New Censor Replacing Old Censor at Meta
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | January 4, 2025
Some people are optimistic that the promotion of Joel Kaplan to be Meta’s president of global affairs heralds the end of, or at least a big reduction in, censorship at Meta’s social media sites of Facebook and Instagram. This optimism springs from the fact that Kaplan leans Republican in the notoriously Democratic leaning company, and even was White House deputy chief of staff for policy in the Republican George W. Bush administration.
Yet, there is plenty of reason for skepticism. Support for free speech has become a rallying cry for many Republicans in response to censorship efforts by Meta, other companies, and governments over the last few years. However, many Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals still are keen on censoring people, though sometimes for different reasons than are many Democratic or Democratic-leaning individuals. Consider efforts by Republicans, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott a good example, to shut down very broadly defined “antisemitic” communication.
Also, Kaplan is not a hire from the outside. He joined Meta 13 years ago as vice president of United States public policy. Since 2014 he has been the company’s vice president of global affairs. In this job, Kaplan has worked with Nick Clegg — the person Kaplan will succeed. Are we to believe Kaplan has spent all this time itching to tear down the censorship implemented, with his help, by his boss? They have had some differences of opinion regarding Meta’s censorship, but let’s wait and see what change comes.
Clegg, in a Thursday Facebook post, profusely praised Kaplan ascending to Clegg’s job, stating:
And no one could pick up from where I’ve left off with greater skill and integrity than my deputy, Joel Kaplan. I am simply thrilled that Joel will now become Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer.
Hmmm. That is not suggesting a big change in policy on censorship is on the way.
Reporter Glenn Greenwald provided in a Friday Twitter post a fact that challenges the optimism that Kaplan’s promotion signals the end of, or even a large reduction in, censorship by Meta. Greenwald wrote, using “FB” to refer to Facebook: “Kaplan was the senior FB official who worked directly with the Israeli Government to ensure that Israel’s demands for censorship were honored.”
Backing up his claim, Greenwald linked in his Twitter post a September 12, 2016 The Times of Israel article that detailed Facebook’s, at the behest of the Israel government, then substantial and expanding clamping down on communication. This was years before the company’s name change to Meta.
The article identifies Kaplan as a Facebook employee who took part in a high-level meeting to carry out the arrangement with the Israel government:
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan met Monday morning with senior Facebook officials in an effort to jointly stem online incitement that Israel claims leads to terror activities.
The Facebook officials included Joel Kaplan, vice president of Global Public Policy and a former deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House, and Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of product policy and counterterrorism.
And the censorship by Facebook at the Israel government’s request was ongoing before the meeting. Noted in the article:
In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, also on Monday, Shaked said that Facebook has already started removing 95 percent of content Israel has requested it to remove, while YouTube has complied with Israel’s requests 80 percent of the time, the Israeli news website Ynet reported.
But, that was just the start. The Israel government wanted even more censorship from Facebook. From the article: “In the meeting Israel requested that Facebook be more proactive in removing materials that could be seen as incitement to terror and the joint teams will study how to work together to serve the interests of both parties, a person familiar with the matter said.”
This man is the hope for stopping censorship? Hoping is fine, but it is often important to keep your feet firmly on the ground as well.
Journalist killed by Ukrainian drone strike
RT | January 4, 2025
Aleksandr Martemyanov, a freelance reporter with the newspaper Izvestia, has been killed in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic after the civilian vehicle he was riding in was attacked by a Ukrainian drone, Russian media reported on Saturday.
At least five other journalists, who were also in the car, including two RIA Novosti reporters, were injured in the attack, the news agency said. The vehicle was hit while traveling on a road away from the frontline between the town of Gorlovka and the regional capital city of Donetsk.
The car carrying the reporters was hit by a kamikaze drone. Martemyanov succumbed to his wounds shortly thereafter, Izvestia has confirmed.
At the time of the attack, the reporters were returning from Gorlovka after filming the aftermath of the strikes on the town, which has been coming under indiscriminate Ukrainian artillery, missile, and drone attacks on an almost daily basis.
The attack on the journalists’ car appeared to be deliberate, Maksim Romanenko, a reporter with RIA Novosti, suggested. Romanenko sustained relatively minor injuries – bruising on his face and a concussion – during the incident.
Last ditch media sanctions from the West against Russia are like a sick child crying for help
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 3, 2025
Many analysts will be wondering what Trump will do about Russian sanctions when gets into the Oval office, although there is some optimism that he will try and reverse them. He is cautious not to get into a debate about this subject, which leads me to suspect that this will be one of the bombshells he will drop on the Biden administration which left him the small gift of signing off over a billion dollars of military aid to Ukraine. What almost no Americans understand though, which is largely the fault of mainstream media, is that these military spending sprees are really all about feeding a dual-purpose racket which really has nothing to do with the actual war in Ukraine, which everyone now admits Russia is winning. On one hand, it is of course pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the 5 main arms manufacturers in the U.S. in a move which could arguably be called illegal state aid; on the other hand the kit which is sent to Ukraine from the U.S. – and the UK – is mainly being sold on a number of black markets, with only about 30 percent or thereabouts actually reaching Ukrainian troops. My own investigation has proved that the Zelensky cabal are selling off the heavy equipment like armoured personal carriers (APCs) and lorry loads of American made assault rifles to dealers in the international arms bizarre of Libya – where Middle Eastern terrorists, or their affiliates in the Sahel buy it at bargain prices.
And Trump certainly understands the racket and will want to stop it. Dropping the mother of all bombshells on the Biden legacy by scrapping the sanctions and blocking any more aid would be an effective way to do that.
But it’s the sanctions on Russia media which he should also give priority to, given that, with the state of western media being such a shambles, we had to rely on RT for example, in the UK and U.S., to ask the difficult questions and hold our administrations to account.
The recent news at the end of December that the EU is cracking down even further on Russia media and individuals who are active within it – journalists and others – is another parting shot which smacks of desperation. The West is under no illusions privately that it is losing the war in Ukraine and is wondering how it can tell a fairy tale story to its own voters so as to deflect blame with the sole purpose of staying in power. This is really what media sanctions are all about. Shutting down any narrative that could possibly hold you to account and expose the tawdry reality of the mess the West has made in Ukraine based on the military industrial complex gaining too much power and eating up elites in its path. The Biden administration will be remembered for this. A new dawn in just how much power these arms manufacturers have and what lengths they can go to, to get the big contracts. This will all come out in the Trump administration with documentaries about Biden and his son’s laptop and how Ukraine was a holiday camp for them to go to with empty suitcases and return with a few million dollars. Like a cash machine which keeps churning out cash due to a computer glitch. The lure of Ukraine and corrupt western elites is nothing new. But during Trump’s first term citizens of the West are going to see the dark side to the events which led up to Russia’s invasion. And it stinks.
Part of that racket, going back even to 2013 or 2014 was to try and shut down Russian media. In reality, it was simply RT which elites noticed was gaining popularity in many European countries from people who had lost all faith in their own media which had fallen into the grubby hands of the powerful elites and their dirty games long ago. It used to be the case that in Brussels, the hold that the powerful institutions had on journalists was so strong in such an abusive relationship that what we saw each day on TV and in the newspapers was pure EU propaganda on a scale that even the Soviet Union could not muster. There used to be however the contrast between Brussels and member states where the media were more robust and anti-establishment. But no more. Now the political journalists along with the defence correspondent in the UK for example are practically government propaganda agents who probably think they were journalists once. Their work is to keep the lies about Ukraine, as one example, flowing so that the public are distracted and can’t focus on what is under their nose. Sometimes the plain truth is so close to the person looking for it, that it can’t be seen. Distance is required. When RT operated in the UK, there was this certain environment which questioned more and provided an alternative viewpoint which was needed in any functioning democracy. Trump’s priority should be to finish the sanctions and adopt a more grown-up approach to resolving Ukraine as the Russians want a longer-term solution rather than quick fix buggerydoo. Ending the sanctions on Russian media would be a good message to western elites that have fed from the trough for so long with the lies which have been created that their time is up. Trump’s back.
‘From nationalist to Islamist’: Syria’s de facto rulers order sweeping reforms to school curriculum

The Cradle | January 2, 2025
The Ministry of Education in Syria announced on 1 January a series of new reforms to the country’s previously secular nationwide curriculum, which has sparked controversy and outrage.
The changes will affect all levels of education and include significant amendments to religious and historical studies – namely, the removal of important events in Syrian history and the erasure of content about Syria’s historical connection to polytheistic civilizations and empires.
The ministry confirmed textbooks will undergo large-scale editing to delete and rephrase passages, alter and delete images, and eliminate any material linked to the former government of Bashar al-Assad and his predecessor, Hafez al-Assad.
Some examples of the changes to be made include the removal of the terms “Ottoman injustice,” “brutal Ottoman rule,” and any reference to Ottoman “occupation” in Syria, as well as the deletion of important historical events that took place during the Ottoman Empire’s reign in the country.
References to the “Martyrs of May 6” – which relate to the Muslim-Christian Arab nationalists who were executed by Ottoman ruler Jamal Pasha in 1916 in Beirut and Damascus – will be removed.
Entire segments of Syrian history will also be scratched – including the period between the end of the Ottoman Empire and the election of Shukri Quwaitli as president in 1943. The term “1973 Liberation War,” referring to the 1973 Arab–Israeli war, was replaced with just “1973 war.”
The new curriculum will also exclude all references to pagan gods and goddesses in ancient Syrian civilizations, including Canaanite entities and deities of other empires and civilizations.
Studies on Chinese philosophical thought are also excluded, as well as scientific studies relating to the theory of evolution and brain development.
References to female monarchs, such as Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, have been erased. Khawla bint al-Azwar, a Muslim warrior described as one of the greatest female soldiers in history, was labeled as a fictional character.
The meaning of the word “martyr” will be altered from someone who is killed “in defense of the homeland” to someone who is killed “to uphold the word of God.”
The term “those who have incurred wrath” will be changed to “those who have gone astray from the path of goodness,” specifying Christians and Jews.
Entire segments of the curriculum that were unspecified by the ministry will also be taken out.
“The curricula in all Syrian schools are still in place until specialized committees are formed to review and audit the curricula,” newly appointed Syrian Minister of Education Nazir al-Qadri said on Thursday.
“We adopted images of the Syrian Revolution flag in all school books, and we corrected some incorrect information in the Islamic Education curriculum, such as explaining some Quranic verses in an incorrect way, and we adopted their correct explanation as stated in the interpretation books for all educational levels,” he added, seemingly downplaying the alterations which are set to be made.
Syrians have reportedly called for nationwide protests and the dismissal of the education minister.
“After reviewing the amendments, it’s clear that, aside from removing signs of the criminal Assad regime, the rest changes have a distinct religious tone,” said journalist Hussam Hammoud.
Academic and Syria commentator Joshua Landis said Syrian textbooks “are moving from a nationalist to Islamist interpretation” of history.
Manufacturing Dissent
By Joshua Stylman | November 17, 2024
As I often do on Sunday mornings, I was drinking my coffee and scrolling through my news feed when I noticed something striking. Maybe it’s my algorithm, but the content was flooded with an unusual amount of vitriol directed at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s nomination as HHS Secretary. The coordinated messaging was impossible to miss—talking heads across networks uniformly labeling him a “conspiracy theorist” and “danger to public health,” never once addressing his actual positions. The media’s concerted attacks on Kennedy reveal more than just their opinion of his nomination—they expose a deeper crisis of credibility within institutions that once commanded public trust.
The Credibility Paradox
The irony of who led these attacks wasn’t lost on me—these were largely the same voices who championed our most destructive pandemic policies. As Jeffrey Tucker aptly noted on X this morning:

The Coordinated Response
This hypocrisy becomes even more glaring in the New York Times’ recent coverage, where dismissive rhetoric consistently replaces substantive engagement. In one piece, they acknowledge troubling trends in children’s health while dismissively declaring “vaccines and fluoride are not the cause” without engaging his evidence. In another, Zeynep Tufekci—who notably advocated for some of the most draconian Covid measures—warns that Kennedy could “destroy one of civilization’s best achievements,” painting apocalyptic scenarios while sidestepping his actual policy positions.
Meanwhile, their political desk speculates about how his stance on Big Food might “alienate his GOP allies.” Each piece approaches from a different angle, but the pattern is clear: coordinated messaging aimed at undermining his credibility before he can assume institutional authority.

The Echo Chamber Effect
You can almost hear the editorial conveyor belt opening as senior editors craft the day’s approved reality for their audience. The consistent tone across pieces reveals less independent analysis than a familiar pattern—mockingbird media still in action. As I detailed in How The Information Factory Evolved, this assembly-line approach to reality manufacturing has become increasingly visible to anyone paying attention.
What these gatekeepers fail to grasp is that this smug dismissiveness, this refusal to engage with substantive arguments, is precisely what fuels growing public skepticism. Their panic seems to grow in direct proportion to Kennedy’s proximity to real power. This orchestrated dismissal is more than a journalistic flaw—it reflects a larger institutional dilemma, one that becomes unavoidable as Kennedy gains traction.
The Institutional Trap
The Times faces an emerging dilemma: at some point, they’ll need to address the substance of Kennedy’s arguments rather than rely on dismissive characterizations—especially if he assumes control of America’s health apparatus. Just this morning, MSNBC anchors were literally shouting that “Kennedy is going to get people killed”—yet another example of using melodramatics and fear instead of engaging with his actual positions. Their reflexive ridicule strategy backfires precisely because it avoids engaging with the evidence and concerns that resonate with parents and citizens across political lines. Each attempt to maintain narrative control through authority rather than evidence accelerates institutional credibility collapse.
Beyond Kennedy: Redrawing Political Lines
The NYT’s analysis about Kennedy potentially alienating GOP allies particularly highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of the shifting political landscape. As a lifelong Democrat who still champions many traditional progressive values, Kennedy transcends conventional political boundaries. His message—”We have to love our children more than we hate each other”—resonates precisely because anyone who dismisses this crusade to restore American vitality as mere political theater is blind to the groundswell of people who’ve grown tired of watching their communities crumble under the weight of manufactured decline.
This isn’t just about Kennedy—it’s about the media’s inability to address the legitimate concerns of a disillusioned public. When institutions refuse to engage with dissenting voices, they deepen mistrust and fracture the shared foundation necessary for democratic discourse. While RFK, Jr.’s message has resonated across political boundaries, the media’s inability to address core issues—like regulatory failures—reveals just how out of touch they’ve become.
The Art of Missing the Point
Consider this fact-check from the same article: The Times attempts to discredit Kennedy’s Fruit Loops example, but inadvertently confirms his central point: ingredients banned in European markets are indeed permitted in American products. By focusing on semantic precision instead of the broader issue—why US regulators allow unsafe ingredients—the media deflects from substantive debates.

Senator Elizabeth Warren declared this week: “RFK Jr. poses a danger to public health, scientific research, medicine, and health care coverage for millions. He wants to stop parents from protecting their babies from measles and his ideas would welcome the return of polio.” Yet this alarmist framing dodges the simple question Kennedy actually raises: Why wouldn’t you want proper safety testing for chemicals we’re expected to inject into our children’s bodies? The silence in response to this basic inquiry speaks volumes about institutional priorities—and their fear of someone with the power to demand answers.
A Referendum on Manufacturing Consent
Say what you want about Trump, but his “fake news” remarks struck a chord that resonates deeper with each passing day. People who once scoffed at these claims are now watching with eyes wide open as coordinated narratives unfold across media platforms. The gaslighting has become too obvious to ignore. As I explored in We Didn’t Change, The Democratic Party Did, this awakening transcends traditional political boundaries. Americans across the spectrum are tired of being told not to believe their own eyes, whether it’s about pandemic policies, economic realities, or the suppression of dissenting voices.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It was their final, most essential command.”
–George Orwell, 1984
The Moment of Truth
With Kennedy potentially overseeing America’s health infrastructure, media institutions face a crucial inflection point. Fear campaigns and ad hominem attacks won’t suffice when his policy positions require serious examination. The machinery of coordinated dismissal—visible in identical talking points across networks—reveals more about institutional allegiance than journalistic integrity.
This moment demands something different. When Kennedy raises questions about pharmaceutical safety testing or environmental toxins—issues that resonate with families across political lines—substantive debate must replace reflexive ridicule. His actual positions, heard directly rather than through media filters, often align with common-sense concerns about corporate influence on public health policy.
This institutional pattern of manufactured authority connects directly to themes I explored in Fiat Everything earlier this week—systems built on decree rather than demonstrated value. They don’t sell weapons—they sell fear. The same forces that control monetary policy now seek to dictate public health discourse.
Breaking the Machine
The solution won’t come from institutional gatekeepers (that’s what got us here) but direct examination. We all need to:
- Listen to Kennedy’s complete speeches rather than edited soundbites
- Read his policy positions rather than media characterizations
- Examine the evidence he cites rather than fact-checker summaries
- Consider why certain questions about public health policy are deemed off-limits
I’m not suggesting we accept every contrarian position, but rather that institutional credibility must be earned through rigorous analysis rather than assumed through authority. Until then, coverage like these recent Times pieces will continue to exemplify the very institutional failures that fuel the movements they seek to discredit. As Kennedy approaches real institutional power, expect these attacks to intensify—a clear signal of just how much the guardians of our manufactured consensus have to lose.
UK doctor suspended over posts praising slain Hamas and Hezbollah leaders as ‘legends’
MEMO | January 1, 2025
2025 Looks Bleak For Germany… Energy The Most Expensive In Europe … Growing Speech Tyranny
2025 in Germany will be a year of more energy inflation and loss of free speech rights
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | January 1, 2025
Effective today, Germany’s CO2 surcharge will rise from 45 euros a tonne to 55 euros, which will further fan inflation and social discontent.
Already Germany’s electricity prices are among the highest in the world, and the most expensive in Europe:
Chart: strom-report.com/
Germany clamps down on dissenters, free speech
2025 will not be an easy year for dissenters and critics of the government, as this is increasingly being criminalized in Germany thanks to recently passed laws and acts that aim to suppress free speech in Germany.
The former head Germany’s Constitution Protection Authority (Bundesverfassungsschutz), Thomas Haldenwang (CDU Party), suggested last February when presenting measures to fight right-wing extremism, that human thoughts and speech patterns need to be under surveillance and become the business of the government: “It’s also about shifting verbal and mental boundaries. We have to be careful that thought and language patterns don’t become embedded in our language.”
Mocking the state now verboten
Haldenwang’s boss, Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD Party), wants to treat vocal conservative protesters in the same way as organized crime groups: “Those who mock the state must deal with a strong state.”
“We want to take account of the fact that hate on the internet also occurs below the threshold of criminal liability,”said Federal Minister for Family Affairs Lisa Paus (Greens) at her press conference on February 13 on the topic of ‘Hate on the Internet’.“Many enemies of democracy know exactly what falls under freedom of expression on social media platforms,”
Meant by “enemies of democracy” here are opposition forces, even when democratically elected.
Unwanted election results may be annulled
In response to comments in favor of the conservatives made by Elon Musk, German President Frank Walter Steinmeier hinted he would annul the results of the upcoming February 23 national elections if he doesn’t like the results.
So in Germany, it’s watch what you say and, if the old parties don’t like the election results, then they might just annul them. Germany is slipping back quickly to darker times.
A New Year’s Resolution: Let’s Get the United States Out of the Censorship Business
By Jonathan Turley | December 31, 2024
On this New Year’s Eve, billions of people will gather with friends to ring in 2025 with the hope of a better year to come. For the first time in many years, free-speech advocates have a reason to celebrate.
With 2024, we will say goodbye to one of the most reviled offices in the Biden Administration: The Global Engagement Center. I discuss the Center in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage as one of the most active components in the massive censorship system funded by the Biden Administration. The demise of the GEC is a good start. However, like weight loss resolutions, it will take much more of a commitment if we are going to restore free speech in the United States. It is time to make the ultimate resolution to rip out the censorship root and stem from our government.
This month, the Biden Administration fought to keep the GEC funded, but Republicans refused to include it in the continuing resolution for the budget. However, even with the closure of this one office, Biden will leave behind the most comprehensive censorship system in the history of the United States.
Over the last three years, many of us have detailed a comprehensive system of grants to academic and third party organizations to create blacklists or to pressure advertisers to withdraw support for targeted sites. The subjects for censorship ranged from election fraud to social justice to climate change.
I testified at the first hearing by the special committee investigating the censorship system funded or coordinated by the Biden Administration. It is an unprecedented alliance of corporate, government, and academic groups against free speech in the United States. The Biden Administration established the most anti-free speech record since the Adams Administration.
House investigations showed the critical role played by government officials in “switchboarding,” or channeling demands for removal or bans in social media. Officials evaded the limits of the First Amendment by using these groups as surrogates for censorship.
Even with the elimination of the GEC, other offices remain in various agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the Department of Homeland Security, which emerged as one of the critical control centers in this system.
CISA head Jen Easterly declared that her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure would be extended to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes not just “disinformation” and “misinformation,” but combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
These groups form a censorship consortium where the suppression of speech attracts millions in federal dollars. Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) was created in association with Stanford University “at the request of DHS/CISA.”
EIP supplied a “centralized reporting system” to process what were known as “Jira tickets” targeting unacceptable views. It would include not only politicians but commentators and pundits as well as the satirical site The Babylon Bee.
Stanford’s Virality Project pushed to censor even true facts since “true stories … could fuel hesitancy” over taking the vaccine or other measures. Emails show government officials stressing that they could not be seen as “openly endors[ing]” censorship while other groups sought to minimize public scrutiny of their work.
For example, one article featured the work of Kate Starbird, director and co-founder of the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public. In one communication, Starbird cautioned against giving examples of disinformation to keep them from being used by critics, adding “since everything is politicized and disinformation inherently political, every example is bait.”
Likewise, University of Michigan’s James Park is shown pitching that school’s WiseDex First Pitch program, promising that “our misinformation service helps policy makers at platforms who want to . . . push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside the company . . . by externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship.”
The system has layers of interconnected grants and systems. For example, the EIP worked with the Global Engagement Center that contracted with the Atlantic Council in censorship efforts.
The censorship system included scoring groups through a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to the British-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The index targeted ten conservative and libertarian sites as the most dangerous sources of disinformation, including sites like Reason which publishes conservative legal analysis. Conversely, some of the most liberal sites were ranked as the most trustworthy for advertisers.
The system is still in place, but on December 23, 2024, the GEC closed its doors. That is something to celebrate but not something to take as great comfort. This is a redundant and overlapping system created precisely to allow for such attrition.
Years ago, some of us wrote about the creation of the infamous Disinformation Governance Board at Homeland Security under its so-called “Disinformation Nanny,” Nina Jankowicz. When the Biden administration caved to public outcry and disbanded the Board, many celebrated. However, as I previously testified, the Biden Administration never told the public about a far larger censorship effort in other agencies, including an estimated 80 FBI agents secretly targeting citizens and groups for disinformation.
The system has functioned like a multiheaded hydra where cutting off one head only allows two more to grow back. These censors will not simply walk away and become dentists or bartenders. They have a skill set for censorship and this is now a profitable industry supporting scores of people who now market themselves as “disinformation specialists.”
Shutting down the GEC will eliminate a $61 million budget and 120 employees. However, these employees will find ample opportunities not just in other agencies but in academia and state agencies. There are also pro-censorship sites like BlueSky, which are becoming safe spaces for liberals who do not want to be “triggered” by opposing views . (Notably, BlueSky hired a former Twitter employee who was fired after Musk cleaned out at what is now X).
They are not going anywhere unless the Trump Administration and the Congress makes free speech a priority in eliminating each of these funding sources.
As I wrote in the book, we need to get the United States out of the censorship business by passing a law barring any federal funds for the use of censorship, including grants to academic and NGO groups.
Rooting out this censorship system will require a comprehensive effort by the new Trump Administration. So here is a resolution that I hope many in the Trump Administration will share: let’s get the United States out of the censorship business in 2025.
Ukraine Violates Draft Rights, Restricts Religious Freedom, and Tortures PoWs – UN Report
Sputnik – 01.01.2025
Ukraine has been violating its own constitution by unduly restricting the right to conscientious objection to military service during mobilization, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said in a report published on Tuesday.
“The right to conscientious objection to military service has continued to be subjected to undue restrictions in law and practice … Domestic law in Ukraine unduly restricts this Constitutional right only to some forms of religion or belief, excluding others, contrary to applicable obligations of equality before the law and non-discrimination under the ICCPR,” the report said.
For example, five men faced arbitrary detention and torture in Ukraine for attempting to exercise their right to conscientious objection to military service, the UN rights watchdog said.
“During the reporting period, OHCHR documented the cases of five men who were assigned to military duty and transferred to a military training facility after attempting to exercise their right of conscientious objection to military service. In all cases, the men were arbitrarily detained between two to four days by military personnel responsible for conscription and subjected to ill-treatment or torture.” the report said.
Religious Freedom Under Attack
The UN report also found that Ukraine’s new legal provisions restricted religious freedoms by prohibiting the Russian Orthodox Church.
“In territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine, new legal provisions regarding religious organizations entered into force; these prohibit the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian religious organizations found to be affiliated with counterparts in the Russian Federation. The law introducing these provisions established disproportionate restrictions on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief,” the report read.
Torture of PoWs
Furthermore, almost all Russian PoWs in Ukraine interviewed by the UN from September to November 2024 were subjected to torture, the report said. Fourteen soldiers were subjected to sexual violence.
“During the reporting period, OHCHR interviewed 25 Russian POWs in Ukrainian internment facilities, including in the newly opened camp ‘Zakhid-4’ in Lviv [Lvov] city. All but one reported experiencing torture or ill-treatment in 2024 at one or several stages of captivity,” the OHCHR said.
The UN agency said it verified the killing by first-person-view drones of three Russian and one Ukrainian servicepersons who were “hors de combat” and severely wounded on the battlefield. It cited drone video footage that showed a heavily wounded, unarmed Russian serviceman being killed by a drone while lying on the ground.
US imposes sanctions on IRGC entity over alleged election interference
Press TV – December 31, 2024
The United States has announced sanctions on an entity it says is affiliated with the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) over its alleged interference in the 2024 US presidential elections.
The designation was announced by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Tuesday and targeted the IRGC subsidiary, which it identified as the Cognitive Design Production Center (CDPC).
A statement on the Treasury’s website claimed the CDPC had planned influence operations since at least 2023 to incite tensions among the US electorate on behalf of the IRGC.
Iran has repeatedly rejected accusations it has interfered in elections in other countries, including in the US.
Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations issued a statement in late August to reject such allegations.
“Such allegations are unsubstantiated and devoid of any standing,” said the Mission after the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and several other American intelligence agencies claimed that Iran had been involved in the hacking of the campaigns of Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris.
“As we have previously announced, the Islamic Republic of Iran harbors neither the intention nor the motive to interfere with the US presidential election,” said the statement.
Iranian authorities say that Washington’s policy of imposing numerous sanctions on the country is solely aimed at forcing the country into accepting political and military concessions.
The Vindication of William Bay
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | December 27, 2024
Australia was one of the most authoritarian countries in the world from 2020 onward. This week, however, we can celebrate a victory that reflects what Australians used to epitomize – no-nonsense courage and jovial determination.
The story begins in 2018, when Dr. William Bay foresaw the dangers of the Medical Board seeking to regulate doctors’ speech.
Dr. Bay stood firm against COVID restrictions, vaccine mandates, and the limiting of treatment options. But it was in 2022 that he caused quite the stir. At an Australian Medical Association (AMA) Conference he interrupted a lecture, calling out the attending doctors for their silence on vaccine harms. It was a scene to remember: doctors, masked and seated at round white tables, began standing up one by one, walking out in quiet protest. Dr. Bay was then escorted out by security. When asked how he managed to get in, his response was simply: “I’m a doctor!” The footage of his exit remains iconic and worth watching.
As seems to be the theme with dissenters, Dr. Bay was reported anonymously to the regulator. The complaint had nothing to do with his conduct as a doctor – in fact, he had an unblemished professional record. Yet, the Medical Board of Australia, under the supervision of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), suspended him.
Dr. Bay’s case highlights systemic failures within AHPRA and the Medical Board, particularly around free speech, informed consent, and medical autonomy. Under AHPRA’s 2021 position statement, health practitioners were pressured to align strictly with public health messaging, risking regulatory action if they shared views—on or off social media—that contradicted official vaccine campaigns. This created a chilling effect, stifling doctors’ professional independence and undermining their ability to provide balanced information, a cornerstone of free and informed consent for patients. Compounding this issue, AHPRA strongly encouraged — some would say coerced — doctors themselves to be vaccinated, eroding their personal autonomy to make medical decisions. In their overreach, AHPRA not only failed to respect informed consent but also demonstrated a lack of understanding of their own regulations, which are designed to safeguard patient choice and professional integrity. Dr. Bay’s courageous stand not only challenged these failures but reaffirmed the importance of free speech, informed consent, and ethical medical practice in patient care.
In June 2023, he lost his case in the High Court and was ordered to pay costs to AHPRA. Despite these setbacks, Dr. Bay – representing himself throughout – refused to give up.
His story then took a remarkable turn. As a Christian, Dr. Bay recounts a pivotal moment when he felt God instruct him to draft an amended application focusing on procedural fairness and bias and keep it ready, even though it seemed unnecessary at the time. On the final day of the appeal, the judge remarked that Bay had made excellent points on procedural issues but noted they weren’t in his original application. When Dr. Bay asked if he could submit an amendment, the judge agreed – on the condition that it be completed over the lunch break. No problem there – Bay delivered.
The case revealed a significant breach of fairness. Dr. Anne Tonkin, then Chair of the Medical Board of Australia, was present at the Australian Medical Association (AMA) National Conference where Dr. William Bay interrupted proceedings to voice his criticisms. During this event, Dr. Tonkin discussed the possibility of filing a complaint with Associate Professor Julian Rait, the AMA Chair at the time. Subsequently, Associate Professor Rait submitted a complaint regarding Dr. Bay’s conduct. Dr. Tonkin later chaired the Medical Board meeting that decided to suspend Dr. Bay’s medical registration.
On December 13, 2024, the Brisbane Supreme Court overturned the suspension, backdating the decision to when it originally occurred. Justice Thomas Bradley ruled that AHPRA and the Medical Board acted with bias and failed to afford Dr. Bay procedural fairness. The judge went further, condemning the regulators for their “animus” and “combative approach” toward Dr. Bay, noting their inability to prove that he had breached any laws or guidelines.
As a result, Dr. Bay’s suspension was lifted, and he was reinstated with costs awarded against AHPRA and the Medical Board. Notably, Bay’s costs were minimal – he had represented himself.
Now free to speak, he is continuing to voice his concerns in the style of a true Aussie lad, “I think the vaccines are shit, mate. They’re absolute shit.”
Dr. Bay’s triumph is not just personal; it sets a powerful precedent for doctors across Australia, and, we can hope, beyond. This ruling safeguards their right to speak freely, prioritize patient welfare, and challenge overreaching authorities without fear of retribution.
In the spirit of the “Aussie lad,” Dr. William Bay has shown what courage, conviction, and persistence can achieve – a victory for truth, justice, and freedom.
Dr Rehiana Ali, a British neurologist, was been suspended last week by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) following complaints about social media posts on Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. The interim suspension, lasting 18 months and subject to review, prevents her from practising medicine pending a full investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC).

