trump is now being impeached. Again. And facing a trial in front of the senate. Again.
The “trial” itself is a joke of a process.
Firstly, we should note that it is absolutely and completely unprecedented to have a private citizen impeached. It could even be argued (and has been, prominently) that it is entirely unconstitutional to do so.
Secondly, there’s the very idea that what Trump did could ever be considered any grounds for impeachment, let alone a crime. He never incited violence at all, and one use of the word “fight” doesn’t change that.
He clearly and distinctly called for peaceful protests in a series of tweets which twitter removed in an attempt to expunge evidence of his innocence:

I’m asking everyone at the U.S. Captiol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the party of law and order – respect our men and women in blue! Thank you.” [link]
Please support our Capitol Police and Law enforcement, they are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!” [link]
And thirdly, there’s the fact the entire “Capitol Hill riot” was a created and stage-managed event, obviously designed to disrupt the congressional session on whether or not there was voter fraud. Police opened barriers and waved rioters inside, where they posed for pictures. The presence of Army psychological operations officers has been confirmed. It was a complete set up. I’ve gone into that at length before.
At the end of the day, Donald Trump is being tried for something he didn’t do: “inciting” a riot that never really happened. But, of course, it’s not really about Donald Trump. It’s about what he represents, and further about sending a message.
Donald Trump was never what so many millions of Americans clearly believed him to be – he was never going to destroy the system from the inside and restore the America-that-was. He was never going to drain the swamp. But millions of people thought he could, and should, and would. And that’s a very dangerous idea.
That is millions of people realising the system is broken and attempting to do something about it.
In headlines and academic institutions and enlightened twitter circles they call it “populism”. Which is to say, the radical idea that the writhing mass of useless eaters possesses even the slightest capacity to understand their situation at all, or should have any say in what is done about it.
That idea needs to be squashed. And the best way to do that is to demonstrate to people just how little power they have.
And the best way to do that, is to force people to live in a reality you make up as you go along. Make the rules, break the rules, change the rules. Tie people in knots until they can believe totally contradictory ideas. It is the ultimate display of power and control.
Masks don’t do anything. Oh, actually they do. And you should wear one. Or two. Or three. Unless you’re a “person of colour”, then you don’t have to wear one at all, because it’s racist.
The “deadly virus” will spread if we gather in large groups. People protesting the lockdowns are selfish idiots who spread diseases, BUT black lives matter protests are different because they’re so important they won’t spread viruses.
This would be “fiery but mostly peaceful” protest that only burns down a few buildings and loots and few stores and kills a few dozen people. Nothing like the “violent fascist coup” in which people queued up inside velvet ropes and posed for photographs.
Obviously, we can all agree that vaccine passports are just a conspiracy theory, but freedom papers are a good idea right?
Nobody wants an Orwellian “ministry of truth” deciding what thoughts are allowable, but maybe we should have a “reality czar” to deal with our “reality crisis”.
The irony being we really do have a “reality crisis”, we really DO live in a “post truth age”, but it was deliberately created and is incredibly useful to the people in charge.
If “Go home in peace and love”, “I’m asking everyone to stay peaceful” and “Stay peaceful!!” is inciting violence, then literally anything can be forced to mean…literally anything.
It is an all-out assault on the idea that words have meaning, or veridical reality exists at all. And it culminates in having a full-on coup in the name of “saving democracy”.
Yes, a coup. Call it what it was. It was, and is, a coup. If it were happening anywhere else in the world, it would already be being recognised as such.
Ignore what the part of your mind that has been subconsciously conditioned to American exceptionalism says. Ignore the brainwashing that associates the words “America” and “democracy” and the idea of “rule of law”. Reject all that programming we’ve all been subjected too since we first watched television that tells us this kind of thing just doesn’t happen here. It does, and it is.
Just look at the plain reality of the situation.
As of right now, this very moment, the President of the United States is sitting in a building surrounded by razor wire, with 20,000 troops on the streets of the capital city. He’s ruling by decree, signing dozens and dozens of executive orders. His election was contentious, to say the least, and almost certainly fraudulent.
Reporting on these facts is being censored on social media, and gets no play at all in the mainstream. The news networks literally refused to broadcast the speech of the incumbent President accusing the other side of wrong-doing and he was immediately purged from all social media and internet companies. His campaign wasn’t even allowed to email their public supporters.
Meanwhile, Trump’s few political supporters left are being dragged through the mud, stripped of their responsibilities and powers or pressured into resigning.
And, having removed his opponent from power, Biden’s administration is now putting on a televised show trial to make sure he’s barred from ever running for office again.
It can only be described as a coup.
They are even admitting it themselves, even if they don’t call it that. In this long, ecstatically smug TIME article they detail how all the lobbying groups, and the Chamber of Commerce, and Facebook and many, many others came together to “fortify the election” and “save democracy”.
As CJ Hopkins wrote reently:
GloboCap is teaching us a lesson. The name of the lesson is ‘Look What We Can Do to You Any Time We Fucking Want.’”
Is this really even a pretence of democracy anymore? Do they have even the slightest veneer of the “will of the people” left?
No, it’s gone. American “democracy” is dead. They killed it. What’s more, they did it in front our eyes. A sacrifice. They tied it to the stone table, shaved of its mane and cut out its heart… and dared us to say anything.
Most people didn’t. But they got the message, even if they didn’t realise it.
The troops. The censorship. The razorwire.
They’re telling us that “voting” was a game they were only willing to play as long as they got to win, and now it’s done. They’re picking up their ball and taking it home. Democracy is over, they cheated and they won.
Now we play a new game. It’s called “Simon says”, and they are always Simon. So you better get fucking used to it.
Facebook to BAN claims about ‘man-made’ Covid-19 & ‘unsafe’ vaccines as it launches campaign promoting vaccination
RT | February 9, 2021
Facebook is expanding the list of ‘false’ and ‘debunked’ claims about the coronavirus and vaccines that will be grounds for ban from the platform, while launching the largest ‘authoritative’ vaccination campaign worldwide.
Under the ‘Community Standards’ policy, posts with “debunked claims” that Covid-19 is “man-made or manufactured,” or that vaccines are ineffective, unsafe, dangerous or cause autism will be removed starting Monday, VP of Integrity Guy Rosen announced on the Facebook blog.
The new policy was implemented following consultations with the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, and will help Facebook “continue to take aggressive action against misinformation” about Covid-19 and vaccines, Rosen added.
Even if they don’t violate any of the listed policies, posts about Covid-19 or vaccines will still be subject to review by “third-party fact-checkers” and labeled and “demoted” if rated false.
Meanwhile, the company’s Head of Health Kang-Xing Jin announced that Facebook – along with Instagram and WhatsApp, which it owns – will be “running the largest worldwide campaign to promote authoritative information about [Covid-19] vaccines.”
In addition to “expanding our efforts to remove false claims,” Facebook is giving $120 million in ad credits to health ministries, NGOs and UN agencies to send out vaccine and health information to “billions of people around the world,” and providing data “to inform effective vaccine delivery and educational efforts to build trust” about the vaccines.
The social media behemoth will also help people “find where and when they can get vaccinated — similar to how we helped people find information about how to vote during elections.”
Boasting about removing “more than 12 million pieces of content” that contained “misinformation that could lead to imminent physical harm,” and successfully influencing millions of people around the world to wear masks, Jin said the company’s focus in 20201 is to build trust and confidence in the vaccines using the same “insights and best practices.”
In the US, Facebook will partner with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to reach “Native American communities, Black communities and Latinx communities” and use “science and evidence-based content that addresses the questions and concerns” they might have about the vaccines.
BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH COVID VACCINES?
Ben Swann | February 4, 2021
The Biggest Problem With C0VlD V@ccin3s is that we are not allowed to question anything about them.
Revoking CGTN’s Licence is Attack on Freedom of Speech, Part of Broader UK-China Row
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.02.2021
On 4 February, the Office of Communications, the UK government-approved regulatory body commonly known as Ofcom, announced that it had withdrawn the licence for China Global Television Network (CGTN) to broadcast in the UK.
China Global Television Network has been banned by Ofcom in the UK on the pretext that Star China Media Limited (SCML), the licence-holder for the broadcaster, did not have editorial responsibility for the latter’s output; and that an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation (CGTNC), which exercises general control over the broadcaster, cannot hold the licence since it is controlled by the Chinese government.
On 5 February, the Information Department of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) of pushing “fake news” in its 29 January coverage of the People’s Republic’s tackling the pandemic. According to the ministry’s statement, the BBC video linked COVID-19 with politics and hyped up topics concerning the origins of the virus. Beijing urged the BBC to offer public apologies to China, adding that it “reserves the right to take further measures“. In response, the BBC said it stood by the story, rejecting the accusations of “fake news or ideological bias”.
Freedom of Speech is Under Attack
The revocation of licence for CGTN seems surprising given that the regulator did not mention any complaint regarding the content provided by the broadcaster, according to Earl Rasmussen, executive vice-president of Eurasia Centre. When it comes to CGTN’s links to the Chinese Communist Party, one should bear in mind that the BBC has an obvious connection with the British government, the scholar adds.
Indeed, according to the BBC website, four of the non-executive members are specifically appointed as members for each of the nations of the UK, and “the chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The Queen on the recommendation of ministers while the other members of the Board are appointed by the BBC through the Board’s Nominations Committee”.
So, when one talks about one’s editorial independence, one can hardly say that the BBC is “independent” in this respect, says Andy Vermaut, a Belgian human rights activist and political commentator. He suggests that the UK is “preparing a new cold war, where China and the Chinese voice in society is cut short and another dimensional voice is not allowed”, adding that “this is diametrically opposed to the British model which supposedly promotes freedom of the press”.
“What channel and country will be next?” Vermaut asks.Although London could regard CGTN’s narrative as “pretty unpleasant” it’s unclear why the UK decided to ban it “because after all, this was a satellite station”, according to Andrew Tettenborn, professor of Law at Swansea University.
“I believe this is politically motivated and a move to steer the narrative that is presented to the public, essentially a form of censorship to silence dissident or countering voices,” Rasmussen says. “In a free and open society it is important that we are able to obtain differing perspectives and to promote a diversity of thought. However, the UK has now lost the perspective and voice of the world’s largest economy and one of the most globally influential countries. It is a sad day for the freedom of the press, freedom of speech and democracy.”The trend of limiting “the spectrum of conversation” goes beyond Ofcom’s actions, warns Gordon Dimmack, an independent media reporter: “Media freedoms in the UK and worldwide have been constricted ever more so over the past few years, and I expect that to continue”, he adds in an apparent reference to the US Big Tech wiping out accounts of former President Donald Trump and his ardent supporters in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, and suppression earlier of The New York Post’s reporting of the supposed foreign business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
Revocation of CGTN’s Licence is Part of a Broader Trend
Ofcom’s move is yet another sign of deteriorating relations between London and Beijing, deems Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese studies and director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College, London.
“I think the UK is aligned with America on a relatively soft target because it’s kind of saying that it’s going to do something like America did with Xinhua and other news agencies about 18 months ago,” the professor says. “This is not a kind of huge move because the CGTN wasn’t a big player. It’s not important for Britain. It’s a way that Britain wants to show solidarity with America. And also the ruling Conservative Party in Britain shows that they’re trying to be tough on China without any hugely consequential outcomes at the moment”.Although the Johnson government previously indicated that it was willing to enhance UK-China ties in the post-Brexit era, tensions between the two countries have escalated over the past few years. Thus, No 10 abruptly reversed its plans to use 5G Huawei equipment in its next-generation wireless networks because of pressure from Washington. The UK also joined the US-led chorus of nations who pinned the blame for the pandemic spread on Beijing and questioned the coronavirus’s origins.
To complicate matters even further, in 2020 the UK offered a path to citizenship for around 3 million Hong Kongers with British National (Overseas) status, accusing the People’s Republic of breaking the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration after Beijing formally adopted a new security law in Hong Kong. Once the British scheme came into force in January 2021, China declared that it would no longer recognise the passports of British national overseas citizens as a travel or ID document, and “reserves the right to take further actions”.
China is Facing Growing Challenges from Western & Indo-Pacific States
Beijing is unlikely to ignore Ofcom’s insult and may take it out on the BBC, believes Jeff J. Brown, editor of China Rising Radio Sinoland: “Beijing could possibly react by reducing the number of its staff in-country, but would be unlikely to kick them out”, he suggests.
Citing the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement accusing the BBC of political bias, Kerry Brown suggests that this move could be seen as a backlash for stripping CGTN of its broadcasting licence.
“One way China will hit back is by basically attacking the credibility of the BBC,” he says. “The BBC has been a big problem for China for many decades. I think they’re basically escalating their kind of language towards the BBC. One of the issues is that obviously China is very sensitive about this responsibility for the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and has said that it’s been unfairly blamed and it was kind of not willing to share information”.Though it would appear that Beijing sees the UK now “as easier to attack because it’s not in the EU” and “a more isolated target”, China is now facing a growing challenge from a number of states, aside from the EU, including the US, Australia and others, according to the professor.
On 22 November, the UK’s influential conservative think tank Policy Exchange issued a report calling upon British allies and partners to team up in order to confront China’s rise and advocating the British naval build up in the South China Sea along with the US forces. According to the think tank, the report “reflects a broad consensus of views on Britain’s role in the Indo-Pacific region” voiced by former political and military leaders of the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia.
“I don’t think that [China’s] argument with the UK is necessarily going to escalate, but I don’t think it’s going to improve”, Brown says. “I think that the relationship is now in a period of long-term negativity. And I don’t think that that’s going to change for some while. I think this is the new normal”.
Western pundits believed post-Maidan Ukraine would serve as an ‘example’ for Russia – in reality, it’s become a cautionary tale
By Paul Robinson | RT | February 6, 2021
Many Russian liberals and foreign pundits saw Ukraine’s 2014 ‘Maidan’ as an event that would inspire change in Moscow. Today, as an increasingly dysfunctional Kiev clamps down on free speech, it looks more like a cautionary tale.
In May 2014, newly elected Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko promised that he would rapidly bring peace to his country. “The anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours,” he said.
Nearly 60,000 hours later, the war into which the badly named “anti-terrorist operation” morphed is still going on. Poroshenko’s successor Volodymyr Zelensky similarly promised to bring the fighting to an end. “My main goal… is that I want to end the war. This is my mission within these five years,” he told journalists. But he has been equally unsuccessful.
Zelensky resoundingly defeated Poroshenko in the 2019 presidential election, in which the incumbent won a plurality of votes only in the far west of the country. By portraying himself as a candidate not only of peace, but also of national unity, Zelensky was able to attract the votes of a large number of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the south and east of the country who had been alienated by Poroshenko’s increasingly nationalistic tone.
Unfortunately, since then Zelensky has betrayed those voters time after time.
Not only has he failed to take any of the steps required to bring the war to an end – most notably, the concessions demanded in the 2015 Minsk II agreements – but his government has also further suppressed the language rights of Ukrainians and is now clamping down on the opposition media.
In January 2020, liberal Russian pundits lined up to praise Zelensky’s new year’s speech. Zelensky was said to have promoted an image of national unity, seeking to overcome linguistic and other differences which had been accentuated by his predecessor’s nationalist policies. “It doesn’t matter what your street is called as long as it is clean and asphalted,” said Zelensky, in a line which seemed to suggest that his government would bring an end to the habit of changing street names from those of communist heroes to those of nationalist icons like Stepan Bandera.
In fact, it hasn’t. Not only has Zelensky failed to provide clean and asphalted streets, but it’s since become clear that what he really meant was not that he would bring an end to forcible Ukrainization, but that Russian speakers should just shut up and stop complaining about it, since, after all, none of that stuff actually “matters.”
Thus, Zelensky has done nothing to reverse the 2019 law on official languages, which sharply restricts the use of Russian. Most notably, on January 16 a new rule came into effect which obliges all service providers (shops, restaurants, etc.) to offer their services in Ukrainian by default. Meanwhile, censorship in Ukraine has reached new levels of silliness, prohibiting for instance a book about the Vikings by an American author because it referred to ancient Kievan Rus’ as “Russia.”
Now Zelensky has gone even further, banning three television stations owned by opposition politician Taras Kozak, on the grounds that they are spreading Russian disinformation. Zelensky claims that he supports freedom of speech but not “propaganda financed by the aggressors.” “These media have become one of the tools in the war against Ukraine, so they are blocked in order to protect national security,” said Zelensky’s spokesperson Yuliia Mendel.
The fact that the ban comes at a moment when Zelensky’s popularity is plummeting, and when Kozak’s party Opposition Platform – For Life is leading in national opinion polls may be entirely coincidental. But then again it may not. The move smacks of political desperation.
It is also, of course, deeply undemocratic in character. Had former president Viktor Yanukovich, who was overthrown in the February 2014 Maidan revolution, ever attempted such a thing, Ukrainian liberals and their Western allies would have cried huge screams of outrage. Now, however, they are silent, or even supportive. The US Embassy in Kiev, for instance, issued a statement that it backed the measure as designed “to counter Russia’s malign influence.”
The US response reveals the shallowness of Western assertions that in backing the Maidan revolution and subsequent governments they are supporting democracy, human rights, and a liberal order. In reality, geopolitics seems to be the primary concern. As long as Ukraine remains resolutely anti-Russia, a blind eye will be turned to nearly any and all abuses of democratic principles.
And here’s where the situation becomes rather sad. In the immediate aftermath of the Maidan revolution, it was said that Vladimir Putin’s response was driven by fears that Western-style democracy in Ukraine would provide a positive model which would incite a similar revolution in Russia.
A typical analysis was that of Paul D’Anieri, professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside, who wrote in 2015 that “the prospect was that Ukraine would, with the aid of the EU, begin turning itself around. If so, it could become an attractive model for Russians, and a very different model than the one Putin has been insisting is the only one available.”
This line continues to find supporters. For instance, in a gushing article for Al Jazeera, journalist Leonid Ragozin remarked that Zelensky’s 2020 new year’s speech showed that “Ukraine may finally be moving towards fulfilling the Kremlin‘s biggest nightmare – becoming a role model for progressive politics and democracy for Russians to look up to.”
Ragozin has it back to front, for the very opposite would appear to be the case. Commenting on recent protests in Moscow, Ollie Carroll, Moscow correspondent of the British newspaper, the Independent, asked why Russians weren’t reacting with the same sense of indignation as Ukrainians had when Yanukovich’s police attacked demonstrators in Kiev six-and-a-half years ago. Carroll implied that this meant that there was something defective about Russians’ moral values.
In reality, the answer could simply be that they’ve looked at Ukraine and decided that it isn’t a good example to follow.
Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history, and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.
Bill Would Force Social Media Users To Secretly Report Suspicious People To Law Enforcement
MassPrivateI | February 4, 2021
Senator Joe Manchin wants to bring DHS’s spy on your neighbors “If You See, Something Say Something” program to social media, blogs, websites, and much more. Manchin’s bill, the “See Something, Say Something Online Act” would essentially turn social media users into Federal spies by forcing them to report suspicious people to law enforcement.
Just how bad is this bill?
This bill would essentially force anyone on social media to report suspicious “transmissions” to law enforcement.
“Known Suspicious Transmission.—The term ‘‘known suspicious transmission’’ is any suspicious transmission that an interactive computer service should have reasonably known to have occurred or have been notified of by a director, officer, employ, agent, interactive computer service user, or State or Federal law enforcement agency.”
Major Crime —The term ‘‘major crime’’ means a Federal criminal offense that is a crime of violence (as defined 13 in section 16 of title 18, United States Code); relating to domestic or international terrorism (as those terms are defined in section 16 2331 of title 18, United States Code)
What exactly is a known suspicious transmission or major crime?
“Suspicious Transmission is defined as any post, private message, comment, tag, transaction, or any other user-generated content or transmission that government officials later determine commits, facilitates, incites, promotes, or otherwise assists the commission of a major crime. Major crimes are defined as anything involving violence, domestic, or international terrorism, or a serious drug offense.”
How could social media users, bloggers, web forum moderators, web conferencing users etc., know that a comment left or uttered by someone would later lead to them committing a major crime?
The See Something, Say Something Online Act would force social media users into red flagging every person’s comments just in case someone commits a major crime in the future.
This bill would effectively destroy the First Amendment as we know it, dispelling any vestiges of America still being a free country.
Social media users would be forced to submit a Suspicious Transmission Activity Report (STAR) on suspicious individuals within 30 days.
“In General.—If a provider of an interactive computer service detects a suspicious transmission, the interactive computer service, including any director, officer, employee, agent, or representative of such provider, shall submit to the Department a STAR describing the suspicious transmission in accordance with this section.”
As Reason warned, the See Something, Say Something Online Act would put reporting on your fellow American on steroids. It would create a glut of frivolous reports, including many that are politically motivated, or otherwise disingenuous.
Social media users and law enforcement would keep detailed personal information, including metadata of suspicious people for five years.
“Each STAR submitted under this section shall contain, at a minimum— (1) the name, location, and other such identification information as submitted by the user to the provider of the interactive computer service; (2) the date and nature of the post, message, comment, tag, transaction, or other user-generated content or transmission detected for suspicious activity such as time, origin, and destination; and (3) any relevant text, information, and metadata related to the suspicious transmission.”
“Retention Of Records —Each provider of an interactive computer service shall— (A) maintain a copy of any STAR submitted under this section and the original record equivalent of any supporting documentation for the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the STAR was submitted. (B) make all supporting documentation available to the Department and any appropriate law enforcement agencies upon request.”
No one can tell a person that they have been flagged as suspicious
“Non-Disclosure—Except as otherwise prescribed by the Attorney General, no provider of an interactive computer service, or officer, director, employee, or agent of such a provider, subject to an order under subsection (a) may disclose the existence of, or terms of, the order to any person.”
Social media users could face prosecution for not reporting suspicious people
Imagine someone leaving a comment on social media like the police suck or calling someone a bitch, twit or twat and then they go on to commit a crime in the future. Would anyone like to guess what might happen next?
Every social media user who refused to file a STAR report on a suspicious person would open themselves up to prosecution or a lawsuit.
“Compliance—Any provider of an interactive computer service that fails to report a known suspicious transmission shall not be immune from civil or criminal liability for such transmission under section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)).”
Where does one begin when it comes to describing just how bad this bill is?
Forcing social media users to essentially submit STAR reports on people they deem as suspicious opens up a Pandora’s box of problems.
Social media users who are forced into reporting on people could flag everyone’s comments to guard against being prosecuted or sued. This bill, if passed as it is written, would have a devastating effect on the civil rights and freedoms of every American.

