Singapore police open probe over Palestinian flag displayed at Massive Attack concert
The Cradle | July 31, 2026
Singaporean police are investigating an incident involving the display of a Palestinian flag during a concert by the British band Massive Attack, which ended its performance in the country by raising the flag on stage, according to a police statement issued on 31 July.
Police and media stated that investigations are ongoing concerning what was described as “a possible breach of license conditions.”
Under Singaporean law, no foreign national emblem may be shown in public without a permit or an exemption.
The Palestinian flag carries particular sensitivity given Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s sizable Muslim population.
The home affairs ministry issued a public advisory in 2023 against displaying or wearing items connected to events in Palestine and Israel.
“The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict is an emotive issue. We would like to advise against the public display and wearing of articles in relation to the conflict, given the heightened sensitivities,” the ministry said.
The case of Massive Attack is far from the first display of solidarity with Palestine to draw legal action.
Since the start of the Gaza genocide in October 2023, efforts to support Palestine have faced some of the broadest and most diverse crackdowns on public protests.
In the US, authorities and universities have responded to Gaza solidarity demonstrations with mass arrests, suspensions, and criminal charges against students and faculty, while federal officials have threatened funding cuts and investigations targeting pro‑Palestinian activism.
The UK government has used anti‑terror legislation and public‑order powers to ban groups, impose strict conditions on rallies and detain thousands of protesters, activists and academics for expressing support for Palestine.
In France, interior‑ministry directives have led to repeated nationwide bans on pro‑Palestinian demonstrations, with police deploying tear gas, water cannon and mass fines to disperse gatherings and prosecutors pursuing criminal cases against organizers and participants.
In Germany, one of Israel’s staunchest allies, state authorities have treated common pro‑Palestinian slogans as criminal offenses, imposed protest bans, carried out hundreds of arrests and fines, and pursued deportations and other immigration measures against foreign activists involved in solidarity actions.
Germany scrambles to evade Nicaragua’s landmark Gaza genocide case at ICJ
The Cradle | August 1, 2026
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced on 31 July that it will hold hearings from 7 to 10 September on Germany’s bid to dismiss Nicaragua’s landmark genocide case, hoping to prevent judges from ruling on Berlin’s role in enabling Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.
Germany filed its preliminary objections to Nicaragua’s case on 21 October 2025, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and arguing that several of Nicaragua’s claims are inadmissible.
The filing automatically froze all proceedings, leaving evidence of Germany’s complicity in genocide unexamined until judges rule on Berlin’s challenge.
Germany will open oral arguments on 7 September, with Nicaragua responding the following day. Berlin will return on 9 September, and Managua will close on 10 September.
In April 2024, the ICJ denied Nicaragua’s request for Germany to stop military exports to Israel and to resume UNRWA funding, which Germany had suspended in January 2024.
On 1 March 2024, Nicaragua filed the case accusing Germany of violating the Genocide Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and fundamental norms of international law. The charges relate to Germany’s political, financial, and military backing of Israel and its decision to cut off funding to the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees.
Managua asserts that every party to the genocide convention has a duty to do everything possible to prevent genocide, and that a recognized risk of genocide against Palestinians has existed since October 2023.
Berlin argued that only a small share of its export licenses to Israel covered weapons, yet Germany remains Israel’s second-largest arms supplier after the US, issuing export licenses worth over $571m between October 2023 and May 2025.
Beyond weapons, Berlin has locked in security ties with Israel while moving to stamp out criticism of it at home.
Germany’s upper house approved a bill on 10 July criminalizing the denial of Israel’s “right to exist,” punishable by up to five years in prison, a measure the Bundestag’s own research service warns would breach constitutional protections on free expression.
Netanyahu and German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt signed a security agreement in Jerusalem on 11 January, expanding military cooperation against Iran and resistance factions in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen.
Iceland’s forthcoming referendum on EU membership
By Alfred de ZAYAS | CounterPunch | July 29, 2026
In August 2026 Icelanders will vote in a referendum whether Iceland should open accession talks with a view to joining the European Union[1].
Icelanders would be well advised to keep away from the EU, which has morphed from a peace-loving European integration movement into a war-mongering globalist machine run by a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels that operates without transparency or accountability and endorses militarization and virulent Russophobia.
In the light of Iceland’s venerable democratic traditions going back to the Thingvellir Parliament of the tenth century[2], it would be madness for the Icelanders to abandon their hard-won sovereignty and independence.
In 1992 and 93 Iceland did negotiate the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement that gave it access to the EU market but without membership and many of the obligations. The EEA agreement came into effect in 1994, and was negotiated during the period after the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht (see below). It is important to know that the EU in the time of Maastricht was fundamentally different to EU following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. The EU is now speeding into a more centralised, authoritarian and even totalitarian future.
There is another important consideration. The Treaty of Lisbon is in many aspects incompatible with the UN Charter. Icelanders must actually choose between their obligations under the UN Charter and the commitments and actions that flow from the Treaty of Lisbon and the arbitrary decisions of the European Commission, currently under Ursula von der Leyen.
UN membership
Let us review a bit of history. Iceland joined the United Nations in 1946.
The purposes and principles of the UN are laid out in Articles 1-2 of the Chater, notably a joint commitment of all members to advance peace through cooperation, multilateralism, conflict-prevention, respect of the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, the promotion of human rights and the right to development.
Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Because of this overarching legal commitment, every UN member State must consider, before entering into any treaty or joining any other organization, whether such action would be compatible with UN membership.
Article 52 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN members can join other organizations “provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)
This short paper argues that Iceland should not become a member of the European Union, which admittedly had very good beginnings, but which gradually moved away from its original peace-oriented vocation and emerged as a competing supra-national geopolitical entity with aims and activities frequently in conflict with the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions.
On the basis of the Schuman Declaration (1950) the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) the European Common Market was established with the purpose of advancing European integration, democracy and human rights. For decades the European States worked in tandem with the United Nations and contributed to stability and prosperity in the region.
The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) created the European Union and promoted peace and human rights while respecting diversity and state sovereignty. Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty stipulated:
“The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. 3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States…”
This arrangement was compatible with the UN Charter and guaranteed the respect of national identities and approaches in a manner consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, which also values the richness of diverse cultures and perspectives and discourages top-down homologation.
Unfortunately, the globalist movement in Europe largely homologized foreign policy, culture and even morals, in disregard of local approaches and traditions. When in 2004 the idea of a European constitution was aired, it was quickly defeated in public opinion polls and in the referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2006. The European populations felt that the proposed constitution threatened their national identities guaranteed in the Treaty of Maastricht, that it opened the way to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism driven by a Brussels bureaucracy disconnected from the peoples of the member States of the European Union.
In the light of the impossibility to adopt the European Constitution by direct democratic vote, the bureaucrats decided in 2007 to drop the project of a European Constitution, and instead to take a short-cut relying on the parliaments of the member States, which were more easily manipulated than the populations they represented.
The Treaty of Lisbon or 13 December 2007 emerged as an Ersatz or surrogate European constitution, adopted in a questionable manner, and in any case unrepresentative of the wishes of the populations concerned.
Lip service was given to the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the EU acts (in theory) only where its member states agree unanimously. This reflects the legal norm that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. Smoke and mirrors.
In practice, however, the sovereignty of European States has been significantly reduced since 2007, and the Brussels bureaucracy has imposed rules and regulations – as well as unilateral coercive measures, wrongly referred to as “sanctions” – in an increasingly authoritarian manner, in disregard of the “margin of discretion” of supposedly sovereign European countries.
Particularly dangerous is the fact the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg sides with the European Council in most cases, notwithstanding well-based challenges from individual States. In effect, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states, even in matters of access to information, freedom of opinion and expression, morals and national security.
In its Orwellian judgment of 2 July 2026, the EU Court in Luxembourg approved the legality of EU censorship of the internet and the criminalization of social media messages including electronic links to sanctioned senders[3]. In this genuinely totalitarian judgment, not only the rights of news services to broadcast information and perspectives are being violated by EU law, but also the right of every EU citizen to access and publicly discuss politically relevant information.
Access to information and freedom of opinion and expression are at the very core of every democracy. These rights are stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee.[4]
This and other recent decisions by the European Court of Justice illustrate that there is no longer an effective recourse or remedy, because the European Court of Justice is clearly beholden to the EU Council.
Even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has failed to protect European citizens from confiscation of private property e.g. pursuant to EU sanctions against Russia, and in clear violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Here too, the right to private property has been done away with by the supra-national decision of EU bureaucrats to issues “sanctions” on targeted countries or persons.
Because of the severity of the consequences of these measures, numerous human rights organizations, including the Geneva International Peace Research Institute[5], have presented legal briefs to the Council of the European Union enumerating the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus far GIPRI and other organizations have received no appropriate response, other than a blanket reaffirmation from Brussels that the extra-judicial measures adopted pursuant to EU sanctions are legal.
A particularly egregious case of the new EU totalitarianism are the sanctions imposed on six European citizens for allegedly expressing views close to those of the Russian argumentation concerning the causes of the Ukrainian war since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014. Among those impacted are the retired Swiss Colonel and intelligence officer Jacques Baud,[6] and the German journalist Husseyn Dogru.
Moreover, as I explained before the UN Security Council on 25 March 2024[7], the EU “sanctions” are not compatible with the UN Charter. For years now the European Union systematically violates resolutions of the General Assembly[8] and of the UN Human Rights Council[9], which condemn US and EU “sanctions” as incompatible with the UN Charter, international law, human rights norms and the right to development. Moreover, EU “unilateral coercive measures” make the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals nearly impossible, and, together with the illegal US sanctions regime, cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as determined by the British medical journal The Lancet. The imposition of such unilateral coercive measures undoubtedly constitutes the “use of force” in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and have no justification in international law in the absence of UN Security Council approval. EU “sanctions” violate the right to life, the right to development, and the self-determination of peoples.
Another worrisome development in Europe is the systematic war-propaganda and fear-mongering, the refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means, in contravention of article 2(3) of the UN Charter and the virulent Russophobia displayed by the Brussels bureaucracy, in gross violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:
“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[10]
In 2024 and again in 2025 the Geneva International Peace Research Institute submitted legal briefs to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 15 of the Statute of Rome, alleging violations of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute by the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. EU policies are contrary to international criminal law in that they have provided and continue to provide military, political, economic, diplomatic and propagandistic support to a genocidal State, thus enabling Israel to continue the genocide against the Palestinians and to engage in acts of aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.
Collectives of jurists in France, Italy and Germany have also submitted legal briefs challenging the actions by EU member states as contrary to the UN Charter, the Statute of Rome, the ICCPR (articles 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25), the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
All of the above activities by the European Union document the fact that the initially peace-loving institution has morphed into a totalitarian organization that no longer conforms with article 52 of the UN Charter, because it does not promote the purposes and principles of the UN but actually works against them.
Iceland must be very careful in considering any kind of association with the EU. A coherent foreign policy by Iceland would reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter and avoid any treaties or association that would restrict its sovereignty and margin of discretion and violate its obligations pursuant to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The perception of the EU as a bastion of the “rule of law” and human rights can no longer be empirically sustained. Vestiges of a positive perception of the EU are only a product of public relations, indoctrination and relentless propaganda.
Yet, in our world of Orwellian newspeak and cognitive dissonance, some – even in Iceland – pretend that it is perfectly normal to be committed to the UN Charter while working against its purposes and principles through aggressive policies adopted by the Brussels bureaucracy.
A well-advised Icelandic voter should reject any association with the European Union, because the EU is no longer the peace-loving Common Market but has morphed into a totalitarian organization that does not respect the democratic rights of European peoples but pretends to impose a one-size-fits all, one-narrative for all, on all European citizens.
All freedom-loving Icelanders are called upon to defend Iceland’s sovereignty and independence.
Notes.
[2] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/05/thingvellir-northern-europes-first-parliament/
https://www.thingvellir.is/en/education/history/assembly-site/
https://www.rferl.org/a/ecj-eu-russia-sanctions-oligarchs/33434950.html
[5] Gipri.ch
[8] Resolution 80/209 of 17 December 2025
[9] Resolution 61/9 of 27 March 2026
BIRX POINTS THE FINGER AT FAUCI, DENIES LOCKDOWN BLAME
The HighWire with Del Bigtree| July 30, 2026
Deborah Birx got a hero’s welcome on News Nation, claiming she never understood how the country went from slowing the spread to a full shutdown, and pointing to Fauci’s private calls with governors and mayors as the cause. Jefferey Jaxen pulls up the actual headlines and timeline on the woman who was named White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, and it tells a very different story.
UK charges over 1,500 people over signs opposing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza
The Cradle | July 31, 2026
British authorities listed the cases of 1,579 people at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 July, holding cardboard signs opposing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, according to the campaign group Defend Our Juries.
The group said the hearing had been pushed back to October, but that hundreds of defendants were never told, leaving them unsure whether they were required to appear, pointing to the confusion as evidence of a crisis the courts cannot absorb.
One court notice seen by Middle East Eye told the recipient they must attend on 30 July, then instructed them in the same letter not to come to court.
Defendants who arrived were handed a further letter addressed to whomever it may concern, adjourning all cases to 26 October.
The chaos came on the same day the Supreme Court ruled that Palestine Action can challenge its proscription.
Over 3,500 arrests have been made under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of people holding cardboard signs reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” Defend Our Juries said.
Those cases are tried summarily and carry a maximum of six months in prison, and include senior citizens, faith leaders, and first-time protesters.
In the past two months, 96 people have filmed videos inviting support for Palestine Action, with many also declaring membership.
The declaration of membership exposes them to Sections 11 and 12 of the same act, which are heard before juries and carry sentences of up to 14 years.
Eight of those who filmed have been arrested, seven in dawn raids on people’s homes, with another 14 detained outside New Scotland Yard on 5 July.
Home Office figures cited by the group show 92 percent of terrorism arrests in the year to March 2026 were linked to alleged support for Palestine Action, with the average demographic profile of the suspect being a 59-year-old white British woman.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham had inherited the crisis, asking “does he really want to be seen locking up pensioners, priests and 84-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt while people convicted of violent offenses are released early?”
On 15 June 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled the government’s classification of Palestine Action as a terrorist entity was lawful, overturning the February 2026 High Court judgment that had called it unlawful and disproportionate.
How NIH Silenced Its Critics Without Telling Them
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | July 29, 2026
NIH knew its keyword filters were hiding one side of a public debate. Internal emails now reveal how its lawyers tried to keep the system working without making the censorship look unconstitutional.
Harry Harlow died in 1981. His maternal-deprivation experiments on rhesus macaques turn up in most undergraduate psychology courses, usually as the case study for why research ethics rules exist at all. Four decades after his death, his surname was one of the terms the National Institutes of Health typed into Facebook’s comment-filtering tool so that any comment containing it would vanish from public view.
Next to Harlow on the Facebook list: Suomi, for Stephen Suomi, who runs a comparative ethology lab at NIH’s child health institute. Then monkey, monkies, marmoset, hamster, mouse, mice, primate, chimpanzee, cats, gatos, animales, animalitos, cruel, cruelty, revolting, torment, torture, two monkey emojis, and an emoji with an expletive face. Until December 2021, the list also held PETA and PETALatino.
The Instagram list ran shorter and odder: animal, chimpanzee, monkey, experiment, hurt, kill, test, torture, stop.
Much of this has been public since 2024, when the D.C. Circuit held the filters unconstitutional. What was missing was the agency’s own side of it: what NIH’s lawyers thought they were doing, and what they told the communications staff running the accounts.
On July 22, 2026, Senator Rand Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released 128 pages of internal NIH email from the case. The messages run from November 2021 to January 2022, between NIH’s Office of the General Counsel, its Office of Communications and Public Liaison, and, relayed second-hand, the Justice Department attorneys defending the suit.
Paul’s interest was COVID, and the COVID material is in there. What the emails document, in greater detail, is how an agency behaves in the days after its own attorney tells it, in writing, that it is discriminating against a viewpoint.
How the hiding works
Facebook and Instagram give page administrators an optional keyword filter. You paste in a list of words. Any comment containing one of them, past or future, is hidden automatically. On Facebook there is also a built-in profanity filter with strength settings; NIH had it on “strong.” Instagram has its own default offensive-word filter, which NIH had enabled as well.
“Hidden” has a technical meaning on these platforms that differs from what most people assume. A hidden comment survives. It remains fully visible to the person who wrote it and to that person’s friends. Everyone else scrolling the page sees nothing. The joint stipulation in the case spells out the consequence in flat language: the user whose comment has been hidden typically receives no notice.
So the speaker’s screen looks normal. They wrote a sentence; they can see the sentence, the sentence is there tomorrow. The rest of the page sees nothing, and no error message ever told them so. The silencing leaves no trace, so there is nothing to appeal and no accurate way to complain. Madeline Krasno, one of the plaintiffs and a former University of Wisconsin animal-lab employee, eventually worked out that she was being filtered and started deliberately misspelling words to get through.
What the lawyers told NIH
On December 1, 2021, an NIH senior attorney in the Office of the General Counsel wrote to the communications team after a call with DOJ. The email is the heart of the release.
She opened with a direct instruction. NIH should stop blocking PETA and PETALatino on Facebook and PETA on Instagram, immediately. That is agency counsel identifying terms as viewpoint-based; you cannot block the name of an organization and claim you are policing subject matter. The words stayed up until December 3. Three Instagram hashtag filters, #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, were still running afterward. The attorney later had to check from her own personal Instagram account to establish that they were still live.
For those hashtags she laid out four options. The first, which NIH took, was to remove them and use a different neutral keyword hashtag “to achieve the same effect” against the volume of PETA comments; she suggested #testing or #animals. The second was to keep the anti-testing hashtags and add a pro-testing one to offset them, and she offered an example: #keepanimaltesting. The third was to drop the filters if they were not doing much. The fourth was to keep them, on which DOJ’s advice was that a court might find the terms not viewpoint-neutral, and that the worst that could happen would be an order to stop using them.
The first option is a piece of legal engineering. Counsel has identified a constitutional defect in the selection of words. The remedy chosen is a different selection of words, picked to produce the same suppression while surviving review. The volume of hidden speech stays exactly the same. The category of hidden speech barely changes. What changes is the paper trail.
The evidence DOJ kept asking for
DOJ wanted to argue that NIH had no policy of targeting animal-rights speech, and that a comment defending animal testing would be hidden on the same terms as one attacking it. To make that argument stick, they needed examples. They asked at least three times, across several emails, for two or three instances of the filters catching a pro-testing comment.
NIH came up empty. The answer that came back was that this was not a scenario that happens, since people were not really posting in favor of animal testing. The closest they could offer was that a pro-research reply posted under an already-hidden comment would disappear along with it.
That is a serious problem for the neutrality argument. A filter can be even-handed in its text and one-sided in its operation because only one side of a debate uses the vocabulary. “Torture” and “cruelty” are loaded words in a fight about animal research. They are the other side’s words. The substitute hashtags counsel proposed work the same way: #testing and #animals catch the people who came to complain, and say nothing about them.
Wuhan, ivermectin, and the “neutral” filter
Pressed for examples of off-topic hiding that had nothing to do with animals, NIH’s comms staff supplied one. On a post about the agency’s initiative to end structural racism, comments about the Wuhan Institute of Virology and ivermectin had been hidden as off-topic.
At its narrowest that is defensible. Ivermectin has no bearing on a post about racial equity in the biomedical workforce, and a moderator who removes it is doing an ordinary job badly rather than doing a sinister job well.
However, the agency’s stated purpose for its accounts, according to its own documents, is to be the voice of factual information in a time of “misinformation,” and its internal list of disruptive comment examples is characterized as mostly COVID misinformation.
And the December email contains a line that should worry anyone regardless of where they land on lab-leak or ivermectin: if the court found NIH’s pages to be designated public forums, the attorney wrote, NIH might lose the ability to use neutral filters to shut down discussion of a broad topic. Her two examples: animal testing generally, and COVID vaccinations generally.
A neutral filter is a tool for removing a subject, not off-topic noise, and the subjects an agency wants gone are the subjects on which it is under attack.
What it costs the rest of us
Keyword filtering falls hardest on people without lawyers. PETA had the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Animal Legal Defense Fund and four years of litigation budget. A parent asking whether a mouse-model result applies to their child, on a post about a mouse-model result, had none of that and never learned the question was invisible.
Any political movement with a recognizable vocabulary can be filtered by list. Animal advocacy happens to be the test case because its lexicon is unusually easy to enumerate. Immigration, abortion, Gaza, vaccine injury, policing: all have signature words, and all can be removed from a government comment section by an administrator with fifteen minutes and no oversight. What is documented is this one list on these two accounts. Whether the rest of the federal government and the fifty states run filters like it is unknown; almost nobody has asked.
Krasno asked. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request with NIH on April 24, 2021, for the keyword blocklist on its social accounts, and had the records five days later. A circuit opinion, four years of litigation, and 128 pages of internal email descend from that request. For the years before it, the only people who knew which words were on the list were the ones who typed them in.
The Second Circuit Again Violated the Rights of the Amish
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | July 28, 2026
At the end of last year, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision that enabled New York State to persecute the Amish for refusing to inject pharma products in violation of their religious beliefs, and it remanded the case (Miller v. McDonald) to the Second Circuit to reconsider its illiberal and unconscionable decision.
Instead of abiding by the Constitution and protecting the religious freedom of the Amish, the Second Circuit again ruled against the Amish. So, we will be going back to the Supreme Court.
And yes, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children related to this case are far healthier than American children who are vaccinated. We provided sworn expert evidence attesting that among a random sample of 168 U.S. children, one would expect to find (based on the background rate of chronic disease among U.S. children) 31 cases of environmental allergies, 15 cases of ADHD, 10 cases of asthma, 9 cases of food allergies, and 4 cases of ASD. Yet, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children whose families New York wants to persecute are free from the chronic health conditions—all related to some form of immune system dysregulation—that plague the vaccinated communities in New York.
Since vaccination is supposedly about improving health, and the Amish who do not vaccinate are clearly healthier, one would expect New York to leave them alone. But that is not how this religion works. The vaccine zealots in New York cannot stand that the Amish refuse to abandon their beliefs in favor of the religious beliefs held by the New York officials regarding vaccines. These “health” officials are willing to sacrifice the way of life and belief system of these Amish children and their community (which have kept them far healthier), if they refuse to bend the knee to adopt cult-like vaccine beliefs.
These “health” officials also apparently cannot stand that the Amish children are healthier and are even willing to wage war against them until they submit and receive every vaccine New York demands—so they can be just as “healthy” as all the children outside the Amish community.
The Amish earnestly seek to avoid conflict but because violating their sincerely held religious beliefs is not an option, they have been placed in an impossible position. We, along with co-counsel, intend to continue to litigate on behalf of the Amish to defend their freedom to practice their religion in peace.
Ukraine using mobilization threat to pressure journalists – media
RT | July 28, 2026
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are increasingly using the threat of mobilization to pressure journalists, Strana has claimed, citing employees of several Kiev-based outlets.
The report comes as Ukrainian media have documented numerous cases of violent forced conscription, while investigators have uncovered a series of high-profile corruption scandals.
Revoking draft exemptions or conscripting journalists’ relatives has become one of the main tools for pressuring media workers, Strana wrote on Tuesday. One publisher was allegedly told by uniformed officers that his exemption from military service could be revoked within minutes unless he removed several articles from his website, prompting him to comply. In another case, an editor was reportedly threatened with the mobilization of her son if she published an article critical of the leadership of a Ukrainian law enforcement agency.
The allegations follow the detention of investigative reporter Yevgeny Shulgat in Kiev on Monday. According to Hromadske, police stopped the taxi he was riding in, handcuffed him and took him to a recruitment center. Kiev police and conscription officers claimed the reporter had failed to undergo a mandatory military medical examination and issued a summons.
Hromadske insisted that documents in its possession showed Shulgat had not breached mobilization requirements and suggested the detention was linked to his investigative work. Shulgat has authored a series of investigations into alleged corruption involving Ukrainian officials, particularly within the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
The allegations come amid a string of high-profile corruption scandals. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, investigators have uncovered procurement schemes involving inflated prices for military supplies, while the authorities have also pursued major graft cases in the energy sector, including two investigations into state nuclear company Energoatom.
Ukraine’s mobilization campaign has also drawn mounting criticism. Videos circulating on social media have repeatedly shown recruitment officers forcibly detaining military-age men, while Ukrainian media have documented deaths at recruitment centers and cases of men with serious medical conditions being declared fit for military service.
Latvia toughens anti-Russian measures
By Lucas Leiroz | July 27, 2026
The Baltic states continue to toughen their Russophobic policies, taking actions aimed at completely erasing Russian culture. Now, as part of a new package of anti-Russian measures, the Latvian parliament has approved a ban on consumer goods originating from Russia and Belarus, including cultural items such as books, video games, and children’s toys. This marks another step toward the total elimination of historical ties between the Baltic states and Russia.
Parliament made the decision on July 23. Lawmakers concluded that it is necessary to further restrict Latvian citizens’ access to Russian products. Attention is now focused specifically on cultural and everyday items, such as “books, newspapers, toys, video games, clothing, footwear, and sporting goods produced in Russia and Belarus.” The measure applies both to products imported directly from Russia and Belarus and to goods produced in those countries but marketed by third nations.
Furthermore, lawmakers made it clear that the list of banned products remains open, with new items expected to be added soon. Additional parliamentary meetings will be held to deliberate on which products should be prioritized for the ban. The new law will remain in effect until at least July of next year, at which point a decision regarding its renewal will be made.
Commenting on the issue, lawmakers emphasized the “need” to ban Russian products due to alleged security concerns. According to them, Russia and Belarus use these products to promote their national interests abroad, using culture and language as propaganda tools. Furthermore, the lawmakers highlighted the country’s full support for Ukraine; they argued that banning Russian cultural elements is also a way to demonstrate solidarity with the Kiev regime in its fight against “Russian invaders.”
Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze also commented publicly on the matter, endorsing the narrative that these products serve as Russian propaganda and should be banned on security grounds. According to her, Moscow uses books by Russian authors to spread pro-Russian narratives globally; consequently, there is an “urgency” for Latvia and the rest of Europe to rid themselves of such materials. Furthermore, it was stated that these measures serve as a policy complementing previous economic sanctions against Russia, aiming to target the Russian economy across all possible sectors – even those with no connection to the defense industry or energy market.
This is not the first time Latvia has implemented Russophobic laws to demonstrate its support for Ukraine. Since 2022, the country has restricted the use of the Russian language. Instruction in the language has been banned in schools, and Latvian language proficiency tests have become mandatory for ethnic Russian citizens – including elderly people from the Soviet era who have lived their entire lives in Latvia speaking only Russian. Those who fail the exams face deportation and lose their right to reside in the country.
These policies are truly racist. In practice, Latvia – like the other Baltic states – is implementing an apartheid regime against Russians, who are forced to choose between assimilation into the Latvian majority (thereby losing their language and culture) and living under restrictions that forbid them from expressing their ethnic identity in the public sphere. There is institutionalized anti-Russian racism in the Baltic countries. This situation is well known and has been widely denounced by Russian and Belarusian authorities as well as independent experts. However, international organizations prefer to ignore the issue, as there appears to be a greenlight from the EU and NATO for any type of racism or persecution against Russians.
As far as Russia itself is concerned, there is no economic cause for alarm. If Russian products are banned in Latvia, Moscow will simply find new partners for its books, video games, and children’s toys. Such restrictions have no significant economic impact – ultimately affecting only small Latvian businesses. Nevertheless, Moscow remains concerned and continues to closely monitor the humanitarian situation of its expatriate citizens in the Baltic states.
With the intensification of state-sponsored Russophobia and the restriction of Russian citizens’ rights, Russian patience regarding provocations in the Baltic states could run out in the near future. Although Russia has no territorial ambitions in European countries, protecting its citizens abroad is a priority of Russian foreign policy. Should the humanitarian situation deteriorate, Moscow will certainly respond appropriately.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Henrik Svensmark fired by his university
By Karl Iver Dahl-Madsen | CLIntel | July 21, 2026
Something unusual and encouraging has happened in Danish climate journalism. Berlingske, one of Denmark’s leading national daily newspapers, has published an excellent and genuinely inquisitive article about the dismissal of physicist Henrik Svensmark from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), where he has been working since the late nineties. The headline leaves no room for doubt: “Controversial Danish climate and space researcher has received the pink slip from DTU: It is ‘a death blow’ to my research”.
Here is how the article starts:
He is one of Denmark’s most internationally recognized researchers – and at the same time one of the most controversial. But now space and climate researcher Henrik Svensmark has, in his own words, been “good old-fashioned fired” by his employer, the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) in Lyngby. He does not rule out that “political considerations” – as he puts it – were involved in the years-long process that led to his final dismissal. At the same time, Henrik Svensmark does not hesitate to call it “a death blow” to a branch of research that he has largely developed single-handedly and that climate researchers around the world, including the UN’s climate panel (IPCC), have had to relate to – often reluctantly. This is mainly because Svensmark’s research points to what he sees as an overlooked natural factor behind a large part of the climate changes Earth has undergone. He finally does not rule out that the dismissal may be linked to the fact that he is perceived as a controversial researcher in wide circles: “There is nothing controversial about the research itself. But it is true that many perceive my research as controversial, even though it shouldn’t be.” DTU has no comments on the actual dismissal of Svensmark and refers to it as a personnel matter. However, the director of DTU Space, Henning Skriver, confirms that Svensmark’s overarching research area, atmospheric physics, will now “be significantly down-prioritized.”
Science journalist Lars Henrik Aagaard deserves credit for the whole article. Rather than dismissing Svensmark as merely ‘controversial’, he asks the essential question: is DTU retiring an ageing employee, or is it terminating an internationally recognized but scientifically inconvenient research program?
The facts reported by Berlingske are troubling.
Svensmark, aged 68, and well known for his work on cosmic rays and clouds, was still actively working and preparing a new experiment. Only a few months earlier, he says, his superiors had told him that his research was important and that they wanted him to continue.
According to Svensmark, he had also been selected for a professorship in 2016 following positive international evaluations. A new rector however, blocked his expected promotion to full professor, downgrading him to Senior Researcher (and lowering his salary). That move made it harder for him to secure regular research funding in Denmark.
In 2021, DTU again attempted to dismiss him, but he continued, partly, he says, because of protests from scientists connected with MIT and Princeton (Lindzen and Happer).
Berlingske presented this history to DTU. The university declined to address it. DTU Space director Henning Skriver merely stated that atmospheric physics was being “significantly downgraded” as part of a strategic prioritization.
That is not an explanation. It is management fog.
A public university may change its priorities. But it should explain the scientific reasoning. Why was Svensmark encouraged to continue only months before his dismissal? What happened to the positive international evaluation? Why was the professorship removed? Why is an active experiment being stopped?
The details of an individual employment case may be confidential. The scientific grounds for closing a research program shouldn’t be. A hypothesis cannot be dismissed administratively.
Solar activity
Svensmark’s research concerns the influence of solar activity and cosmic radiation on aerosol formation, clouds and therefore the climate.
The proposed mechanism is straightforward in principle. Solar activity affects the amount of cosmic radiation reaching Earth. Cosmic radiation ionizes the atmosphere. Ionization may influence the formation and growth of aerosol particles, some of which become cloud condensation nuclei. Clouds, in turn, strongly affect Earth’s radiation balance.
Parts of this chain have been demonstrated experimentally. The unresolved question is how large the resulting climate effect is under real atmospheric conditions and over different timescales.
Svensmark does not claim that carbon dioxide has no effect. He told Berlingske :
“I am not saying that humans are not part of it.”
His point is that natural variability, cloud processes and solar influence remain insufficiently quantified. He describes the dismissal as “a death blow” to the research program he has spent much of his career developing.
Not a marginal researcher
Svensmark cannot reasonably be dismissed as an unsuccessful or marginal scientist. Google Scholar records more than 7,000 citations to his work and an h-index of 30. Compared with the broader DTU research community, this places him approximately among the upper fifth of researchers and probably higher when measured by total citations. That is a considerable scientific impact for a relatively small and highly contested research field, far removed from the large collaborative networks that generate many citations almost automatically.
The predictable but weakest contribution in the article comes from Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, professor at the Niels Bohr Institute and a prominent figure in the IPCC community.
Hesselbjerg accepts that cosmic radiation may play a role in cloud formation and long-term climate history. He then claims that much of Svensmark’s research appears to have been designed to confirm his hypothesis and that, whenever it was not confirmed, “an arm or a leg” was simply added.
That is an extraordinary accusation and an intellectually shabby one.
Hesselbjerg identifies no paper, no experiment, no faulty measurement, no improper method and no failed prediction. He merely insinuates that Svensmark has constructed his research to reach a predetermined conclusion. If Hesselbjerg believes that, he should name the experiments and explain precisely what was wrong with them. Otherwise, he should withdraw the allegation.
Developing a hypothesis as new evidence appears is not scientific misconduct. It is science. Aerosol formation involves nucleation, particle survival, growth, atmospheric chemistry and eventual cloud formation. Discovering additional mechanisms is not “adding an arm or a leg”. It is the whole purpose of experimental research.
Hesselbjerg’s performance illustrates a wider problem. Researchers close to the institutional consensus can invoke authority while providing remarkably little argument. A dissenting researcher is expected to prove every link in a complex physical chain before his work is even considered legitimate.
That is not a scientific level playing field.
The research should continue
The immediate objective should not merely be to embarrass DTU. It should be to ensure that Svensmark’s research survives. The most important next step is to develop a climate model that explicitly includes the proposed chain connecting solar activity, cosmic radiation, atmospheric ionization, aerosol growth and clouds, alongside greenhouse-gas forcing and the other established climate mechanisms.
Such a model would make it possible to test a question of enormous scientific and political importance: How much of the observed temperature development is caused by human influence, and how much is caused by natural variation?
That question is far from purely academic. Climate policy depends critically on the answer. If natural influences are larger than assumed, the expected effect of reducing carbon emissions is smaller. If they are negligible, the current attribution of climate change to CO2 becomes stronger. Either result would be valuable.
As explained by Henrik Svensmark: “The next decisive step is to build a climate model in which the influence of solar activity, cosmic radiation, aerosol growth and clouds is represented together with greenhouse gases. That would allow us to test how much of modern climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. This can be done within a few years and with a research budget that is modest compared with the political and economic importance of the question.”
The task is therefore concrete: we need to find a new institutional home for Svensmark, preserve the equipment and scientific expertise, assemble an international research team and raise the necessary funding.
Berlingske has performed a valuable public service by bringing this case into the open. DTU has responded with evasion. Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen has responded with an undocumented attack on a colleague’s scientific integrity.
Neither response is acceptable.
Science advances through experiments, observations and testable models, not through administrative priorities, institutional conformity or casual insinuations.
Henrik Svensmark’s research must not end with a DTU management decision. It must now be given the resources to face the only judgement that matters: the judgement of observations.
Karl Iver Dahl-Madsen is an independent consultant (owns Dahl-Madsen ApS), chairman of the board of the Danish climate-sceptical association Klimarealisme (Climate Realism), and a frequent commentator/debater in Danish media on climate policy, energy, and environmental issues. More: https://klimarealisme.dk/
They Are Coming to Take Us Away
The White House discovers more “commies” and terrorists
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • July 19, 2026
In Donald Trump’s America it is always possible to wake up in the morning and peruse online the overnight headlines to discover something new and exciting. Over the past week it has been a medley of going to war (again) with Iran coupled with a complicated performance on other issues as President Trump apparently takes aim at his enemies in the US and elsewhere. America’s Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is fully on board with a surge in worldwide mayhem. He is looking forward to an increase in US initiated violence, ordering that male soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines be tested for their testosterone levels. “Hegseth argues the effort, to become part of the military’s periodic health assessment for troops over 30, will ensure the optimal performance and long-term health of warfighters… the move plays into Hegseth’s focus on appearances and masculinity, which one Democrat said this week borders on ‘homoeroticism’.” Those who fail to have sufficient of the “male characteristics” hormone in their systems will be determined to be not fit for combat, where lethal instincts as encouraged under Hegseth require a satisfactory level of anger. Some soldiers might be offered therapy to increase their hormone levels.
And perhaps not so strangely, it often seems that much of the daily news relates to America’s “best friend and closest ally” Israel. One of the great ironies of the Israel against the rest of the world competition is how the “Torah” Old Testament is regularly being cited by Washington and the national media to justify anything the Jewish state does. That occurs in spite of the fact that Biblical Judea has little in common with the real Israel of today apart from providing an enduring mythology interwoven with the “holocaust” fantasy to sustain the myth of “chosen-ness.” In reality, Judea ceased to exist as an actual nation in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed to include the Second Temple in Jerusalem, of which absolutely nothing physical remains, and forced the Jews to depart. After that, what is now described as Palestine was ruled in various fashions by Rome, Byzantium, Muslim Arabs, Christian Europeans, Mamelukes, Turks, and the British until the politically driven re-creation of a Jewish state in 1948. That means for nearly 1900 straight years there was no such thing as an “Israel” or a Jewish nation and any Jewish presence was marginal in the region where the religion was born. Clearly there was no historical mandate to move a group of foreigners, whose only tie was to a religion that many of them did not actually practice, into a land that those foreigners then began to depopulate of its indigenous inhabitants who had lived in that place under both Christian and Muslim foreign rule for two millennia.
Recent American presidents have certainly tried to make the brutal Israeli suppression and occupation of what was supposed to be a neighbor state called Palestine somehow seem to be something quite acceptable. This is particularly due to the nonsense regurgitated by a group of American fundamentalists that many refer to as Christian Zionists (CZ), best exemplified by the delusional US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. These are folks that revere the Jewish Bible, as one might describe it, as “explained” by the nineteenth century Scofield Bible. Huckabee insanely even claims that “Without Israel, without the Jewish foundation, there would not be America.”
Unfortunately for the rest of us, the CZ exist in large numbers in southern and some midwestern so-called Bible Belt states and they vote reliably for congressmen and even presidents who are Israel Firsters. So we get monsters like Texan Ted Cruz, Arkansan Tom Cotton and the recently deceased South Carolinian Lindsey Graham calling the shots on foreign policy. And we get presidents like Joe Biden and Donald Trump, both of whose exceptional loyalty to Israel should have been challenged when they ran for office!
The latest bid by Congress to allow Israel to be even more intolerant of the Christians and Muslims that it is supposed to share the former Palestine with is a recently passed amendment calling for equal Jewish prayer rights on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. The Mount currently houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of three most holy religious sites for Muslim believers, reputedly the location where Mohammed himself was spirited up to heaven by Allah. When Israel was created in 1948 Jerusalem was categorized by the UN as an international city inclusive of all faiths. The Mount was regarded as special for Muslims and believers in other faiths had only limited access to it. More recently, there has been constant agitation from extremist Jewish politicians in Israel to open up the site and there have even been calls to build a Jewish Third Temple on it as well even more radical demands to demolish al-Aqsa completely as part of the process. This has been accompanied by increased persecution and even closure of churches and mosques located elsewhere in the city with the clear intention of making Jerusalem more exclusively Jewish. Trump and company have, of course, not raised any objections to the Jewish activism even when Christians are being actively persecuted and denied access to their churches and holy sites.
Israel aside, the views of Americans who value the First Amendment Freedom of Speech right should be particularly concerned by the authoritarian direction the federal government is moving in. One must pay attention to last week’s denunciations by Trump and National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of “communists” and “terrorists” among the predominantly progressives who apparently are in the forefront of those who are opposing the enlightened policies being promoted by the White House. It is apparently the belief that labeling opponents in that fashion will guarantee victory in the upcoming November midterm elections where Democrats will inter alia be labeled as anti-Israel and it will also make it easier to root some such folks out for deportation or imprisonment to silence them as has already been happening with foreign students at American universities.
Regarding what is developing, Trump’s activation of the little known “alien terrorist” deportation court presumably will conveniently provide the president and his fanatics with a new tool to cleanse the country of anyone who might object to killing people without any constitutional or legal process as has been taking place in the Caribbean, Iran and Sudan. Not that Trump needed a new court since he is no friend of “rule of law” and has been repeatedly acting in one of his rages whenever he sees fit to punish both American citizens and foreigners. One might cite the recent arrest of an American citizen who was traveling in Spain. As reported by The Guardian, “Spanish authorities, operating on a US extradition request, arrested the 41-year-old James Chambers, a US citizen and wealthy donor to leftwing and humanitarian projects worldwide, last Friday in Ibiza. He has been transferred to a prison in Madrid. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking his extradition for alleged financial support of Hamas, according to a spokesperson for the Spanish high court. This is the first known case of the US seeking extradition of a citizen over alleged support for Hamas… It is unfolding as Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, convened 66 countries this week – including Spain – as part of a broader effort to discredit leftwing activity as terrorism…”
In reality, of course, Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement and the ones who should be arrested on terrorism charges are Israelis, starting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he dares to visit the UN in New York in August, but that fine point is not about to bother Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. One can only assume that the Trump Administration will be moving sharply to the right over the next three months, labeling all critics as threats to the security of the United States of America. The initial focus will be on foreigners living in the United States, but the mechanism will easily be expanded to include all critics or supporters of resistance groups, like is happening to American citizen James Chambers in Spain. It is easy to go to Congress or have the White House declare some entity “terrorist” and people who support them in their resistance to US policy will begin to be on the receiving end of punishment. That is what is coming unless we the people unite to put an end to it right now!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Heather Herbert Charged Over Ann Widdecombe Bluesky Posts
By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | July 17, 2026
Police Scotland has arrested and charged someone over two posts published online.
Heather Herbert, a 50-year-old web developer at the University of Aberdeen, a transgender activist and a former Labour and Scottish Greens candidate, wrote two vile messages on Bluesky about the death of Ann Widdecombe, a British politician and television personality who was found murdered in her home last week.
“And some good news for once. I hope it was an extremely painful death,” the first one said. The second went further. “And I hope she was handcuffed to the bed as she screamed in agony.”
Wishing an elderly woman a screaming, agonized end is the sort of thing that typically earns you a wide social berth and a lot of quiet unfollowing.
Then the police got involved. And un-involved. And then involved again.
Police Scotland looked at the posts and decided, in its own words, that “no criminality has been established.” Filed away, done. Then a petition gathered around 3,500 signatures in a matter of days, and the force pulled a handbrake turn.
A spokesman confirmed that “following further assessment, additional inquiries are being carried out.” Put plainly, the public shouted and the definition of a crime shuffled over to meet the shouting.
A 50-year-old, Herbert, was then arrested and charged, with a report going to the procurator fiscal. The police have not said which offense was supposedly committed. They made the arrest first and will presumably tell everyone the crime later.
Herbert, for what it is worth, was unrepentant, dismissing the whole row as “overblown” before the Bluesky account went dark and was suspended.
Herbert is clearly not charming company to keep but Britain has a troubling habit of turning vile speech into a police matter.
The death that started all this turned out to be far worse than anyone first assumed. Widdecombe, 78, the former Conservative minister turned Reform UK spokeswoman, was found dead at her home in Haytor on Dartmoor with serious injuries.
A 28-year-old man from South Yorkshire was arrested, then re-arrested under terrorism law. Counter-terror officers now describe a “brutal” and “targeted attack.”
Herbert posted before any of that was known, which spares nothing morally but is legally relevant, because you cannot be prosecuted for gloating over a murder that had not yet been called one.
The University of Aberdeen says it is reviewing the posts “as a matter of priority,” that the comments “are entirely the individual’s own,” and that it does not condone “violence or hateful behaviour in any form.” The principal added his own condemnation on top.
So a web developer’s repugnant messages have become a workplace disciplinary matter, a police matter and a political-party matter all at once. Three investigations for two sentences.
Herbert’s posts are horrible, and horrible speech is exactly the speech that tests whether a country believes in the freedom it advertises. Pleasant opinions have never needed protecting. Scotland has spent years assembling the machinery to police the ugly ones, and that machinery does not politely switch itself off when the target happens to be unsympathetic. Today it points at a gloating activist. Tomorrow it points wherever the next petition tells it to.
You are not obliged to like Heather Herbert. You can find the posts repulsive, think a great deal less of the person who wrote them, and still spot the much bigger problem standing behind them. But a police force that works out what is criminal by reading the room is a police force you should never trust with a single one of your own words.
Widdecombe deserved better than those posts. Everyone in Scotland deserves better than a speech code enforced by whoever can shout the loudest.
Featured Video
Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
TV Drama Review
Japanese drama projects Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
Global Times | October 25, 2026
By portraying Chinese characters as perpetrators of ruthless violence while casting Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) intelligence operatives as defenders, the season 2 of the Japanese drama Vivant has recently drawn criticism from Chinese netizens, who argue that its depiction turns historical reality on its head while ignoring Japan’s wartime atrocities.
The TBS drama series – a spy suspense story in which an alleged unofficial intelligence unit of the SDF operates across the globe — has attracted a passionate fanbase. Its currently airing season 2 opened with a household rating of 18.8 percent, the highest for a TV drama this year, according toa commentary article by Japanese media Toyo Keizai.
What draws attention is the portrayal of the enemies in the series, the article noted. Scenes in which the Chinese organization subjects kidnapped members of the SDF unit to brutal torture are repeated with unrelenting intensity.
It is rare for Japanese TV dramas to explicitly portray a real-life country as the enemy, the article noted.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi also made a reference to the drama, saying that she has been recording Vivant and hopes to binge-watch it over the year-end and New Year holidays, according to Japanese media outlets.
China’s CCTV News report on Sunday revealed that the drama features scenes in which Chinese personnel cut off the fingers of and stab Japanese intelligence operatives in the abdomen. Such acts bear striking similarities to the torture inflicted on Chinese nationals by invading Japanese troops during the World War II.
The drama distorts the truth by attributing these atrocities to modern Chinese characters. Beneath the surface, it subtly glorifies Japan’s cross-border overseas operations, blurs the functional boundaries of the SDF and implicitly promotes an expansionist narrative, per CCTV News. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- EU facing trillion-euro debt hole while seeking more cash for Kiev
- How US, Europe, Persian Gulf states exhausted missile stockpiles, splurged billions to defend Israel
- Up in arms… Koreans reject U.S. empire’s plan to make South Korea the next Ukraine
- Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia could advance region-led security framework in Tehran: FM spox
- Netizens condemn Japanese drama for projecting Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
