Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

ADL Regional Director Calls for Government-Regulated Online Censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 27, 2025

The Anti-Defamation League’s David Goldenberg is demanding a broad overhaul of how speech is governed on the internet, calling for both government intervention and intensified corporate censorship. In a recent appearance, Goldenberg, who heads the ADL’s Midwest operations, expressed frustration over what he sees as declining efforts by tech firms to suppress online content he deems hateful.

Citing Meta’s rollback of its fact-checking team in the United States, he argued that platforms must be forced to take action. “You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department… And so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility, that they have an absolute responsibility to check and remove hateful speech that is insightful.(sic)”

Goldenberg advocated not just for voluntary moderation, but for legislative and regulatory measures, both at the federal and state level, that would compel platforms to act as speech enforcers. He pointed to efforts in states like California as examples of where local governments are already testing such models.

His concern centers around what he perceives as an ecosystem of radicalization made easily accessible by today’s digital infrastructure. He warned that extremist ideologies no longer require obscure forums or dark web communities to spread. “It used to be you had to fight going into the deep dark web… Now… it’s easier and easier to be exposed in the mainstream,” he said.

Framing the online environment as a catalyst for violence, Goldenberg argued that free access to controversial viewpoints must be curtailed. He called for social media companies to take a stronger stance by excluding users whose views fall outside accepted boundaries, adding that regulation should enforce this responsibility.

He zeroed in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a critical piece of legislation that shields platforms from legal liability over user-posted content. “Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now for what happens,” Goldenberg said. He dismissed comparisons between modern platforms and telecommunications companies, referencing past remarks by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about how phone providers were not liable for threats made over calls. Goldenberg’s view was blunt: “These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution. They’re just not.”

From his perspective, private companies should be free to “kick people off, to de-platform,” and if they fail to do so voluntarily, they must be pressured or regulated into compliance. He described accountability as a mechanism for shaping behavior, stating, “Accountability is a tool that can be incredibly effective in changing behavior.”

The position advanced by Goldenberg reflects a broader effort to blur the line between public authority and private platform control. By demanding that companies mirror the goals of activists and lawmakers, his approach seeks to institutionalize censorship and convert digital platforms into engines of ideological enforcement.

But such a vision comes with consequences. By urging the dismantling of legal protections and empowering both governments and corporations to decide which views should be silenced, this framework sets the stage for widespread suppression. What’s framed as protection from harm becomes a template for restricting dissent, and narrowing the range of permissible thought in public discourse.

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

How Lies and Hubris Caused an Awakening

By Pat Fidopiastis | Brownstone Institute | May 26, 2025

In March 2020, the phrase “Fifteen days to slow the spread” was transmitting faster than SARS-CoV-2. At the time, it seemed reasonable to want to buy our health care workers a few weeks to prepare. Contemporaneously, Dr. Anthony Fauci reasonably summarized decades of research in his 60 Minutes interview by saying that masks are not an effective way to block respiratory viruses.

In a Snapchat interview, Dr. Fauci reasonably interpreted timely data on Covid-19 outcomes to conclude that young people could decide for themselves if they wanted to meet strangers on a dating app during the pandemic. As Dr. Fauci put it: “Because that’s what’s called relative risk.”

Even the authors of the “proximal origin” opinion piece in Nature Medicine made reasonable points in support of a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 (despite revealing their cards by calling “lab leak” implausible): “… it is likely that SARS-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species” and “More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.” 

Five years later, thousands of animals have been sampled, millions of genomic sequences have been analyzed, and still there is nothing remotely close to a non-human adapted, animal version of SARS-CoV-2; back in 2003, using “stone tools” compared to today’s technology, they found the animal version of that SARS virus in a few months.

Unfortunately, the honeymoon of reason was brief. Overwhelming evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was not natural became a “destructive conspiracy,” and if you spoke about it, you were somehow racist.

Surgeon General Jerome Adams instructed us on how to make a life-saving mask from an old t-shirt. Dr. Fauci used the bizarre excuse that he lied in his 60 Minutes interview to explain why he abruptly reversed himself and began promoting the epidemiological theater of wearing several masks at once.

Not to be outdone, Dr. Deborah Birx summed up the futility of her leadership with this pearl: “We know that there are ways that you can even play tennis with marked balls so you’re not touching each other’s balls.” This sounded more like a punchline than worthwhile public health advice. Perhaps most egregious of all, we learned that “Two weeks to slow the spread” was not meant to be taken literally.

For me, a professor of microbiology for nearly 25 years, the moment of reason ended when I stepped into an elevator on my campus and saw a floor sticker telling me where to stand (Fig. 1). I simply could not keep quiet and pretend that this was sound public health advice.

Fig. 1

Before long, businesses were inundated with pandemic rules. I was hired by one of the lucky ones deemed “essential,” and therefore allowed to open, to assist with “safe” operation plans.

When I arrived to conduct my inspection, the business looked more like an Ebola field hospital than a furniture store (Fig. 2). Masked customers were herded in the parking lot by ropes and signs. One by one, they were greeted by an attendant, grateful to still have a job, standing behind Plexiglas, wearing a mask and face shield.

The friendly attendant was instructed to ask uncomfortable questions about symptoms like diarrhea. If a customer responded “yes” to any of the symptoms or refused to answer, they could not shop for furniture. If “no,” then their temperature was measured.

It was nearly 100 degrees that day so almost everyone had to be scanned multiple times. Inside the store was a maze of one-way arrows, warning signs, Plexiglas, hand sanitizer stations, and boxes of masks and disposable couch covers. They even had a video monitor reporting the number of customers per 400 square feet of store. Sadly, the epidemiological version of “over-medicating the patient” did not stop with onerous business rules.

Fig. 2

Drunk with power, public health officials in California felt ordained to protect the unwashed masses from Thanksgiving dinner. Unsurprisingly, these farcical dining rules did not apply to everyone.

Who actually believed “singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion” at a family dinner was too risky? Who decided that we needed to bulldoze a skate park to prevent kids from congregating? Why was it necessary to arrest a lone paddleboarder in Santa Monica Bay for “flouting coronavirus closures?”

In the LA Times article on the paddler’s arrest, a professor from the prestigious Scripps Institute of Oceanography opined, “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could enter coastal waters and transfer back into the air along the coast. I wouldn’t go in the water if you paid me $1 million right now.”

I tried laughing off the ridiculous, unenforceable Thanksgiving rules, those stickers in the elevators, and other nonsense that at the time was happening somewhere else. But I could not get past the frightening reality that so many of my highly educated peers actually believed nonsense like SARS-CoV-2 was leaping out of the ocean.

Anyone paying attention could compile government data on Covid-19 outcomes and assess risk for themselves (Table 1). The message was always the same – the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid-19 were people over 65 years old with severe comorbidities, especially obesity.

Table 1

By signing the Great Barrington Declaration and discussing its premise of “focused protection” in my advanced microbiology courses, I received an avalanche of vitriol.

Among the most shocking responses were accusations of “ageism” and “fat-shaming” for discussing hard facts about the pandemic.

Just like that, the “Science doesn’t care about your feelings” crowd started prioritizing their feelings. The university newspaper asked for an interview. I was warned not to accept, but I wanted to start a bigger conversation. I regret my decision because the article they wrote did not represent the views I articulated.

Instead, I was accused of promoting a “power imbalance” by supposedly forcing my “junk science” views on students. I used to think the cries of “fake news” were just a lazy argument by people that could not support their position, until I read that article about me.

Ironically, these same people who attacked me had completely accepted the made-up “six-feet rule,” which was the root of so much collateral damage. Heavily biased news sources like NPR defended this unscientific rule by stating, “distance still protects you.” However, if the cure is not even remotely feasible, despite the best efforts of authoritarians, then it’s not really a cure.

Apparently I crossed the line when I discussed in class how politicized the pandemic had become. How is it that President Trump’s rallies were spreading “coronavirus and death” but BLM protests had no effect on coronavirus cases? The sampling bias was baked in, given that contact tracers were being told not to ask people if they had been to a protest.

Why was it acceptable for CNN to use phrases such as “Wuhan virus” and “Chinese coronavirus,” but when President Trump did it, he was called “racist?” Was it actually “racist” to discuss the obvious signs of genetic manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome with my students in an Emerging Infectious Diseases class?

My campus newspaper and many of my colleagues thought so, as did an Asian American and Pacific Islander group calling for my resignation.  When the admonitions about masks became aggressive (Fig. 3), and draconian, unscientific outdoor mask fines were being implemented, I analyzed some data and conducted a few experiments to find out for myself if masks were worth all the anger.

Fig. 3

I looked at “cases” in places like New York City and pointed out when the mask mandate and fines were applied (Fig. 4). Notably, the NYC mandate was instituted after cases had already begun to fall, and coercive fines did not prevent the second wave, which was longer and reached a higher peak than the first wave.

Fig. 4

I had my allergy-prone daughter sneeze onto petri-plates with and without the CDC-approved masks we wore to enter locations that enforced the mask mandate (Fig. 5). The saliva spray patterns, illustrated by microbial growth on the plates, were virtually indistinguishable.

Fig. 5

In the 60 Minutes interview, Dr. Fauci stated that “… often there are unintended consequences…people keep fiddling with the mask and touching their face…” implying that germs collect on masks, making them a source of contagion rather than a barrier.

Indeed, after the sneeze experiment, I stamped the outside of my daughter’s mask onto a petri-plate. The resulting dense microbial growth supported Dr. Fauci’s argument against mask wearing – “fiddling with the mask” probably does spread microbes (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

At the time, I stated in the campus newspaper that “the science on masks was mixed at best.” However, the third-year journalism student apparently knew better and decided I was pushing “junk science.” Was I naïve to expect an apology after “the science” started catching up to what I was saying?

During the pandemic, my lab was responsible for measuring SARS-CoV-2 levels in wastewater (Fig. 7) to use this information as a means of tracking community transmission. We learned two important lessons from this approach.

First, peak levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater (orange line) provided a few weeks’ lead to when we could expect to see peak levels of people testing positive for the virus (i.e., “cases;” blue line). Second, we learned that the mask mandate (red line) did not stop the virus from doing what it wanted. Despite the mask mandate, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 reached unprecedented highs.

Fig. 7

Taken together, my findings were supported by decades of research showing that masks are not effective against respiratory viruses, regardless of the quality. Still, the counterargument persisted that wearing an N95 mask suctioned to your face, and constantly replacing it, would have stopped the pandemic.

Again, if the cure is not feasible, then it’s not really a cure, is it? The reality is that there are no convincing data supporting mask mandates, none that even remotely support children being forced to wear saliva-soaked masks, and especially none that would justify people being choked and beaten for opposing them.

The “follow the science” crowd was honing their authoritarian skills in preparation for mandatory vaccinations. The motivation for these mandates was summed up perfectly: “During the Sars crisis in 2003 pharma companies answered the WHO’s call for vaccine research. They invested hundreds of millions of dollars, but then — when the outbreak died away — governments and charities lost interest.” According to epidemiologist Dr. Osterholm “The companies were left holding the bag.”

How could Big Pharma avoid “holding the bag” on a vaccine they hoped would stop a virus that had repeatedly ripped through the world’s population? Not surprisingly, their first order of business was to drop the concept of “natural immunity” into the memory hole, centuries of science be damned. The subtext was if regular people knew that natural immunity was real, they probably would not want the vaccine, especially if they already had Covid-19 a few times.

Leading up to the vaccine rollout, I tested myself regularly using PCR, antibody, and antigen assays. I eventually tested positive and had mild flu-like symptoms. While well-educated friends of mine had gone to such lengths as to move out of their homes to distance themselves from their children and wait for the vaccines, my family chose a different tack. Instead, we huddled, got mild infections (except for my wife, who seemed to be immune), shared some level of natural immunity to the latest version of the virus, and tracked our infections (Table 2).

Table 2

When I shared the “herd immunity” story with my small social media following, most appreciated hearing something other than doom and gloom. However, others showed a level of vindictiveness that should not have surprised me, given how acceptable it became to wish death on the unvaccinated.

A colleague attempted to shame me in the campus newspaper, while others wondered out loud whether Child Protective Services should be notified. How dare you give your children the sniffles! How dare you use this time of ridiculous “virtual learning” mandates to provide your children with some hands-on experience performing quantitative PCR!

Predictably, my SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were extremely high after over two weeks of PCR-positivity. While still overflowing with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, I was scheduled to receive mandatory shots in order to return to campus.

If the world had actually followed the science, my recent PCR positivity and elevated antibody titers should have been a reasonable exemption. Unfortunately, there was no such exemption. Having seen the terrible treatment of my colleague Dr. Kheriaty, I decided we would play the role of guinea pigs and take what would be an all-risk-and-no-reward shot, especially for my kids. That is, there was nothing in it for us except a few days of high fever and injection site swelling, but definite financial reward for everyone in the vaccine supply chain.

As a member of the “laptop class,” the “lockdowns” made my life easier in many ways. While small business owners struggled, I was getting full pay to upload instructional videos to my university students, and occasionally engage with them online. My wastewater epidemiology work was deemed “essential,” so I was permitted to go to my lab to perform those duties for additional compensation.

However, the ad hominem attacks and threats caused me to disengage from further attempts to start a discussion on pandemic policy, which no doubt was their goal. While the world was fighting over toilet paper and shaming each other for “killing grandma,” we tuned out for a while (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8

I was surrounded by so much anger that I truly believed I was alone in my heretical views on pandemic policy. However, I officially tuned back in when Dr. Scott Atlas invited me to join a small group called The Academy for Science and Freedom. 

Our meeting at the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington, D.C. was the first time I had hope since the pandemic started. We were professors, medical doctors, publishers, and journalists, all united by a common belief that the people in charge abandoned a basic tenet of public health: voluntary instead of coercive measures would protect public trust and induce cooperation.

Despite all the great minds in the room, it was hard to imagine we would ever get to where we are right now. But here we are. Many of the people responsible for lockdowns, forced vaccinations, and covering up the unnatural origin of SARS-CoV-2 are gone.

In their place, are Academy members such as Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Matt Memoli, Dr. Vinay Prasad, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Marty Makary. All of whom were treated far worse than me. The overwhelming rejection of “The Fauci School” of public health policy is vindicating. However, recent headlines suggest there are holdouts refusing to accept that they were fooled: Dr. Høeg is a “vaccine skeptic,”  Dr. Memoli “is known for questioning vaccine mandates,” and Dr. Prasad is an “anti-science MAHA extremist.”

The people I trusted probably fooled me on a lot of things I voted for, like the benefits of a 20,000-page health care policy. Who has time to actually read that stuff? However, they were never going to succeed at fooling me about the science of the pandemic.

Their lies and hubris caused an awakening, reminiscent of the scene in The Matrix when Neo emerged from the virtual world to a brutal reality. I just hope the people I trust who are now running the major institutions will allocate all resources to programs that will actually improve human health. In doing so, they should have no problem convincing those holdouts not only that they had been fooled, but who fooled them.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

London Times Condemns Shadow Censorship While Quietly Endorsing Selective Speech Control

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 25, 2025

The London Times editorial board recently delivered a pointed critique of groups like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), accusing them of acting as “self-appointed censors” who operate “in the shadows” and pose a “threat to free speech.”

Yet, in the same breath, the Times reveals its own willingness to endorse a selective approach to censorship, so long as the targets align with its own criteria.

While the editorial draws a firm line between malicious falsehoods and legitimate dissent, it doesn’t reject censorship outright.

Instead, it carves out an exception: “harmful disinformation, such as a doctored video designed to cause distress or inflame tensions, is one thing; legitimate journalism seeking to question the status quo is quite another.”

That distinction may sound reasonable on the surface, but it hinges entirely on who gets to decide what counts as “harmful.” In practice, this gives room for silencing speech under subjective definitions, provided those definitions align with elite sensibilities.

The Global Disinformation Index, a little-known nonprofit founded in 2018, has taken it upon itself to grade news organizations based on vague notions of “trustworthiness.”

Its reports, which have been used to influence online advertising decisions, can financially strangle outlets by placing them on exclusion lists. Once flagged, a publication can see its ad revenue evaporate as advertisers steer clear, often without the public, or the publication, ever knowing why.

Their influence far exceeds that of traditional editors or publishers, largely because they operate through algorithms and financial incentives, targeting revenue rather than content directly.

The Times editorial stops short of fully embracing the principle of open inquiry. While decrying the secrecy and self-importance of outfits like the GDI, it leaves the door open to censorship, provided it’s targeted at the content they believe crosses an undefined line into “harm.”

This undermines the editorial’s own warning about the chilling effect of selective enforcement. Once any authority is granted the power to judge truth in service of suppressing it, the essential freedom of press and expression is already compromised.

By calling for protection of “legitimate journalism” while conceding the need to crack down on “harmful disinformation,” the Times falls into the same trap it criticizes. It grants a moral and editorial license to define acceptability, not based on transparency, accountability, or open debate, but on perceived intent and potential impact. The risk, as always, is that this standard will be wielded not to protect the public, but to shield the powerful.

May 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Israel’s deadly aid plan for Gaza delayed due to ‘logistical issues’

The Cradle | May 25, 2025

The Israeli and US-led aid distribution mechanism, which was meant to be launched on 25 May, has been delayed, as UN agencies continue to reject participation in the controversial plan.

Correspondent for Israel’s Channel 12, Tamir Morag, confirmed the new postponement of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). He also accused Hamas of looting humanitarian aid, a claim repeated by Israel, which the UN says there is no evidence for.

Security sources cited in other Hebrew media reports say the UN has doubled down on its rejection of the aid distribution plan, and that “logistical issues” have delayed its launch.

This comes after Israeli media cited suppliers as saying last week that nobody is able to fulfill the plan’s “huge” requirements.

GHF was conceived at the very start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. While US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said when the plan was unveiled this month that it would be “inaccurate” to call it an “Israeli plan,” the project has its roots in Tel Aviv.

According to the New York Times, the details of the plan were first discussed by a group of officials and businesspeople with ties to the Israeli government, called the Mikveh Yisrael Forum, who came up with an idea that aims to bypass the UN and all other humanitarian groups in Gaza.

The Washington Post reports that the initiative’s planning documents anticipated the widespread condemnation and likening of the plan’s distribution centers to “concentration camps with biometrics.”

Even some within the Israeli military establishment have questioned whether the plan could potentially lead to chaos, the report says.

GHF relies on the use of private US contractors who will be in charge of several distribution centers in south and central Gaza. Palestinians in other areas who have had their homes destroyed and have already been displaced multiple times will have to travel across the strip under bombardment to secure aid, while forfeiting the right to return home.

The UN has said the mechanism is designed to reinforce Israel’s plan to displace Gaza’s entire population southward.

It has also condemned Israel’s plan to employ facial recognition technology aimed at screening Palestinians in exchange for humanitarian aid.

“It appears the design of a plan presented by Israel to the humanitarian community will increase ongoing suffering of children and families in the Gaza Strip … The use of humanitarian aid as a bait to force displacement, especially from the north to the south, will create this impossible choice: a choice between displacement and death,” UNICEF spokesperson James Elder said earlier this month.

Gaza’s Government Media Office warned on Saturday that the levels of aid currently entering the strip are less than one percent of what the population needs.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to target Palestinian security officers guarding aid and preventing it from being looted by Israeli-backed gangs.

According to multiple reports, ISIS-linked gang leader Abu Shabab, responsible for the looting of aid under Israeli protection throughout the war, has now “established a fortified base in an Israeli-controlled zone in Rafah.”

May 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

US de facto financing persecution of Christians in Ukraine – Tucker Carlson

RT | May 25, 2025

The US is essentially facilitating the persecution of Christians in Ukraine by supporting the Kiev government, which has been waging a purge campaign against the nation’s canonical Orthodox church, American journalist Tucker Carlson has said.

Carlson made the statement during an interview with a former Ukrainian MP, Vadim Novinsky, released on Friday.

“Every day, churches and temples are seized by soldiers with machine guns who come in, throw out priests, beat believers, children, old people, women…” the former lawmaker stated, adding that “it is happening all over Ukraine.”

“I think very few Americans understand the degree to which the Ukrainian government under [Vladimir] Zelensky has persecuted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” Carlson said.

The former Fox News host then asked Novinsky what he would like to say to the American lawmakers who have nevertheless approved financial aid to Kiev. “The Speaker of the House of the United States Congress is a man who describes himself as a Christian and he has been paying for this,” the journalist said, referring to Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican.

The former Ukrainian MP replied that he would like to see the US aid going directly to ordinary Ukrainians and not the authorities, who “live in parallel realities.”

US government agencies appropriated a total of $182.8 billion on various forms of assistance to Kiev between 2022 and the end of 2024, according to Ukraine Oversight, an official portal that tracks such expenditures.

Last week, US President Donald Trump stated he was concerned that billions of dollars were being wasted on aid to Ukraine. He said Congress was “very upset about it” and that lawmakers were asking where all the money was going.

Kiev has accused the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) of maintaining ties to Russia even though it declared independence from the Moscow Patriarchate in May 2022. The crackdown has included numerous arrests of clergymen and church raids, one of the most notorious of which took place in the catacombs of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, where holy relics are kept.

Last year, Zelensky signed legislation allowing the state to ban religious organizations affiliated with governments that Kiev deems “aggressors,” effectively targeting the UOC.

Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow would not abandon the Orthodox believers in Ukraine and vowed to make sure that “their lawful rights are respected.”

May 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Ireland Clashes with EU Over Hate Speech Laws as MEP Michael McNamara Denounces Brussels’ Legal Threats

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 23, 2025

Ireland’s refusal to fully adopt the European Union’s “hate speech” directives has ignited tensions in Brussels, with Independent MEP Michael McNamara voicing staunch opposition to what he calls a misguided and authoritarian push to punish noncompliance. He dismissed the EU’s legal threats as deeply flawed, asserting that there is no evidence” that these laws accomplish their stated goals of reducing discord or promoting unity.

According to McNamara, attempts to legislate acceptable speech do little more than sow fear and resentment. “People resent the fact that they’re threatened with prosecution for expressing their views,” he said, highlighting a growing unease across Europe as more individuals feel unable to voice opinions, whether popular or not. He warned that such policies do not alter underlying beliefs, they simply force them underground.

Instead of fostering a more harmonious society, McNamara argued that these measures build resentment. “It doesn’t affect how people think in any way, it just affects what they are afraid to say and what they resent,” he said. He drew a parallel to the United Kingdom, where, he noted, citizens are witnessing elderly individuals facing prosecution for speech offenses, while police resources are increasingly diverted from public safety to policing online expression.

“Hate speech laws are counter-productive. They are also profoundly illiberal. They’ve damaged the UK and we don’t want the same,” he wrote in a message on X, calling on the European Commission to abandon any proceedings against Ireland related to speech legislation.

The EU’s position, outlined in a recent notice from the Commission, faults Ireland and Finland for not yet implementing legal measures to criminalize specific categories of speech, including statements denying historical atrocities or inciting hatred against protected groups. While Ireland has made partial moves, Brussels remains unsatisfied and has issued formal opinions giving the two nations two months to comply before potential escalation to the European Court of Justice.

Despite an earlier attempt to introduce hate speech legislation, one that passed easily through the Dáil, the lower house of the Irish parliament, the Irish government eventually shelved the bill.

Resistance from the Seanad and significant public discontent led to its demise, with many viewing the proposal as a direct threat to civil liberties.

That backlash is widely believed to have influenced the outcome of the March 2024 referendums, where voters rejected two constitutional amendments by wide margins.

McNamara reiterated his stance before the European Parliament, stating plainly that pressing charges against Ireland over its refusal to implement these rules would be “misguided.” He urged the Commission to reconsider, framing the issue as one of national integrity and democratic principles rather than regulatory compliance.

May 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s PM Mark Carney Revives Online Censorship Agenda

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

Steven Guilbeault, once Canada’s Environment Minister is now poised to spearhead a different kind of oversight, this time, over what Canadians can see and share online.

In his new post as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Guilbeault has been entrusted with executing Bill C-11, a contentious piece of legislation passed in 2023 that gives the federal government unprecedented power over online streaming platforms.

Celebrating the appointment, Guilbeault publicly thanked newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney, expressing his intent to “build a stronger country, based on the values of Canadians.”

This shift in leadership places Guilbeault at the center of an ongoing battle over internet regulation. Bill C-11, which was rushed into law during Justin Trudeau’s final term as Prime Minister, obligates major tech companies to fund and prioritize Canadian content, particularly that of the mainstream media, regardless of whether users are seeking it.

While the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was initially expected to enforce the new requirements, it recently admitted that the regulatory framework won’t be ready until late 2025. That leaves platforms, creators, and consumers in limbo, uncertain about how deeply the government’s hand will extend into digital media.

Carney, seen as a political continuation of Trudeau’s legacy, appears ready to go even further. Before the most recent election, the Liberal Party was already moving to introduce Bill C-63, a so-called Online Harms Act.

While framed as a tool to protect minors from exploitation, the bill also includes expansive measures to monitor and penalize what it terms “hate speech.” This vague language has prompted concern from legal scholars and civil liberties organizations about the law’s potential to suppress legitimate expression.

With Guilbeault now steering Canada’s cultural and digital policies, free speech advocates worry the government is tightening its grip not only on environmental and economic life but on the very flow of information and dialogue in the digital sphere. What began as a push for national content promotion may ultimately serve as a model for broader censorship under the guise of cultural stewardship.

May 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Biden Regime Labeled Opponents Of Covid Mandates As “Domestic Violent Extremists,” Newly Released Documents Show

The designation infringed on the First Amendment and opened the door to investigating Americans for vaccine mandate skepticism

By Michael Shellenberger | May 23, 2025

Former President Joe Biden announces Covid vaccine mandates on September 9, 2021, in Washington, DC. Three months later (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The Biden Administration labeled Americans who opposed the COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as “Domestic Violent Extremists,” or DVEs, according to newly declassified intelligence records obtained by Public and Catherine Herridge Reports. The designation created an “articulable purpose” for FBI or other government agents to open an “assessment” of individuals, which is often the first step toward a formal investigation, said a former FBI agent.

The report, which the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has declassified, claims that “anti government or anti authority violent extremists,” specifically militias, “characterize COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as evidence of government overreach.” A sweeping range of COVID narratives, the report states, “have resonated” with DVEs “motivated by QAnon.”

The FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) coauthored the December 13, 2021 intelligence product whose title reads, “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates.”

The report cites criticism of mandates as “prominent narratives” related to violent extremism. These narratives “include the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, especially for children, are part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods, or are designed to start a new social or political order.“

“It’s a way they could go to social media companies and say, ‘You don’t want to propagate domestic terrorism, so you should take down this content,’” said former FBI agent Steve Friend…

May 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Top FDA official admits she refused the Covid-19 vaccine while pregnant

A senior regulator’s admission reveals uncomfortable truths about silence, ethics and trust inside the FDA

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | May 22, 2025

One of the most powerful figures at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has admitted she refused the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine while pregnant—even as her agency promoted it as “safe and effective” for all pregnant women.

Dr Sara Brenner’s explosive disclosure, made on 15 May 2025 at the MAHA Institute Round Table in Washington DC, is as revealing as it is troubling.

A preventive medicine physician, Brenner has worked at the FDA since 2019. As the FDA’s Principal Deputy Commissioner—and briefly its Acting Commissioner—Brenner was at the centre of decision-making.

Dr Sara Brenner on 15 May 2025 at the MAHA Institute

Prior to that she was Chief Medical Officer for diagnostics and was detailed to the White House to support the Biden administration’s Covid-19 response. She didn’t just participate in the pandemic response, she helped shape it from within.

“Knowing what I knew—not only about nanotechnology, about medicine, about the medical countermeasures—but also having a very strong and firm grounding in bioethics… there were many things that were not right,” she told the audience.

That someone with her seniority and access to internal data privately rejected the vaccine, while her agency promoted it to millions of pregnant women, presents a profound ethical dilemma.

Brenner’s concerns about mRNA safety

Brenner explained that her decision was driven by a lack of safety data, particularly around the biodistribution of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)—the tiny fat particles used to deliver the mRNA into cells.

“It was unknown at the time what the biodistribution patterns of those products were… That was my primary concern, and that exposure I was very concerned about,” said Brenner.

She had reason to be cautious.

As a nanomedicine expert who built an MD/PhD program in the field, Brenner had spent years researching the “biodistribution, excretion, metabolism and toxicities associated with engineered nanoparticles.”

“Materials that don’t exist in nature—there’s a lot of unknowns,” said Brenner.

She warned that unintended toxic effects—especially in vulnerable populations like pregnant women—could not be ignored.

“Regardless of the medical product or the intervention, there’s always going to be the need to evaluate both the intended outcomes… and the unintended consequences,” she cautioned.

Warnings ignored

Brenner’s concerns echoed those raised in 2021 by Canadian immunologist Dr Byram Bridle, who first exposed internal documents from Japan’s regulatory agency showing that LNPs didn’t remain at the injection site, but travelled throughout the body and accumulated in organs including the ovaries, liver, spleen and bone marrow.

At the time, Bridle’s warnings were aggressively dismissed. His reputation took a hit, and he faced institutional censure from the University of Guelph, where he was a professor, for speaking out against vaccine mandates.

Dr Byram Bridle, Canadian immunologist. Photo credit: Kenneth Armstrong

Now, Brenner’s comments confirm that these concerns were not only valid—they were quietly shared at the highest levels of the FDA.

During the event, Brenner also revealed that her worries extended to breastfeeding and potential exposure to her child after birth.

A 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics detected vaccine-derived mRNA in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers for at least 48 hours—the very scenario Brenner had feared.

Yet the FDA made little effort to publicly investigate or address the findings, dismissing them with the vague reassurance that there was “no evidence of harm.”

No mandate for Brenner?

It’s unclear how Brenner managed to avoid the vaccine mandate that applied to all federal employees at the time. She didn’t say. Perhaps she received a religious or medical exemption—but she left that part out.

What she did reveal was that she had concerns—deep enough not to take the vaccine during her pregnancy. Yet she said nothing publicly, while her agency told millions of other women it was safe.

For many, that silence is hard to accept and it has left many asking why she didn’t warn other women about a product with ‘zero’ clinical safety data in pregnancy.

No one but Brenner knows the full story. But the ethical contradiction is hard to ignore.

Silence inside the castle

Brenner acknowledged the immense pressure inside the FDA to stick to the official narrative.

“They don’t let you get very far out of the castle at FDA with your talking points,” she admitted nervously.

She described the period as a “dark night of the soul” for many civil servants, a time when even “very obvious things” took bravery to say.

She eventually found support through a group called Feds for Medical Freedom—federal workers advocating for informed consent, bodily autonomy, and pushing back against government overreach.

A culture change?

Today, under a new administration, Brenner says the culture inside the FDA is shifting. She praised Commissioner Dr Marty Makary and said transparency is finally becoming a priority.

“We’re moving very quickly to make it such that there will be more transparency… so that people can see and evaluate for themselves what the truths are.”

But Brenner’s remarks won’t undo what has already happened—especially to those who were vaccine injured or whose pregnancies were affected.

What her comments do offer is a rare glimpse into the internal dynamics of a government institution that issued sweeping public assurances while failing to acknowledge its own uncertainty.

“There was no acknowledgement of what was unknown. There were only statements and assertions that were really more like beliefs,” Brenner said of the FDA’s messaging during the pandemic.

That may be her most important admission.

This is more than a story about one woman’s personal decision. It is a story about institutional culture, regulatory failure, and the consequences of silence.

Those who spoke up were punished. Those who stayed silent kept their jobs and reputations. And those who were forced to comply were often left to deal with the collateral damage.

When asked whether she believed she had made the right decision in refusing the Covid-19 vaccine, Brenner replied simply, “I believe so.”

Now that she has spoken, the question remains — who else knew, and said nothing?

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

Spain’s Socialist government pours taxpayers’ millions into equality plan to combat nationalist surge

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 21, 2025

As nationalist parties surge across Europe, the Spanish Socialist-led government is doubling down on its ideological agenda — plowing over €140 million of taxpayer money into a nationwide equality plan aimed, in part, at combating what it labels “far-right” narratives among young men.

The move comes just days after significant gains for right-wing forces across the continent, including in neighboring Portugal, where the populist Chega party enjoyed electoral success to compete with the two dominant legacy parties, and in Poland, where the presidential race saw a majority of voters supporting conservative candidates.

Yet while many European electorates turn toward nationalist, traditionalist platforms, Spain’s Ministry of Equality has announced the distribution of €142.5 million to the country’s autonomous communities as part of its 2025 Co-Responsible Plan.

As reported by El Debate, the funding, which is 75 percent covered by the central government and 25 percent by regional administrations, will finance projects aimed at enforcing gender parity, redefining family life, and promoting what the government terms “co-responsible masculinities.”

Speaking after the Council of Ministers approved the latest round of funding, Equality Minister Ana Redondo explained that the Spanish government’s focus is “social transformation.”

The timing of the announcement has raised eyebrows, especially given Redondo’s remarks about the growing popularity of nationalist parties among young men. “It’s a concern of this government, in Europe, and a concern of society as a whole,” she said, describing online platforms as an environment where “hate, denialism, and anti-equality messages” are allegedly radicalizing young people against parties like hers and into the hands of populists.

Redondo warned that pornography and social media were fuelling “a misogynistic, sexist conception that devalues women,” which she claimed undermines both equality and democracy. “All the policies of the Ministry are also aimed at facing this new reality,” she added.

Critics accuse the government of responding to rising disillusionment with its social agenda by funneling state money into programs that stigmatize dissenting views as extremism.

May 21, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

European Commission Accused of Orchestrating $735M Speech-Control Campaign

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 21, 2025

A new report has uncovered an expansive and quietly orchestrated campaign by the European Commission to shape public discourse through nearly €649 ($735M) million in taxpayer-funded projects aimed at regulating online speech.

Titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, the document was released by the think tank MCC Brussels and authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a seasoned analyst of digital communication and regulatory policy.

Behind the EU’s frequent calls to combat “hate speech” and “disinformation” lies what the report describes as a vast ideological infrastructure designed to erode free expression under the guise of safety and civic empowerment.

The Commission, the report states, “has funded hundreds of unaccountable non-governmental organizations and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ to the tune of almost €650 million.”

That staggering figure surpasses what Brussels spends on transnational cancer research by over 30%, a discrepancy the report calls deliberate: “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022, for example.”

While EU officials present these programs as public-interest research, the report argues they constitute a form of “soft authoritarianism,” enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus,” it states, “where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.”

Many of these initiatives feature a distinct use of vague and euphemistic terminology, part of what the report calls “NEUspeak;” a deliberate linguistic strategy designed to obscure intent and preempt scrutiny. The project acronyms alone, such as FAST LISA and VIGILANT, are described as a form of branding deceit.

As Dr. Lewis writes: “These chirpy acronyms don’t just sound like digital voice assistants or wellness apps…they are deliberate, dishonest strategic terms chosen to disguise a real authoritarian purpose.”

Some of the projects don’t only aim to influence the debate, they aim to automate it. AI-powered initiatives are being trained to identify and suppress politically undesirable speech in real-time.

One such project, VIGILANT, is described by its designers as ethical and user-centric, but MCC Brussels challenges this narrative. “VIGILANT is an AI surveillance suite aimed at monitoring, classifying, and profiling speech, users, and networks, which takes the complexity out of controlling freedom of expression.”

The report highlights that the EU’s censorship framework is not only technical, it is pedagogical.

Programs targeting young people are presented as civic education but function more like behavioral grooming. “The ‘capacity building’ is, in fact, the indoctrination of young people to behave and act as speech police,” the report explains. “What appears to be bottom-up reform is, in fact, a pre-scripted system of narrative compliance.”

Another cornerstone of the report is its critique of how taxpayer money is being funneled into what it calls pre-validated “research” meant to affirm political orthodoxy rather than challenge it.

“Research that systematically ‘proves’ this assumption is not research; it is the manufacturing of propaganda used to legitimize the narrative, pre-empt criticism, and thus delegitimize any ideas or narratives that do not conform.”

Far from defending democracy, MCC Brussels contends that the European Commission is subverting it.

“Language is the EU Ministry for Narrative Control’s software infrastructure of control,” the report warns. “When the EU Commission defines hate speech, disinformation or extremism, it is not identifying problems – it is drawing the lines around what can be said, by whom, and with what consequences.”

For Dr. Lewis and MCC Brussels, the takeaway is clear: this is not about protecting society from dangerous ideas, but about insulating a ruling ideology from democratic challenge.

“The Commission rebrands inquiry as a confirmation ritual rather than any honest pursuit of truth,” the report concludes. “A society that redefines surveillance as ‘safety’ or censorship as ‘content moderation’ does not need to silence citizens outright; it simply changes the meaning of their silence.”

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »