Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Dr. Drew Pinsky Criticizes YouTube for Video Removals and Mandatory Reeducation Training Over Vaccine Discussions

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

Dr. Drew Pinsky, widely known as Dr. Drew, has publicly criticized YouTube for removing two of his videos over alleged violations of the platform’s medical “misinformation” policy. On January 14, 2025, Pinsky took to X to challenge YouTube’s decision, highlighting concerns about free speech and the suppression of open dialogue on health-related topics.

In order to get the flags removed from his video, YouTube told Dr. Drew that he would have to attend a form of reeducation training and have no violations for 90 days, or else it would delete his entire channel and all of his videos. Pinsky has over 1,000 videos on the platform.

In one of his posts, Pinsky expressed frustration over the platform’s actions: “This weekend, @YouTubeCreators accused me of spreading ‘medical misinformation’ & took down 2 videos with an MD & a lawyer. I’ve been a board-certified physician for over 40 years – 2x @YouTube’s existence.”

The flagged videos featured discussions with Dr. Kelly Victory, a board-certified physician, and attorney Warner Mendenhall. Pinsky elaborated that these conversations centered around the side effects of mRNA vaccinations, a topic he argues warrants open discourse rather than censorship. In his discussion with Dr. Victory, she stated that the “vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone.”

Pinsky defended the content, asserting that sharing professional perspectives and personal beliefs in a public forum should not be equated with spreading misinformation. He emphasized that their dialogue was an exchange of viewpoints rather than a promotion of falsehoods.

In a separate video with Warner Mendenhall, the attorney discussed legal cases involving individuals who suffered severe reactions following vaccination. Pinsky highlighted that Mendenhall shared client experiences and expressed personal beliefs—not medical advice. Pinsky wrote, “It is not medical misinformation for someone to state their belief that a large number of people were harmed by a medical product or study.”

This isn’t the first time YouTube has targeted Dr. Drew’s content. He noted that previous strikes were resolved after discussions between his production team and YouTube officials. Despite the latest removals, Pinsky confirmed that the videos remain accessible on X, suggesting that alternative platforms may offer more space for unrestricted conversations.

A prominent internist and addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Drew Pinsky has been a notable media figure for decades. His career includes hosting television shows like Dr. Drew On Call on HLN and Lifechangers on The CW.

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

Biden warns of tech oligarchs’ power in farewell speech, ignoring his own role in expanding censorship

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 16, 2025

Outgoing President Joe Biden concluded his presidency with a farewell address on Wednesday night, sharply criticizing what he termed the “tech-industrial complex” while urging tighter accountability for social media platforms. Ironically, Biden’s remarks highlighted the decline of free press and the dangers of “misinformation,” even as his administration has often been linked to censorship efforts and suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

During his speech, Biden drew parallels to President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning about the “military-industrial complex.” He stated, “Six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.” His comments painted a picture of concentrated power in the hands of tech oligarchs, whom he accused of enabling an “avalanche of misinformation and disinformation” to flourish unchecked.

The president, leaving office with historically low approval ratings, accused social media platforms of abandoning fact-checking efforts and contributing to the erosion of public trust. “The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking,” Biden said.

Biden’s condemnation of social media fact-checking policies appeared aimed directly at Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose platform recently transitioned away from third-party fact-checking to a “community notes” model reminiscent of the system employed by Elon Musk’s X.

Throughout his presidency, Biden frequently championed tighter controls on digital platforms under the guise of protecting democracy and public health. However, critics argue his administration’s push for censorship often targeted dissenting views and stifled legitimate debate.

Biden also lamented the decline of legacy media, suggesting that unchecked misinformation on digital platforms undermines democracy. “We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families, and our very democracy from the abuse of power,” he declared.

The president’s rhetoric on misinformation is not without controversy. He has faced repeated accusations of spreading false or unverifiable claims himself, such as recent remarks regarding Los Angeles utilities during wildfire discussions that local officials disputed.

Regarding Covid vaccines, Biden also famously said: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” and added, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Those who challenged this idea found themselves banned on several social media platforms.

Meta’s recently abandoned fact-checking model, which involved junior writers downgrading posts based on often-disputed analyses, has faced criticism for censoring accurate information that reflected poorly on Biden. The new community-based approach on X and Meta allows users to collaboratively evaluate content, signaling a move away from centralized content moderation.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Tagesspiegel publishes guide for workplace witch hunts against right-wing views ahead of German election

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 16, 2025

A recent piece published by the mainstream German Tagesspiegel newspaper has advocated for employees across Germany to confront and report colleagues expressing right-wing political views in the workplace.

Quoting workplace diversity trainers and academics, the article describes supporters of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as aligned with “right-wing extremism” — despite the AfD’s projected rise to become the second-largest party in the Bundestag — and offers guidance on how those with more “tolerant,” progressive views should respond should political debate occur in the lead up to next month’s federal elections.

Entitled, “Help, my colleague talks like the AfD! This is how you counter right-wing populist slogans in the workplace,” the article presents a framework for addressing opinions considered “anti-human” or “anti-democratic,” citing examples of such unpalatable views as being of the opinion that asylum seekers should be deported or that NATO has played a role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It even singles out those who criticize the mainstream media as the “lying press” as being troublesome in professional settings.

Sandro Witt of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB) is quoted as stating: “In any case, you can’t say nothing if someone in the room makes anti-human comments.” He goes further to argue that “such positions should not go unchallenged,” encouraging employees to intervene and report statements they find problematic to human resources or other workplace authorities.

The article advocates for companies to act decisively against right-wing viewpoints, with Witt stating: “Employers should intervene, make a clear statement, address the workforce, create clarity and draw up a guideline,” effectively promoting a culture of workplace surveillance, where political disagreements could lead to disciplinary actions and even dismissal.

It suggests that employees who encounter dissenting views should not hesitate to involve internal mechanisms, such as “complaint management, equal opportunities officers, or human resources.” This directive, combined with advice to “find allies in the workforce,” has sparked concerns about fostering division and hostility in professional environments.

The call for stricter deportation rules for asylum seekers and the belief that NATO is partly responsible for the war in Ukraine may be contentious and may be deemed unpalatable by some political factions, but they reflect concerns shared by significant portions of the German population as evidence by the growing popularity of the AfD.

David Lanius, a philosopher cited in the piece, provides advice on debating colleagues with differing opinions but warns of the difficulty of changing minds. “The goal cannot be to convince the other person of your own point of view or to proselytize the other person,” he states. Lanius also suggests that confronting such views can take an emotional toll, empathizing with those who have to endure the views of those they don’t agree with. “It’s exhausting. It takes strength to stand against right-wing populism,” he says.

The article emphasizes a long-term approach to countering right-wing opinions, with Lanius asserting: “Constant dripping wears away the stone.” This metaphor implies that repeated coercive challenges to a colleague’s views could eventually lead them to change their mind.

With nearly one in five Germans reportedly supporting the AfD, the article’s framing of dissenting views as “anti-human” or “extremist” has drawn sharp criticism for ignoring legitimate grievances over rising living costs, immigration, and the policies of successive coalition governments comprising of Germany’s legacy parties, namely the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Surveys cited in the piece, such as a study from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation claiming that “almost 1 in 12 Germans has a manifestly right-wing extremist worldview,” are used to paint a picture of growing extremism without acknowledging the broader dissatisfaction driving political shifts.

Despite its focus on “fostering discussion,” the article largely promotes an adversarial approach to political disagreements in the workplace. While it advises employees to engage in dialogue and “try to understand” their colleagues, it simultaneously portrays those with right-wing views as needing to be “re-educated” through persistent challenges.

Reingard Zimmer, professor of labor law at the Berlin University of Economics and Law, is cited in the piece as saying that when right-wing extremist or anti-democratic comments are made at work, it can result in reprimands and ultimately dismissal.

“If a colleague complains about ‘foreign infiltration’ in Germany, the employer will first reprimand the behavior” before issuing a formal warning. If such views are repeated, “you will be terminated immediately,” he adds.

“Employers have a duty to protect their employees and must intervene if a case is so serious that it is unreasonable for them to tolerate the poisoning of the working atmosphere to continue,” says Zimmer.

The fundamental issue with the piece is that the term “racist” has been so fundamentally diluted within society to the point that anything that deviates from the liberal, progressive stance promoted by “palatable” political leaders is questioned.

Immigration has become one of the most prominent topics of concern across many European nations, dominating elections that have resulted in those calling for stricter policies prevailing across the continent — take the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy as just three examples.

When citizens no longer have confidence in institutions and others in society to reasonably define racism, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of uncertainty, distrust, and societal breakdown that further fuels division and creates political opportunities for genuine extremists who prey on a frustrated and disillusioned electorate whose only option of resistance is anonymously at the ballot box.

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

In Israel, ADL Chief Jonathan Greenblatt Appears to Call for Using Terrorism to Murder Me and My Friends

 By Andrew Anglin | The Daily Stormer | January 15, 2025

The head of the Israeli lobbying group the Anti-Defamation League was in Israel last week, where he appeared to call for using Israeli terrorist tactics to maim and murder “antisemites” who criticize Jews on the internet.

Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, Jonathan Greenblatt bemoaned the fact that people are complaining about Jewish behavior online, saying that Jews are “losing the battle” against “antisemitism.” He framed the fight to silence critics of Israel on the internet as the “eighth front” of Israel’s “seven-front war.” He then said that last year’s terrorist attack against Lebanon, which involved explosives being implanted into pagers which were detonated to mutilate and murder Lebanese people, should be the inspiration for silencing people on the internet.

It would have been bad enough if he had said this as a joke, but based on the context and the way he spoke, there is no indication he was joking.

“We need the kind of genius that manufactured Apollo Gold Pagers and infiltrated Hezbollah for over a decade to prepare for this battle,” Greenblatt said.

He went on to state that terrorism is a characteristic of Jewish people: “This is the kind of ingenuity and inventiveness that have always been a hallmark of the State of Israel, that have always been a characteristic of the Jewish people. I know we can do it.”

You can watch the video above to get the full context of the statement, and see if you think he is saying something different. The most generous interpretation would be that he is saying that it took a certain kind of cunning to do the terrorist attack against Hezbollah and that this type of cunning is needed to silence critics of the Jews. It is seemingly unfathomable that he would want to leave people with the impression he was calling for terrorism against internet critics, and furthermore, he calls on the Israeli Defense Force to form a group to shut down these online critics, which definitely implies he is talking about real violence being used.

However, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose he is calling for some kind of metaphorical terrorism, we must ask what exactly it is he is talking about doing to prevent people from holding opinions he opposes.

Believing that Jews should not slaughter children in Gaza, or that they shouldn’t push child transsexualism, mass immigration, pornography, abortion, and other socially deleterious schemes in the West is an opinion. How can you stop people from having an opinion, other than by killing them? What are the other options?

The ADL is primarily a censorship group, which lobbies governments to pass laws criminalizing the criticism of Jews, and lobbying Silicon Valley to silence critics of Jews online. This is obviously anti-American, fundamentally, but the ADL is one of many Jewish groups which engages in this activity. Internet censorship is ubiquitous, and even the supposed “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk has recently begun silencing his critics on Twitter.

Jewish groups successfully lobbied for TikTok to be banned in America due to the fact that the Chinese owners feel that Americans have a right to criticize Israel in a way that no American company allows them to.

However, none of this has to do with the government of Israel. If Greenblatt was suggesting that Israel should engage in more active lobbying for internet censorship and hate speech laws, he could have simply said that. Instead, he invoked terrorism and called for the IDF to fight people who criticize Jews online.

Being on the frontlines of criticism of Israel and the collective behavior of individual Jews, I have personally had an adversarial relationship with the ADL for more than a decade, regularly being a target of slander and hate from Jonathan Greenblatt and others in the organization, so this call for the Israeli military to use terrorism to silence people like me is particularly disturbing.

At this point, there is so much criticism directed at Israel, and to some extent also the behavior of diaspora Jews, that it would be virtually impossible to censor all of it. Twitter and Facebook would have to ban tens or hundreds of millions of people, and banning that many people would definitely result in those who weren’t banned criticizing Jews for getting all of those people banned.

However, if the Jews began assassinating critics, that may prove to be a significant deterrent.

Although I’ve said it many times, I want to put it on the record again that I am in very good health, I did not take the coronavirus vaccine so I am not at risk of dying suddenly, and I would never, under any circumstances, kill myself.

The video linked above is a week old and has fewer than 100 views. I have not seen this story reported anywhere else. I hope that others will clip the relevant portions and spread them on Twitter and elsewhere. I would like to see Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Judge Napolitano, and others with large platforms addressing these statements by Greenblatt and demanding that he explain what exactly it is he is calling for when he says that terrorism needs to be used to silence people whose opinions he does not like.

The Jewish agenda to shut down freedom of speech was already extreme enough, but calling for violence to be used as a solution to internet posts takes this into a whole new realm. If America was a serious country, traveling to a foreign country and calling for state terrorism against American citizens would be grounds for serious criminal charges.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Paper Showing Earth’s Atmosphere Has Become ‘Saturated’ With Carbon Dioxide and More Carbon Emissions Won’t Make Any Difference Is Retracted Following Positive Coverage

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 13, 2025

Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.

Many scientists contend that above certain levels the ability of CO2 to warm within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum falls off a logarithmic cliff. Recently, eight Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Peng-Sheng Wei found that the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels from 100 to 400 parts per million (ppm) was “negligibly small” at 0.3°C. Current levels of CO2 are around 420 ppm. Seven Austrian scientists recently concluded that a future doubling of CO2 showed “no increase in the IR [infrared] absorption for the 15 u-central peak”. At most, it was stated, this could lead to warming of 0.5°C. Yet in spite of this, Elsevier decided to retract Kubicki’s paper with only a few words of explanation, a decision that is likely to send shock waves through any group of scientists seeking to examine the role of saturation of gases in the atmosphere.

The retraction reads: “Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigour and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science. After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”

Retraction in a scientific journal is a serious matter, relatively rare and potentially damaging to the reputation of authors. According to Elsevier’s withdrawal policies, articles may be retracted “to correct errors that impact the findings reported by an article where they are too extensive in the view of the editors to publish a correction, or due to infringements of Elsevier’s journal policies, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like”. None of these reasons for withdrawing the Kubicki paper have been given. Instead there is the pompous reference to a ”fall beneath the high standards expected”, supposedly confirmed by additional unnamed “experts”. Further details about the retraction may emerge given the important issues raised by Elsevier’s action.

Whatever the real reasons behind this retraction, it will not be the first science paper that has met this fate following publicity in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent widespread interest on social media.

In January 2022, a group of physics scientists led by Profession Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University published a paper in a Springer Nature journal that considered past weather trends. They concluded that the idea we’re in the throes of a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by the facts. The paper attracted little attention outside academic circles until September 14th when the Daily Sceptic reported on it – and our promotion of the story on X resulted in 9,000 retweets. The story was covered by the Australian and Sky News Australia, after which attacks were launched by activist scientists and journalists such as Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and Graham Readfearn of the Guardian. After a year of lobbying, Springer Nature retracted the paper claiming it no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions. This surprised many, not least because much of the data came from the International Panel on Climate Change. Science writer Dr. Roger Pielke published a number of leaked emails surrounding the affair and concluded: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”

In September 2023, a departing academic, Dr. Patrick Brown, came clean about a paper he’d written in Nature saying that climate change was increasing the risk of wildfires in California. “I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science, want to tell,” he explained. These key aspects, of course, include considering the role of arsonists and forest management. For its part, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can find little or no evidence of human-caused climate change affecting ‘fire weather’ to date and going forward to 2100. In Brown’s view, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world “and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change”.

The Editor-in-Chief of Nature Magdalena Skipper reacted furiously to Brown’s comments, accusing him of “poor research practices” that are “highly irresponsible”, according to the Daily Mail. Despite all the controversy, Brown’s paper has not been retracted.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki had a senior position in the Geological Sciences department of the University of Alabama. His parents were academics and he grew up on a Californian university campus surrounded by freely-exchanged competing ideas. He only ever wanted to be an academic but he gave it up during Covid, seemingly disgusted at the turn against free speech in American universities and the effect it has had on climate science. If you speak out against the accepted narrative “you are a pariah in this community”, he said. Climate change is a “taboo” subject in academia and there is a “disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in mainstream media is”. It isn’t about finding the truth in open discussion – It’s about silencing those who disagree with you, he observed.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

French Greens leader calls for X to be banned in EU

National Secretary of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, Marine Tondelier © AP / Louise Delmotte
RT | January 14, 2025

Marine Tondelier, secretary-general of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, has called for the social media platform X to be banned across the European Union, at least during election periods, arguing that it plays a role in shaping public opinion in ways that can threaten democracy.

Speaking on RTL’s Le Grand Jury program on Sunday, Tondelier expressed concerns about the influence of social media on democratic processes amid heightened tensions between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and EU officials who accuse the US-based billionaire of meddling in European politics.

“It’s not a question of freedom of expression; it’s a question of shaping public opinion,” she claimed. Tondelier highlighted the growing concentration of media ownership in France and globally, accusing “ultra-rich individuals” of trying to “buy power” once they accumulate enough wealth.

“We also need to take social media into account in this calculation now. It is part of the fabrication of opinion. It has a grip on reality. It impacts election results,” she stated. “It’s dangerous because it’s a challenge to our democracies,” she added, suggesting a ban on X during sensitive periods, such as elections.

“The social network Twitter is not only annoying but also dangerous. The question of leaving it obviously arises, but it will not be enough: it must be banned,” she wrote in a post on X.

Tondelier also urged her partners from the left-wing New Popular Front (NPF) coalition, which won the most National Assembly seats in this summer’s legislative elections, to migrate to alternative networks.

“I’m going to leave, but what are the others doing? It will still have an impact on reality. It will still contribute to destabilizing the upcoming elections,” she said.

Musk provoked major controversy by claiming in December that “only the AfD can save Germany,” a statement some EU officials denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling. This followed an op-ed piece published by the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, in which he defended the right-wing party’s policies. Last week, Musk hosted an interview on X with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election.

Musk also clashed with former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, referring to him as “the tyrant of Europe,” after Breton appeared to endorse the cancellation of Romania’s presidential elections, warning about potential foreign interference in the upcoming German polls.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot recently voiced concerns about Musk’s influence, urging the European Commission to take a firmer stance and use existing mechanisms against alleged external meddling. Breton clarified that his remarks were aimed at ensuring compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act.

In recent weeks, the South African-born tech mogul also criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of failing to tackle the Pakistani grooming gang issue and refusing to properly investigate the mass rape of underage girls while he was head of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013. He also urged Washington to step in and “liberate” the Brits from their “tyrannical government.”

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

Candace Owens Responds To Mr. And Mr. Macron

Candace Show | January 13, 2025

I respond to the Macrons legal letter, Ian Carroll ratios Elon Musk on X, Mark Zuckerberg appears on Joe Rogan to discuss Biden censorship, and an update on what people are saying about the LA fires.

PreBorn!
To donate, dial pound 250 & say the keyword “BABY” that’s pound 250 “BABY” or donate securely at https://preborn.com/candace

PureTalk
Get 50% off your first month at http://www.PureTalk.com/Owens

American Financing
Act today! Call 800-795-1210 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Owens
NMLS 182334, http://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.458% for well qualified borrowers. Call 800-795-1210 for details about credit costs and terms.

Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq
Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT
Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO
Subscribe to Club Candace: https://www.clubcandace.com
Join The Candace Community on Locals: https://candace.locals.com

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Budapest: 2 more Antifa activists charged in brutal 2023 attacks

By Liz Heflin | Remix News | January 13, 2025

The Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office has indicted two more foreign citizens – a German and, in absentia, an Italian – who, as members of the far-left criminal organization, attacked Hungarians on the streets of Budapest in February 2023, reports Magyar Nemzet.

Between Feb. 9 and 11, 2023, five attacks were carried out by the so-called “Hammer Gang,” a sort of Antifa subsidiary with German roots known for using hammers to attack their victims, in the Hungarian capital, injuring nine, six of them seriously.

The attacks were organized and planned in advance. A lookout was set up to keep outsiders away while the other members of the group were responsible for carrying out the violence, armed with hammers.

According to the indictment, the German citizen participated in the attacks on Fővám Square, Gazdagréti Square and Bank Street, partly in the role of observer and follower, partly as an attacker and the Italian participated in the aggression on Gazdagréti and Mikó Street as an attacker.

The Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office charges the German citizen with four counts of attempted assault causing danger to life committed in a criminal organization – partly as an accomplice and partly as an accessory – and one count of attempted aggravated assault committed in a criminal organization for a vile reason. The Italian citizen is charged with three counts of attempted assault causing danger to life committed in a criminal organization and as an accomplice.

They are proposing a prison sentence and a fixed-term expulsion from Hungary.

Antifa also faces ongoing criminal proceedings in Germany for the attacks committed there between October 2018 and February 2020, and in the case of one defendant, for the attacks in Hungary.

Just this past November, authorities finally arrested the 31-year-old leader of the Hammer Gang in Germany, where he will be facing charges for crimes dating back to 2018, while another member was sentenced to three years in prison in Hungary earlier for his involvement in the Budapest attacks.

One member arrested in Budapest at the time of the attacks, Ilaria Salis was released from prison in Hungary after an Italian far-left party put her at the top of its European Parliament list in last summer’s elections and entered the European Parliament, thus gaining immunity.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

Musk calls out ‘tyrant of Europe’

RT | January 13, 2025

X owner Elon Musk has denounced former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton as “the tyrant of Europe” over an interview that appeared to endorse the cancelation of Romania’s presidential elections.

Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the vote last month, citing claims by intelligence services that the front-runner Calin Georgescu had been boosted by a Russian campaign on TikTok. It has since emerged that the campaign had been the work of a rival Romanian party, but the court has refused to reverse its ruling.

In an interview with the French outlet BFMTV/RMC last week, Breton appeared to suggest that the upcoming German elections could suffer the same fate should the Musk-endorsed Alternative for Germany (AfD) party emerge triumphant.

“Let’s stay calm and enforce the laws in Europe, when they risk being circumvented and if not enforced, could lead to interference,” Breton said. “It was done in Romania and obviously, it will have to be done, if necessary, in Germany as well.”

The minute-long video, in French, was shared by the Polish-based account ‘Visegrad24’, prompting Musk to reply, deriding “the staggering absurdity of Thierry Breton as the tyrant of Europe.”

Breton objected to the label on Saturday, however, arguing that he was only referring to online censorship through the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and that the EU “has NO mechanism to nullify any election” in the bloc. “Lost in translation… or another fake news?” he wondered on X.

While it was Visegrad24 that interpreted Breton’s comments as an endorsement of canceling elections, Breton’s clarification did not address the fact that the alleged “interference” in Romanian democracy came from the inside, making the judiciary intervention questionable. Musk said no more on the matter, however, having turned his attention to the wildfires ravaging Los Angeles.

Breton’s initial remarks came in response to Musk’s interview on X with Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election. Musk has endorsed her party and urged the Germans to oust the sitting Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which some EU officials have denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling.

The Frenchman was the EU commissioner for Digital Affairs and Internal Markets in August, when he threatened Musk with penalties over an upcoming X interview with Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate for US president.

When Musk threatened to expose “secret deals” the EU offered in exchange for censorship on X, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed the French commissioner had acted on his own. Breton resigned in September, accusing the Brussels leadership of “questionable governance.”

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

Tipping point: Zuckerberg dumps “fact-checkers”, allows immigration talk, copies X and moves team from CA to Texas

Suddenly free speech is cool again

By Jo Nova | January 8, 2025

This is not the Tipping Point they were expecting.

Now that the election is safely over, Mark Zuckerberg, the coward, admits that censorship went too far and free speech is important. He’s decided that Facebook and Instagram will drop the third party “fact checkers” that crushed content and banned people because the “fact checkers” made too many mistakes. (Of course, he doesn’t admit that these were not mistakes at all, but entirely the plan.)

As David Evans (the other half) says “Reminds me of 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. It was the end of another leftist regime based on censorship and cancelling.  The good news just kept on coming.”

It’s a very limited mea culpa — it was  just good intentions and a bit of scope creep you know…

It’s not like he was interfering in elections, tilting the balance to buy political protection,  increase his profits, or score points at dinner parties with billionaire friends.

From the Press Release:

More Speech and Fewer Mistakes

In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable.

And it was only “harmless content” that was lost  and a bit of frustration was caused —  it’s not like people died, wallowed in jail, or got attacked by illegal immigrants due to their loss of free speech:

Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do.

The Fact Checkers turned out to have their own biases:

If his plan was to give more expert opinions so “the people could judge” it does seem odd that they hired 20 year old nobodies with no qualifications to censor Harvard Professors in medicine.

The intention of the program was to have these independent experts give people more information about the things they see online, particularly viral hoaxes, so they were able to judge for themselves what they saw and read.

We’re not buying this miracle, Zuck, of how the people were supposed to be able to judge what they couldn’t see and never read…

It was just terribly bad luck the fact checkers all happened to support the same side of politics that Zuckerberg donated $400 million dollars to in 2020:

That’s not the way things played out, especially in the United States. Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact check and how. Over time we ended up with too much content being fact checked that people would understand to be legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.

He openly admits that the Twitter community notes policy is much better and will adopt it

It’s unusual in the business world to see someone copy a competitor (and openly say so):

We plan to phase in Community Notes in the US first over the next couple of months, and will continue to improve it over the course of the year. As we make the transition, we will get rid of our fact-checking control, stop demoting fact checked content and, instead of overlaying full screen interstitial warnings you have to click through before you can even see the post, we will use a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is additional information for those who want to see it.

And unusual too, that his competitor is happy. Elon Musk says “This is cool”.

And also like Musk, Zuckerberg is sending the policy brains team to Texas —  realizing ten years too late, that the Californian bubble is not the place to connect with most Americans:

… we will be moving the trust and safety teams that write our content policies and review content out of California to Texas and other US locations.

Suddenly people will be able to discuss immigration and gender identity

Just toss those sacred cows out the window…

We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement. We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms. These policy changes may take a few weeks to be fully implemented.

How telling that he picks these topics. Immigration, especially is the hot button issue in the US, UK and Europe. This change will come through in mere weeks, he says, leaving us wondering if Zuckerberg suddenly realized Facebook and Instagram were in danger of being 100% irrelevant in the real world. A cruel observer might say that his interest in free speech was purely profit driven (or an act of desperation).

When will he let people discuss their medical experiences?

At ZeroHedge, they point out that it’s just over a month since Zuckerberg met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and only one day after one of Trump’s closest allies joined the board of Facebook — the UFC CEO Dana White. Perhaps Trump gave him one last chance (with conditions)?

It’s all a step in the right direction. But after censoring ICU Specialists who were trying to save lives and who turned out to be right, Zuckerberg is going to have to do a lot more than mouthing the weak words of “mistakes”. The nicest possible interpretation is that as a mere double-digit billionaire, (unlike Musk) Zuckerberg was squeezed by the Blob until he complied. The US government could have put him out of business in five minutes if he offended them. But where is that story? His country — the world — really needs to hear the real mea culpa.

Nothing can compensate for the damage to lives that could have been avoided, but there are plenty of people out whose losses can be cut quickly:

— Jason Olbourne – (The Daily Australian) (@JasonQCitizen1) January 7, 2025

As Zuckerberg avoids a prison cell announcing the end of fact checkers and vastly reducing censorship, I am still waiting for my ‘appeal’ against a heinous false charge with no evidence, no due process and no way to get in touch which disabled 17 years worth of work, the past ten…

 

Letting all those people out of Facebook jail would be a start.

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

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.

The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.

Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.

So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”

But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”

Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.

One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.

As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.

Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.

And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.

Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.

Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.

For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.

Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025

In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

See also: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »