Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Beware Universal Mental Health Screening

By Cooper Davis, Jeffrey Lacasse | Brownstone Institute | August 21, 2025

How would your child score on a common mental health screening?

A mental health professional might view the results and conclude that your child has a mental health problem… that needs to be psychiatrically diagnosed and treated, even medicated.

Will this help your child thrive? Or will it reshape their identity in undesirable ways? Will you be comfortable with your child taking medications that alter their developing brains and could perturb their sexuality? When your child reaches adulthood, will they be able to withdraw from these drugs, or will they despair to find out that their body and brain have adapted to them, making this difficult or maybe even impossible?

For any parent with even minor reservations about our current medical and mental health system, these aren’t theoretical questions. A new public policy has just made them very salient.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has signed a new law mandating universal mental health screenings for every child in public school. This includes healthy children with no signs of behavioral problems. Parents can theoretically opt out, but they’ll have to do so repeatedly, as the screenings will be given at least once a year from grades 3-12.

Media coverage has been laudatory, expounding on the importance of “getting kids the help and support they deserve.” But do you know what a mental health screen is and how it works? Before sounding the applause, parents need to understand what these screenings are, how they’re used, and what the potential outcomes of their use might be.

The new law does not specify how children will be screened, what questionnaires will be used, or what procedures will be followed when a child’s answers are seen as troubling. But to get a sense of the ground that self-report mental health questionnaires cover, you can screen your kids right now with a commonly used questionnaire:

While this is a self-assessment, the questions are the same whether you’re a parent or teacher filling this out on behalf of a child. Each of the 35 questions can be answered “never,” “sometimes,” or “often.” The scoring is simple:

  • 0 = “never”
  • 1 = “sometimes”
  • 2 = “often”

If the total score is at or above 28, professionals will consider it likely that your child has a mental health problem. The law doesn’t define what happens next. Ideally, there would be a lengthy (and costly) multi-hour clinical assessment for each such child that views these results skeptically, and heavily considers normal developmental issues and transitory problems. In the real-world mental health system, it’s hard to imagine that actually happening.

Unfortunately, the bias of the current system is towards overmedicalization, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. The implementation of universal screening is likely to worsen these problems.

In the past, some physicians gave annual chest X-rays to smokers. This was a form of universal screening in response to concerns about lung cancer. At first blush, this sounds reasonable. The problem? False-positive results. Studies showed that annual X-rays did not prevent mortality. They did cause anxiety in patients. And incidental findings were common, causing unnecessary biopsies, procedures, and interventions.

Current screening guidelines now target high-risk individuals. This is an example where the medical establishment carefully weighed the risks and benefits of universal screening and concluded that it was not in the interests of patients, and with a well-defined disease in mind, lung cancer.

Mental health diagnosis is not like cancer. It is a fuzzy, subjective enterprise. We don’t have blood tests or brain scans; we have flawed checklists and clinical judgment. And obviously, being improperly identified as having a mental disorder comes with a real cost for the child.

Screening every single child makes it inevitable that some healthy children will be thrust into the mental health pipeline. Even assuming that the questionnaires work reasonably well, a 15% false-positive rate is likely. Combine this false-positive rate with twice-a-year universal screening from grades 3-12, and your child will have 20 separate chances to be wrongly identified as having a mental health problem…at which point the government ostensibly gets involved in the mental health of your child.

It’s easy to imagine the catastrophic results. A child’s mental health screen inaccurately identifies a mental health problem; the busy therapist confirms a diagnosis; there’s eventually a referral to a psychiatrist, who prescribes psychotropic medication. Out of 20 screenings, this only has to happen once to alter your child’s life forever.

I (C.D.) know, because it happened to me.

I was caught up in a similar diagnostic dragnet in 1991, when my teacher read about Ritalin in Time magazine and began “identifying” students she believed might have the condition, which at the time was known as “ADD” (the “H”, for hyperactivity, came later). My parents chose not to medicate me, but did send me to a psychologist and a pediatric psychiatrist. From them, I learned that my constant chair-tipping, foot-tapping, wiggling, and inability to tolerate boredom — the very traits that drove me to act out in class and leave little space between impulse and action — weren’t just part of me, but symptoms of a medical condition. It was presented as both permanently part of my nature and “acceptable,” yet somehow also extrinsic to me and framed primarily as a “deficit.” (At that time, ADD was not as widely viewed as a full disability as it is today.)

At 17, when I was legally able to decide for myself — though I now view the “informed” part as questionable — I chose to begin drug treatment. Even without the drugs, however, the diagnosis had already shaped my sense of self: diminishing my agency, reinforcing a feeling of abnormality, and feeding the belief that my more organized, conscientious, and inconspicuous peers possessed something essential that I never would. You can hear a fuller account in The Atlantic’s Scripts podcast series (“The Mandala Effect,” Episode 2, on YouTube).

My experience is just one example of how a single screening can lock a child into a lifelong diagnostic identity — and once that process starts, there are few real off-ramps. Surely no one in favor of this law wants that scenario to come true for any child.

But with 1.4 million schoolchildren in Illinois, we’re talking about dealing with the results of up to 28 million separate mental health screenings in the decade after implementation. Will the mental health professionals dealing with this deluge approach the medicalization of your child’s supposed problems carefully, gingerly, sensitively? A 2004 study found that screening 1,000 children for ADHD using the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM criteria would result in 370 false positives. And it’s common for children to be prescribed psychotropic medication at their first consultation with their physician or psychiatrist.

A comprehensive, in-depth psychological assessment for each child might help reduce false positives — but it would also mean spending 3-6 hours assessing each child, which represents a high burden in terms of both time and money. School districts in Illinois already report that a lack of time, expertise, and financial resources presents challenges to implementing universal mental health screening. The law passed anyway.

It’s hard to argue that attempts to identify and measure human misery, suffering, and emotional pain are a bad thing, etc.—especially when the goal is “getting people the help they need.” It sounds right. But the kids who will be screened every year in Illinois? They have many kinds of problems: social, relational, environmental, academic, psychological, and physical problems. Children today have issues navigating a modern life dominated by endless screens, scrolling, and even more endless data.

And also, they have some problems that you’re supposed to have—problems that have been a critical part of growing up since the dawn of time.

Our culture is currently debating the medicalization of human problems, the credibility of medicine, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, and the ethics of imposing medical authority as state policy. Covid lockdowns were a prime example of this, and, similar to universal mental health screening, they were imposed without consideration of the unintended consequences.

Mandatory Covid vaccinations also led many Americans to rethink the role of government in their bodily autonomy, and to consider how arbitrary social policy could be when it claimed to be for the greater good (e.g., insisting that those with immunity to Covid must still get vaccinated). For those who have grown skeptical of medical authority, universal mental health screening will likely be viewed as another overextension of the government into the lives (and minds) of their children. Children aged 12-17 can already receive psychotherapy in Illinois without parental consent; universal screening offers a new on-ramp to this process.

The new Illinois law seems almost tone deaf, out of step with the lessons learned from Covid. This critique is cultural, social, and ethical in nature. But universal mental health screening is supposedly based on science. The new Illinois law does not give details; it just authorizes universal screening as if it is an unmitigated good. The devil (and the science, or lack thereof) will be in these details – how the policy is implemented. Assuming that the rationale for universal screening is scientific, we present critically important questions that should be addressed as procedures are developed:

  1. What is the evidence that universal mental health screening improves real-world outcomes for children? Is there evidence that it could cause harm? The scientific rationale for the program needs to be stated clearly, citing compelling data, and explicitly addressing the measures taken to avoid harm.
  1. Given that Illinois has already implemented universal mental health screening in some school districts, what were the outcomes for the children? After testing positive for a mental health condition, how many were further assessed, and how much time was spent on each child? How many ended up in psychotherapy or on medication? Usually, a pilot program tests the effectiveness of an intervention, and it is only adopted on a wide scale if it is shown to be effective and not harmful – where is that data?
  1. How many children a year does Illinois expect to inaccurately identify as having a mental health problem (e.g., how many false positives)? How many children will make it from 3rd to 12th grade without ever screening positive? What measures will address the known issue of false-positive results in universal screening? Do Illinois public schools have the time, money, and expertise to carefully assess each child who screens positive for multiple hours to ensure that they do not overdiagnose and overtreat Illinois children? If universal screening results in a surge of children who ultimately end up on psychiatric medication, how will the public know? Implementing this program without addressing these issues ignores the potential harm of universal screening. 
  1. How will Illinois taxpayers know if this program is a success? What metrics will be tracked? The easy out is to focus on the implementation of the program, and if a high proportion of children are screened, call it a success, never mind the details or outcomes. But using the screening of children as a measure of success for a universal screening program is tautology; data must be collected that demonstrates that the program helps children measurably and does not harm them. 

There are good reasons to object to the new Illinois program based on general principles. If the issues above go unaddressed, or if sufficient resources are not provided to allow careful and precise identification of children in distress, it has the potential to be a disaster.

Cooper Davis is an advocate, speaker, and writer. He is the Executive Director of Inner Compass Initiative (ICI), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that advocates for mental health system reform and helps people make informed choices about psychiatric diagnoses, drugs, and drug withdrawal.

August 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

ILLINOIS TO FORCE MENTAL EXAMS ON KIDS

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | August 21, 2025

A shocking new Illinois law will force public schools to conduct annual mental health checks on students from 3rd through 12th grade. Jefferey exposes the hidden risks and potential harm this invasive mandate could bring to children.

 

August 22, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

The war on truth: Why are Palestinian journalists being systematically erased?

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | August 22, 2025

The killing of seven Palestinian journalists and media workers in Gaza on 10 August has prompted verbal condemnations, yet has inspired little to no substantive action. This has become the predictable and horrifying trajectory of the international community’s response to the ongoing Israeli genocide.

By eliminating Palestinian journalists like Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qraiqeh, Israel has made a sinister statement that the genocide will spare no one. According to the monitoring website Shireen.ps, Israel has killed nearly 270 journalists since October 2023.

More journalists are likely to die covering the genocide of their own people in Gaza, especially since Israel has manufactured a convenient and easily deployed narrative that every Gazan journalist is simply a “terrorist”. This is the same cruel logic offered by numerous Israeli officials in the past, including Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who declared that “an entire nation” in Gaza “is responsible” for not having rebelled against Hamas, effectively stating that there are no innocent people in Gaza.

This Israeli discourse, which dehumanises entire populations based on a vicious logic, is frequently repeated by officials who fear no accountability. Even Israeli diplomats, whose job in theory is to improve their country’s image internationally, frequently engage in this brutal ritual. In comments made in January 2024, Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, callously argued that “every school, every mosque, every second house has access to tunnels,” implying that all of Gaza is a valid military target.

This cruelty of language would be easily dismissed as mere rhetoric, except that Israel has, in fact, according to Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reports, destroyed over 70 per cent of Gaza’s infrastructure.

While extremist language is often used by politicians around the world, it is rare for the extremism of the language to so precisely mirror the extremism of the action itself. This makes Israeli political discourse a uniquely dangerous phenomenon.

There can be no military justification for the wholesale annihilation of an entire region. Yet again, the Israelis are not shying away from providing the political discourse that explains this unprecedented destruction. Former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin chillingly said, last May, that “Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy… not a single Gazan child will be left there.”

But for the systematic destruction of a whole nation to succeed, it must include the deliberate targeting of its scientists, doctors, intellectuals, journalists, artists and poets. While children and women remain the largest categories of victims, many of those killed in deliberate assassinations appear to be targeted specifically to disorient Palestinian society, deprive it of societal leadership, and render the process of rebuilding Gaza impossible.

These figures powerfully illustrate this point: according to a report released by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, based on the latest satellite damage assessment conducted in July, 97 per cent of Gaza’s educational facilities have been affected, with 91 per cent in need of major repairs or full reconstruction. Additionally, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students have been killed.

But why is Israel so intent on killing those responsible for intellectual production? The answer is twofold: one unique to Gaza, and the other unique to the nature of Israel’s founding ideology, Zionism.

First, regarding Gaza: Since the Nakba in 1948, Palestinian society in Gaza has invested heavily in education, seeing it as a crucial tool for liberation and self-determination. Early footage shows classrooms being held in tents and open spaces, a testament to this community’s tenacious pursuit of knowledge. This focus on education transformed the Strip into a regional hub for intellectual and cultural production, despite poorly funded UNRWA schools. Israel’s campaign of destruction is a deliberate attempt to erase this generational achievement, a practice known as scholasticide, and Gaza is the most deliberate example of this horrific act.

Second, regarding Zionism: For many years, we were led to believe that Zionism was winning the intellectual war due to the cleverness and refinement of Israeli propaganda, or hasbara. The prevailing narrative, particularly in the Arab world, was that Palestinians and Arabs were simply no match for the savvy Israeli and pro-Israeli public relations machine in Western media. This created a sense of intellectual inferiority, masking the true reason for the imbalance.

Israel was able to “win” in mainstream media discourse due to the intentional marginalisation and demonization of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices. The latter had no chance of fighting back simply because they were not allowed to, and were instead labeled as “terrorist sympathizers” and the like. Even the late, world-renowned Palestinian scholar Edward Said was called a “Nazi” by the extremist, now-banned Jewish Defense League, who went so far as to set the beloved professor’s university office on fire.

Gaza, however, represented a major problem. With foreign media forbidden from operating in the Strip per Israeli orders, the Gazan intellectual rose to the occasion and, in the course of two years, managed to reverse most of Zionism’s gains over the past century. This forced Israel into a desperate race against time to remove as many Palestinian journalists, intellectuals, academics, and even social media influencers from the scene as quickly as possible—thus, the war on the Palestinian thinker.

The Israeli logic, however, is destined to fail, as ideas are not tied to specific individuals, and resilience and resistance are a culture, not a job title. Gaza shall once more emerge, not only as the culturally thriving place it has always been, but as the cornerstone of a new liberation discourse that is set to inspire the globe regarding the power of intellect to stand firm, to fight for what is right, and to live with purpose for a higher cause.

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

British investigation reveals Reuters’ Israel bias

Palestinian Information Center – August 22, 2025

GAZA – A British outlet, Declassified, has published an investigative report, based on testimonies from Reuters employees and journalists, highlighting a bias in Reuters’ coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The investigation pointed to a recent article titled “Israel kills Al-Jazeera journalist it says was a Hamas leader”, referring to the killing of Palestinian journalist Anas Sharif. According to the report, although Sharif had worked with Reuters and was part of their Pulitzer-winning 2024 news team, the headline was chosen over more accurate alternatives, suggesting an inclination to echo Israeli framing.

The report further noted that this headline, and similar instances, triggered backlash online and raised deep concerns among some staff at the influential news agency.

One email, published by a resigned Reuters journalist in August 2024, expressed disillusionment with the agency’s framing of the “Israel-Hamas war”, stating that their personal values no longer aligned with the outlet’s approach.

He, along with colleagues, had called internally for Reuters to uphold journalistic principles. However, he concluded that senior management was unlikely to reform and continued to suppress internal criticism.

An unnamed source at Reuters told Declassified that “several journalists felt coverage of the Gaza war lacked objectivity.” In response, these staff members conducted an extensive internal investigation, including both quantitative and qualitative analysis of Reuters’ reporting.

The results formed the basis of an internal open letter shared with newsroom staff, intended to strengthen and rebalance coverage of Gaza.

Reuters journalists were also reportedly questioning why the outlet had not published more stories referencing expert claims of Israeli genocide in Gaza, especially when these claims were treated differently compared to similar allegations concerning Russia’s conduct in Ukraine.

Working through 499 Reuters articles covering Israel and Palestine between October 7 and November 14, 2023, the analysis revealed a consistent pattern: Israel-centric stories received significantly more resources than those focused on Palestinian suffering. This was particularly striking given that over 11,000 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, a figure nearly 10 times higher than Israeli casualties at the time.

The report further noted that in May, Reuters seemed to show early signs of editorial shifts, perhaps reflecting internal criticisms.

Declassified also unveiled an email from Howard S. Goller, Reuters’ International Editor, introducing an update to the outlet’s editorial guidelines on the “War in the Middle East.” This update permits the use of the term “genocide,”but always with attribution—and continues to restrict the use of the term “Palestine.”

Critics told Declassified that Goller’s update reinforces an Israeli-never-critical framing. It omits key context, such as the roles of the U.S. and Israel in derailing ceasefire negotiations.

The investigation adds that these guidelines ignore the illegal colonial settlement enterprise, the Israeli apartheid regime, and dramatically downplay the scale of destruction in Palestine. They also omit how Gaza has become the deadliest place for journalists since the American Civil War in 1861.

August 22, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

BC Nurse Fined and Suspended Over Gender Policy Criticism

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 20, 2025

A British Columbia nurse has been hit with a one-month license suspension and ordered to pay over $93,000 in legal fees for publicly supporting women’s access to female-only spaces, a stance that the province’s nursing regulator deemed unprofessional.

Amy Hamm, who has spent more than 13 years working in healthcare and had risen to the position of nurse educator, was disciplined by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) after a years-long process sparked by her political expression outside of work.

The controversy dates back to 2020, when Hamm co-sponsored a Vancouver billboard that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling.”

The message, referencing the author’s defense of sex-based rights, triggered backlash from activists and a city councillor. The ad was removed, and formal complaints were submitted to the College, accusing Hamm of hate speech and transphobia.

In response, the College launched an exhaustive investigation into Hamm’s public activity over several years, compiling a 332-page report that examined her tweets, writing, and podcast appearances from 2018 to 2021.

After 22 hearing days stretched across 18 months, the disciplinary panel concluded that four of Hamm’s statements crossed the line into professional misconduct.

The panel claimed that Hamm made comments about transgender individuals that they deemed discriminatory. Hamm has not accepted this finding and is already appealing it at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Her legal counsel, Lisa Bildy, said, “In our view, the panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court. We are now considering whether to appeal the penalty decision as well.”

Bildy also raised broader concerns about the implications for free speech: “This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense. The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.”

Hamm remains defiant. “The College has chosen to punish me for statements that are not hateful, but truthful. I’m appealing because biological reality matters, and so does freedom of expression. I want to express my thanks to the thousands of Canadians who continue to fund my legal case through donations to the Justice Centre,” she said.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is representing Hamm, announced the penalty and reiterated its commitment to pushing back against professional censorship.

August 21, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

How NATO is rewriting reality

Reverse | July 30, 2025

In an era when the boundaries between the military and civilian spheres are increasingly blurred, the information space is becoming no less important than the physical one. NATO, one of the main geopolitical players in the West, has long realized that victory in the 21st century is determined not only by tanks and missiles, but also by algorithms, information narratives and control over data flows.

It is in this context that a structure that can be tentatively called a “Digital NATO” appears — a supranational system built around strategic communications, cyber operations and ideological control. NATO StratCom COE (Centre of Excellence for Strategic Communications (NATO) was founded in 2014 amid the conflict in Donbass and the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Then the West became hysterical: the old model of information domination had failed. Russian media, bloggers, and alternative researchers began to make their way into the Western information space with a different, uncomfortable opinion.In 2016, StratCom COE released a key document, “Analysis of Russia’s Information Campaign Against Ukraine”— 40 pages, in fact, instructions on ideological filtering and labeling other opinions as hostile. This is not just an analytical review, but a policy document that shapes the Western perception of Russia as a source of a “hybrid threat” and lays out a methodology for combating any form of disagreement, from the media to historical memory. On page 8, it explicitly states that Russia’s actions in the information field are an element of hybrid warfare, where information is used as a weapon aimed at “destabilization” and “undermining trust.” Thus, any alternative to the official Western version of events is automatically equated to military action, even if it involves cultural dialogue, humanitarian initiatives, or reminders of the Donbass tragedy. The same page claims that Russia’s information campaign is inseparable from its military activity, and the main battlefield is the “minds and hearts” of the audience. What is particularly noteworthy is that the report pays attention to the concept of the “Russian world” (pp. 10-12), interpreting it as a form of expansionism. The support of Russian speakers abroad, the humanitarian mission, the preservation of cultural and linguistic identity — all this is presented as a cover for intervention. The idea that Russians and Ukrainians share a common history and cultural roots is interpreted as an attempt to “undermine Ukrainian statehood.”

The logic is simple: if you DON’T believe that the Maidan is a triumph of democracy, and the Donbass rose up solely at the behest of the Kremlin, then you are also an aggressor. Convenient, isn’t it?

The report identifies a number of “harmful narratives”. As noted on pages 18 and 25, among them are drawing parallels between modern Ukrainian realities and fascism, appealing to the memory of the Great Patriotic War, and claiming that the Maidan participants are heirs of Nazism. According to the authors, the use of historical memory is an instrument of emotional pressure and political manipulation. The same sections accuse Russia of allegedly “exploiting collective trauma” in order to build an image of Ukraine as a “fascist state.”

Among the “harmful narratives” there are also:

• Allegations of discrimination against Russian speakers (p. 18);
• Stories about the humanitarian disaster in Donbass, including information about civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructure and prolonged blockade (p. 25). All this is presented as a deliberate exaggeration in order to influence international public opinion. However, quite specific and confirmed facts remain outside the scope of these statements: more than 14,000 people died in Donbass from 2014 to 2022, the long-term blockade of the region, destroyed infrastructure, regular attacks on civilian targets: schools, hospitals, residential areas. Cynical denial of the obvious. And if you call a spade a spade, you’re an “agent of the Kremlin.” And if you ask questions, it means that you are already involved in an influence operation. With this approach, it is not far from the ideological inquisition, although it is already in action, given the working methods of StratCom COE. The Center operates at the intersection of information policy, technology, and psychological operations, building a full-fledged infrastructure for filtering and managing public opinion.

Among the most significant areas are:

• The formation of “blacklists” of media outlets, bloggers and individual experts suspected of “pro-Russian” or “destructive” rhetoric. Their publications are systematically collected, classified, analyzed and shared with digital platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok, with recommendations for blocking or limiting coverage. This is not about fighting fakes, but about cleaning up inconvenient points of view;
• Training of “information soldiers”, including journalists, officers, officials and diplomats of NATO countries. Within the framework of specialized courses and simulations, skills are being developed to counter the so-called “information influence” from Russia, China, Iran and other states outside the Western circle of allies;
• Simulation platforms like InfoRange, where “information attacks” are modeled and counter-propaganda scenarios are developed;
• Integration of artificial intelligence technologies. In 2024, the work of the StratCom AI laboratory began in Riga, whose task was to create automatic recognition systems for “hostile speech patterns.” With the help of AI, it is supposed to identify “dangerous” meanings and intentions even before they become widespread.

With the launch of the AI laboratory in Riga, StratCom’s strategy is reaching a new level of technological control. Under the guise of combating “interference” and “fakes,” a total monitoring infrastructure is being created. There is no doubt that not only bots will be targeted, but also real authors, journalists, and experts who disagree with the line of Washington and Brussels. Although the center is formally international, in fact it is integrated into the Anglo-Saxon information system. Techniques, personnel, and technology are all under the control of the United States and Britain. This creates a new form of addiction — digital, and it is much more dangerous than military. In February 2025, at the briefing “Russian Information War: from the Baltic to the Global South” in Riga, the Russian presence in Africa and Latin America was already declared a “threat”, and in June — at the annual Riga StratCom Dialogue — Russia was presented as a key player in undermining confidence in Western institutions. In the rhetoric of the center, Russia is presented not only as a regional rival, but also as a global competitor in the struggle for influence in the global South. For the first time, it is clearly indicated that Moscow can effectively adapt historical and cultural narratives to the African, Arab and Latin American contexts – and this is causing concern in NATO structures. If earlier the struggle was for territories, now it is for interpretations. This is where StratCom performs its main task: it rewrites reality. And in this new reality, the headquarters determines where the “truth” is.

August 20, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

UK: Police Slammed for Silencing Ex-Firefighter Robert Moss Over Online Posts

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | August 18, 2025

There are worse ways to wake up than with the police on your doorstep. But not many.

For Robert Moss, it wasn’t just the shock of a dawn raid that unsettled him. It was the absurdity of what followed. At 7 a.m. one morning in July, Staffordshire Police entered his home, seized his electronic devices, and arrested him. Not for theft or violence. But for saying something critical online about his former employer.

Moss, 56, spent nearly three decades in the fire service. His career ended in 2021 with a dismissal that was later ruled unfair by a tribunal.

Since then, he has continued to speak his mind, particularly in a closed Facebook group where he has voiced concerns about how the service is run.

These posts, according to police, were serious enough to justify arrest and a set of bail conditions that barred him from discussing the fire service, its leadership, or even the fact that he had been arrested at all.

There were no charges.

“I was a critic of Staffordshire fire service, and I had been gagged from saying anything about individuals there, the service itself, and my arrest. That is a breach of my human rights,” Moss said to the Telegraph after finally winning the right to speak freely again.

Until last week, those bail conditions stayed in place under threat of further arrest. It was only when magistrates in Newcastle-Under-Lyme reviewed the case that they concluded what should have been obvious from the start: the restrictions were excessive.

The court sided with Moss and the Free Speech Union, which supported his challenge. Its barrister, Tom Beardsworth, told the court, “These allow the police to arrest and detain someone and then, when they are released, prevent them from telling others what had happened with the threat of further arrest if they do not comply. We do not live in a police state, and Mr Moss should have every right to speak about his arrest.”

That ought to be self-evident.

Staffordshire Police argued that the restrictions were necessary to maintain public safety and order. But what kind of disorder, exactly, is caused by a man posting critical remarks in a private online group?

The arresting officer, DC Isobel Holliday, described the posts as malicious and reckless. In court, however, no one could convincingly explain what real-world harm had been done. The magistrates seemed to agree that there was none.

What remains is a narrower set of restrictions that prevents Moss from contacting certain officials directly. That is one thing. But preventing a man from speaking about his own arrest in the name of order? That is something else entirely.

Sam Armstrong of the Free Speech Union called the case one of the worst examples of state overreach they have seen. “In the more than 4,000 cases the Free Speech Union has handled, this is amongst the most egregious abuses of state power we have encountered,” he said. “Robert’s comments were not crimes, his arrest was not lawful, and the police have been acting like the Stasi, not a constabulary.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time British police have treated criticism as a public safety risk, and the way things are going, it won’t be the last.

Increasingly, the concept of “order” is being used not to protect citizens but to protect institutions from public scrutiny. That is a dangerous shift.

Moss’s posts were blunt. They may have been irritating to those in charge. But they were not criminal.

In a democracy, people are allowed to criticize their leaders. They are allowed to be wrong, rude, and persistent. They are allowed to be a nuisance. What they should not be is arrested and silenced for it.

This time, the courts got it right. But the fact that it needed to go this far is troubling.

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

Britain: From arms supplier to accomplice in war crimes

By Adnan Hmidan | MEMO | August 18, 2025

When we speak of the devastation in Gaza, the blame does not rest solely on the generals and politicians of the occupying power. The tragedy is sustained by the international system that arms, trains and protects it. And Britain, far from being a neutral observer, is among the most significant enablers of this machinery of destruction.

For more than 22 months, the Gaza Strip has been subjected not to war, but to genocide. Entire families have been wiped out, refugee camps turned into mass graves, and civilian infrastructure systematically destroyed. The International Court of Justice has already confirmed that there is a “plausible risk of genocide” — yet Western governments continue to provide weapons, surveillance systems and diplomatic cover.

Britain’s historic and present responsibility

Britain’s complicity is not new. From the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which laid the foundations for the settler-colonial project, to today’s arms shipments and political protection, the United Kingdom has been central to the dispossession of Palestinians. The government in London cannot claim ignorance: under international law, providing material support to a state committing war crimes or genocide makes the supplier complicit in those crimes.

This is not about maintaining a “strategic ally.” It is about directly enabling bombardment, mass displacement and collective punishment of two million besieged Palestinians.

Evidence of involvement

The evidence is clear and overwhelming:

  • Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows that the UK exported key components for F-35 fighter jets — including radar and targeting systems — worth over £17 million in 2023 alone.
  • Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) estimates that British-made parts account for around 15 per cent of every F-35 jet currently bombing Gaza.
  • Even after the UK government announced in September 2024 that it was suspending 30 export licenses, human rights groups documented new shipments, including more than 8,600 rounds of ammunition and 150,000 bullets in the following months.
  • Palestinian and international human rights organisations brought a case before the UK High Court, arguing that such exports breach international law. Yet in June 2025, the court dismissed the case, claiming that arms licensing falls outside judicial review — effectively granting the government a free hand in supplying a military accused of genocide.

Such facts leave little room for ambiguity. Britain is not merely arming a strategic partner; it is aiding and abetting grave breaches of international humanitarian law.

Silencing solidarity

The British government has also moved to suppress those who expose this complicity. Campaign groups such as “Pal Action” have been targeted with bans, activists have been arrested, and even banners confiscated. But repression cannot erase reality. The blood of civilians testifies to the fact that this is not a conflict between equals, but a massacre sustained by Western capitals.

A moral and legal imperative

As Palestinians living in the UK, we speak not only with the voice of memory and history, but also with the authority of law and morality. International law is explicit: states that knowingly provide weapons used in the commission of genocide share responsibility for that crime. Silence, therefore, is not neutrality. It is complicity.

Britain’s record will be judged harshly. Just as the Balfour Declaration is remembered as a colonial betrayal, today’s arms exports will be recorded as enabling one of the most documented genocides of the modern era.

The call to conscience

Yet Britain is also home to countless free voices: campaigners, lawyers, journalists and politicians who understand that what is unfolding in Gaza is not distant, but deeply tied to Britain’s own decisions. They know that complicity today will stain this country for decades to come.

The choice before Britain is stark: continue to arm and shield a regime accused of genocide, or align with international law and the universal values it claims to uphold.

Until justice prevails

Our struggle is not simply to lift a siege, but to end decades of settler-colonialism and military occupation. Freedom will not be gifted; it will be won. And as Palestinians, in Gaza, across the diaspora, and here in Britain, we carry the same message passed down from one generation to the next: never accept injustice, and never let the flag of freedom fall.

READ ALSO: US-based contractor hired by UK to continue spy flights over Gaza

August 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

UK to prosecute over 60 people for backing Palestine Action after mass arrests

The Cradle | August 16, 2025

London’s Metropolitan Police announced on 15 August that over 60 people will face prosecution for “showing support” for the banned Palestine Action network, alongside three already charged under the Terrorism Act.

The police confirmed they had “put arrangements in place that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary,” following more than 700 arrests since the designation took effect in early July.

Among them were 522 demonstrators detained in London last weekend for carrying placards backing the group, a figure described as the highest ever number of arrests at a single protest in the capital.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the charges represent “the first significant numbers to come out of the recent protests, and many more can be expected in the next few weeks.”

He warned that “people should be clear about the real-life consequences for anyone choosing to support Palestine Action.”

The police said those convicted could face up to six months in prison and additional penalties.

British Interior Minister Yvette Cooper defended the Labour government’s decision, declaring that “UK national security and public safety must always be our top priority,” and insisting that “the assessments are very clear – this is not a non-violent organisation.”

Metropolis Police Commissioner Mark Rowley praised the prosecutions as proof that “our police and CPS teams have worked so speedily together to overcome misguided attempts to overwhelm the justice system.”

Palestine Action is a British pro-Palestinian direct action network, established in July 2020, with the stated aim of ending Israeli apartheid.

The movement is known for its overt and disruptive – yet non-violent – actions in their mission for ending Israeli apartheid and halting UK complicity in the arms trade with Israel.

This includes occupying, vandalizing, and destroying properties linked to Israeli arms trade, such as Elbit Systems factories and RAF Brize Norton military infrastructure.

On 20 June, one activist broke into the Royal Air Force (RAF) Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire.

In response to these direct actions, the group was branded a terrorist organization on 5 July under the Terrorism Act 2000 by the UK government, making membership to the group a criminal offence.

Various groups and individuals described the move as “grotesque,” “chilling,” and an “unprecedented legal overreach.”

UN experts had urged the UK not to go through with the ban, saying, “According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.”

The experts added that the actions of vandalism committed by some protesters should be “properly investigated as ordinary crimes or other security offences” and stressed that the actions of protesters do not constitute terrorism when properly defined.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Microsoft forced to probe Israel’s use of its tech for mass Palestinian surveillance

Press TV – August 16, 2025

Microsoft has been forced to respond to reports of the Israeli military’s use of its Azure Cloud for mass spying on Palestinians by opening an external inquiry into the issue.

Leaked documents have recently revealed that Israel’s spy agency used Microsoft’s cloud to intercept and store millions of Palestinians’ phone calls and target them both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

The system, operational since 2022, was built by Unit 8200, the Israeli military’s notorious, secretive cyber-intelligence arm.

The cloud-based system helped the Israeli military to guide deadly air strikes and raids across the occupied Palestinian territories.

Moreover, sources cited in the investigation said the stored data had also been used to justify detentions and even killings of Palestinians.

Coming under scrutiny following the recent revelations, the American technology conglomerate announced on Friday that it has launched an external inquiry into the reports of Israel’s use of the company’s technology to facilitate the mass surveillance of Palestinians.

In a statement, Microsoft claimed that “using Azure for the storage of data files of phone calls obtained through broad or mass surveillance of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank” would be prohibited as it constitutes a potential breach of the company’s terms of service and human rights commitments.

The inquiry is the second external review commissioned by Microsoft into the use of its technology by the Israeli military.

The first was launched earlier this year amid dissent within the company and media reports about Israel’s reliance on the company’s technology during its genocidal war on Gaza.

The company is also facing pressure from a worker-led campaign group, No Azure for Apartheid, which has condemned Microsoft for “complicity in genocide and apartheid” and demanded it cut off “all ties to the Israeli military” and make them publicly known.

Responding to the announcement, the pro-Palestine group criticized Microsoft’s decision to launch a new inquiry, describing it as “yet another tactic to delay” meeting its demands.

Earlier this month, a report by Quds News Network revealed that Microsoft is among the most prominent global technology companies that have established a strong and influential presence in the Israeli war on Gaza by providing the occupying entity with advanced artificial intelligence (AI) tools, finances, and workforce.

The report said in the months after October 7, 2023, when the regime launched its onslaught on Gaza, the Israeli military’s reliance on Microsoft’s cloud services surged more than 200-fold and petabytes of data from drones, checkpoints, and biometric scanners poured into the company’s servers, feeding AI systems that human rights groups warn are being used to target civilians in Gaza.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 61,827 people and wounded 155,275, most of them women and children.

Moreover, at least 10,000 people are unaccounted for, presumed dead under the rubble of their homes throughout the Strip.

The Israeli aggression has also resulted in the forceful displacement of nearly two million people from all over the Gaza Strip, with the vast majority of the displaced forced into the densely crowded southern city of Rafah near the border with Egypt – in what has become Palestine’s largest mass exodus since the 1948 Nakba.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

AAP Received Tens of Millions in Federal Funding to Push Vaccines and Combat ‘Misinformation’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |August 15, 2025

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is suing U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and has called for the end to religious exemptions, received tens of millions of dollars in federal funding in a single year, according to public records.

AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024.

Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, and highlight telehealth for children.

However, not all of the money could be tracked through public records.

The federal grants are in addition to financial contributions the AAP receives from several major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi.

Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, said the joint funding that the AAP receives from taxpayers and Big Pharma “reflects a troubling alignment between its policy positions and the interests of its largest funders — both federal agencies and pharmaceutical corporations.”

He added:

“Federal grants tied to vaccination programs, pandemic preparedness and public health messaging create an inherent conflict of interest when the same organization actively lobbies against religious and personal exemptions, promotes universal uptake of COVID-19 shots in children and pregnant women, and funds or publishes research that omits clear stratification of outcomes by vaccination status.”

The AAP is also a lobbying organization. It spent between $748,000 and $1.18 million annually over the previous six years to advocate for its members, according to Open Secrets.

Last month, the AAP was one of six medical organizations that sued Kennedy and other public health officials and agencies over recent changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women.

Also last month, the AAP called for an end to religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in the U.S.

‘AAP has been on the wrong side of a number of child health issues’

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said, “Historically, the AAP has hidden its funding sources” and “it has been impossible to learn exactly what the quid pro quo is — in other words, what that money earns.”

“All we know is that the AAP has been on the wrong side of a number of child health issues, with vaccine mandates in particular being a point of contention,” Nass said.

Journalist Paul D. Thacker, a former U.S. Senate investigator, said organizations like the AAP have “pervasive” ties to Big Pharma despite receiving taxpayer funds. He said:

“When I was working to pass the Physician Payments Sunshine Act that requires corporations to disclose payments to doctors, we were aware that many physician organizations and patient advocacy groups are wallowing in Pharma cash. We sent dozens of letters to physician groups to uncover their Pharma ties, and the money is pervasive.”

Taxpayer money helped AAP promote child vaccination in Madagascar

The AAP’s single audit report also showed that the organization received $257,607 in a pass-through grant for the Accessible Continuum of Care and Essential Services Sustained (ACCESS) Program in Madagascar — a program of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The ACCESS Program sought to integrate “nutrition, vaccination, and treatment of common illnesses into primary health care services” in Madagascar.

This included the promotion of childhood vaccination in the country. According to ACCESS, the program helped train vaccination teams and “improve accessibility through the establishment of vaccine sites and mobile clinics.”

As a result, “the coverage rate among infants for the pentavalent vaccine, which protects against five life-threatening diseases, increased from 75% to 83%,” according to ACCESS. The vaccine — intended to protect against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type B or Hib infections — has been associated with infant deaths.

AAP used federal funds to create online guide warning of ‘misinformation’

The AAP received over $1.9 million in funding for the development of the AAP Center of Excellence, an online guide to promote “a healthy digital ecosystem for children and youth.”

A portion of this guide is devoted to identifying “sources of mis- and disinformation on social media”:

“While teens note coming across ‘fake news’ and health-focused mis/disinformation online, they described that they still trust some social media platforms because the convenience and accessibility of platforms make them appealing.”

The guide presents strategies to “become a critical consumer of health information online,” including identifying “fishy features that can help distinguish mis/disinformation from trustworthy health information online.”

Another section of the guide provides advice to patients on how to locate “trusted health information” online:

“We know that adolescents look online for health information for several reasons including ease of access, for privacy, or to find others with similar lived experience. … The health information that they find online and on social media may vary in quality and may contain misinformation or even disinformation which can be harmful to patients.”

The guide encouraged clinicians to “preemptively share health information resources from reputable sources” on specific health topics that teens may have questions about and direct patients toward “digital literacy resources to learn strategies to identify misinformation and disinformation.”

AAP received funds to promote telehealth for kids

The AAP also received grants of $537,578, $126,670 and $71,625 for the promotion of telehealth and telemedicine services for pediatric patients.

A pass-through grant from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, totaling $71,625, was for the promotion of the SPROUT-CTSA Collaborative Telehealth Research Network.

The SPROUT (Supporting Pediatric Research on Outcomes and Utilization of Telehealth) Collaborative is a group of institutions and pediatric providers operating within the AAP to focus on pediatric telehealth.

“The ultimate goal is to establish an infrastructure that removes barriers to efficient telehealth research across large geographic areas,” according to a National Institutes of Health news release.

The program was announced on March 17, 2020, just as COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns were being introduced in the U.S. and globally.

Despite its rising prevalence in pediatric care, some pediatricians are critical of offering health services to children via telehealth platforms.

In an interview with The Defender last month, pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro said, “Telehealth is valuable, but when pediatric care becomes dominated by virtual visits, we lose the subtle clinical observations that are crucial for accurate assessments and treatment.”

She added:

“The physical examination is a key component to the medical visit. These visits will morph into AI [artificial intelligence]-dominated healthcare.

“Children deserve thoughtful, hands-on care, not a profit-driven model where Big Pharma influences how and what we prescribe through a screen. We are modeling healthcare behaviors for children through the internet and normalizing online health visits.”

Taxpayer funds helped create ‘Pediatric Pandemic Network’

The AAP also received a grant of $134,653 in a pass-through from the University of Texas at Austin to develop the Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, administered through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

According to HRSA, this program aimed to “help children’s hospitals and their communities be ready to care for children during disasters and public health emergencies.”

The 10 children’s hospitals in the nationwide network were to “serve as hubs in their communities and regions to improve the overall management and care for children during emergencies.”

One of the program’s stated goals: “Advancing improvements in all phases of planning, response, and recovery; making sure hospitals and communities respond effectively during a global health threat to children and their families.”

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Irish Govt Pushes “Disinfo” Plan Despite Public Backlash

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 15, 2025

Despite an avalanche of opposition from the public, the Irish government has pushed ahead with its controversial National Counter Disinformation Strategy, without conducting any evaluation of how such policies might restrict freedom of expression.

The plan, quietly released in April, follows a government-run consultation in late 2023 that revealed widespread rejection of the proposed measures. An independent review by Gript of all 470 responses submitted during that consultation found that 83 percent of participants were against the plan entirely. A similar majority raised concerns about threats to civil liberties, and four out of five said the entire scheme should be dropped.

None of that stopped the government from proceeding. Instead of reckoning with the criticism, officials simply published the strategy and presented it as a positive step in the fight against “disinformation,” a term that remains undefined and highly malleable.

When asked by Gript whether any internal analysis had been conducted to measure the potential impact on speech rights, the Department of Communications confirmed there had been none.

The strategy outlines plans to increase state-supported fact-checking, introduce “pre-bunking” campaigns to shape narratives before information spreads, and use online advertising tools to suppress content flagged as misleading. These efforts are to be coordinated through partnerships with NGOs, private tech platforms, media organizations, and state agencies, along with new laws to support enforcement.

At the time of the consultation’s launch in September 2023, then-Media Minister Catherine Martin said public input was important. “It is important to seek the views of the public… I would encourage people to… submit their views,” she stated.

People responded in large numbers, and they were overwhelmingly opposed.

Gript’s full breakdown found that only 11 percent of responses supported the government’s direction. Four percent were neutral or mixed, and another two percent were unclear or duplicate entries. Most of the support came from state-linked entities, including government departments, local authorities, publicly funded NGOs like the Hope & Courage Collective, and several universities.

Meanwhile, ordinary members of the public made up the vast majority of submissions. Many expressed frustration, distrust, and a belief that the government was attempting to control speech under the guise of protecting the public:

“Very dystopian.”

“The government should stay out of people’s lives, and stop pushing legislation no one wants or voted on.”

“Regulation of the media is already practiced in communist countries.”

“This principle is disgraceful. It’s an excuse for government censorship. It should be scrapped.”

“Disinformation is one of those contrived words which is at best ambiguous and can be molded to favour any argument.”

Some of those who supported efforts to combat “false” information still called for caution, warning that government-led messaging campaigns can easily cross the line into censorship.

August 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »