Arrest of Electronic Intifada journalist exposes deep Zionist footprints in Switzerland
Mario Fehr in Zurich 10 October 2023
By David Miller | Press TV | February 20, 2025
Ali Abunimah, the director of the Electronic Intifada, an independent pro-Palestine news website, was recently arrested in Switzerland and later deported.
One man was identified as the proximate cause – the Zurich security minister, Mario Fehr. It was also revealed that Fehr is a fanatical Zionist.
As the Grayzone website reported at a “rally in solidarity with Israel” on Oct. 10, 2023, Fehr openly stated that “the fate of Israel and its inhabitants is close to my heart.”
He also stated that the Gaza-based resistance movement Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran have always called for the “destruction of Israel and the Jews.”
“Anyone who rapes women, kills old people, kidnaps children, dehumanizes the dead, takes countless peaceful people hostage is not a negotiating partner – he is a rapist, a murderer, a terrorist,” Fehr was quoted as saying.
“Golda Meir was right: ‘You cannot negotiate peace with somebody who has come to kill you.’ Peace will not be possible with Hamas and its accomplices!”
But, is the influence of Zionism in Switzerland greater than just one corrupt official?
Let’s have a deeper look.
The Zionist movement is led by the World Zionist Organisation based in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds along with three key allied bodies collectively called the “Israeli national institutions.”
In every country where the Zionist movement is organized, there are local branches of these four groups.
Switzerland is no different.
The Swiss Zionist Federation is the local branch of the WZO, which brings together all Swiss Zionist identifying groups.
In addition, there is a branch of the so-called “Jewish National Fund” which is the pre-eminent land theft agency of the Zionist movement.
It has been called a “colonialist agency of ethnic cleansing” by noted Israeli scholar and historian Ilan Pappe. The Swiss branch is called the KKL-JNF Switzerland and it states that it “works closely with the head office in Israel.”
There is also a department of the Jewish Agency the Zionist regime-controlled institution that recruits settlers to come and live on the land stolen by the JNF.
Lastly, there is a branch of the Keren Hayesod known as the Foundation Fund since it raises money to pay for the illegal settlers and their settlements.
The Swiss branch is called the Keren Hajessod Switzerland.
The global Zionist movement is also supported by the World Jewish Congress.
Its Swiss branch is called the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities. It is given the acronym SIG in German which stands for Schweizerischer Israelitischer Gemeindebund. The federation organizes some 18 regional members.
Other Israel lobby groups include:
- Gesellschaft Schweiz-Israel (GIS) [Switzerland-Israel Society] is an organization that aims to strengthen relations between the Israeli regime and Switzerland. Founded in 1957, with ten local branches throughout the country, the GSI has called on the Federal Council to outlaw Hamas. Its president, ambitious Swiss politician Corina Eichenberger-Walther, is also president of the European Alliance for Israel, formed in 2015. In May 2024 GSI’s partner organization in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Swiss-Israel Society, sent an email to its roughly 2,000 members calling on them to spy on “opponents of Israel.” In the email, Walter L. Blum, the central secretary of the society, called for “opposing actors to be systematically monitored.”
- European Council of Jewish Communities was founded in 1968. It forms a network consisting of over 50 Jewish communities, institutions and organizations from more than 30 countries in Europe including Switzerland.
- The Association of Swiss Jewish Refugee Aid and Welfare Organisations (VSJF) is run by Gabrielle Rosenstein. She is also a Vice-President at the ECJC.
- Foundation for Contemporary Jewish History is an ostensibly academic repository on Jewish history which has, however, been penetrated by Zionist groups such as the SIG.
- Interreligious Dialogue is an interfaith initiative to normalize Zionism. As they themselves admit it is “an effective and sustainable response to insecurity, tensions and, specifically, antisemitism.”
- European Jewish Congress is a European wing of the World Jewish Congress.
- Platform of Liberal Jews in Switzerland was set up in 2003 and now states that it represents around 1,800 members.
- A new group called NAIN (Never Again Is Now) was created in the past year. It claims to “defend Israel against anti-Zionist agendas.” It spread lies about Abunimah’s arrest, reposting a statement calling him “an Islamist Jew-hater”.
No wonder Abunimah, a Palestinian-American journalist who has been a vocal advocate of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of the Zionist regime’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, was arrested in Switzerland.
Switzerland has also had a long and close historical relationship with the Zionist movement.
The first-ever conference of the Zionist Organisation was held in Basel, Switzerland in August 1897.
In fact, no city outside occupied Palestine has hosted the World Zionist Congress so often. Ten of the gatherings of a total of 22 up until 1946 were held in Basel.
The World Zionist Organisation returned to Basel in 2022 for what it called the ‘most significant Zionist gathering of the decade’. It was celebrating the 125th anniversary of the inaugural Zionist Congress.
There are also other connections between Zionism and Switzerland.
In August 1936, the founding plenary of the World Jewish Congress was held in Geneva. The WJC today is led by Ronald S Lauder, the heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune.
He led the Jewish National Fund from 1997 to 2007 and has been its board chair ever since. The World Jewish Congress elected Lauder as its president in 2007, a position he continues to occupy.
He was named seventh amongst the 50 most influential Jews in the world by the Jerusalem Post in 2024. Lauder is an extreme Zionist, supporter of the racist Birthright programme.
As Alan McLeod has written, Lauder is a “close confidant and supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu, who was appointed a negotiator for Israel with the government of Syria in 1998.
His presence at a One Jerusalem rally in front of religious extremists in 2001 led to a boycott of the Estée Lauder brand across the Muslim world.”
In 1982, the Lubavitcher Rebbe sent an emissary to Zurich which is home to a significant ultra-orthodox Jewish community. Today the genocidal cult that is Chabad-Lubavitch has nine separate branches in Switzerland.
In recent years there have been efforts to proscribe Hamas as a terrorist group and to cut funding to UNRWA. Amongst other groups, the pressure has been applied by NGO Monitor which attempted to undermine pro-Palestine groups and by the Geneva-based UN Watch which poses as independent but is actually a front group for the American Jewish Committee as was reported by Press TV’s Palestine Declassified show in 2024.
In late 2023 the Members of the Israel-Switzerland Parliamentary Friendship Group conducted an official visit to Bern. The visitors were two members of the Knesset, MK Yosef Taieb and MK Hamad Amar, belonging to the extremist Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu parties respectively.
It is no surprise then to learn that the Federal Council of Switzerland adopted the IHRA working definition in June 2021 and added it to the existing armory for weaponizing antisemitism in the country.
The Zionist movement in Switzerland makes sure to keep up the pressure to maintain the fake definition of antisemitism by inventing a supposed epidemic of racism against the Jews.
There are several groups doing this including Intercommunity Coordination against Anti-Semitism and Defamation (CICAD) which is run by a lifelong Zionist Johanne Gurfinkiel.
Unsurprisingly it deliberately blurs together prejudice against the Jews with pro-Palestine protest.
In addition, the main Israel lobby group the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities co-published a report in 2023 claiming that antisemitism “nearly tripled” after the launch of al Aqsa Flood.
The SFJC collaborated to produce the report with the Foundation Against Racism and Antisemitism. This group is strongly Zionist and explains anti-Semitism in a way that simply echoes the foreign policy lines developed by the Zionist regime.
Scandalously the lobby groups are financially supported by the Swiss governmental body, the Service for Combatting Racism.
Like many other European countries, the Zionists are firmly embedded in Swiss society.
Uprooting them and consigning Zionism to the dustbin of history will not be easy, but it is a necessary task wherever the racist ideology is found.
David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy.
FEMA Allocated $2.6M for “War on Misinformation” Contract in 2023
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 20, 2025
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – an incorporated agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – earmarked $2.6 million to fund a “war on misinformation” contract in 2023, according to data on the usaspending.gov website.
The blanket purchase agreement note lists “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation analysis” as the subjects of the order, with $1.2 million spent, and as much currently listed as the obligated amount.
Screenshot of a USAspending.gov contract summary detailing a completed Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call awarded by the DHS to Guidehouse Inc., located in McLean, VA.
As noticed by Foundation For Freedom Online, the recipient is the consultancy firm Guildehouse, a government contractor owned by Bain Capital. A post on the company’s website that has since been deleted spoke about Guildehouse engaging with social media platforms to report misinformation (including flagging posts for removal).
Guildehouse also “maintained a proprietary internal database” to track content designated as “misinformation,” and a list of “higher risks” sites that might have published such content.
The case looks like another piece in the puzzle that has been the Big Government-Big Tech collusion to suppress speech in the US, unfolding over the last four years.
“$ Award Amounts” chart shows $1.2 million as the outlayed amount, $1.2 million as the obligated amount, and $1.2 million as the current award amount, with a potential award amount of $2.6 million.
This one features some recurring, and some new “characters” – but also, sheds more light on what appears to be the former authorities’ painstaking efforts to obfuscate the ties that bound those actors together.
For example, FEMA is not one of the usual entities brought up in Congressional investigations and lawsuits delving deep into that collusion; but it is a sub-agency of the DHS, notorious for things like the failed attempt to set up the Disinformation Governance Board, and even work, in roundabout ways, with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP).
In 2023, the House Committee on Homeland Security referred to the practice of “delegating” what’s unconstitutional censorship of speech to third parties as, “censorship laundering.”
A group that does often crop up in these probes is the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship group of the “Kill Musk’s Twitter” infamy, which in 2024 organized what reports say was an “exclusive, invite-only” gala.
One of those invited was Erica Mindel – a former member of the Israeli military, a contractor to the US State Department’s envoy monitoring and combating antisemitism – but also, one of Guildehouse’s senior consultants.
Police angry at my writing about ridiculous charges, so add more
By Yves Engler | February 19, 2025
You can’t make this up. Initially the Montreal police accused me of harassing an anti-Palestinian media personality because I posted about Israel’s genocide. Now they are charging me for harassing the police for writing about the charges levelled against me.
At 9:30 AM tomorrow the Montreal police are set to arrest me. Today an officer told me they will detain me overnight or until I’m brought before a judge.
On Tuesday police investigator Crivello said they were charging me at the behest of anti-Palestinian activist Dahlia Kurtz. The police officer said I had described Kurtz as a “genocide” supporter and “fascist” on Twitter, which is true.
I promptly wrote about the charges and the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute organized an email letter campaign, which saw 2,500 outraged people call on the cops to drop the Kurtz-sponsored charges. Angry at receiving emails and my article — the police were seeking release conditions barring me from discussing the charges levelled against me — the police are now claiming I’m victimizing them. Today a new investigator called to say investigator Crivello feels threatened by my writing about the charges levelled against me. The Montreal police will be charging me with intimidation, harassment, harassing communication and “entrave” (interference) towards Crivello.
The police investigator also announced that they will be holding me overnight out of fear that I may “recidive” (relapse). In other words, I might once again write about the absurd charges levelled against me. Guilty as charged.
Over the past 24 hours I’ve received multiple messages about frivolous cases brought against others for opposing genocide. The abuse of police and legal system to target opponents of genocide is a greater problem than I realized.
I’m trying to make sense of Kurtz’s bizarre bid not to block me on X but claim I am harassing her. Perhaps she is trying to monetize her status as a victim of hate. On her site Kurtz writes: “If you want to help save Canada from hate and extremism please donate by e-transfer to: [email]. After years of working for media outlets, I am now independent, so I can say the truth. This also means my personal security is under constant threat. You can make a difference. My work is funded solely by your support.”
A lawyer is looking into pursuing legal action against Kurtz. But it’s the police that really need to be held accountable. The initial charges were an abuse of state authority and adding new charges for criticizing them is beyond absurd.
The Montreal police apparently have no qualms about acting in service of Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. More than 100,000 have been killed and almost everyone has been displaced. About 70% of buildings are destroyed and most agricultural land damaged.
The police targeting opposition to Israel’s crimes is an embarrassment. The particular charges are ridiculous. The notion that someone can publicly attack Palestinians, repeatedly call Canada’s prime minister an antisemite and a supporter of terror, engage a Conservative Party candidate as a lawyer to convince police to lay charges and authorities go along with it — simply incredible. Then for the police to claim they are being victimized by emails critical of the ridiculous charges — I’m at a loss for words. What parallel universe have we slipped into?
Please email the Montreal police chief and mayor to demand they drop the charges against Yves Engler.
Rumble and Truth Social Take on Pro-Censorship Brazilian Judge in Major Lawsuit
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 19, 2025
Video streaming platform Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, have filed a lawsuit against controversial Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of unconstitutional censorship that violates US law.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims that Moraes has engaged in “ultra vires” (beyond his legal authority) actions to silence political dissent and force American companies to comply with extraterritorial gag orders.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
At the center of the case are alleged secret directives from Moraes, ordering Rumble to suspend accounts belonging to a US-based Brazilian political dissident, identified in the lawsuit as “Political Dissident A.” Moraes’ orders also prohibit Rumble from allowing the dissident to create new accounts and impose strict penalties for noncompliance, including daily fines and a potential shutdown of the platform in Brazil.
According to the complaint, the orders are an attempt to enforce Brazilian speech restrictions on American soil. “Justice Moraes has issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple US-based accounts… ensuring no person in the United States can see [Political Dissident A’s] content,” the plaintiffs state.
The lawsuit further argues that these orders “censor legitimate political discourse in the United States, undermining fundamental constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment.”
Impact on American Free Speech
Rumble, a Florida-based video platform, and Truth Social argue that complying with the gag orders would set a dangerous precedent for foreign censorship influencing American platforms.
“Allowing Justice Moraes to muzzle a vocal user on an American digital outlet would jeopardize our country’s bedrock commitment to open and robust debate,” the lawsuit states.
The companies also allege that Moraes has ignored international legal frameworks, such as the US-Brazil Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which provides a formal process for cross-border legal actions. Instead, they argue, he has resorted to coercive tactics.
“Rather than submitting a formal request through proper channels, Justice Moraes issued orders compelling Rumble, a US-based company with no presence or operations in Brazil, to appoint local attorneys solely for the purpose of accepting service of his censorship mandates,” the complaint states.
Broader Concerns Over Free Speech
Moraes, who has been at the forefront of Brazil’s controversial “Fake News Inquiry,” has drawn international criticism for his aggressive measures against political speech. The lawsuit cites reports that he has ordered the suspension of nearly 150 accounts belonging to journalists, legislators, and other critics of Brazil’s government.
The complaint also references comments made by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, where he denounced global trends of judicial censorship. “We know very well in America that you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail,” Vance stated. The plaintiffs argue that Moraes’s actions are an example of such overreach.
Rumble and TMTG are asking the court to declare Moraes’s orders unenforceable in the United States, citing violations of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The lawsuit argues that enforcing the Brazilian orders would “compel the suspension of accounts and block entire categories of political speech,” in direct conflict with US laws protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
They are also seeking an injunction to prevent companies like Google and Apple from removing the Rumble app due to the Brazilian orders. The complaint warns that if tech giants comply with Moraes’s demands, “the shutdown could intensify, depriving American service providers like Rumble and platforms like Truth Social of lawful expression and shutting off millions of US users from robust political debate.”
The case raises significant questions about the ability of foreign governments to impose censorship rules on US-based platforms. If successful, the lawsuit could set a legal precedent reaffirming the limits of international judicial overreach.
Moraes has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and it remains unclear whether the Brazilian government will intervene. However, the plaintiffs argue that this case is about more than just one dissident—it is about safeguarding American free speech from foreign interference.
As the complaint puts it: “Only American law—rooted in the First Amendment—should regulate and govern these US-based companies and their American operations.”
Justice Alexandre de Moraes has become a central figure in Brazil’s escalating crackdown on political dissent, leveraging his position on the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) to implement sweeping censorship measures. Since assuming his post in 2017, following the death of Justice Teori Zavascki, Moraes has increasingly used his judicial power to suppress speech he deems “anti-democratic” or “misinformation.”
His aggressive stance on censorship gained global attention in 2019 when he spearheaded Brazil’s controversial Fake News Inquiry, an unprecedented investigation that allowed the STF to unilaterally open cases, bypassing the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This move drew widespread criticism, with legal scholars and human rights organizations warning that the STF was acting as both judge and prosecutor, effectively eroding due process and the separation of powers.
Under Moraes’s watch, censorship in Brazil has reached alarming new heights. He has issued secret takedown orders against journalists, conservative politicians, and social media influencers, forcing platforms like X, YouTube, and Facebook to remove accounts critical of the Brazilian government. In a 2020 purge, he mandated the removal of 16 X accounts and 12 Facebook accounts linked to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, using vague claims of “disinformation” as justification. By 2022, his censorship efforts had expanded to include nearly 150 targeted account suspensions, effectively silencing opposition voices. Moraes has even gone beyond digital suppression—he has ordered asset freezes, passport revocations, and arrests of individuals accused of spreading so-called “fake news.”
Over the past year, a significant conflict has unfolded between Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, and Justice Moraes. The dispute began when X refused to comply with Brazilian court orders to block accounts accused of disseminating misinformation and hate speech, many of which were supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes responded by imposing substantial daily fines and, in August 2024, ordered the suspension of X’s operations in Brazil. Musk publicly criticized Moraes, labeling him an “evil dictator” and accusing him of undermining democracy.
Despite initial resistance, X eventually complied with the court’s demands, including removing specified accounts and paying accumulated fines totaling approximately $4 million. In October 2024, Justice de Moraes lifted the suspension, allowing X to resume operations in Brazil.
CISA Shake-Up: Democrats Fight to Restore Government Control Over Online Speech
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 18, 2025
Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY) are once again championing censorship under the guise of election security, objecting to the Trump administration’s decision to sideline several officials within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These lawmakers, both strong advocates for government intervention in online discourse, are alarmed that employees who previously played a role in monitoring and flagging speech for suppression have been placed on administrative leave.
Padilla, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Morelle, the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, are demanding explanations from senior CISA officials, asserting that the removal of these employees threatens election security. However, their concerns conveniently ignore the broader issue — CISA’s troubling involvement in suppressing free speech under the pretext of combating so-called “misinformation.”
In a formal letter, the lawmakers stated, “Election-related mis- and disinformation from domestic and foreign actors continues to threaten the strength and integrity of our democracy by weakening trust in our elections and promoting falsehoods about election officials that have resulted in threats against them and their families.” This rhetoric is a familiar justification for empowering government agencies to police online speech, often silencing dissenting voices and alternative perspectives in the process.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
The removals at CISA are part of a course correction to ensure that federal agencies are not overstepping their bounds in surveilling and controlling public discourse. The Trump administration’s actions follow other moves aimed at restoring balance, such as dismantling an FBI task force that engaged in similar activities and removing Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Ellen Weintraub. Senator Padilla has responded by rallying fellow Democrats to demand the reinstatement of such figures, further exposing their commitment to government-controlled narratives.
Padilla and Morelle also question how CISA determined which employees to place on leave, suggesting that even those who had moved away from overt censorship operations remain essential to their agenda. They also bemoan CISA’s absence from recent election security conferences — gatherings that often serve as echo chambers for expanding government control over online speech.
The lawmakers’ letter demands a range of responses from CISA, seeking details on employee removals, directives from the Department of Homeland Security, and ongoing election security efforts. However, their real aim appears to be ensuring that CISA remains a stronghold for pro-censorship policies.
They have set a deadline of February 28, 2025, for CISA to respond, pushing for continued interference in election-related discourse. As they stated in their letter, “Regardless of party affiliation, all Americans deserve and expect free and fair elections.” Ironically, their persistent advocacy for government-regulated speech only undermines that very principle.
Sacrificing Truth on Leviathan’s Altar
By James Bovard • Mises Wire • 02/19/2025
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes featured tyrannical German prosecutors boasting about persecuting private citizens who made comments that officialdom disapproved. Three prosecutors explained how the government was entitled to launch pre-dawn raids and lock up individuals who criticized politicians, complained about immigrant crime waves, or otherwise crossed the latest revised boundary lines of acceptable thoughts.
In a craven slant that would have cheered any mid-twentieth century European dictator, 60 Minutes glorified the crackdown: “Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine in an effort to protect discourse.” Nothing “protects discourse” like a jackboot kick aside the head of someone who insulted a German politician on Facebook, right? Mocking German leaders is punished like heresy was punished 500 years ago—though no one has been publicly torched yet.
Do the priggish German prosecutors realize that they are the latest incarnation of nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel? Hegel declared: “Men are as foolish as to forget, in their enthusiasm for liberty of conscience and political freedom, the truth which lies in power.” Hegel bluntly equated government and truth: “For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements.” Hegel probably did more to propel modern totalitarianism than perhaps any other philosopher.
Unfortunately, many Americans favor the US government becoming a Ministry of Truth like the German government. Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information,” according to a 2023 poll. But other polls show that only 20 percent trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. So why would people trust dishonest officials to forcibly eradicate “false information”? Did some people skip logic class, or what? A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances”—perhaps only when a rascally Republican is president?
Hegelian notions of “Government = Truth” propelled censorship here in recent years. Three years ago, Americans learned they lived under a Disinformation Governance Board with a ditzy Disinformation Czar who boasted of graduating from Bryn Mawr University. A public backlash led to the board’s termination but federal censors quickly and secretly resumed their sway over the internet.
Though American censors rarely invoke Hegel, their schemes tacitly presume that political power is divine, if not in origin, at least in its effect. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), created in 2018, has relied on “censorship by surrogate,” subcontracting the destruction of freedom. CISA partnered with federal grantees to form the Election Integrity Partnership a hundred days before the 2020 presidential election. That project, along with the efforts of other federal agencies, created an “unrelenting pressure” with “the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” according to a 2023 ruling by Federal Judge Terry Doughty.
What standard did CISA use to determine whether Americans should be muzzled? CISA settled controversies by contacting government employees and “apparently always assumed the government official was a reliable source,” Judge Doughty noted. Any assertion by officialdom could suffice to justify suppression of comments or posts by private citizens. But when did government I.D. badges become the Oracle of Delphi?
During the 2020 presidential election campaign, CISA established a “Rumor Control” webpage to deal with threats to the election—including rumors that the feds were censoring Americans. CISA targeted for suppression assertions by Americans such as “mail-in voting is insecure”—despite the long history of absentee ballot fraud. Biden won the presidency in part thanks to Democrats exploiting the covid pandemic to open the floodgates to unverified mail-in ballots. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared, “Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over.”
Censors act as if truth and lies are both self-evident. But as an investigative journalist hounding federal agencies, I have seen how government minimizes disclosures of its outrageous conduct. On April 19, 1993, 80 people died in a massive fire during an FBI tank assault on the home of the Branch Davidians. On that day, the FBI was adamant that they had nothing to do with the fire and also claimed to possess audiotapes proving the Davidians intentionally committed mass suicide. They never disclosed that proof. But anyone who suggested that the FBI was connected to the fatal fire was derided as an anti-government nut case, if not a public menace. A Los Angeles Times book reviewer practically blamed my criticism of the feds on Waco and other cases for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But year by year, the FBI’s Waco storyline fell apart. Six years after the fire, a private investigator found proof that the FBI fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians’ home before the fire, obliterating the FBI cover-up.
The same pattern of delayed disclosures or leaks annihilated the US government’s credibility on the epidemic of Gulf War syndrome cases in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the glorious triumph for democracy and women’s rights after the US invaded Afghanistan. The “trickle down” version of truth was also stark in the notorious Duke Lacrosse case. With his persistent, savvy analysis and investigations, Mises editor Bill Anderson heroically helped vanquish a media and prosecutorial lynch mob.
Unfortunately, in Germany, and at least sporadically in the United States, “truth” is whatever the government proclaims. “Disinformation” is whatever contradicts the latest government pronouncements. It is irrelevant how many false statements politicians or bureaucrats make. Government retains a monopoly on truth and on the right to deceive.
Recent censorship schemes vivify how democracy is being turned into a parody: voters choose politicians who then dictate what citizens are permitted to think and say. Censors destroy freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech. Censorship seeks to force each person to live in mental isolation, with no sparks for their thoughts from fellow citizens. Shortly before Hegel’s rise to prominence, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The external power that deprives man of the freedom to communicate his thoughts publicly, deprives him at the same time of his freedom to think.” By barricading individuals from each other, censors create millions of intellectual Robinson Crusoes, stranded on islands and trying to figure out everything for themselves. Prohibiting citizens from sharing facts of government abuses spawns a bastardized form of sovereign immunity. It minimizes opposition to political power grabs—often until it is too late to resist.
Other European nations are as bad or worse than Germany. Britain is notorious for raiding the homes and arresting anyone who makes allegations about immigrants and crime. According to Irish Senator Pauline O’Reilly, government must “restrict freedoms for the common good” when “a person’s views on other people’s identities” makes them “insecure.” Can I demand that government censor anyone who makes me insecure about my identity by mocking my vintage railroad engineer cap? By vastly expanding the definition of “hate speech,” politicians justify suppressing any views they disapprove.
Faith in officialdom to decree truth and punish error exemplifies growing political illiteracy. In earlier eras, Americans were renowned for heartily disdaining politicians who rose to power by making endless bogus promises.
Why would any prudent person expect bureaucrats to deliver “the truth, and nothing but the truth” like FEMA officials coming to the rescue after a flood? If the government can’t be trusted for reliable mail delivery, why in Hades would anyone trust government to judge and safeguard any thoughts citizens choose to share? Do people honestly expect that turning politicians into censors will evoke their inner sainthood? How can freedom of speech or any other freedom survive if so many people fall for so much BS from Washington?
Oracle’s TikTok bid under fire for censoring pro-Palestine voices
Al Mayadeen | February 19, 2025
In a new report, The Intercept sheds light on the complex interplay of geopolitics and corporate power in Silicon Valley.
As Oracle, which has secret partnerships with “Israel”, steps into the spotlight in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a law banning TikTok, the company has emerged as a leading candidate to take over the embattled platform.
However, the tech giant’s unwavering support for “Israel”, particularly in light of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, has raised serious concerns. Questions surrounding Oracle’s political allegiances and their impact on global discourse have never been more urgent.
Pro-Palestine voices in Oracle suppressed
The broader campaign to ban TikTok, driven by US political figures critical of China, has gained added momentum from pro-“Israel” activists.
While the push to ban TikTok has been driven largely by US lawmakers critical of China, pro-“Israel” activists have played a key role in amplifying the campaign, exposing the intersection of technology, politics, and global conflicts in Silicon Valley.
The company’s pro-“Israel” stance, led by CEO Safra Catz, has led to accusations of suppressing pro-Palestinian voices within Oracle.
According to an investigation by The Intercept, Oracle has faced internal backlash from employees who feel their pro-Palestinian views are being repressed. One employee shared that there is a culture of fear, with some workers leaving the company due to its stance. Last year, 68 employees signed an open letter criticizing Oracle’s partnership with “Israel”, and one worker was reportedly fired for creating a pro-Palestinian symbol.
Oracle’s longstanding ties with “Israel” have been pivotal. The company has not only partnered with the Israeli government but also provided technological support to military projects. These collaborations have extended from cloud services to high-profile secretive initiatives like Project Menta, which has worked with the Israeli Air Force. Employees have also expressed concern over Oracle’s involvement in a PR initiative called “Words of Iron” aimed at boosting the Israeli narrative on social media platforms, including TikTok, as per the report.
The company has notably restricted donations to Palestinian causes and banned some charities from its employee donation matching program. Catz, in her statements, referred to pro-Palestinian rights groups as “brainwashing organizations” and dismissed any concerns about Oracle’s involvement with “Israel” during the Gaza conflict. As Yael Har Even, Oracle “Israel’s” deputy CEO, stated, “Safra always says — the U.S. first, the second country is Israel, and after that the whole world.”
The pressure on employees to align with Oracle’s stance has drawn criticism, highlighting the broader influence of political and military alliances in Silicon Valley’s tech giants.
US Lawmakers Condemn UK’s Secret Encryption Backdoor Order to Apple, Threaten Consequences
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 16, 2025
The Labour government’s reported decision to issue a secret order to Apple to build an encryption backdoor into iCloud is turning into a major political issue between the UK and the US, just as the move is criticized by more than 100 civil society groups, companies, and security experts at home.
The fact that this serious undermining of security and privacy affects users globally, including Americans, has prompted a strong reaction from two US legislators – Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Congressman Andy Biggs, a Republican.
In a letter to National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, the pair slammed the order as “effectively a foreign cyber attack waged through political means.”
Wyden and Biggs – who sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, respectively – want Gabbard to act decisively to prevent any damage to US citizens and government from what they call the UK’s “dangerous, shortsighted efforts.”
The letter urges Gabbard to issue what the US legislators themselves refer to as an ultimatum to the UK: “Back down from this dangerous attack on US cybersecurity, or face serious consequences.”
Unless this happens immediately, Wyden and Biggs want Gabbard to “reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK.”
They add that the relationship between the two countries must be built on trust – but, if London is moving to “secretly undermine one of the foundations of US cybersecurity, that trust has been profoundly breached.”
The letter points out that the order appears to prohibit Apple from acknowledging it has even received it, under threat of criminal penalties – meaning that the UK is forcing a US company to keep the public and Congress in the dark about this serious issue.
In the UK, well-known privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch agreed with what the group’s Advocacy Manager Matthew Feeney said were “damning comments” made by Wyden and Biggs.
Feeney said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s “draconian order” to Apple was in effect a cyber attack on that company, and that the letter penned by the US legislators is “wholly justified” – and comes amid “a shameful chapter in the history of UK-US relations.”
“Cooper’s draconian order is not only a disaster for civil liberties, it is also a globally humiliating move that threatens one of the UK’s most important relationships,” he warned, calling on the home secretary to rescind it.
The same is being asked of Cooper by over 100 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts – an initiative led by the Global Encryption Coalition (GEC).
“Listen Carefully it’s Actually Much Darker”: How the Left is Framing Free Speech as a Front for Fascism
By Jonathan Turley | February 18, 2025
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
In one of the most bizarre examples, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.”
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
AfD-supporting lawyer fined €3,000 for criticizing German government…
… has gun license revoked and complaint filed with bar association
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | February 19, 2025
The debate over free speech in Germany has taken a new turn following the case of Markus Roscher, a 61-year-old lawyer from Braunschweig, who was fined €3,000 for criticizing the government’s heating law.
Roscher described Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as “malicious failures” in a post on X back in 2021. He was subsequently issued a penalty notice under the controversial Paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized defamation against individuals engaged in public political life.
Roscher, who has been active on X for over 14 years and is well accustomed to the legal boundaries surrounding political debate, insists that his post was within the bounds of political criticism.
“I actually know myself to be quite well within the red lines,” he told Bild. “You have to formulate things pointedly to be heard. The lines of freedom of opinion have slipped with the red-green government (ed. the coalition of Social Democrats and Greens).” He further described his hefty fine as a “scandal for freedom of expression.”
Paragraph 188, introduced in April 2021, criminalizes insults against politicians if they significantly hinder their public work. It was initially passed under a coalition government of the CDU and SPD but has been increasingly enforced under the current administration. The law has led to numerous prosecutions against individuals who have criticized government officials online.
In Roscher’s case, the penalty order claimed that his statements portrayed politicians as “corrupt, stupid, and arrogant,” constituting “abusive criticism” that allegedly impeded their political activity. Following the charge, authorities also moved to revoke his gun license, citing “unreliability.”
Furthermore, his case was forwarded to the Kassel and Braunschweig Bar Associations, raising concerns that he could face professional sanctions. “If I now claim the same or something similar and get another conviction exceeding 90 daily rates, I can lose my license,” Roscher warned. “Then you get a job ban as a 61-year-old lawyer!”
Roscher believes that his support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has played a pivotal role in his prosecution. He asserts that the penalty order was politically motivated, arguing that he stood little chance in a legal battle, which led him to pay the fine without challenging it in the courts.
The scrutiny of political affiliations within Germany’s public sector was also highlighted by a leaked memo last month revealing that federal police officers who join or actively support the AfD could face disciplinary action, including dismissal. The memo cited a decree by Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, explicitly stating that officers suspected of affiliation with the party could see their employment terminated.
The controversy has drawn international attention from U.S. billionaire Elon Musk and most recently from U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who labeled Germany’s online speech laws this week as “Orwellian.” Responding to a CBS “60 Minutes” interview with German prosecutors, Vance argued that Germany was effectively “criminalizing speech” and urged Europeans to “reject this lunacy.”
Roscher’s case is part of a broader pattern of speech-related prosecutions in Germany. Other recent incidents include a Lower Saxony man, Daniel Kindl, who was fined €1,800 for allegedly insulting Green Party MP Janosch Dahmen in an online post. Kindl’s remark, which dismissed Dahmen’s concerns about an alleged attack on Robert Habeck, was deemed criminal by prosecutors.
Several other individuals have faced legal consequences for online speech. A pensioner was fined €800 for a satirical comment about Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, joking that she had hit her head too many times on a trampoline. Another was arrested for retweeting a meme that called Economy Minister Robert Habeck an “idiot,” classified as a “politically motivated right-wing crime.” A Bavarian woman was fined €6,000 for calling Baerbock a “hollow brat” but was later acquitted after a lengthy legal process. Additionally, a civil engineer was sentenced to 30 days in jail after failing to appeal a fine for calling SPD politician Manuela Schwesig a “storyteller.”
How USAID Assisted the Corporate Takeover of Ukrainian Agriculture
By John Klar | Brownstone Institute | February 19, 2025
A recent essay titled “The Real Purpose of Net Zero” by Jefferey Jaxon posited that Europe’s current war against farmers in the name of preventing climate change is ultimately designed to inflict famine. Jaxon is not speculating on globalist motives; he is warning humanity of a rapidly unfolding reality that is observable in the perverse lies against cows, denigration of European farmers as enemies of the Earth, and calls by the WHO, WEF, and UN for a plant-based diet dependent entirely on GMOs, synthetic fertilizers, and agrichemicals.
Revelations about the evil doings of the Orwellian-monikered “United States Agency of International Development” (USAID) reveal a roadmap to totalitarian control unwittingly funded by America’s taxpaying proles. USAID’s clandestine machinations have long focused on controlling local and global food supplies as “soft colonization” by multinational chemical, agricultural, and financial corporations. European farmers revolting against climate, wildlife, and animal rights policies are harbingers of this tightening globalist noose.
The roots of the current globalist plan to “save humanity from climate change” link directly to the infamous Kissinger Report, which called to control world food supplies and agriculture as part of a globalist collaboration between nation-states and NGOs to advance US national security interests and “save the world” from human overpopulation using “fertility reduction technologies.” Kissinger’s 1974 Report was created by USAID, the CIA, and various federal agencies, including the USDA.
Fast forward to the 2003 Iraq War, justified using fear-mongering propaganda about weapons of mass destruction and neo-conservative malarky about rescuing the Iraqi people. The US-led occupation of Iraq became a rapacious profiteering smorgasbord for colonizing corporations husbanded by USAID. Iraq is heir to the birthplace of human civilization, made possible by early Mesopotamian agriculture: many of the grains, fruits, and vegetables that now feed the world were developed there. Iraq’s farmers saved back 97% of their seed stocks from their own harvests before the US invasion. Under Paul Bremer, Rule 81 (never fully implemented) sought to institute GMO cropping and patented seed varieties, as Cargill, Monsanto, and other corporations descended upon the war-ravaged nation using American tax dollars and USAID.
That playbook was more quietly implemented during the Ukraine War, once again orchestrated by USAID. Before the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe, prohibiting GMO technologies and restricting land ownership to Ukrainians. Within months of US intervention, USAID assisted in the dismantling of these protections in the name of “land reforms,” free markets, financial support, improved agricultural efficiency, and rescuing the Ukrainian people. In just two years, over half of Ukraine’s farmland became the property of foreign investors. GMO seeds and drone technology were “donated” by Bayer Corporation, and companies such as GMO seed-seller Syngenta and German chemical manufacturer BASF became the dominant agricultural “stakeholders” in war-torn Ukraine. Russia may withdraw, but Ukraine’s foreign debts, soil degradation, and soft colonization will remain.
The UN, WTO, WHO, and WEF all conspire to peddle a false narrative that cows and peasant farmers are destroying the planet, and that chemical-dependent GMO monocropping, synthetic fertilizers, and patented fake meats and bug burgers must be implemented post haste (by force if necessary) to rescue humanity. The argument that pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (manufactured from natural gas, aka methane) are salvific is patently false. They are, however, highly profitable for chemical companies like Bayer, Dow, and BASF.
Jefferey Jaxon is exactly correct. The Netherlands committed to robust agricultural development following a Nazi embargo that deliberately inflicted mass famine following their collaboration with Allied Forces in Operation Market Garden. France boasts the highest cow population in all of Europe. Ireland’s culture is tightly linked to farming as part of its trauma during the (British-assisted) Irish Potato Famine. The corporate/NGO cabal now uprooting and targeting farmers in these nations and across the EU in the name of staving off climate change and preserving wildlife is a direct outcropping of Kissinger’s grand dystopian scheme launched through USAID in 1974.
Americans watch European farmer protests from afar, largely oblivious that most all of US agriculture was absorbed by the Big Ag Borg generations ago. Currency control linked to a (political, environmental, and economic) social credit scorecard promises the fruition of Kissinger’s demonic plan: “Control the food, control the people.”
Modern humans suffer a double hubris that blinds them to the contemplation of the truth of Jaxon’s hypothesis: a cultish trust in technology, coupled with an irrational faith in their self-perceived moral superiority to past civilizations (Wendell Berry calls this “historical pride”). Yet, as long as mankind has had the capacity to harm another for personal gain, humans have devised ways to control food for power or profit. Siege warfare generally depended on starving defenders of castle walls into submission.
Even if globalist food control proposals are well-intentioned, a monolithic, monocultured, industrial-dependent worldwide food system is a lurking humanitarian disaster. Berry observed:
In a highly centralized and industrialized food-supply system there can be no small disaster. Whether it be a production “error” or a corn blight, the disaster is not foreseen until it exists; it is not recognized until it is widespread.
The current push to dominate global food production using industrial systems is the cornerstone of complete globalist dominion over all of humanity. The “Mark of the Beast” without which no American will buy or sell goods – including guns, bullets, or factory-grown hamburgers and cricket patties – is mere steps away. Mr. Jaxon is correct that these leaders “know these basic historical and current facts,” and that “[f]armers are becoming endangered because of government [climate] policy … and it’s being allowed to happen.” USAID has been actively seeding and watering this dystopia for decades.
Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates are as fully cognizant of this fundamental truth as Henry Kissinger was in 1974. USAID has aided all three. Having lost almost all of their small farms over the last century, Americans are well ahead of Europeans in their near-complete dependence on industrial food.
That’s the plan.
There Is No Such Thing as Democracy without Free Speech. Period.
Truthstream Media | February 17, 2025
Truthstream Media Can Be Found Here:
Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net
Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame
Site: TruthstreamMedia.com X: @TruthstreamNews
Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX
Featured Video
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual?
The Occidental Observer | February 5, 2023
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2) by Whitney Webb
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Europe creates a ‘Russian government-in-exile’, consisting of a bunch of losers
- Munich, 2007: The Day the West Was Told No
- At The Munich Security Conference, AOC Gets It Wrong On Foreign Policy
- Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing – Orban
- Russia and China Are Expanding Their Cooperation to Counter US Efforts to Bully Iran and Cuba
- NATO plotting maritime blockade of Russia – Moscow
- Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
- The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
- French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
- Israel Wants ISIS-Linked Militias To Control Rafah Crossing — The New Order in Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 