Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Jeffrey Epstein used Rothschild banking empire to finance Israeli cyberweapons industry

Press TV – November 19, 2025

Convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein used his close relationship with the Rothschild banking empire to channel private investments into the Israeli regime’s cyberweapons industry.

Documents released by the US House Oversight Committee in November, alongside hacked emails from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, reveal that Epstein acted as a key intermediary, connecting the Rothschild banking dynasty with Israel’s cyberweapons sector.

The records show Epstein coordinating private investments in Israeli startups developing offensive cyber capabilities, surveillance tools, and spyware technologies.

Following Barak’s retirement from office in 2013, he recruited Pavel Gurvich, a former operative of Israel’s secretive Unit 81, to identify promising cyber ventures.

Barak relied on Gurvich for guidance on investments in offensive cyber tools, including Tor network surveillance, NSO-style cellphone hacking software, and router exploitation technologies.

Gurvich supplied detailed maps of undersea transatlantic cables and network access points, illustrating the global reach of potential operations.

Epstein then facilitated connections between Barak, Gurvich, and the Rothschild dynasty, offering logistical support, guidance on tax and investment structures, and strategic advice.

Epstein’s involvement included a $25 million contract in October 2015 between his Southern Trust Company and Barak’s spyware-linked startup Reporty Homeland Security (now Carbyne).

The agreement covered “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms.”

He also organized private meetings and dinners to foster collaboration, including a January 2014 gathering in Paris with Barak, the Rothschilds, and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Emails suggest Epstein coached Barak on managing the Rothschild relationship, advising him to provide “time, attention, stable, recurring, predictable” engagement to earn trust.

Barak also proposed a donor-advised fund to channel private capital into Israeli technology, planning to allocate 4–5% of the fund to startups in telecommunications, cyberwarfare, and biotechnology.

The fund would operate through the Rothschilds’ “umbrella fund” structures, allowing tax-deductible contributions to finance early-stage military and spyware technology companies. Epstein coordinated introductions and advised Barak on securing Rothschild backing.

Furthermore, Epstein managed the logistics of Barak’s participation in the 2014 Herzliya Conference, Israel’s premier cyberwarfare summit, sponsored by the Rothschild Caesarea Foundation (RCF).

Emails show he relayed speaker lists, arranged private meetings with the Rothschilds, and guided Barak on handling inquiries from conference organizers.

Correspondence indicates Epstein remained active in the network until at least April 2017, arranging private meetings and maintaining connections between Barak, the Rothschilds, and other influential figures in Israel’s cyberwarfare industry.

Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.

He reportedly committed suicide by hanging in August 2019, despite prior reports that he was under suicide watch following an attempt in July of that year.

November 19, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Germany Turns an X Post Into a Police Raid at Dawn

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 18, 2025

The story starts with a tweet that barely registered on the internet. A few hundred views, a handful of likes, and the kind of blunt libertarian framing that is common on X every hour of every day.

Yet in Germany, that tiny post triggered a 6am police raid, a forced phone handover, biometric collection, and a warning that the author was now under surveillance.

The thing to understand is that this story only makes sense once you see the sequence of events in order.

The story goes like this:

  • A man in Germany, known publicly only as Damian N., posts a short comment on X, calling government-funded workers “parasites.”
  • The post is tiny. At the time he was raided, it had roughly a hundred views. Even now, it has only a few hundred.
  • Despite the post’s obscurity, police arrive at Damian’s home at six in the morning.
  • He says they did not show him the warrant and did not leave documentation of what they seized.
  • Police pressured him to unlock his phone, confiscated it, took photos, fingerprints, and other biometric data, and even requested a blood sample for DNA.
  • One officer reportedly warned him to “think about what you post in the future” and said he is now “under surveillance.”
  • The entire action was justified under Section 130 of the German Criminal Code, which is meant to prohibit inciting hatred against protected groups.
  • Government employees are not such a group, which makes the legal theory tenuous at best.
  • Damian’s lawyer says the identification procedures and possibly the raid itself were illegal.

That is the sequence. A low-visibility political insult becomes a criminal investigation involving home searches, device seizure, and biometric collection.

The thing to understand is that this is not about one man’s post. It is about a bureaucracy that treats speech as something to manage and a set of enforcement structures that expand to fill the space they are given.

Start with the enforcement context. Germany has built a sprawling ecosystem around “online hate”: specialized prosecutor units, NGO tip lines, and automated scanning for taboo keywords.
The model is compliance first and legal theory second.

Once you create an apparatus like this, it behaves the way bureaucracies behave. It looks for work. It justifies resources by producing cases. A tiny X post with inflammatory language becomes a target because it contains the right keyword, not because it has societal impact.

Police behavior fits the same pattern. Confiscating phones is strategically useful because it imposes real pain without requiring a conviction.

Even prosecutors have said that losing a smartphone is often worse than the fine.

Early-morning raids create psychological pressure. Collecting biometrics raises the stakes further. None of this is about public safety. It is about creating friction for saying the wrong thing.

The legal mismatch is the tell. Section 130 protects groups defined by national, racial, religious, or ethnic identity.

There is also the privacy angle, which becomes impossible to ignore. Device access, biometrics, DNA requests: these are investigative tools built for serious crimes.

Deploying them against minor online speech means the line between public-safety policing and opinion policing has already been crossed. Once a state normalizes surveillance as a response to expression, the hard part becomes restoring restraint.

It is a deterrence strategy, not a justice strategy. And it reinforces why free speech and strong privacy protections matter. Without them, minor speech becomes an invitation for major intrusion.

The counterintuitive part is that the smallness of the post makes a raid more likely, not less.

High-profile content generates scrutiny and political costs. Low-profile content discovered through automated or NGO-driven monitoring is frictionless to act on. Unless people are reading Reclaim The Net, most people never hear of these smaller cases.

Looking ahead, the pressure will only increase. As more speech moves to global platforms that are harder to influence, local governments will lean more heavily on domestic law enforcement as their lever of control.

That means more investigations that hinge on broad interpretations of old statutes and more friction between individual rights and bureaucratic incentives.

This is particularly true in Germany and places like the UK, where the government doesn’t seem to feel any shame about raiding its citizens over online posts.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Swiss probe links Ali Abunimah detention to Israeli political pressure

Al Mayadeen | November 17, 2025

A Swiss parliamentary investigation has revealed that the detention and expulsion of Palestinian-US journalist Ali Abunimah in January were the result of political interference and undisclosed ties between senior Swiss officials and Israeli interests. The findings have raised alarms about institutional bias and shrinking space for Palestine advocacy in Europe.

The Control Commission of the Council of States released its report last week, confirming that Nicoletta della Valle, then-head of Switzerland’s federal police agency (Fedpol), personally intervened to impose an entry ban against Abunimah. The decision, investigators found, “deviated from standard practice” and was implemented in a manner they described as “unsatisfactory” and “particularly problematic.”

Abunimah, the executive director and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, had entered Switzerland legally and was scheduled to speak at a public event before being detained without warning by plainclothes officers. He was held incommunicado for three days and deported without due process.

Della Valle’s ties to Israeli interests raise conflict concerns

The report detailed how Zurich police initially requested a ban before Abunimah’s arrival. Fedpol rejected the request after consulting intelligence and immigration agencies. However, following a phone call from the commander of Zurich’s cantonal police, della Valle reversed that decision, without new evidence, and verbally instructed her staff to enforce the ban after Abunimah had already entered the country.

Critics have pointed to Della Valle’s post-retirement role at Champel Capital, an Israeli investment firm with ties to high-ranking Israeli officials, including Major General Giora Eiland and politician Amir Weitmann. Both men are known for advocating extreme measures against Gaza and its population. Della Valle’s name has since been quietly removed from the firm’s website.

Abunimah said the findings confirmed that “serious irregularities and abuses of power” were carried out to suppress public criticism of “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza. He noted that the entry ban violated basic democratic rights and was politically motivated.

UN experts condemn growing restrictions on Palestine advocacy

International human rights bodies have condemned Abunimah’s detention and broader crackdowns on critics of the Israeli occupation in Europe.

Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, warned at the time of a “toxic climate” for freedom of speech, while UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Irene Khan, called the repression of Palestinian voices “alarming” and “unjustifiable.”

The parliamentary report reconstructs a clear pattern of intervention. Authorities confirmed that Abunimah posed no threat, but the entry ban was forced through via irregular backchannel influence. Della Valle’s personal directive to override procedural safeguards has become the centerpiece of a growing scandal.

Swiss Zionist lobbying under scrutiny following revelations

The case has intensified scrutiny of Swiss institutions and their connections to Zionist lobbying networks. Switzerland hosts a wide range of organizations affiliated with the global Zionist movement, including the Swiss Zionist Federation, KKL-JNF, Keren Hayesod, and the Jewish Agency’s Swiss branch, all of which have supported illegal settlement activity and lobbied for policies targeting Palestinian advocacy.

Parallel groups, such as the Switzerland-“Israel” Society (GIS), the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), and CICAD, as well as newer outfits like NAIN, have pushed for bans on the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, cuts to UNRWA funding, and efforts to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Observers say these organizations shape political narratives and influence policymakers, enabling state repression of pro-Palestinian voices under the guise of combating hate speech.

Legal challenge underway

Abunimah is now taking legal action in Zurich and at the federal level, with his legal team preparing further filings based on the parliamentary commission’s findings. His case has become emblematic of growing concerns about freedom of expression in Europe and the ability of foreign-linked networks to suppress dissent through state institutions.

“These grave violations of democratic and human rights were carried out to prevent me from speaking at lawful public events, organized by Swiss citizens and residents, calling for an end to ‘Israel’s’ genocide in Gaza,” Abunimah said in a social media post.

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Surgeon General’s Final Diagnosis: When the Doctor Who Silenced the Sick Prescribes “Love”

By Sayer Ji | November 11, 2025

Before Dr. Vivek Murthy prescribed “community” as America’s cure, he helped engineer the policies that tore it apart.

When outgoing Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released his January 2025 essay, “My Parting Prescription for America,” it was framed as a heartfelt reflection on the nation’s loneliness and disconnection. The document reads like a sermon on “love,” “service,” and “community” — invoking Christian compassion, Hindu dharma, and African Ubuntu to offer a kind of spiritual healing for America’s fractured soul.

But beneath the soft prose lies a striking irony: the very official who now urges the nation to “choose community” presided over one of the most divisive and dehumanizing public health regimes in U.S. history. His tenure was marked by systematic censorship, defamation of independent scientists and health advocates, and the suppression of truthful reporting about vaccine injuries and deaths — all documented in federal court filings and corroborated by congressional investigation.

The Surgeon General Who Prescribed Silence

In 2021, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy partnered with the now-disgraced Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its soon-to-be-deported founder, Imran Ahmed, to launch a campaign labeling “health misinformation” as a public threat and urging social media companies to “take more aggressive action” against those who questioned the official COVID-19 narrative.

As detailed in Finn v. Global Engagement Center (3:25-cv-00543) (Doc. 83), Murthy’s office collaborated with entities like the CCDH, the White House, and Big Tech platforms to pressure for the removal or throttling of lawful speech — including posts about natural immunity, vaccine injury, and early treatment protocols.

This coordination, which the complaint describes as a “fusion of state and private power to suppress disfavored viewpoints,” forms part of a broader transnational censorship enterprise now under legal scrutiny.

Murthy’s rhetoric about “protecting public health” masked an unprecedented effort to erase public testimony from the vaccine-injured and to delegitimize independent medical experts whose research contradicted pharmaceutical and government messaging. Many of those targeted — including myself — were falsely branded as part of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a defamatory construct disseminated to newsrooms worldwide through UK-linked NGOs and U.S. federal agencies.

Covering the Wounds He Helped Inflict

In his “Parting Prescription,” Murthy writes that “community is the formula for fulfillment” and that the modern epidemic of loneliness demands “love, courage, and generosity.”

Yet his own tenure systematically dismantled trust and belonging, dividing families, churches, and workplaces through moralized public health edicts.
Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates — all publicly championed by Murthy — fractured communities, creating the very isolation he now laments.

The Surgeon General who now preaches about “connection” was among those who ordered Americans to sever their most human bonds: to distance from loved ones, to shun the unvaccinated, and to treat dissenters as diseased threats.

His later call to “build a new social contract” founded on service and civic programs like the “Youth Mental Health Corps”is telling. It repackages the same surveillance-based public health infrastructure — behavioral tracking, centralized intervention, social credit by another name — in the language of compassion.

Weaponizing Psychology: Pathologizing Dissent

Murthy’s tenure advanced a subtle but potent form of psychological warfare: pathologizing dissent as sickness.

When he declares that division and distrust are symptoms of a “spiritual crisis,” he erases the political and moral legitimacy of resistance. Those who refused the experimental injections, questioned corporate capture of science, or defended medical choice are reframed not as engaged citizens but as patients in need of behavioral correction.

This framing, echoed by the World Health Organization and the Surgeon General’s “advisories,” lays the groundwork for the next phase of informational control — one cloaked not in censorship, but in therapeutic paternalism.

The Great Inversion: Coercion as Care

At the heart of Murthy’s “Prescription” is a moral inversion: coercion recast as compassion.

Throughout the pandemic, his messaging repeatedly equated compliance with virtue and questioning with harm. His Office’s partnership with the CDC and White House COVID Response Team normalized the language of “protecting others” — a phrase that justified censorship, job loss, and social exclusion.

Now, Murthy’s final reflection dresses that same ideology in the soft robes of empathy. His triad of “relationships, service, and purpose”reads less like a personal wellness philosophy than a state catechism — urging citizens to find meaning through collective obedience to approved narratives.

The Spiritual Disguise of Technocratic Power

Murthy’s invocation of faith traditions — Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Ubuntu — is striking not for its inclusivity, but for its instrumental use of sacred language to legitimize centralized authority.

In merging spirituality with governance, Murthy mirrors a broader trend in global health policy: the conversion of care into control, where moral virtue is measured by conformity to bureaucratic “truth.”

The true crisis is not loneliness, but alienation from truth — a wound deepened by those who censored, shamed, and silenced the nation under the guise of saving it.

From Surgeon General to Social Engineer

Murthy closes his “Prescription” with a challenge:

“We are kin, not enemies… Good people with hearts full of love can change the world.”

But for the thousands of Americans censored, deplatformed, and defamed under his watch, and many more who were injured or killed by the experimental jabs he declared were necessary, those words ring as hollow as a pharmaceutical apology after the damage is done.

True love cannot coexist with coercion. True community cannot be built on lies.

The enduring legacy of Murthy’s public health tenure is not one of healing but of division, distrust, and epistemic violence — the destruction of the social immune system that protects a free people: open inquiry and dissent.

A Prescription Reversed

If Murthy’s farewell message was sincere, his repentance would begin with acknowledgment — of the vaccine-injured, of the silenced physicians, of the citizens whose livelihoods and voices were destroyed in the name of “safety.”
Until then, his “parting prescription” serves not as medicine, but as mirror — reflecting the psychological alchemy of a technocratic era that calls its injuries love.

Referendes

  1. Murthy’s My Parting Prescription for America (your uploaded PDF) — referenced for quotes and thematic contrast.
  2. Ji et al. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate et al. (Doc. 83 – Second Amended Complaint) — for legal and factual references regarding Murthy’s actions, coordination, and the broader censorship regime.
  3. Judicial and congressional context — including Missouri v. Biden and Kennedy v. Murthy, which form the legal frame for federal involvement in viewpoint suppression.

November 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 13, 2025

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.

Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.

At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”

The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.

One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.

The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”

Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”

In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.

The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.

Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”

The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organisations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”

In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.

Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.

The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”

Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.

The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.

Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.

Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”

While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.

Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.

Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.

The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”

This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.

A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.

Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.

Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”

This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.

Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”

While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.

Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.

Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.

For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.

Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”

November 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

The Heritage Foundation Goes Woke

By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | November 13, 2025

It’s been two weeks since Kevin Roberts found himself in the Israel lobby’s crosshairs, but you’d be forgiven for thinking that it’s been much longer. The controversy kicked off on October 30, when the Heritage Foundation’s president released a video defending Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes. But Roberts’ real crime was arguing that American Christians have a right to criticize Israel without being accused of anti-semitism. He said that conservatives “should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington.” What’s more, he condemned the “venomous coalition” attacking Carlson and seeking to “cancel” anti-semitic voices like Fuentes.

Roberts’ initial statement represented a precise articulation of the conservative movement’s traditional attitude towards identity politics and cancel culture. But because it sought to maintain some level of consistency and apply those principles to pro-Israeli grievance politics, it provoked a frenzy. The terminally shrill Ben Shapiro, who devoted an entire episode of his podcast to denouncing Carlson’s interview with Fuentes, said that Roberts’ statement constituted a “betrayal of the Heritage Foundation’s history and principles.” Bloated neoconservative John Podhoretz issued a tweet calling Roberts a “rancid wretch of an amoeba.” Sentient Halloween decoration Laura Loomer, responding to a clip from Roberts’ subsequent apology tour, called him a “total hypocrite” and a “liability for the GOP.”

Last Wednesday, footage leaked of Roberts addressing his peers at the Foundation. He opened his remarks with the following: “I made a mistake, and I let you down, and I let down this institution, and I am sorry for that. Period. Full stop.” What followed was a full-blown struggle session. A steady stream of Heritage employees rose to humiliate their superior. Roberts responded with a series of groveling apologies and increasingly masochistic attempts to atone for his wrongthink. But it was no use.

Senior Legal Fellow Amy Swearer, claiming that Roberts had “shown a stunning lack of both courage and judgment,” called on him to resign. IDF veteran Daniel Flesch, who serves as a senior policy analyst at the Foundation, bemoaned how difficult the past week had been for him. He demanded that Roberts issue a statement calling Carlson an anti-semite, citing the latter’s view that Americans who serve in the IDF should be stripped of their citizenship. Meanwhile, Roberts advisor Evan Myers was castigated by Victoria Coates, the co-chair of Heritage’s National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, after expressing fears that the Foundation would use staff attendance at Shabbat dinners as an ideological litmus test. (Soon afterwards, the Task Force severed ties with Heritage.)

The following day, Roberts tweeted out a hostage video in which he expressed gratitude to his “amazing colleagues” for showing him the error of his ways. He also expressed regret for his use of the phrase “venomous coalition” and reaffirmed his commitment to combating anti-semitism, even when “[his] friend Tucker Carlson needs challenging.” Roberts stopped short of offering reparations to the Anti-Defamation League or attending a sensitivity training seminar with Rabbi Shmuley. But his desperate attempts to appease the mob call to mind the hundreds of videos in which perpetually aggrieved college students demand apologies from professors and administrators who express sentiments they deem offensive. Indeed, there are striking parallels between the mainstream right’s hysterical response to Roberts’ statement and the racial reckoning America bore witness to in 2020.

For more than a decade, the American right has coalesced around its opposition to woke identity politics, particularly in relation to race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The rise of Trumpism was, in large part, a product of the American public’s rejection of political correctness. But ever since Israel began its genocide in the Gaza Strip, the conservative movement has sought to carve out exceptions for pro-Israel, Jewish, and Zionist identity politics. Many on the mainstream right regard Israel as a bulwark against the barbarian forces that seek to destroy Western civilization. They rightfully view the woke left’s embrace of the Palestinian cause with suspicion. After all, the left’s insistence on viewing that issue through the prism of Black Lives Matter-style racial politics is solipsistic in the extreme. The same principle applies to the left’s insistence on fusing pro-Palestinian sentiment with pro-LGBT activism, a cause that few Palestinians support. But the right fails to hold proponents of Israeli identity politics to the same standard. Rather than reject both the intersectional logic that undergirds the left’s embrace of Palestine and the ethnonationalist logic that undergirds the Israeli project, they celebrate the latter and ignore the resulting cognitive dissonance.

The right-wing backlash against Roberts is instructive precisely because it illustrates how conservatives are willing to adopt woke tactics when they benefit Israel. Many on the right see through the left’s attempts to weaponize accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia against their adversaries. But when it comes to anti-semitism, such individuals are more than happy to emulate the left. They’ll argue that Roberts and Carlson are endangering vulnerable populations by challenging the Israeli stranglehold on American discourse and “platforming” anti-semitic figures. By interviewing an anti-semite like Fuentes, Carlson is guilty of amplifying anti-semitic narratives, and Roberts’ defense of Carlson amounts to an endorsement of Fuentes’ pro-Hitler views. The only way for Roberts to atone for his sins is to beg forgiveness from the demographic he offended. But no matter how many struggle sessions Roberts takes part in, he can only hope to reduce the harm he’s caused. He can never achieve total purity.

The Heritage Foundation’s commitment to all things Israel, as well as its insistence on pandering to offended Jews and Zionists, mirrors the woke lunacy that’s become a defining feature of life on American college campuses. The heckler’s veto reigns supreme, and prostrating oneself before aggrieved victim groups is the default response to the raising of pitchforks. The existence of special committees to address the concerns of those groups isn’t even questioned. The fact that Heritage had a National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism should raise alarm bells. Conservatives rightly regard both the “anti-racism” and broader DEI industries with great scorn. So why don’t they recognize the deceit at the heart of the anti-anti-semitism racket? Indeed, the only thing such conservatives seem interested in conserving is wokethink.

Ironically, the Israeli project represents the culmination of intersectional logic. When a historically persecuted demographic is given free rein to do as it pleases, it should come as no surprise when it feels emboldened to brutalize its opponents. Nor should it strain credulity when it feels entitled to U.S. military and financial support. But much in the same way that the right seeks an Israel exception to its anti-identitarian doctrine, the left seeks to preserve the institutional architecture of wokethink, even as it seeks to deny Israel supporters the ability to capitalize on that framework. Look no further than Tel Aviv’s campaign to criminalize Hollywood boycotts of Israel, citing U.S. civil rights law as the appropriate predicate. The left may regard such efforts as a perversion of the underlying legislation, but nobody on the activist left would dare propose that the solution is to reform, let alone abolish, the prevailing civil rights bureaucracy. After all, that bureaucracy still benefits their preferred demographic cohorts.

The left refuses to question the many ways in which their preferred brand of woke activism parallels the hasbara tactics deployed by their pro-Israel counterparts. Case in point, over at The Nation, the Canadian writer Jeet Heer uses the Roberts controversy as an opportunity to tar Carlson as an anti-semite. He also takes issue with Roberts’ invocation of “globalism.” Heer feigns concern for the Palestinians, but his professed concern is outweighed by his pathological need to police other people’s language. Implicit to his piece is the assumption that the left should maintain something of a monopoly on Israel criticism. Sure, the left can tolerate certain conservative critiques of Our Greatest Ally™. But in Heer’s mind, any critiques that threaten to become unruly should invite a prolonged discourse on the dangers of “violent rhetoric.” Heer spends much of the piece arguing that genuine anti-semitism is a right-wing phenomenon, all while defending left-wing anti-Zionists from that spurious charge. Of course, he’s more than happy to deploy those same bogus charges against his opponents. It’s the fact that the left is finally getting a taste of its own medicine that bothers him. But what more do you expect from the man who earnestly defends art vandals?

The same week that Roberts embarked on his apology tour, Sydney Sweeney sat down for an interview with GQ’s Katherine Stoeffel. What followed was the conversation that launched a million memes. But putting aside the sheer entertainment value of the exchange, Sweeney’s refusal to apologize for her American Eagle ad campaign provides an object lesson in the value of standing one’s ground.

What does it say when a 51-year-old think tank president shows less courage under fire than a starlet nearly half his age? Roberts could learn a lot from Sweeney, who has spent the past few months being subjected to the dumbest attacks imaginable. One of those attacks came from Sweeney’s fellow White Lotus alum, Aimee Lou Wood, who responded to an Instagram post about the GQ interview with a vomiting emoji. Wood recently signed a petition vowing to boycott Israeli film institutions complicit in the Palestinian genocide. But her willingness to deviate from the politically correct script on that front is superseded by her compulsion to maintain the party line when it comes to “anti-racism.” Wood and her ideological bedfellows believe that the only problem with cancel culture is that it’s wielded against them. They’re more than content to weaponize it against those who make inoffensive pronouncements with which they take umbrage. In the same vein, conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation are happy to abandon their commitment to free speech and employ cancel culture against those who question America’s Israel-centric foreign policy.

Fuentes is a hateful, charismatic moron who would gladly celebrate the election of a President Gavin Newsom. He ought to be ignored. But the Heritage Foundation seems more than content to give Fuentes the attention he so clearly craves. And in doing so, it is willing to embrace the very same logic that has animated wokethink for the past decade. None of this should come as a surprise. Woke activists may claim solidarity with Palestine, but at the end of the day, the collectivist spirit that drives Israel’s genocide is indistinguishable from the mob mentality that undergirds woke ideology. Roberts initially seemed to understand this point, but he lacked the fortitude to stand his ground. And so the Heritage Foundation will no doubt become the latest America First institution to be sacrificed at the Israeli altar.

November 13, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

AfD Leader Slams EU Plans to Create New Intelligence Unit as Move to Concentrate Power

Sputnik – 13.11.2025

The creation of a new intelligence unit led personally by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will not improve the security of EU citizens, but only strengthen Brussels’ control over the bloc, Alice Weidel, co-chair of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, said on Thursday.

Earlier this week, the Financial Times newspaper reported that the EU Commission would establish a new intelligence unit led by von der Leyen to enhance the use of data collected by national intelligence agencies due to security concerns and a potential reduction in US security support for Europe.

“Von der Leyen plans [to create] her own EU intelligence service. This will not improve the security of citizens, but will expand surveillance and the power of the Brussels bureaucracy. Another dangerous step towards an EU superstate. Not with the AfD!” Weidel wrote on X.

The unit plans to recruit officials from across the EU’s intelligence community to consolidate and share intelligence for joint purposes, the newspaper reported. However, the plan has not yet been officially communicated to all EU member states, and no specific deadlines have been set, according to the report.

The move faces opposition from senior officials in the EU’s diplomatic service, who manage the bloc’s Intelligence and Situation Centre (Intcen), the report said. They argue that the new unit could duplicate Intcen’s functions and threaten its future.

Harald Vilimsky, EU lawmaker from the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), has said that the plan to create a separate intelligence analysis unit within the Secretariat-General of the European Commission is the next step in von der Leyen’s plan to concentrate power in Brussels’ hands. Instead of strengthening democratic control, she wants to create a shadow structure that places national intelligence agencies under Brussels’ supervision without any mandate, transparency or legitimacy, he added.

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

Universities in West are “occupied by Zionist/Jewish supremacist lobby groups,” repress speech against genocide

By Syed Zafar Mehdi | Press TV | November 11, 2025

Over the last two years, universities across the West have gone out of their way to repress speech against the ongoing genocide in Gaza and against Zionism, says a university lecturer who was forced to leave his university due to a Zionist witch-hunt.

In an interview with the Press TV website, Harry Pettit, the former Assistant Professor of Human Geography at Radboud University, the Netherlands, said any speech in support of the Palestinian resistance has been criminalized in Western academic circles.

Pettit, who holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science and is the author of The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt (2023), has been hounded at his university over his strong advocacy for Palestinian rights.

His social media posts, in which he unequivocally condemned the genocide in Gaza and the complicity of Western governments, sparked controversy as Zionist lobby groups in the Netherlands campaigned for his ouster from Radboud University.

In a statement on Monday, Pettit said the university had monitored his X account and he was pressured to retract his statements on Palestine.

He was even warned by the university administration and threatened with dismissal at the behest of influential Zionist lobby groups such as the Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI), the Netherlands Committee for Israel and the Jewish People (NCAB), as well as media outlets like De Telegraaf and Education Minister Gouke Moes.

“Over the last two years, universities across the West have gone out of their way to repress speech against the genocide, against Zionism, and in support of the Palestinian resistance,” Pettit told the Press TV website only hours after announcing he was leaving the university.

“They have done this because they are occupied by Zionist/Jewish supremacist lobby groups that want to shut down any critique of ‘Israel’. We have no choice but to fight back against this.”

He said the pro-Israel lobby is powerful in the Netherlands, which is evidenced by the data.

“If you look at data, the Netherlands has by far the biggest economic relationship with Israel in the whole of Europe. Therefore, there is a big incentive to squash critique,” he noted.

“CIDI is the main lobby group and it acts in similar ways to other countries, targeting individuals who speak out and trying to destroy their livelihoods. It also has links to political parties, the media, and student groups like Standwithus, and together they apply pressure on universities.”

Pettit, however, was not alone in this fight. He received tremendous support from his colleagues and students, who defended his freedom of speech.

“I have received a lot of support from colleagues and students who have also been taking risks to speak out against the genocide and Zionism, and the students have been incredible at engaging in disruptive protest over the last two years that has forced the university to cut ties with Israeli universities,” he told the Press TV website.

Unfazed by the threats, he vowed to continue speaking for the Palestinian cause and against the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

“I have every intention of continuing to use my platform to advocate for Palestinian liberation. That is why I left Radboud to go to a more supportive environment that enables me to keep doing that,” he asserted.

Pettit had been vocal not only on his own social media handles but also had been giving media interviews to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians.

In one of his interviews in October, he told Volkskrant that he wants to raise awareness in the Netherlands that Palestinians “as an oppressed people have the right to armed resistance.”

“Calling October 7th a legitimate resistance operation doesn’t mean I condone everything that happened that day. But Israel wants us to see Hamas as barbarians who hate Jews. That’s a racist frame that serves to legitimize the genocide. It also obscures decades of oppression,” he said at the time.

His defense of the Palestinian resistance and the historic Operation Al-Aqsa Storm on October 7, 2023, irked Zionist lobby groups that aggressively pushed for his ouster.

Amid the genocide in Gaza, students in many universities across Europe and the US have been suspended and even arrested at the behest of Zionist lobby groups.

November 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Out of 270 journalists, ‘Israel’ killed 44 in Gaza displacement tents

Al Mayadeen | November 10, 2025

44 Palestinian journalists were killed inside displacement tents in the Gaza Strip, out of more than 270 media workers slain by Israeli occupation forces since October 2023.

According to a new report by the Freedoms Committee of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, many of the journalists were sheltering near hospitals and United Nations-run facilities when occupation forces launched airstrikes or opened sniper fire directly at displacement tents.

The report pointed to the systematic campaign targeting Gaza’s media infrastructure, citing the destruction of news offices and the deliberate killing of journalists in their homes, workplaces, and temporary shelters.

Deliberate targeting and legal violations

The Syndicate stressed that targeting journalists constitutes a war crime under Article 79 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which guarantees civilian protection to media workers. It further noted that attacks on displacement tents near hospitals and schools represent a serious breach of the protections granted to humanitarian zones.

Investigators confirmed that no military activity was detected in or around the targeted tents, refuting Israeli claims of accidental strikes. The group argued that the use of precision weaponry in densely populated civilian zones “reflects a calculated intent not only to cause death, but to silence witnesses and obstruct documentation of events.”

Call for international accountability

The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate urged the formation of an independent international commission to investigate the targeting of journalists and called for the activation of International Criminal Court mechanisms to pursue accountability for war crimes.

It also appealed for cooperation with UNESCO and the International Federation of Journalists to establish safe corridors and protected zones for displaced media workers, while maintaining a comprehensive legal archive to support future judicial proceedings.

Previous incidents

Earlier in August, six journalists, including Al Jazeera’s correspondent Anas al-Sharif, were killed when an Israeli airstrike targeted a tent sheltering reporters outside the main gate of Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital. The deliberate attack, which targeted al-Sharif, drew international condemnation and renewed calls for investigations into “Israel’s” criminal action.

The Syndicate’s latest report adds to growing evidence from press freedom organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RWB), that “Israel’s” war on Gaza has become the deadliest conflict for journalists in modern history, raising urgent alarms about systematic violations of international humanitarian law.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

The West discovers Zelensky is not really a good guy

In a fleeting glimpse of lucidity, the mainstream media has noticed a tiny fraction of the corruption and authoritarianism in Kiev

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 7, 2025

It’s that time of the great proxy war crusade against Russia again. Someone in the mainstream West has woken up to, if not the facts about the politics of Ukraine, then at least a quantum of disquiet.

The last major wave of the likes of the Financial Times, The Economist, and the Spectator suddenly noticing – all at the same time, as if on cue – that Ukraine has an authoritarianism and corruption problem (and then some) took place less than half a year ago.

Now it’s Politico – usually a steadfast party organ of Russophobia, Zionism-come-what-genocide-may, and servility to NATO – that feels vaguely troubled by the realities of the Kiev regime or, as the publication puts it, the “dark side” of Vladimir “I don’t like elections” Zelensky’s rule.

Not all of those realities, of course. That would be asking too much. Instead, Politico is homing in on one great scandal (out of countless ones) concerning one man and the anguish of a few “civil-society”-NGO types, both with good connections to the West. This time, the scandal concerns the obvious, shameless political prosecution of Vladimir Kudritsky, formerly a high-ranking and effective energy infrastructure executive and de facto civil servant.

Yet what about noticing the murder in Ukrainian detention of critical blogger – and US citizen – Gonzalo Lira? Or the vicious persecution of leftist war critic Bogdan Syrotiuk? Or the mean, indecent harassing of Christian clergy and believers for not saying their prayers in quite the right Ukrainian-nationalist-approved manner? Perish the thought!

In a similar spirit of extreme selectiveness, some Western outlets are now registering – a little and very slowly – the brutal realities of Ukrainian forced mobilization that feed the Western proxy war: Recently, a war – pardon, “defense” – editor of the ultra-gung-ho British tabloid The Sun has returned shell-shocked from NATO’s de facto eastern front, not because of the bloody and wasteful fighting but because the uncouth Ukrainians press-ganged his fixer.

In a similarly traumatic experience, Hollywood’s Angelina Jolie had her local driver snatched away at a Ukrainian military roadblock. Yet violent forced mobilization has been an everyday occurrence in Ukraine for years already. So much so that Ukrainians have chosen the term “busification” (from minibus, a popular vehicle for mobilization manhunts) as word of the year for 2025.

For quite a few of its victims, it ends up even worse than for those privileged enough to work for Western movie stars and British propagandists. Roman Sopin, for instance, who did not even resist, has just been beaten to death in a mobilization precinct in central Kiev, as an official medical assessment of his cause of death implies as clearly as anyone may dare under Zelensky’s regime.

But let’s get back to the few things Western media deign to notice occasionally: Already dismissed last year, Kudritsky is now facing the courts under transparently trumped-up charges. The reason is obvious to everyone. He has been too popular and far too vocal about corruption at the highest levels and the authoritarian power grabs of Zelensky’s presidential office in particular.

Kudritsky’s case – comparatively harmless, really – does raise many disturbing questions: why is it that the Zelensky regime has such a nasty record of abusing arbitrary financial sanctions and politically perverted legal processes, or lawfare? And haven’t we been told that this regime under its “Churchillian” leader is fighting for Western values of democracy and legality?

Are Zelensky, his sinister fixer-in-chief Andrey Yermak and their team preparing the ground for elections after a possible end of the war – that is, after losing it – by preemptively crippling domestic critics and rivals? Does this mean Zelensky, Ukraine’s most catastrophic leader since independence in 1991 (and that’s a high bar) is seriously considering not slinking away into exile but imposing himself even longer on his unfortunate country?

Or is all of this part of decimating whatever is left of Ukraine’s mangled society to continue the meatgrinder war for as long as the NATO-EU Europeans are willing to pay? If things go the way the bloodthirsty fantasists at The Economist want, then the West will shell out another cool $390 billion over the next four years. Apparently, they believe that waves of forced conscription in Ukraine will provide the human cannon fodder to go along with the Western funding.

Yet if Zelensky’s fresh authoritarian moves are really aiming at preparing for a postwar election next year, then that is a terrible sign, too. It would indicate not only that he is planning to damage Ukraine even further by his presence, but also that those postwar elections will be anything but fair and equal. In other words, in that scenario, Zelensky will try to stay around, and so will the authoritarian regime he has built.

To be fair to Zelensky, his authoritarianism has never been a response to the war, as his Western fans still believe, even when they are finally deigning to notice a little of his “dark side.” Zelensky was building an authoritarian regime – widely known and criticized in Ukraine back then already as “mono-vlada” – long before the escalation of February 2022.

Zelensky is not a benevolent leader who has been forced to adopt dictatorial habits by an emergency. In reality, if anything, he has exploited the emergency for all it was worth to indulge his lust for unlimited power and extreme corruption. So, trying to take his misrule into the postwar period is at least not inconsistent: it has never been tied to wartime.

But behind all of this, there is one great irony and one bigger question: The question is simple. If Politico really believes that going after Kudritsky with lawfare and frustrating the “civil-society”-NGO crowd is “the dark side” of Zelensky’s rule, what, if we may ask, is the bright side supposed to be?

Indeed, where is the better side of real-existing Zelensky-ism? Is it the humungous corruption? The Bakhmut-style military fiascos, the Kursk Kamikaze incursion, and now Pokrovsk? The fact that the media have been mercilessly streamlined? The raging nepotism that makes sure that the poor fight and the sons and daughters of Ukraine’s gangsterish “elite” go on holidays and party? The personality cult?

Or is it – and this brings us to the great irony – that Zelensky-Ukraine is allegedly in sync with “Western values”? And do you know what? It really is! But not the way that the propagandists of both Ukraine and the NATO-EU West want us to believe. What the Zelensky regime and its supporters in the EU really have in common is that neither care about either democracy or the rule of law.

Zelensky going after critics with individual financial sanctions to evade normal legal procedures and leave his victims not even a slim chance to defend themselves, for instance? That is exactly what Germany and the EU are now doing to the journalist Hüseyin Dogru, and not only to him. Zelensky using a perverted reading of the law to harass whoever does not submit or is a political danger to him? Bingo again. That as well is now EU practice, too. Ask, for instance, Marine Le Pen in France. Finally, widespread abuse of political office for self-enrichment and influence peddling? Bingo again: Less than a month ago, the Financial Times ran a detailed article on “scores” of EU parliament members who “earn income from second jobs in areas that overlap with their lawmaking,” raising “questions about disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.” How delicately put. And it sounds just like Ukraine’s Rada.

Here’s the real news: The “dark side” of Zelensky’s rule is all of Zelensky’s rule. And it is also what has become the new normal in an increasingly authoritarian and corrupt EU. Who has learned from whom? Kiev from NATO-EU Europe or vice versa? Either way, this is not a bug but a feature. And it must stop. Everywhere.

Tarik Cyril Amar, is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

November 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

German court upholds ruling in favour of Ghassan Abu Sitta over ban from Berlin conference

MEMO | November 7, 2025

A German court has ruled that authorities in Berlin acted unlawfully when they barred British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu Sitta from participating in a conference on Palestine held in the German capital in April 2024.

The Berlin Administrative Court’s decision, reaffirmed this week, declared that the immigration authorities’ actions were illegal, upholding a lower court ruling issued in July. The Higher Administrative Court rejected an appeal by the Berlin state government, stating that it did not meet the legal criteria required for a retrial.

According to the court’s findings, immigration authorities had no legal grounds to prohibit Dr Abu Sitta from attending the conference, giving media interviews, or making public statements. The ruling emphasized that the restrictions imposed lacked adequate justification related to national security or the protection of public order.

Authorities had originally justified the ban by suggesting that Abu Sitta might express support for the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led Al-Aqsa Flood operation against Israel, or make statements perceived as threatening to the existence of the Israeli state. However, the court concluded that there was no evidence that his participation or remarks posed any danger to Germany’s democratic order.

Dr Abu Sitta, who has treated victims of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and other war zones, has become a prominent advocate for Palestinian medical and human rights. The latest ruling is seen as a significant legal victory for freedom of expression in Germany amid growing debates over restrictions on pro-Palestinian speech.

November 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Paramount blacklist pro-Palestine voices under new pro-Israel leadership

MEMO | November 6, 2025

A growing number of Hollywood actors and filmmakers who have voiced solidarity with Palestinians are reportedly being blacklisted by Paramount, following its takeover by pro-Israel billionaire David Ellison, according to Variety. The move has raised fears of a systematic campaign to suppress dissenting voices in the entertainment industry under the guise of combating anti-Semitism.

The blacklist follows Paramount’s $7.7 billion merger with Skydance Media, led by Ellison—the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the largest donors to Israel’s occupation forces. The leadership overhaul has included the appointment of Bari Weiss, a self-described Zionist and vocal defender of Israel’s assault on Gaza, as editor-in-chief of CBS News, one of Paramount’s flagship assets.

Industry sources suggest that artists who have expressed solidarity with Palestinians or criticised Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and its apartheid regime in the occupied West Bank may now face reprisals. According to Variety, Paramount “maintains a list of talent it will not work with because they are deemed to be ‘overtly antisemitic’ as well as ‘xenophobic’ and ‘homophobic.’ Whether the boycott signatories are on that list is unclear.”

This labelling follows Paramount’s decision in September to publicly denounce a celebrity-signed letter calling for a boycott of Israeli cultural institutions involved in what signatories described as “genocide and apartheid.” Over 300 figures, including Oscar winners Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Rooney Mara, Tilda Swinton and Yorgos Lanthimos, had signed the statement, demanding accountability from Israel for its documented war crimes and structural violence against Palestinians.

Paramount’s swift condemnation of the letter—branding it anti-Semitic—has been interpreted as part of a broader ideological purge within the industry. It echoes earlier incidents such as the sacking of actress Melissa Barrera for condemning Israeli attacks on Gaza, and Susan Sarandon’s revelation that she was dropped by her agency and blacklisted after criticising Israel’s occupation.

The blacklist forms part of a growing pattern across the United States, where support for Palestinian rights is increasingly conflated with hate speech. University students have lost scholarships, faculty members have been suspended or dismissed, and entire student organisations have been deregistered for protesting visits by Israeli officials accused of supporting ethnic cleansing policies.

November 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »