Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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).

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

“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.”

February 19, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

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.”

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

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.

February 19, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , , | Leave a comment

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

February 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Video | , , | Leave a comment

UK Refuses to Weaken Online Censorship Laws Despite US Pressure

Britain reaffirms its commitment to stringent online censorship, rejecting any compromises in the face of US trade talks or political pressure.

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | February 16, 2025

The UK government has firmly stated that its online censorship laws will not be softened to appease US President Donald Trump or to facilitate trade negotiations with the United States. Technology Minister Peter Kyle repeated Britain’s stance on maintaining strict digital speech regulations, shutting down any speculation of a shift in policy toward American AI firms.

During the Paris AI summit, Kyle dismissed claims that Downing Street was considering relaxing sections of the Online Safety Act in discussions with the US. Refuting a report from The Daily Telegraph, he asserted: “Safety is not up for negotiation. There are no plans to weaken any of our online safety legislation.”

The Online Safety Act, one of the strictest online speech crackdowns in a democratic nation, is set to come into force this year.

Industry moguls such as Elon Musk have voiced hopes that a Trump-led administration might resist global regulatory pressures on US-based tech companies.

Despite these concerns, Kyle expressed confidence that Trump would not obstruct Labour’s forthcoming AI legislation, which mandates that leading AI firms undergo “safety” evaluations before rolling out new software. He confirmed that voluntary safety pledges would now be replaced with enforceable mandates, ensuring strict compliance.

February 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Judge Pauses Murthy v. Missouri Amid Trump’s Free Speech Order

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | February 13, 2025

A federal judge has temporarily halted proceedings in Murthy v. Missouri, a case central to efforts aimed at curbing government involvement in online censorship, following a Supreme Court decision that declined to address the case’s core arguments.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Terry Doughty approved a motion from the defendants — former President Joe Biden and key administration officials — to stay the case. According to Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the pause was granted in light of former President Donald Trump’s recent executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

“The government suggested that we move to stay discovery,” Younes told The Federalist. “They want to put in a statement about what effect they think the executive order has. I’m guessing they’re going to say it makes the case moot.”

If the judge agrees, the case could be dismissed as moot after President Trump’s new order. While plaintiffs went along with the stay to allow the judge time to review, Younes noted that the broader concern over government-driven censorship remains a live issue.

“We haven’t staked out our position yet, but there are arguments against mootness,” she said. “Especially if there’s a chance that could happen again and the executive order won’t necessarily be binding on a subsequent administration.”

Initially known as Missouri v. Biden, the lawsuit—brought by the states of Missouri and Louisiana—accused Biden administration officials of working with Big Tech to suppress online speech. The case unearthed extensive evidence showing how federal agencies collaborated with private platforms to censor topics ranging from The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story to alternative viewpoints on the COVID-19 vaccine.

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

German Court Orders X to Share Data with Researchers Ahead of National Vote

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

With a ruling that raises serious concerns about government-endorsed monitoring of online speech, a German court has ordered Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, to provide researchers with data to track so-called “election-swaying” information. The decision, handed down by the Berlin district court, follows an urgent complaint filed by two civil rights organizations demanding access to platform analytics ahead of Germany’s national election on February 23.

The court justified its ruling by arguing that “waiting any longer for access to the data would undermine the applicants’ research project since the period immediately before the election is crucial.” X had reportedly failed to respond to a request for information, leading the court to rule against the company and order it to pay €6,000 ($6,255) in legal costs.

The GFF and Democracy Reporting International claim that under European law, platforms like X must provide structured, easily searchable access to information about post reach, shares, and likes.

While this data is already publicly available, albeit requiring manual collection, activists insist that X should make it more accessible to their research efforts — effectively demanding that the platform do its work for them.

With this ruling, X is now compelled to provide this data from now until shortly after the election, a move that could open the door for further demands to police speech under the guise of fighting “disinformation.” The broad and subjective nature of what constitutes “misinformation” raises concerns about selective enforcement, particularly given the German government’s increasingly aggressive stance toward online speech regulation.

Given the timing of the ruling and the increasing pressure on social media platforms to police political speech, this case highlights the growing tension between free expression and state-backed efforts to control online speech.

February 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Larry Ellison Pushes for AI-Powered National Data Centralization and Mass Surveillance

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 14, 2025

Oracle co-founder and the company’s executive chairman and chief technology officer Larry Ellison is trying to persuade governments to descend deep into AI-powered surveillance dystopia by centralizing the entirety of their national data in a single place.

And when he says everything should go into this “unified” database, Ellison means everything. That includes health-related data, such as diagnostic and genomic information, electronic health records, DNA, data on agriculture, climate, utility infrastructure…

Once in there, it would be used to train AI models, such as those developed by Oracle – Ellison shared with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair during a panel at the World Governments Summit in Dubai.

As for why any government would do such a thing – his “sell” is that it would allow AI to be used to provide better services. But this time, he left out how this centralization would also represent an exceptional opportunity to “turbocharge” mass government surveillance, even though there is little doubt that many governments are hearing him loud and clear on that point as well.

In September, Ellison wasn’t so coy regarding this angle when he spoke in favor of introducing real-time population surveillance. And naturally, that would be done with Oracle’s machine learning tech.

“As long as countries will put their data – all of it – in a single place we can use AI to help manage the care of all of the patients and the population at large,” Ellison told Blair.

As over the top, as all this may sound, Ellison appears to figuratively and literally mean business: he revealed that his company is building a 2.2 gigabyte data center to train AI models and spending “between 50 and 100 billion dollars” on these endeavors.

And, he suggested that massive amounts of data would not be the only thing centralized in a handful of places, going forward – the same is true of the AI model training, because of the high price tag attached.

In other words, Ellison’s vision of the future is complete control over everyone’s data in the hands of governments and a select number of super-rich companies capable of building and running this infrastructure for them.

Ellison also told Blair about Oracle’s AI-powered biometric ID that’s currently used only to log into the company’s system:

“The computer recognizes you. It recognizes your voice. It might ask you to put your index finger on the return key. And we know, we’re absolutely certain it’s you. There’s no reason to enter a password.”

February 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Kiev backtracks on Tulsi Gabbard claims

Ukraine’s ‘anti-disinformation’ center has admitted to spreading disinformation

RT | February 13, 2025

The Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) has publicly recognized that it previously disseminated unverified information about Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic lawmaker who now serves as the US director of national intelligence.

Established in 2021 under Ukraine’s security council, the center was designed to combat perceived information threats, primarily those attributed to Russia.

The news site Strana.ua reported in November that the CCD took down four of its bulletins mentioning Gabbard from social media, including one from April 2022 that described her as someone who “for several years, has been working for foreign audience for the Kremlin money.”

A June 2024 bulletin accused Gabbard of spreading disinformation about Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and a February 2023 post claimed she was “espousing pro-Russian rhetoric,” according to the outlet.

On Thursday, the center admitted to past misjudgments concerning Gabbard, who has just been confirmed by the US Senate as the national intelligence director. The statement added that in 2022 and 2023, the Ukrainian organization released content about her that “had not been properly verified and thus fell short of the Center’s standards.”

An internal investigation initiated by a new CCD head last year uncovered these errors, although the center did not clarify why the findings clearing Gabbard’s name were not disclosed sooner. The CCD said those responsible for the inaccuracies were dismissed around a year ago and can no longer be penalized.

Gabbard, who previously represented Hawaii in the US Congress, rose to prominence in 2016 when she resigned as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to endorse Bernie Sanders for president.

She pursued the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, advocating against American military interventions abroad, which she described as harmful for both service members like herself and national interests. At the time, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disparaged Gabbard as the candidate favored by Russia.

As her discord with the Democratic Party deepened, Gabbard resigned from it in 2022. After two years as an independent, she switched to the Republican Party and endorsed Donald Trump during last year’s presidential campaign.

Critics raised the alarm over Trump’s selection of Gabbard as the director of national intelligence, labeling it a significant security risk. Nevertheless, her nomination was confirmed this week by a 52-48 vote, with only one Republican, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, opposing her appointment.

In Ukraine, Gabbard was also featured on Mirotvorets, a semi-official database of perceived enemies of the state. This website highlights personal information about targeted individuals, and some public figures in Ukraine have been murdered after their profiles were made available, leading critics to condemn Mirotvorets as a ‘kill list’.

February 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Ohio Northern Sues Professor Scott Gerber for Defending His Rights in Court

By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | February 9, 2025

Ohio Northern University (ONU) is facing legal battles on multiple fronts after firing Professor Scott Gerber following his outspoken opposition to the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. The controversy has now escalated into a federal lawsuit, with the university suing Gerber after he took legal action to challenge his dismissal.

Gerber, a tenured professor and longtime critic of ONU’s DEI initiatives, became the subject of an administrative investigation in January 2023. Despite repeated requests, ONU refused to disclose the specific accusations against him. When he was finally informed of his alleged failure to maintain “collegiality,” free speech advocacy group FIRE argued that this charge resembled retaliation for his views on DEI, potentially violating ONU’s commitment to academic freedom.

In April 2023, ONU ordered campus police to remove Gerber from his classroom and escort him to the dean’s office, where he was pressured to resign immediately. Gerber refused, and the university terminated his employment. A state judge later criticized ONU’s “callous disregard for due process” and allowed Gerber’s breach of contract case to proceed to trial, citing the school’s “troubling” lack of justification for his termination.

Instead of addressing concerns raised in court, ONU responded by suing Gerber in federal court on Jan. 20, alleging that his lawsuit was a “perverted” effort to “unleash political retribution” against the university. The lawsuit accuses Gerber of attempting to “manufacture outrage” and claims his legal challenge constitutes an unlawful “abuse of process.”

A key aspect of ONU’s complaint is Gerber’s public statements regarding his firing. The university objects to his writings in The Wall Street Journal and a press release from his attorneys at America First Legal, dismissing them as a “manufactured narrative.” However, Gerber and his legal team maintain that their statements rely on ONU’s own records and policies, which the state court has deemed sufficient to warrant trial.

Critics have condemned ONU’s lawsuit as a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—a legal tactic intended to silence dissent by burdening individuals with costly litigation. By forcing Gerber to defend himself in federal court while preparing for his state trial, ONU’s actions raise broader concerns about the use of legal intimidation against faculty members.

“Professors should not have to go to court to defend their right to free speech,” said a spokesperson for FIRE. “And universities should not be using litigation to silence their critics.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) notes:

“Disturbingly, the crux of ONU’s complaint rests on Gerber’s protected speech. The university faults Gerber for expressing accurate information about his ordeal in the Wall Street Journal and through a press release published by his attorneys at America First Legal, maligned by ONU as a “manufactured narrative” designed to “manufacture outrage.” Yet Gerber and America First Legal cite the university’s own words and policies to make his case, which a state court has allowed to proceed by rejecting ONU’s efforts to dismiss his claims.”

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

USAID and NGOs for Narrative Control and War

By Professor Glenn Diesen | February 10, 2025

President Trump’s decision to cut funding to USAID revealed the extent to which the US government has been financing media, protests and other means to hijack the civil society around the world. In Ukraine, USAID had a key role in toppling President Yanukovych in 2014 and has since financed between 85-90% of Ukrainian media to ensure narrative control. The Georgian Prime Minister has also been warning that Western NGOs have been activated to topple the government and convert Georgia into a second front against Russia. There is also overwhelming evidence that the US government established “non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) since the 1980s that are financed by the US government, staffed with people linked to the US intelligence community, and pursue US geopolitical interests under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. One of these “NGOs” is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) established by Reagan to take over some of the tasks of the CIA. These organisations are instruments for the US to govern the societies of other nations and pursue regime change when necessary.

Subverting Democracy and Pursuing War

When Zelensky won a landslide victory in the 2019 presidential election on a peace platform, the US activated its NGOs to ensure that Zelensky would reverse and abandon his peace mandate. Zelensky had won 73% of the votes by promising to engage in talks with Donbas, make peace with Russia, and implement the Minsk peace agreement. Furthermore, Zelensky argued in favour of preserving language rights and religious rights to prevent divisions in society. Immediately, protests emerged with NGOs presenting Zelensky’s peace platform as “capitulation”.

One of the US-financed “NGOs” was the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre which had been established allegedly to “promote the development of a self-sufficient Ukrainian state and society”, something I would certainly support. However, this is yet another NGO created by the US to subvert society and prevent peace from breaking out.

The Ukraine Crisis Media Centre threatened Zelensky, and warned him against delivering on his election promises: “As civil society activists, we present a list of ‘red lines not to be crossed’. Should the President cross these red lines, such actions will inevitably lead to political instability in our country and the deterioration of international relations”.[1]

These red lines included “holding a referendum on the negotiations format to be used with the Russian Federation and on the principles for a peaceful settlement”; conducting negotiations without the Western states; “making concessions to the detriment of national interests”; failing to implement the security and defence policies of the former government; “delaying, sabotaging, or rejecting the strategic course for EU and NATO membership”; “initiating any actions that might contribute to the reduction or lifting of sanctions against the aggressor state by Ukraine’s international partners”; attempting to review the language law or supporting the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine; “ignoring dialogue with civil society” etc. Simply put, the peace platform supported by the overwhelming majority of the population or the NGOs would make sure Zelensky was also ousted from power.

This threat from the US-financed NGO was countered with death threats from US-financed far-right groups. Zelensky eventually abandoned the peace mandate, ignored the Minsk peace agreement and fell in line with US policy.

The donors to the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre that financed the cancellation of Zelensky’s peace mandate include USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US embassy, and various Nordic governments. On the list of donors is also The Institute for Statecraft, the discredited organisation behind the Integrity Initiative, which was caught in the covert operations of creating “clusters” of loyal politicians, journalists and academics to manufacture the impression of an established consensus to control the narrative. The integrity initiative was also working with UK intelligence agencies to target dissent in politics and the media.

My Encounter with these “NGOs”

USAID, NED and other NGOs also operate in countries allied with the US to prevent dissent and preserve bloc discipline. The Ukraine Crisis Media Centre wrote an entire article smearing me in its project of “shady horses of Russian propaganda”, which listed false accusations such as being a “defender of Russia’s aggression”. The evidence for the absurd accusations included conversations with Professor John Mearsheimer and former US Senator Ron Paul, which are labelled Kremlin “mouthpieces”.[2] The Norwegian government (my own government) is also listed as a donor to this project of intimidation and smears.

The US foreign ministry, the National Endowment for Democracy, and my own government also finance the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, another “human rights NGO”, which has pursued a project of systematic intimidation against me for the past 4 years. Their tactics against me include regular smear pieces in the media, almost weekly tweets labelling me a propagandist for Russia, letters and phone calls to the head of my university to end my position as a professor, calls on other academics to go against me, efforts to cancel me from events where I have been invited to speak, etc. After successfully whipping up hatred in the public, the police advised me to hide my address and phone number. At this point, an employee at the Norwegian Helsinki Committee published a picture of my house on social media. These are the activities that my own government finances under the guise of supporting an “NGO” that promotes democracy and human rights. In response to the purge of academic freedom, I am now in the process of acquiring another citizenship to relocate to a country where civil society is not outsourced to fake NGOs pushing war propaganda and censorship.

What was my great crime? I have been deeply critical of NATO’s policies towards Ukraine since the NGO-backed “Orange Revolution” in 2004. For years I criticised the efforts to pull Ukraine into NATO’s orbit when only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted to join the military alliance, and NATO was aware it would likely trigger a war. I criticised the EU’s rejection of Ukraine’s proposal for a trilateral EU-Ukraine-Russia agreement in 2013 that would have made Ukraine a bridge rather than a frontline. I warned that the NGO-backed toppling of Yanukovych in 2014 would result in Russia’s seizing Crimea and war. For 7 years, I insisted that sabotaging the Minsk peace agreement would result in a military solution to the conflict. Since 2022, I have argued that the sabotage of the Istanbul peace agreement and the boycott of all diplomacy and negotiations would result in Russia destroying Ukraine in a war of attrition. From my perspective, these are pro-Ukrainian arguments that would have preserved Ukrainian sovereignty, territory and lives.

The people who advocated for the policies that created this disaster have a monopoly on the media, and all dissent is crushed with smears, censorship and cancellation. We have more newspapers than I can count, yet they all write the same thing and cite the same “NGOs”. Even now, it is still considered controversial and suspicious to argue for peace negotiations, even as the majority of Ukrainians want negotiations, the war has been lost, and Ukraine suffers greatly with the loss of men and territory every day. Criticism of the NATO war narratives is not met with counterarguments, rather it is met only with accusations of having evil intentions, being “controversial” and “pro-Russian”, legitimising the invasion, not caring about Ukrainians, spreading propaganda etc. These crude and pathetic attacks do not have to be substantiated as the assault on free speech and academic freedom are always wrapped in moralistic language and claims about defending democracy.

Everything I have argued played out as predicted, including why the sanctions were destined to fail. I can confidently argue why my analyses have been correct and why my policy recommendations would have prevented this disaster. However, I do not live in an open society with the free exchange of ideas. I live in a society where government-sponsored smears, censorship and cancellation are permitted as long as an NGO is used as a middleman.

[1] Joint statement by civil society representatives on the first political steps of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky | UACRISIS.ORG

[2] Kremlin Shady Horse’s: Glenn Diesen – Russian propaganda aligned rhetoric, defender of Russia’s aggression, blames NATO for expansionism | UACRISIS.ORG

February 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »