Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

RT journalist interrogated by UK police

RT | July 16, 2025

The head of RT’s Lebanon office, Steve Sweeney, has been detained and interrogated by the British police over his work for the Russian state-funded broadcaster, its editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan has reported.

In a post on her Telegram channel on Wednesday, she said the British journalist had been apprehended on arrival in his home country. According to Simonyan, the UK authorities told Sweeney they “suspected him of terrorist activities [and] took away all his phones [and] laptop and interrogated at length regarding his work for RT.”

“They asked [the journalist] whether RT management forces him to say what he doesn’t want to say [and] whether instructions are being handed down to him,” RT’s editor-in-chief detailed.

Simonyan also stated that police officers had asked Sweeney whether he has links to the Lebanese Hezbollah Shiite militant group.

She said that after the questioning was finished, British officials let the journalist go, noting that “Steve… plans to continue working for RT.”

Sweeney is a seasoned war-correspondent, who has covered hostilities in Iraq among other conflicts.

Back in February, the Austrian authorities similarly detained independent British journalist Richard Medhurst, known for his pro-Palestinian stance. The apprehension came months after a run-in with the UK police.

Austrian officials told the reporter that he was suspected of “disseminating propaganda [and] encouraging terrorism,” according to Medhurst’s own account of the events. He claimed that the Austrian police might have acted at the behest of their British colleagues.

Last October, the UK police raided the London home of an associate editor of the pro-Palestinian Electronic Intifada website, Asa Winstanley, over “possible offenses” related to his social media posts.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the UK, the EU and several other Western nations banned RT and prohibited social media platforms from distributing its content, citing the need to combat “misinformation.”

Moscow has argued such actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to free speech and reflect a willingness to suppress narratives that challenge Western viewpoints.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

French Prosecutors Open Criminal Case Against X Over Alleged Algorithm Manipulation

The French state is now policing the algorithm in the name of democracy

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 13, 2025

French prosecutors have opened a criminal case into X on allegations it altered its algorithms in ways that may have supported “foreign interference.”

Magistrate Laure Beccuau confirmed on Friday that the investigation began Wednesday, with authorities looking into whether X violated French law by manipulating its recommendation systems and deceptively collecting user data.

This latest development builds on a separate inquiry launched in January, which was prompted by complaints from a French parliamentarian and a senior civil servant.

The original accusation targeted X for promoting “an enormous amount of hateful, racist, anti-LGBT+ and homophobic political content, which aims to skew the democratic debate in France.”

X is facing mounting pressure not only from French officials but also from European regulators. On Thursday, two members of France’s National Assembly filed a complaint with Arcom, the national digital watchdog.

At the European level, the Commission has been examining X’s practices for close to two years under the recent censorship law, the Digital Services Act. The focus has included “misinformation” but in January the scope of the investigation widened to include X’s algorithms.

Momentum is building within EU institutions to wrap up that investigation. While regulators cite threats to democratic discourse and online safety, the French government’s move to criminally probe X brings into sharper focus the tension between public oversight and free expression.

These state-led actions, framed as efforts to regulate tech platforms, may well cross the line into political censorship under the cover of legality.

July 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Case closed after ‘Russian disinfo’ claims led to persecution of NZ journalist

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 12, 2025

Journalist Mick Hall was accused of slipping “Russian disinformation” into copy at New Zealand’s state broadcaster, sparking an international furor about Kremlin infiltration. Following an intel agency investigation, his name was cleared.

Now, Hall tells The Grayzone how a simple copy editing dispute brought him into Five Eyes’ crosshairs.

Until two years ago, Mick Hall was a fairly obscure journalist publishing wire copy for Radio New Zealand (RNZ), far-removed from media capitals like Washington and London where international opinions are shaped. But in June 2023, Hall suddenly became the target of Five Eyes intelligence agencies when he was accused by Western sources – including his own employer – of inserting “Russian disinformation” into wire stories.

What started with a dispute of Hall’s copy edits turned into an investigation by New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS), which briefed top government officials about its probe. For months afterward, major Western media outlets fretted that Kremlin agents had infiltrated New Zealand’s national broadcaster.

But Hall insisted he had been unfairly accused and defamed by a pro-war element driven into the throes of paranoia by the Ukraine proxy war. In November 2024, he lodged a formal complaint against the NZSIS, demanding to know whether Wellington’s primary intelligence service “acted lawfully and properly” and followed “correct procedure” in its investigation, and if any information gathered about him “was shared appropriately, including with overseas partners.”

On April 9, New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS) published the results of the investigation triggered by Hall’s complaint. The Inspector General report noted its investigation lasted between June 10 and August 11 2023, and was closed due to “no concerns of foreign interference” being identified.

The Inspector General acknowledged the intelligence services’ probe was initiated purely due to public “allegations [emphasis added] of foreign interference,” rather than substantive evidence of any kind, and expressed sympathy that Hall found it “disconcerting to discover” he had “come to the attention of an intelligence agency… particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed.” However, it concluded NZSIS’ actions were “necessary and proportionate”, and the agency acted “lawful [sic] and properly.”

Hall’s name had been cleared, but he had been denied any recompense for being smeared as a Kremlin agent, and having his career in national media effectively destroyed.

An ounce of truth

The manufactured scandal surrounding Mick Hall’s copy edits trace back to New York City, where a lawyer and Democratic party hack named Luppe B. Luppen erupted in outrage at something he happened across on RNZ’s website.

In a Twitter/X post, Luppen complained that RNZ had republished a Reuters article authored by the news agency’s Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge, with “utterly false, Russian propaganda” inserted. Namely, that the February 2014 Maidan “revolution” was in fact a “violent” US-sponsored “colour revolution,” provoking a civil war in eastern and southern Ukraine, during which local “ethnic Russians” were “suppressed.”

Mick Hall was responsible for inserting this wording.

He told The Grayzone, “it always seemed odd to me a New York-based lawyer would come across a republished Reuters story on a small national broadcaster’s website in the South Pacific – I’ve not read too much into it, but it felt strange at the time, and still does.” Nonetheless, Hall believed his changes were legitimate given the story’s content, and stands by his decision to this day.

Since joining RNZ in September 2018 as a “digital journalist” and subeditor, he was responsible for selecting and processing news stories from international news agencies and wire services for republication on the broadcaster’s website. Hall frequently found that copy by the BBC, Reuters, and other prominent Western news services contained extraordinary bias and distortions. He felt compelled to balance the coverage by adding context, or amending and deleting passages which seemed overtly ideological.

When the Ukraine proxy war erupted in February 2022, Hall sensed that Western news agencies were not even attempting to conceal their biases any longer.

Manufactured crisis boomerangs on RNZ

On June 9th 2023, RNZ placed Hall on leave and announced an urgent investigation into his supposedly Kremlin-influenced editing. By this point, the foundations of an international scandal had been laid. For months afterwards, “disinformation experts”, think tank hawks, mainstream ‘journalists’ and politicians whipped up a paranoid, conspiratorial frenzy over Hall’s edits. The BBC, Independent, New York Times and Reuters cranked up the controversy with blanket coverage. The Guardian’s obsessively anti-Russian Luke Harding took a particularly keen interest.

Olga Lautman, a Ukrainian nationalist from arms industry-funded think tank CEPA, strongly suggested that Hall was taking orders from the Russian state to insert “disinformation” into RNZ’s output. This libelous conjecture was not helped by RNZ chief Paul Thompson offering a servile public apology, in which he begged for forgiveness for “pro-Kremlin garbage… [ending] up in our stories.” An internal audit identified “inappropriate” edits made by Hall in 49 stories, out of 1,319 he worked on for RNZ in total – exactly 3.71%.

At his lawyer’s suggestion, Hall produced a detailed document listing every story he edited that had been flagged by RNZ for supposedly “inappropriate” tampering. He included personal explanations for why changes were made and passages inserted, along with expert supporting commentary from figures such as economist Jeffrey Sachs and political scientist John Mearsheimer. However, Hall gave up after just 39 stories. “The reasons RNZ flagged the remaining 10 – such as referring to Julian Assange as a journalist – were so ridiculous, it seemed a waste of time,” he explained.

RNZ subsequently appointed an independent panel to assess the fiasco. In a bitter irony, the report they published on July 28 2023 was a rebuke to Hall’s accusers. It declared that “not all of the examples of inappropriate editing identified by RNZ were found by the panel to be inappropriate.” Moreover, the panel accepted Hall “genuinely believed he was acting appropriately,” and “was not motivated by any desire to introduce misinformation, disinformation or propaganda.”

While the report accused Hall of several cases of “inappropriate editing,” breaching both RNZ’s editorial policy and its contractual agreement with Reuters, the panel did not conclude this was deliberate, but a well-intentioned effort to add “balance and accuracy into the stories.” Moreover, the edits flagged by the panel as “inappropriate” were usually factual, and contained valuable historical context. For example, Hall amended a May 2022 story about the attempted evacuation of Mariupol to note that Azov Battalion “was widely regarded before the Russian invasion by Western media as a Neo-Nazi military unit.”

That Azov’s extremist background, history and ideology has been obfuscated and whitewashed since the proxy war began is a basic statement of fact. The panel even acknowledged the group’s neo-Nazi links had “been noted, reported on and debated” previously, but bizarrely found Hall’s “uncritical and unexplained inclusion” of this inconvenient truth “had the effect of unbalancing the story.” This was despite the panel admitting, “experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree” on editorial standards, which are in any event “matters for judgment”.

Conversely, the review was extremely scathing of how Hall’s “errors were framed” by RNZ’s leadership. Their conduct was found to have “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage which the panel believes was not helpful in maintaining public trust.” It furthermore concluded “the wider structure, culture, systems and processes that facilitated what occurred” were the state broadcaster’s responsibility. Grave “gaps” in supervision and training of RNZ’s “busy, poorly resourced digital news team” were identified. For example, “limitations on changing content” from newswires weren’t clearly communicated to staff.

An “intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy”

For Hall, many questions about the affair linger today – not least how the Inspector General reached his conclusions. The report states, “much of the information my inquiry has considered is highly classified, which limits the information I can provide you to explain my findings.” It is difficult to conceive what “highly classified” information NZSIS “considered” given the public nature of the allegations against Hall. What’s more, both the independent review panel and NZSIS cleared him of any wrongdoing within two months of the first accusations.

Similarly curious was the vague language which filled the three-page report. For example, it claimed that NZSIS had taken “relatively limited steps” in investigating Hall. Yet it failed to clarify which steps were taken. Confusing matters even further, the Inspector General admitted “NZSIS shared information about the conclusion of its enquiries with interested parties… to allay concerns of foreign interference.” The identity of those “interested parties,” and why it was NZSIS’ responsibility to ameliorate their baseless anxieties, was also unclear.

“We’ll likely never know the answer to any of these mysteries. I lodged my complaint when I learned NZSIS briefed both the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office on my case. I also have grounds to believe at least one of Wellington’s Western intelligence partners was given information on me,” Hall tells The Grayzone.

“This was a simple matter of minor procedural errors on my part, and disagreement over editorial standards with RNZ’s management, which could’ve been quietly and professionally resolved internally. Instead, I was thrust into the glare of the international media and the Five Eyes global spying network. The intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy at a tiny news outlet could indicate there was some kind of deeper, darker coordination at play. Again though, we’ll probably never know.”

July 13, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Will the French regime go Soviet?

Facing the political impasse of the entire system, some MPs have a dystopian idea: ban and punish all criticism of the “Republic”

By Matthieu Buge | RT | July 10, 2025

This may seem trivial but in June 2025 a ridiculous bill has been conceived by the right/center-right Les Republicains party. A bill that sums up just about everything that’s wrong with France’s system, not just its political system, but even its core cerebral system: prohibiting and punishing content and speech of an “anti-republican” nature.

Many critics of French political circles have – rightly – pointed out this incredible ability of politicians to use the argument of the “values ​​of the Republic” whenever it suits them without ever explaining what these values ​​are. However, the MPs who came up with this bill made a (minimal) effort in attempting to outline what it entails. Thus, it reads: “The French Republic is based on fundamental principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, sovereignty of the people, and the indivisibility of the nation. These values, guaranteed by the Constitution and consolidated by law, constitute the foundation of ‘vivre-ensemble’ [something purely French that can be understood as ‘social harmony’].” What would happen to someone who violates these principles? Oh, nothing, just being sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 ($52,000).

Beyond the purely vote-catching aspect of such a bill emanating from a right-wing party seeking to appeal to its public worried about the spread of Islam in France, there is something profoundly dystopian about it. All the listed “fundamental principles” are so vague that anything can be considered a violation of them.

France, which has specialized in devising abstruse theories since the end of the 18th century, is based on the absurd triptych “liberty, equality, fraternity.” However, any sane person understands that this triangle cannot work. “Liberty” and “equality” are by definition antagonistic and “fraternity” is mainly some leftover of a distant Christian morality. The sacrosanct secularism must apply to everyone – except to the Jewish community, something that tends to frustrate the Muslim community and leaves French citizens, who are predominantly atheist but psychologically remain, as the great demographer Emmanuel Todd coined, in a kind of “zombie Catholicism,” wary. When it comes to the “sovereignty of the people,” most people understand that it is a joke since politicians wiped their feet on the people’s “no” during the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005. As for the “indivisibility of the nation,” an umpteenth abstract concept that implies territorial unity, unity of the people, and unity of law, it would be necessary to explain it to the police and firefighters who can no longer go to some territories of the “Republic” as France is on the verge of becoming a narco-state. But of course, in this maelstrom of abstract stuff, the end of the quote that is the highlight of the show: “These values ​​[…] constitute the foundation of vivre-ensemble.”

Not long ago, during the June heat wave, a water park had to close permanently because it was invaded and trashed by “young people” the very first day after it opened. With the riots of summer 2023 (never described as “racial” by the French press though they use the term when it comes to the US) and the chaos following PSG’s Champions League victory in 2025, along with the daily attacks and violence, the French people seem to be struggling to integrate the concept of “vivre-ensemble.”

Someone said that the British had problems with ideas but not with facts, whereas for the French it’s the opposite. This is absolutely true. The French, especially their elites, live in a completely abstract mental space, which, unfortunately, has tended to colonize the West, particularly through the philosophical movement Les Lumieres and, 200 years later, through the “French Theory” that eventually lead to the disastrous woke culture.

What the right-wing party behind this bill doesn’t seem to realize is that with such vague criteria, France could find itself in the kind of judicial system that communist regimes experienced, where any statement could be interpreted to prove that it wasn’t “Marxist-Leninist.” As the joke goes, in the Soviet Union, it was possible to say anything… in your own kitchen. Well, in France, with such a bill, you’ll have to choose your words carefully while enjoying your beef bourguignon. The ignorant politicians behind this text should read Arthur Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’: the main character, a Soviet political commissar who has sent many to the Gulag, finds himself purged by the system he contributed to. With an honest judge, it would be easy to charge them with, for example, having violated the principles of “equality” and “fraternity” by increasing their salaries at the National Assembly while asking the French people to make an effort because there is no money anymore.

Of course, given that the country’s prisons are already overcrowded and the state ruined, these MPs obviously have in mind to resort to the ultimate repressive instrument of liberal democracies: hitting the wallet. €45,000 for “anti-republican” remarks made in public. But the fine will, according to them, be increased to €75,000 if the remarks are made “in a meeting,” on a social network, or by an individual holding a position of public authority or office. €75,000 for tweeting that there is a problem with uncontrolled immigration? Is calling a bust of Marianne (a symbol of the Republic) ugly considered a crime? Does Brigitte Macron’s gender enter into the equation of republican values?

But beyond the excesses and abuses such a law could lead to, the Republicans’ approach reflects something much more important: the political regime is becoming increasingly oppressive because it is at the end of its tether. Mass immigration has induced such chaos that it is no longer “manageable,” the working classes are struggling to keep a delusional social system afloat, and more than 50% of voters are now over 50 years old. The country’s vital forces no longer have any confidence in their institutions, so they must be constrained. If this law is adopted, the Republic will take care of it, as Macron would say, “whatever the cost.”

Matthieu Buge has worked on Russia for the magazine l’Histoire, the Russian film magazine Séance, and as a columnist for Le Courrier de Russie. He is the author of the book Le Cauchemar russe (‘The Russian Nightmare’).

July 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

MEP Clare Daly delivers searing critique of EU crackdown on dissent

APT | July 2, 2025

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Pro-Palestinian Activists Targeted By Trump Administration Match Canary Mission Blacklist

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 10, 2025

The Donald Trump administration is finding students on the Canary Mission’s website to target with deportation. The Canary Mission is an anonymous website that uses McCarthyite tactics against people expressing pro-Palestine views.

During a trial challenging Trump’s immigration policy on Wednesday, a federal judge asked, “Many of the names of the student protesters provided to you for the Office of Intelligence to produce reports of analysis on came from the website Canary Mission?”

Peter Hatch, a senior DHS investigations official, responded, “It’s true, many of the names, or even most of the names, came from that website.” The DHS official said the agency had other sources. The Canary Mission denied direct contact with the Trump administration.

Hatch added that there were no official ties between the Canary Mission and the US Government. “I don’t know who creates the website. We don’t have a relationship with the creators of the website,” he said.

Canary Mission targeted Rümeysa Öztürk before she was arrested by masked police officers on the streets in Somerville, Massachusetts, earlier this year. The Trump administration attempted to expel her from the country over an op-ed she co-authored for a Tufts University student newspaper.

Mahmoud Khalil was another student targeted with deportation that was also blacklisted by Canary Mission.

The Trump administration is not the first to use the Canary Mission in criminal proceedings. “The case of a Palestinian-American law student named Ahmad Aburas provides a particularly disturbing portrait of Canary Mission tactics in action,” Max Blumenthal wrote in 2018. “While Aburas was enrolled at Seton Hall Law School, Canary Mission contacted school administrators to suggest that statements he made on social media expressed support for terrorism. Seton Hall then called the FBI, Aburas was taken out of class and subjected to interrogation by federal agents over his political views.”

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

UN Launches Task Force to Combat Global “Disinformation” Threat

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 8, 2025

The United Nations has unveiled its first Global Risk Report, placing what it terms “mis- and disinformation” among the most serious threats facing the world.

Tucked into the report is the announcement of a new task force, formed to address how unauthorized narratives might disrupt the UN’s ability to carry out its programs, particularly its centerpiece initiative, the 2030 Agenda.

Rather than encouraging open discourse or transparency, the organization has taken a route that centers on managing what information gets seen and heard.

While the language used suggests a concern for public welfare, the actual emphasis lies on shielding the UN’s agenda from interference.

According to the report, survey respondents that included member states, NGOs, private companies, and other groups overwhelmingly called for joint government action and multistakeholder coalitions to deal with the highlighted risks.

Yet there is no clear endorsement of more open communication or free expression. The dominant solution appears to be top-down control over public narratives.

This newly established task force has a single focus. Its job is to assess how so-called mis- and disinformation affect the UN’s ability to deliver on its goals.

The report does not describe how this benefits the public or strengthens democratic values. Instead, the team’s mission is about insulating UN operations from disruption, particularly as they pertain to the Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs, which make up the foundation of the 2030 Agenda, touch nearly every aspect of governance and development, from climate to education to healthcare.

This is not the UN’s first attempt to regulate the global conversation. In 2023, it issued the Voluntary Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.

While promoted as a guide to promote factual accuracy, the document outlines an expansive system of content filtering and narrative enforcement. It encourages a wide range of actors, including governments, tech firms, news organizations, and advertisers, to work together in silencing content.

Among its recommendations are stricter algorithmic control, refusal to advertise next to flagged content, and large-scale fact-checking programs. Training and capacity-building are suggested not to foster critical thinking but to reinforce a shared understanding of what constitutes unacceptable speech.

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Israeli forces arrest Al Mayadeen bureau chief Nasser al-Lahham in West Bank

By Al Mayadeen | July 7, 2025

Israeli occupation forces arrested Nasser al-Lahham, director of Al Mayadeen’s bureau in occupied Palestine, on Monday, during a pre-dawn raid on his home in Beit Lahm, southern West Bank.

Local sources reported that the arrest was accompanied by deliberate acts of vandalism, as soldiers stormed al-Lahham’s residence, smashing furniture and seizing personal mobile phones belonging to him and his family.

Exclusive sources informed Al Mayadeen that the Israeli security service, Shin Bet, is directly responsible for the arrest of al-Lahham in the occupied West Bank.

According to the sources, Shin Bet officers specifically targeted al-Lahham’s broadcasting studio during the raid and actively searched for electronic equipment and media devices linked to his journalistic work.

In a related development, the Israeli occupation extended al-Lahham’s detention until Thursday and has referred his case to the Ofer military court, located west of Ramallah, for a detention hearing. The move signals a potentially prolonged legal process against one of Palestine’s most prominent media figures.

Wider context

The arrest sparked widespread condemnation from Palestinian political and media circles. Palestinian political activist Sinan Shaqdeh told Al Mayadeen that “the arrest of journalist Nasser al-Lahham carries several implications, most notably an effort to target Al Mayadeen Network for conveying a narrative that challenges the Israeli version of events surrounding the ongoing genocide (in Gaza).”

This latest move comes as part of a broader, systematic campaign targeting journalists and media operations in occupied Palestine. In late October 2023, Israeli forces raided al-Lahham’s home, assaulting his wife and children, conducting an intrusive search, and detaining his two sons, Basil and Basel.

Meanwhile, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent Hanaa Mahamid continues to face repeated threats by Israeli authorities in an attempt to suppress independent media coverage from the occupied territories.

The Israeli government has renewed its ban on Al Mayadeen’s operation in occupied Palestine, confiscated its broadcasting equipment, and blocked its websites, in a crackdown against the network, amid the continued genocide in the Gaza Strip and the broad assault on the West Bank.

Al-Lahham’s arrest is an attempt at suppressing the press: Fatah

Munther al-Hayek, spokesperson for the Fatah Movement, told Al Mayadeen that the Israeli occupation’s arrest of Nasser al-Lahham aims to suppress press freedom and intimidate journalists.

Al-Hayek added, “What Israel is doing in the Palestinian territories is happening with a green light from the United States.”

He also emphasized that the free press’s coverage of Israeli massacres in Gaza has unsettled Netanyahu’s government, prompting it to resort to repressive and terror tactics.

July 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Protesters in London defy ban to rally in support of Palestine Action

Palestine Action supporters outside London’s High Court in London, July 4, 2025. (Reuters)
Press TV – July 5, 2025

In a direct challenge to the British government’s new ban, protesters have gathered in central London to show solidarity with the pro-Palestinian campaign group, Palestine Action.

The group, which uses direct action against Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chain, was officially designated a “terrorist organization” after a late-night legal bid to delay the move failed on Friday. The proscription came into force on Saturday.

Under the new legislation, membership of or public support for the group is now a criminal offense in the UK, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Protesters on Saturday gathered at Parliament Square, defying a warning from the Metropolitan Police, who said expressing support for the group “is a criminal offence.”

The demonstration, organized by campaign group Defend Our Juries, however, saw protesters holding signs and chanting in support of the pro-Palestine group.

Pictures from the rally showed protesters holding placards reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action” in Westminster.

Police had warned that chanting slogans, wearing clothing, or displaying flags and signs in support of the group could lead to arrest under the Terrorism Act.

The Met said more than 20 people have been arrested in London.

In a letter addressed to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, protesters said that they “refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.”

Palestine Action has focused much of its campaign on Elbit Systems UK, which it accuses of manufacturing and supplying weapons to the Israeli military amid the regime’s genocidal war on Gaza.

In its most recent action, activists stormed Guardtech, a subcontractor the group says provides “essential clean room services” to Instro Precision—a subsidiary of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms producer.

Protesters blocked the company’s only entrance on Wednesday and covered it in red paint, symbolizing the blood shed by the Israeli regime in the Gaza Strip.

Palestine Action says Instro Precision cannot operate without Guardtech’s services, which are used to maintain the controlled environments necessary for producing radar kits and targeting systems.

Reacting to the ban on the group, a spokesperson for Palestine Action said, in a statement, “While London is rushing through Parliament absurd legislation to proscribe Palestine Action, the real terrorism is being committed in Gaza.”

It said that the activist group “affirms that direct action is necessary in the face of Israel’s ongoing crimes against humanity of genocide, apartheid and occupation, and to end British facilitation of those crimes.”

July 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

HHS to ‘Revolutionize’ Vaccine Injury Compensation, RFK Jr. Tells Tucker Carlson

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 1, 2025

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down yesterday with Tucker Carlson to share an update on his mission to end the skyrocketing rate of autism in U.S. kids.

By the end of their nearly 90-minute conversation, the two had covered a slew of topics, including pharmaceutical ads on TV, increasing compensation for the vaccine-injured, and the need for a “truth commission” to uncover who and what caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

Carlson, who last year left FOX News after being the network’s “most popular host,” now runs “The Tucker Carlson Show.” He broke his interview with Kennedy into five “chapters”:

  1. Uncovering the Reason for Skyrocketing Rates of Autism
  2. Is It Possible to End the Corrupt Relationship Between Big Pharma and Corporate Media?
  3. Will There Be Compensation for the Vaccine-Injured?
  4. RFK’s Firing of So-Called “Experts”
  5. The Real Reason Fauci Got a Pardon

Below are highlights from each.

HHS will do honest, open research on autism and vaccines

In the past, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to honestly and adequately research the possible link between vaccines and autism, Kennedy said.

The CDC ignored recommendations from the Institute of Medicine to do a “litany” of studies to get at the issue, Kennedy said, including animal models, observational studies, bench studies and epidemiological studies.

“But what we’re going to do now,” he said, “is we’re going to do all the kinds of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in April announced a new research program to study what causes autism and why autism diagnoses are on the rise.

NIH will make data from Medicare and Medicaid available to independent scientists for analysis. Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink — a huge repository for health records — will also be used, Kennedy said.

Raw data will be made available to the public whenever possible, Kennedy said.

“Something new that we’re bringing in is that every study will be replicated,” he added.

Big Pharma ads fail to benefit patients and doctors

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine) last month introduced federal legislation to end direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.

Kennedy didn’t reference the bill or say he supported a ban on such ads. However, he outlined several reasons why pharmaceutical marketing on mainstream media is bad for public health.

Many ads are misleading, he told Carlson. “Even the music and the video, the photos that they show … it’s sending a message that if you take this drug, you’re going to be riding jet skis and playing volleyball and water skiing and have a great-looking spouse.”

Meanwhile, the ads feature the most expensive version of the drug rather than the generic version.

“They’re not going to advertise the generics because they’re not making any money,” Kennedy said. “So they’re advertising the ones that are the highest profit margins for them.”

Plus, the U.S. taxpayer bears the brunt of the cost while the drug company profits. Kennedy explained:

“Normally, if you see an advertisement on TV like for Coca-Cola, you then have a choice to go get that and you’re paying out of your pocket for it.

“When somebody buys a pharmaceutical drug, it’s Medicaid and Medicare that are paying for it … it’s the taxpayer. … And we’re paying for the ads because they’re tax-deductible.”

When a patient sees the ad and asks a doctor for the drug, the doctor — who is told by a “corporate bean counter” to limit time with a patient to only 11 minutes — has to choose whether to use the time trying to talk the patient out of the drug, Kennedy said. But if the doctor does that, the patient likely goes away unsatisfied.

Or the doctor could just say, “All right, you want this prescription? I’ll write it for you.” Then the patient will be satisfied and come back, Kennedy said. “The doctors hate it. … And nobody thinks that this is good for public health. It is hurting us.”

Kennedy said the censorship of vaccine-related information on social media is also a problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) petition to hear its censorship case against Meta, the parent company of Facebook.

CHD sued Meta in August 2020 and filed an amended complaint in November 2020, alleging that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor CHD’s speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment. The company deplatformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.

Censorship of scientific results that are critical of vaccines is also a problem, Kennedy added.

Kennedy’s plans to expand vaccine injury compensation program

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which granted legal immunity to vaccine makers and created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, also made it difficult for anyone injured by a vaccine to obtain compensation.

“We just brought a guy in this week who is going to be revolutionizing the [National] Vaccine Injury Compensation program,” Kennedy said.

“We’re looking at ways to enlarge the program so that COVID vaccine-injured people can be compensated … we’re looking at ways to enlarge the statute of limitations,” Kennedy told Carlson.

It’s currently limited to three years. “A lot of people don’t discover their injuries till after that,” Kennedy said.

The program has other flaws, including that it has no discovery process, no rules of evidence and historically had corrupt leadership.

“We’re going to change all that,” Kennedy said. “I’ve brought in a team this week that is starting to work on that.”

Kennedy also said HHS will use AI (artificial intelligence) to track vaccine injuries more effectively. The agency plans to use AI in other ways, too, such as speeding up drug approval processes and detecting fraud.

Why CDC vaccine advisory committee needed a clean sweep

Kennedy defended his recent move to fire all members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, saying the board had become “a sock puppet for the industry that it was supposed to regulate.”

On June 11, Kennedy named eight researchers and physicians to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), two days after removing all 17 of the previous ACIP members.

“This was a long time coming, Tucker,” Kennedy said. He gave an example to illustrate the kind of financial conflict of interest that had plagued the board for years.

Years ago, the committee approved adding a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, he said.

Four of the five committee members had “direct financial interest in the rotavirus vaccine,” Kennedy said. “They were working for the companies that made the vaccine, or they were receiving grants to do clinical trials on that vaccine.”

Within a year, that specific rotavirus vaccine was linked to “disastrous” disease in kids and pulled from the market. It was replaced by a different rotavirus vaccine that then-committee member Dr. Paul Offit had helped develop.

“Then [Offit] and his business partners, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and a couple of other people, sold that vaccine to Merck for $186 million,” Kennedy recalled.

According to Kennedy, Offit told Newsweek that he won the lottery. “It’s been said of him that he voted himself rich, so that kind of conflict was typical on that committee.”

Could a ‘truth commission’ hold Fauci accountable?

Carlson and Kennedy discussed the origins of COVID-19 and the possible reasons for Dr. Anthony Fauci’s presidential pardon.

Just before leaving office, former President Joe Biden preemptively pardoned Fauci. The pardon, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2014, addresses “any offenses” Fauci committed during this period, including in his former capacities as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, member of the White House COVID-19 Response Team and chief medical adviser to Biden.

When Carlson pressed Kennedy to comment on Fauci’s motivations for funding coronavirus research in China, Kennedy said he tried to avoid speculation.

That’s why in his book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” he reports only what Fauci did, not Fauci’s possible motivations, he said.

Carlson said, “It sounds like Fauci is beyond the reach of the law at this point.”

Kennedy responded, “Yeah, I think generally, unless there was a truth commission, you know, which they did in South Africa. They did it in Central America after the 1980s wars there, and they were very, very helpful to those societies. I think we should probably do something like that now.”

Kennedy explained how a truth commission works:

“You have a commission that hears testimony on what exactly happened. Anybody who comes and volunteers to testify truthfully is then given immunity from prosecution. But so that at least the public knows who did what. …

“People who are called and don’t take that deal and perjure themselves, they then can be prosecuted criminally.”

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.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Ofcom seeks powers to preemptively block viral content, censor potentially illegal speech, and mandate broad Digital ID

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | July 1, 2025

The UK’s increasingly controversial Office of Communications, Ofcom, is charting a path that could reshape the internet as we know it, and not for the better.

Under the banner of the Online Safety Act, the regulator is proposing a sweeping expansion of its authority that, if enacted, would hand it unprecedented influence over what we see, share and say online.

Part of Ofcom’s plan is the goal of preventing illegal content from gaining traction.

Platforms would be required to block material that even appears to be unlawful from being recommended by algorithms until it’s reviewed by a human moderator.

The idea, on paper, is to stop harmful content from “going viral.”

In practice, it risks creating a system where lawful speech is caught in digital limbo, held back by automated systems that err on the side of caution.

Ofcom frames these proposals as a necessary response to modern online threats.

It talks about “highly effective age assurance,” a term that sounds innocuous enough but points toward invasive digital ID checks.

The aim is to ensure that children aren’t exposed to harmful material, but the solution would come at the cost of privacy and anonymity for everyone, two pillars of an open internet.

This new regime would compel tech firms to act as frontline enforcers of ill-defined standards of legality, long before a court has had a chance to weigh in.

In times of crisis; riots, terror attacks, or other major incidents; platforms would be under pressure to throttle spikes in content rapidly.

That effectively puts Ofcom in the position of deciding, in real-time, what the public is allowed to see.

One of the more troubling proposals targets livestreaming; a tool that has become vital for journalists, activists, and artists.

All of it would be wrapped in tighter age verification systems that threaten to chill participation and expression.

The regulator also wants to see wider deployment of technologies like perceptual hash matching and automated tools; not just for known illegal content, but for material that might be illegal or harmful.

That includes everything from suicide-related posts to fraudulent schemes. While the intent is understandable, the risk of overreach is significant.

Without proper safeguards, lawful speech could be swept into censorship systems, and surveillance could become embedded in the core of our digital infrastructure.

Oliver Griffiths, who leads Ofcom’s Online Safety Group, summed up the regulator’s stance: “We’re holding platforms to account and launching swift enforcement action where we have concerns.”

It’s a statement that highlights how determined Ofcom is to push these changes through, no matter the consequences.

The public has until 20 October 2025 to respond to Ofcom’s consultation.

Given the political climate, the proposals seem likely to pass with little resistance.

But if they do, the UK’s online environment may come to be defined not by the free exchange of ideas, but by cautious, preemptive censorship and intrusive oversight; all in the name of safety.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »