Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump Files Sweeping $10 Billion Lawsuit Against BBC — Exposing a Global Machinery of Narrative Suppression

By Sayer Ji | December 15, 2025

President Donald Trump has filed a sweeping defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), alleging that the UK’s state-backed broadcaster deliberately edited his words to falsely portray him as inciting violence. You can view my report on the details of the initiating event here.

The 33 page suit, filed in U.S. federal court, seeks billions in damages and cites internal whistleblower documents, leadership resignations, and a documented pattern of prior misconduct to argue that the edit was not an error — but an intentional act of malice with real-world and political consequences.

The lawsuit stems from a BBC Panorama documentary that spliced together two separate portions of Trump’s January 6 speech — spoken nearly an hour apart — while omitting his explicit call for peaceful protest. According to the complaint, this manipulation created a false impression that Trump urged violence. The BBC has since issued a formal apology, withdrawn the documentary, and seen its Director-General and Head of News resign in disgrace.

But the significance of the case extends far beyond a single documentary or a single speech.

For the first time, a court filing squarely places legal scrutiny on the institution that has long functioned as a global arbiter of “misinformation” — and asks whether that authority has been weaponized against American political speech.

A Defamation Case With Systemic Implications

At face value, Trump’s lawsuit is a high-profile defamation action against one of the world’s most powerful media institutions. Yet embedded in the filing is a far more consequential allegation: that the BBC knowingly falsified political speech in pursuit of a narrative objective, and did so as part of a repeat pattern rather than a one-off lapse.

The complaint cites an internal memorandum by a former BBC editorial standards adviser who concluded that the edit “materially misled viewers,” as well as evidence that senior leadership was warned in advance. It also documents prior BBC broadcasts that used similar splicing techniques to misrepresent Trump’s words, including a 2022 Newsnight segment and a separate 2024 incident in which BBC presenters falsely suggested Trump had called for a political opponent to be shot.

In other words, the lawsuit alleges not mere negligence, but institutional intent.

That distinction matters — because it forces a broader reckoning with how narrative authority is exercised, exported, and enforced.

Why the BBC Matters More Than This Case

The BBC is not just another media outlet. It is a globally trusted, publicly funded broadcaster whose reporting is routinely cited by governments, technology companies, NGOs, and newsrooms worldwide.

Remarkably, US taxpayers have historically been compelled to fund BBC through USAID, as reported below.

USAID & BBC Caught Laundering Censorship—Unconstitutional & Unforgivable!

Moreover, British citizens are forced to pay the BBC license fees, even if they don’t use the service, with non-payment resulting in tens of thousands of prosecutions annually. You can find more details on this here.

When the BBC labels something “dangerous,” “extreme,” or “misinformation,” those labels do not remain confined to British television screens.

They travel.

For years, BBC investigations — particularly through programs like BBC Click — have been used to frame American websites, platforms, and political movements as threats to public order. In fact, their 2020 collaboration with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the US-Based NewsGuard listing 34 sites they wanted demonetized and removed from the internet including GreenMedInfo.com (yours truly), which I documented in detail here.

Those framings have then been echoed by advocacy groups, relied upon by technology companies, and quietly incorporated into content moderation policies, reputational risk assessments, and even intelligence briefings that labeled dissenting voices challenging medical orthodoxies as equivalent to domestic extremists.

This is how narrative power becomes operational power.

Trump’s lawsuit matters because it places that process — long taken for granted — under legal examination.

Before Trump: How the Architecture Was Built

Long before the BBC edited Trump’s speech, it had already positioned itself at the center of a transnational ecosystem that defines and enforces acceptable discourse.

Through partnerships with non-governmental organizations, alignment with “counter-disinformation” initiatives, and collaboration with philanthropic and government-adjacent funding streams, the BBC helped construct a system in which certain viewpoints could be labeled, marginalized, and suppressed — often without any judicial process or meaningful recourse.

That system did not begin with Trump.

Years earlier, similar mechanisms were deployed against U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., against independent media platforms, and against journalists whose speech was lawful under U.S. law but nonetheless treated as suspect once filtered through foreign media authority.

At the time, these actions were routinely dismissed as editorial disagreement or platform policy enforcement. In light of the Trump lawsuit, they now appear less accidental — and more like early applications of a model that would later be used against a sitting president.

From Narrative Framing to Enforcement

What the Trump case exposes is not simply bias, but a supply chain of suppression:

  • Media institutions generate authoritative narratives
  • NGOs and advocacy groups translate those narratives into risk frameworks
  • Technology platforms operationalize them through moderation and deplatforming
  • Targets — often U.S. citizens — absorb the consequences without due process

Once established, this architecture allows reputational harm and speech suppression to occur at scale, while responsibility remains diffuse and accountability elusive.

The BBC’s unique role in this system is precisely why Trump’s lawsuit is so consequential. It targets the node where authority originates — not merely where enforcement occurs.

A Personal Note of Corroboration

I have seen this system up close. Years before Trump filed suit, my own reporting and platforms were targeted following BBC-, ISD, Newsguard, and CCDH-linked reporting and targeting that framed lawful health and policy speech as dangerous. Some of these reports even made it into foreign court proceedings, to which I was not a party and had no standing, but nonetheless was named as a ‘shadow defendant.’ At the time, there was no mechanism to challenge those labels — only consequences to endure. More details of my plight can be found here.

Trump’s lawsuit does not vindicate any single individual. It does something more important: it makes visible the machinery that was previously invisible — and untouchable.

Why This Moment Is Different

Trump is not the first to be harmed by this system. But he may be the first with sufficient power, evidence, and legal standing to force it into the open.

Whether the lawsuit ultimately succeeds or fails on the merits, it has already accomplished something unprecedented: it has transformed what was once dismissed as “media controversy” into a matter of legal accountability.

That shift should concern anyone who cares about free expression, democratic self-governance, and the dangers of unaccountable narrative power — regardless of political affiliation.

December 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

EU Sanctions Swiss Analyst For Criticism Of The Ukraine Proxy War

The Dissident | December 15, 2025

The European Union has just released a new sanctions package intended to impose “restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities”.

Among the people slapped with EU sanctions is Jacques Baud, a retired colonel in the Swiss army; former strategic analyst, intelligence and terrorism specialist, solely for his position and analysis of the war in Ukraine.

The EU accuses Baud of being “a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes” and being a “mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda” and claiming he “makes conspiracy theories, for example, accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO.”

The EU accuses him of being “responsible for, implementing or supporting actions or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) by engaging in the use of information manipulation and interference” and imposed sanctions on him, solely because his position differs from NATO’s and the EU’s on the Ukraine war.

The outlet Switzerland24 noted that the sanctions on Baud, “provide for the freezing of the assets of sanctioned persons, a ban on entry into the EU and a ban on making funds available to them”.

Commenting on this, Alfred de Zayas, a former UN expert, noted, “We are witnessing a civilizational collapse with the EU sanctioning Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss colonel and intelligence officer, for publishing books and articles expressing views on the Ukraine war contrary to those of the NATO leadership.”

In reality, Jacques Baud’s position, as laid out in his article, “The Military Situation In The Ukraine” from April of 2022, is that, “the dramatic developments we are witnessing today (in Ukraine) have causes that we knew about but refused to see”, including

  1. The expansion of NATO

The fact that NATO expansion led to the Ukraine war has been acknowledged by multiple Western officials.

U.S. diplomat George Kennan, said as far as 1997 that NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era” adding that it would, “be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking”.

In 1998, George Kennan said that NATO expansion was “the beginning of a new cold war” and said, “the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies”.

In 2008, when NATO first invited Ukraine and Georgia to join, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, said, “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests” adding, “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.

Most recently, Amanda Sloat, a top Biden administration official for European affairs admitted that, “We had some conversation even before the war started, about what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion,’ which at that point it may well have done” adding that promising no NATO membership for Ukraine “certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life”.

David Arakhamia, one of the lead Ukrainian negotiators during the Istanbul talks of 2022 also said, “Russia’s goal was to put pressure on us so that we would take (NATO) neutrality. This was the main thing for them: they were ready to end the war if we accepted neutrality, as Finland once did”.

  1. The Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements

Similarly, the fact that the West blocked the Minsk accords in 2019, the peace agreement that would have ended the civil/proxy war in Eastern Ukraine that sparked after the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup, is well documented.

As former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted, “Zelensky is not an unreasonable guy, he got elected as a peacenik, in 2019 he tried to do a deal with Putin, as far as I can remember, his basic problem was that the Ukrainian nationalists couldn’t accept the compromise”.

What Johnson was referring to as the NGO Finnish Peace Defender documented was that,“While President Zelensky is trying to follow commitments given to his electorate and international obligations in implementation of the Minsk Agreements, he has to overcome obstacles placed by irregular armed groups who identify themselves as patriots of Ukraine” including “open threats and blackmail by far-right military circles in Ukraine, including the National Corps led by Andrii Biletski”.

Instead of backing Zelensky in implementing the Minsk Accords, Western-funded NGOs sided with the far-right nationalists in blocking them.

Ukranian-Canadian academic Ivan Katchanovski has documented, “The Western governments and foundations, such as Soros foundation, funded all but one of about two dozen Ukrainian NGOs, which initially issued in 2019 a collective statement that any talks with Donbas separatists were impermissible after the head of the Zelenskyy’s presidential administration supported creation of a consulting group with representatives of the separatist-controlled Donbas during the Minsk negotiations.”

  1. The continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years, and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.

Indeed, while blocking the Minsk Accords, the Trump administration- trying to prove it was not controlled by the Russians as the media claimed based on the Russiagate hoax- approved sending lethal arms to the Ukrainian government in 2017 and 2019, which increased the civilian casualties on the pro-Russia side of the Donbas conflict.

Jacques Baud, in his article, cites a UN report which found that there were 381 civilians killed in the conflict between 2018 and 2021 and that 81.4% occurred “in territory control led by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’”, the pro-Russian separatist side.

Jacques Baud concluded that, “we can naturally deplore and condemn the Russian attack. But WE (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out”.

One is free to agree or disagree with Jacques Baud’s perspective, but the reality is, it is not a “conspiracy theory” or “information manipulation” but a fact-based analysis on the Western policies that led to the war in Ukraine, which is shared by well-respected foreign policy analysts, including John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs and Noam Chomsky.

The EU’s claim that Jacques Baud accuses “Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO”, appears to be a reference to the fact that Jacques Baud has cited a 2019 interview with the Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych where he said the best case scenario for Ukraine was “a large scale war with Russia and joining NATO as a result of defeat of Russia”, saying that currently, “NATO would be reluctant in accepting us”, but defeating Russia would lead to Ukraine joining NATO.

Again, directly quoting a Ukrainian government official is hardly a “conspiracy theory”.

Furthermore, it is blatantly undemocratic and authoritarian for the EU to slap sanctions on someone solely because he has a critical perspective on Western and EU foreign policy.

While the EU pushes for the continuation of the Ukraine war based on the principles of “democracy” and “freedom”, they blatantly disregard democracy and freedom in order to crack down on critics of this policy.

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

Substack Imposes Digital ID Checks in Australia

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 15, 2025

Australian readers opening Substack this fall have found a new step inserted between curiosity and the page. Click the wrong post and a full-screen message appears, informing users they “may be asked to verify your age before viewing certain content.” 

Due to authoritarian internet laws, reading now comes with paperwork.

Substack says the change is not a philosophical shift but a legal one. The trigger is Australia’s Online “Safety” Act, a regulatory framework that treats written words with the same suspicion once reserved for explicit video. 

The law requires platforms to block or filter material deemed age-restricted, even when that material is lawful.

The Online Safety Act hands the eSafety Commissioner broad authority to order platforms to restrict, hide, or remove content considered unsuitable for minors. 

The definition of unsuitable is wide enough to cover commentary, essays, or creative writing that falls nowhere near criminal territory.

To comply, Substack now asks some Australian readers to confirm they are over 18. That can mean uploading identity documents or passing through third-party verification services. 

Readers who already verified their identity through payment systems might be spared another check, though the underlying system remains the same. Access depends on linking a real person to a specific act of reading.

This marks a shift for a platform built on the idea that subscribing and reading could be done quietly. The act of opening an essay now risks leaving a record that connects identity with interest.

In an October 2025 statement titled Our Position on the Online Safety Act, Substack warned that the law carries “real costs to free expression.” 

The company made clear it would follow Australian law, while arguing that mandatory age verification threatens the independence of digital publishing.

This is not the familiar filter used by streaming services or adult entertainment platforms. This is text. Essays. Journalism. Political argument. Material that has long circulated without checkpoints. The same machinery sold as child protection now sits in front of discussions about social issues, politics, or art.

Australian users trying to access posts marked as adult content are met with a demand to confirm their age before proceeding. 

The process may be quick, but it requires data exchanges that associate a reader with specific material. Even if those links are temporary, they represent a break from the historical norm of private reading.

For writers and readers who valued Substack as a direct channel, the dynamic has changed. Subscribing is no longer enough. Proof is required. That requirement may not ban content outright, but it introduces friction that discourages engagement with sensitive or controversial topics. It also normalizes the idea that access to writing should depend on disclosing personal identity.

Once such systems exist, expanding them becomes an administrative decision.

Australia is not alone. Similar problems are underway in the United Kingdom and the European Union, where online safety proposals also rely on digital identity frameworks. 

The common premise is that anonymous access is a problem to be solved rather than a feature to be preserved.

Substack’s choice reflects the bind facing global platforms. Defy the rules and risk being blocked. Comply and accept the slow reshaping of how people read. For now, Australian readers can still reach their favorite writers, provided they show ID first. The price of admission is proof that you are old enough to read.

December 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

UK Lawmakers Propose Mandatory On-Device Surveillance and VPN Age Verification

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

Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are proposing amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would require nearly all smartphones and tablets to include built-in, unremovable surveillance software.

The proposal appears under a section titled “Action to promote the well-being of children by combating child sexual abuse material (CSAM).”

We obtained a copy of the proposed amendments for you here.

The amendment text specifies that any “relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM using that device.”

It further defines “relevant devices” as “smartphones or tablet computers which are either internet-connectable products or network-connectable products for the purposes of section 5 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.”

Under this clause, manufacturers, importers, and distributors would be legally required to ensure that every internet-connected phone or tablet they sell in the UK meets this “CSAM requirement.”

Enforcement would occur “as if the CSAM requirement was a security requirement for the purposes of Part 1 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.”

In practical terms, the only way for such software to “prevent the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM” would be for devices to continuously scan and analyze all photos, videos, and livestreams handled by the device.

That process would have to take place directly on users’ phones and tablets, examining both personal and encrypted material to determine whether any of it might be considered illegal content. Although the measure is presented as a child-safety protection, its operation would create a system of constant client-side scanning.

This means the software would inspect private communications, media, and files on personal devices without the user’s consent.

Such a mechanism would undermine end-to-end encryption and normalize pre-emptive surveillance built directly into consumer hardware.

The latest figures from German law enforcement offer a clear warning about the risks of expanding this type of surveillance: in 2024, nearly half of all CSAM scanning tips received by Germany were errors.

According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), 99,375 of the 205,728 reports forwarded by the US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) were not criminally relevant, an error rate of 48.3 percent, up from 90,950 false positives the year before.

Many of these reports originate from private companies such as Meta, Microsoft, and Google, which voluntarily scan user communications and forward suspected material to NCMEC under the current “Chat Control 1.0” framework, a system that is neither mandatory nor applied to end-to-end encrypted services.

Such a high error rate means that users are having their legal and private photos and videos falsely flagged and sent to authorities, a massive invasion of privacy.

Other parts of the same bill introduce additional “age assurance” obligations. On pages 19 and 20, the section titled “Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United Kingdom” would compel VPN providers to apply “age assurance, which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child.”

On page 21, another amendment titled “Action to promote the well-being of children in relation to social media” would require “all regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users.”

Together, these amendments establish a framework in which device-level scanning and strict age verification become legal obligations.

While described as efforts to “promote the wellbeing of children,” they would, in effect, turn personal smartphones and tablets into permanent monitoring systems and reduce the privacy of digital life to a conditional privilege.

The proposal represents one of the most widespread assaults on digital privacy ever introduced in a democratic country.

Unlike the European Union’s controversial “Chat Control” initiative, which has faced strong resistance for proposing the scanning of private communications by online services, the UK plan goes a step further.

The EU proposal focused on scanning content as it passed through communication platforms. The UK’s version would build surveillance directly into the operating system of personal devices themselves.

Every photo taken, every video saved, every image viewed could be silently analyzed by software running beneath the user’s control.

The bill would turn every connected device into a government-mandated inspection terminal.

Even though it is presented as a measure to protect children, the scope of what it enables is staggering. Once a legal foundation for on-device scanning exists, the definition of what must be scanned can easily expand.

A system designed to detect child abuse imagery today could be repurposed to search for other material tomorrow. The architecture for continuous surveillance would already be in place.

The United Kingdom is seeing a steady erosion of civil liberties as surveillance and speech policing expand at the same time.

People are being arrested over online posts and private messages under loosely applied communications laws, while police are rolling out live facial recognition systems that scan the public without consent and rely on error-prone biometric data.

When this is combined with proposals for device-level content scanning and mandatory age verification, the result is a climate in which privacy, anonymity, and free expression are increasingly treated as risks to be managed rather than rights to be protected.

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

New York Times’ Bret Stephens Baselessly Blames Israel Critics For Bondi Terrorist Attack

The Dissident | December 14, 2025

The New York Times published an opinion article by the neo-con columnist Bret Stephens, where he baselessly blamed critics of Israel for today’s horrific terrorist attack targeting Jews while they were celebrating Hanukkah at Bondi Beach in Australia, killing 16 people and severely injuring at least 40.

Despite the fact that very little information has even emerged as to what the motivation of the attackers was, Bret Stephens jumped the gun and used the massacre of civilians to smear his political enemies.

Among the people Stephens blamed for the terrorist attack are:

  • Green Party legislator Jenny Leong for her criticism of the Israel lobby.
  • Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, because he “recognized a Palestinian state and has been outspoken in its condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza”.
  • Palestinian protestors for saying “globalize the intifada”, “resistance is justified”, and “by any means necessary” while protesting the genocide in Gaza.

Stephens admits in the article that there is no evidence that the attack even had anything to do with Gaza or Israel and admitted that it was baseless speculation on his part, writing, “Though we’ll probably learn more in the weeks ahead about the mind-set of Sunday’s killers, it’s reasonable to surmise that what they thought they were doing was ‘globalizing the intifada.’”

Stephens blamed critics of Israel for the attack at Bondi, admitting that the people he slandered have a “political attitude in favor of Palestinian freedom rather than a call to kill their presumptive oppressors,” but added, “But there are always literalists — and it’s the literalists who usually believe their ideas should have real-world consequences. On Sunday, those consequences were written in Jewish blood.”

Stephens’ smear closely mirrors that of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who similarly weaponized the massacre to score political points, blaming Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state for the attack, saying, “your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire” and calling for more censorship of Israel-critical protests, saying, “Calls such as ‘Globalise the Intifada’, ‘From the River to the Sea Palestine Will be Free’, and ‘Death to the IDF’ are not legitimate, are not part of the freedom of speech, and inevitably lead to what we witnessed today.”

While Bret Stephens’ repetition of Netanyahu’s claim that opposition to Israel’s mass murder campaign in Gaza led to the senseless violence against civilians at Bondi is baseless-Bret Stephens has openly called for and cheered on the same mass violence against civilians he baselessly blames Israel’s critics for.

In March of 2024, Bret Stephens, in a New York Times article, said that “Israel Has No Choice but to Fight On” and called for the Biden administration to “help Israel win the war decisively” in reference to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which included shooting children in the head and chest, opening fire on starving civilians at aid sites, bombing hospitals and targeting doctors, slaughtering journalists, mass raping and torturing detainees, bombing fertility clinics and setting refugee camps on fire, among other genocidal crimes.

In Ocotber of 2024, Stephens wrote another Op-Ed where he wrote that “We Should Want Israel to Win,” again referring to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, where even the IDF’s own internal data shows that at least 83 percent of people killed were civilians.

Similarly, in a 2023 article, Stephens wrote, “20 Years On, I Don’t Regret Supporting the Iraq War,” adding, “Readers will want to know whether, knowing what I know now, I would still have supported the decision to invade. Not for the reasons given at the time. Not in the way we did it. But on the baseline question of whether Iraq, the Middle East and the world are better off for having gotten rid of a dangerous tyrant, my answer remains yes”, in reference to the criminal U.S. invasion which killed 187,499 – 211,046 civilians.

Most recently, Stephens wrote an article titled, “The Case for Overthrowing Maduro”, cheering on the Trump administration’s slaughter of 80 people on boats in the Caribbean – who they admit they don’t know the identity of- and calling for more strikes on Venezuela in service of a regime change war.

Bret Stephens is using the massacre of civilians at Bondi Beach to smear opponents of the much larger-scale massacres of civilians that he openly supports.

December 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

UK Drops Terrorism Case Against Journalist Richard Medhurst, But Hands Files to Austria

Richard Medhurst | December 14, 2025

UK Drops Terrorism Case Against Journalist Richard Medhurst No charges will be filed, and bail has been cancelled. However, this is only a partial victory for freedom of the press, as the UK authorities handed Austria all their intel/files for them to continue the persecution.

Support the show on Patreon: patreon.com/richardmedhurst

Donate on PayPal: https://paypal.me/papichulomin

Donate on GoFundMe: http://tiny.cc/GoFundMe-Richard

Bitcoin address: bc1qnelpedy2q6qu67485w4wnmcya5am873zwxxvvp

Subscribe to Richard Medhurst on other platforms here:

Rumble: https://rumble.com/richardmedhurst

Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/richardmedhurst

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@richardmedhurst

Substack: https://richardmedhurst.substack.com/

Richard Thomas Medhurst (1992) is an independent journalist, political commentator, and analyst from the United Kingdom with a focus on international affairs, US politics, and the Middle East.

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

Over Half of Germans Feel Unable to Speak Freely – Poll

Sputnik – 14.12.2025

More than half of Germans believe they cannot freely express their opinion, a poll conducted by Swiss company Tenor and published by a German newspaper on Sunday revealed.

Fifty-seven percent of Germans feel it is currently better to “be careful” when voicing their views, the survey showed. The strongest apprehensions were recorded among the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party supporters, with only 11% of AfD voters saying they feel free in expressing their views, while the remaining 89% said otherwise.

Concerns over freedom of expression are more pronounced among residents of eastern German states, where 64% said they feel reserved in expressing their opinions. In western Germany, 55% of respondents advocated for caution.

Only 18% of Germans said they approved of the country’s social and political course, with the remaining 82% expressing the opposite opinion, the study showed.

Age-wise, the strongest dissatisfaction with Germany’s political course was expressed by respondents aged 45 to 49 years. At the same time, among all age groups from 16 to 60 years and older, at least 80% of respondents have described themselves as dissatisfied with Germany’s political path.

An overwhelming 94% of AfD voters disapprove of Germany’s social and political trajectory, while 91% of the Left Party voters described its socio-political course as “not good.”
The online survey was conducted from November 26 to December 3 among 1,500 people.

An October poll conducted by the Forsa Institute for the n-tv and RTL broadcasters showed that only 26% of Germans were satisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s job performance, his lowest approval rating to date. The number of those discontent with the conservative leader rose to a record of 71%, up from 52% in May when he was appointed chancellor.

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

EU state jails anti-NATO politicians for ‘treason’

RT | December 13, 2025

An Estonian court has handed lengthy prison sentences to the leaders of an anti-NATO party convicted of working on behalf of Russia to undermine the Baltic state’s security.

On Thursday, the Harju District Court sentenced Aivo Peterson, co-founder of the small conservative Koos (Together) party, to 14 years in prison for treason. His associates Dmitri Rootsi and Andrei Andronov received sentences of 11 years and 11 years and six months, respectively. All three denied any wrongdoing and said they would appeal the verdict.

Prosecutors alleged that the defendants spread “narratives supporting Russia’s foreign and security policy” intended to undermine public trust in NATO and Estonia’s military aid to Ukraine.

“The defendants deliberately assisted Russia in activities directed against the Estonian state and society,” State Prosecutor Triinu Olev-Aas said.

Founded in 2022, Koos calls for Estonia to leave NATO, become a neutral state, remove foreign troops from its territory, and “refrain from participating directly or indirectly in military conflicts between other countries.”

In 2023, Peterson traveled to Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, which Estonia considers occupied Ukrainian territory. He said at the time that he was gathering information about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “There are two sides to every conflict, but the information we receive from Estonian media is one-sided. All of our journalists support Kiev, which often comes across as propaganda,” Peterson said.

The Koos party rejected the allegations against its members, arguing that prosecutors had failed to present “concrete proof that their actions had caused real damage to Estonia’s constitutional order or security.”

Estonia is one of Ukraine’s top supporters and has been pushing for further militarization of Europe. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeled Estonia “one of the most hostile countries” in June and accused Tallinn of “spreading myths and falsehoods about the supposed threat from the East.”

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

Israeli ‘Predator’ Smartphone Spyware Exposed

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | December 11, 2025

New research published by Amnesty International exposes the disturbing internal workings of Intellexa, and its constellation of digital espionage products. This includes ‘Predator’, a highly invasive resource linked to grave human rights abuses in multiple countries. Intellexa’s menacing technology allows government customers to access target smartphones’ cameras, microphones, encrypted chat apps, emails, GPS locations, photos, files, browsing activity, and more. It’s just the latest example of an Israeli-linked spyware specialist acting with no consideration for the law – although one wouldn’t know that from Amnesty’s probe.

Intellexa is among the world’s most notorious “mercenary spyware” purveyors. In 2023, the company was fined by Greece’s Data Protection Authority for failing to comply with its investigations into the company. An ongoing court case in Athens implicates Intellexa apparatchiks and local intelligence services in hacking the phones of government ministers, senior military officers, judges and journalists. Oddly unmentioned by Amnesty International, Intellexa was founded by Tal Dilian, a senior former Israeli military intelligence operative, and is staffed by Zionist entity spying veterans.

Leaked Intellexa marketing slide

In March 2024, following years of damaging disclosures about Intellexa’s criminal activities, the US Treasury imposed sweeping sanctions on Dilian, his closest company confederates, and five separate commercial entities associated with Intellexa. Yet, these harsh measures were no deterrent to Intellexa’s operations. The company’s service offering has only evolved over time, becoming ever-more difficult to detect, and increasingly effective at infecting target devices. Typically, civil society and human rights activists, and journalists, are in the firing line.

On December 3rd, Google announced Intellexa’s targets numbered at least “several hundred”, with individuals based in Angola, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and elsewhere potentially affected. Predator frequently relies on “one-click” attacks to infect a device. Users open a malicious link, which installs spyware that breaks open their chats on Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp and other chat platforms, audio recordings, emails, device locations, screenshots and camera photos, stored passwords, contacts and call logs, and the device’s microphone.

The vast data trove then passes through a chain of anonymising servers to hide its end destination, before being received by a customer. Predator also boasts a number of unique features designed to obscure its installation on a device from targets. For example, the spy tool assesses a device’s battery level, and whether it’s connected to the internet via sim card data or WiFi. This allows for a bespoke extraction process, ensuring devices aren’t obviously drained of network or power, to avoid stoking user suspicion.

Aladdin’s Cave

If Predator senses it has been detected, the spyware will even “self-destruct” to leave no trace of its presence on an impacted device. The methods by which Intellexa installs its malign tech on target devices is just as ingenious, and insidious. On top of “one-click” attacks, Intellexa is a pioneer in the field of “zero-click” infiltration. Its resource ‘Aladdin’ exploits internet advertising ecosystems, so users need only view an ad – without interacting with it – for spyware to infect a device.

Such ads can appear on trusted websites or apps, resembling any other advert a user would normally see. This approach requires Intellexa to pin down a “unique identifier” – such as a user’s email address, geographical location, or IP – to accurately serve them a malicious advert. Intellexa’s government customers can often readily access this information, simplifying accurate targeting. Research published by Recorded Future indicates Intellexa has covertly established dedicated mobile ad companies to create “bait advertisements”, including job listings, to lure in targets.

Leaked Aladdin explainer

Aladdin has been under development since 2022 at least, and only grown more sophisticated over time. Troublingly, Intellexa is not the only company active in this innovative spying field. Amnesty International suggests “advertisement-based infection methodologies are being actively developed and used by multiple mercenary spyware companies, and by specific governments who have built similar ADINT [advertising intelligence] infection systems.” That the digital advertising ecosystem has been subverted to hack the phones of unsuspecting citizens demands urgent industry action, which is as yet unforthcoming.

Just as disquietingly, a leaked Intellexa training video depicts how the Intellexa can “remotely access and monitor active customer Predator systems.” In effect, the firm is able to keep an eye on who its clients are spying on, and the precise private data they are extracting, in real-time. Recorded in mid-2023, the video begins with an instructor connecting directly to a deployed Predator system via TeamViewer, a commercial remote access software. Its contents suggest Intellexa can peruse at least 10 different customer systems simultaneously.

This capability is amply highlighted in the leaked video, when a staff member asks their trainer if they’re connecting to a testing environment. In response, they state a live “customer environment” is being accessed instead. The instructor then initiates a remote connection, showing Intellexa staffers can access highly sensitive information collected by customers, including photos, messages, IP addresses, smartphone operating systems and software versions, and other surveillance data gathered from Predator victims.

The video also appears to show “live” Predator infection attempts against real-life targets of Intellexa’s clients. Detailed information is shown from at least one infection attempt against an individual based in Kazakhstan, including the malicious link they unwittingly clicked that enabled their device’s infiltration. Elsewhere, domain names imitating legitimate Kazakhstani news websites, designed to trick users, are displayed. The country’s government is a confirmed Intellexa client, and local youth activists have previously been targeted by the notorious, similarly Israeli-incubated Pegasus spyware.

Screenshot of Predator dashboard listing ongoing infections

‘Business Opportunity’

The leaked video raises a number of grave concerns about Intellexa’s operations. For one, the shadowy, high-tech digital spying entity employed TeamViewer, a commercial software about which major security concerns have long-abounded, to access highly sensitive, invasive information on customer targets. This raises obvious questions about who else might be able to pry on this trove. Moreover, there is no indication Intellexa’s clients approved this access for training process, or the tutorial was conducted with even basic safeguards in place.

As such, the targets of Intellexa’s suite of spying resources not only face having their most sensitive secrets exposed to a hostile government without their knowledge or consent, but a foreign surveillance company in the process. The extent to which Intellexa is cognisant of how its technology is used by its clients is a core point of contention in the ongoing Greek legal case. Historically, mercenary spyware companies have firmly insisted they aren’t privy to data nefariously seized by their customers. Amnesty International states:

“The finding that Intellexa had potential visibility into active surveillance operations of their customers, including seeing technical information about the targets, raises new legal questions about Intellexa’s role in relation to the spyware and the company’s potential legal or criminal responsibility for unlawful surveillance operations carried out using their products.”

The latest disclosures about Intellexa have all the makings of a historic, international scandal, in the precise manner the use of Pegasus by state and corporate entities the world over has elicited international outcry, criminal investigations, and litigation lasting many years. However, the proliferation of ominous private spying tools, and their industrial scale abuse by paying customers, is no aberrant bug, but an intended upshot of the Zionist entity’s relentless crusade for cyberwarfare supremacy. In 2018, Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu boasted:

“Cybersecurity grows through cooperation, and cybersecurity as a business is tremendous… We spent an enormous amount on our military intelligence and Mossad and Shin Bet. An enormous amount. An enormous part of that is being diverted to cybersecurity… We think there is a tremendous business opportunity in the neverending quest of security.”

This investment manifests in almost every area of Israeli society. Numerous universities in Tel Aviv, with state support, hone new technologies and train future generations of cyber spies and digital warriors, who then join the Zionist Occupation Force’s ranks. Once their military service is complete, alumni frequently found companies at home and abroad offering the same monstrous services road-tested against Palestinians to private sector bodies and governments, without any oversight or guarantee these resources won’t be used for malevolent purposes.

Intellexa founder and Israeli military intelligence veteran Tal Dilian

The intelligence failures that enabled the success of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023 did enormous damage to Israel’s credibility as a cybersecurity leader, while devastating its “Startup Nation” brand, with foreign investment in the entity’s tech industry collapsing precipitously. However, the fresh Intellexa revelations show certain elements of the sector remain in high demand, and pose an unseen threat to untold numbers of people globally. Should the firm fall into disrepute as a result, another surely waits in the wings to take its place.

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

I was canceled by three newspapers for criticizing Israel

By Dave Seminara | Responsible Statecraft | December 9, 2025

As a freelance writer, I know I have to produce copy that meets the expectations of editors and management. When I write opinion pieces, I know well that my arguments should closely align with the publication’s general outlook. But I’ve always believed that if my views on any particular topic diverged from an outlet I’m writing for, it was acceptable to express those viewpoints in other publications.

But I’ve recently discovered that this general rule does not apply to criticism of Israel.

In fact, it appears that publications I’ve had an ongoing relationship with up until recently have canceled me for articles I wrote in other media outlets that were critical of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby in the United States.

In recent years, I penned more than 100 columns for prominent right-leaning publications, including The Wall Street Journal, the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, and The Daily Telegraph. I’ve covered woke corporations, illegal immigration, inflation, foreign policy, the State Department, censorship, Florida politics and a host of other issues. I never once pitched a column concerning Israel to the aforementioned publications because I know the editors and leadership at those outlets are staunch backers of unlimited U.S. aid to Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his merciless assault on Gaza, not to mention President Trump’s efforts to deport foreign critics of Israel, his administration, and other related issues.

I have never seen an opinion column in The Journal, City Journal or The Telegraph expressing compassion for Palestinian victims of Israel’s military assaults. In fact, quite the opposite. For example, Ilya Shapiro, a contributing editor and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, said in a since deleted tweet, “Ethnic cleansing would be too kind for Gaza.” That comment isn’t an outlier. The prevailing wisdom at these publications is to excuse and defend the behavior of the Israeli government, regardless of the situation.

And so, when I wanted to express my disgust at the outrageous number of civilian casualties in Gaza — the Israeli military has killed at least 70,000 Palestinians according to the U.N., including more than 18,000 children — and lament the Trump administration’s efforts to deport people for criticizing Israel, I never considered pitching editors at those three publications.

Between November 2023 and May 2024, I published several columns, including for The Spectator and on my personal Substack, Unpopular Opinions, criticizing Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel. I think my critiques were mild — for example, I never categorized Israel’s actions as a genocide. Given Israel’s flagrant human rights violations, my commentaries were well within the boundaries of how most Americans feel about the carnage in Gaza. For example, in a column I wrote in November, 2023, I noted that:

“I was horrified by the October 7 Hamas attacks. And I was disgusted to see some self-proclaimed pro-Palestine advocates celebrating or justifying the barbaric attack act. This was a horrific act of terrorism, and there’s no excuse for it.”

But I added that I was disappointed with “how many conservative politicians and conservative media refuse to articulate any concern for thousands of innocent Palestinians killed or the more than one million rendered homeless.”

In subsequent columns, I criticized the Republican Party for its fixation on Israel and argued how hypocritical many on the right are in conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism in order to silence critics of the Jewish state.

None of my editors at The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph or City Journal ever said a word to me about what I wrote in these columns. But my relationships with these three outlets deteriorated rapidly and dramatically after I started covering the topic. Prior to being cut off by the Wall Street Journal, I published 34 opinion columns for them since 2017. My relationship with the opinion editor, James Taranto, was good enough that when he visited Tampa, where I live, in 2022, he and his wife took me out to dinner.

I knew where Taranto stood on Israel, having once called Rachel Corrie, an American citizen who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting Israel’s settlement policy, a “dopey… advocate for terror.” Prior to writing critically of Israel, my success rate in pitching columns to Taranto was roughly 30-40% positive. Since then, he has rejected 12 consecutive pitches, all on topics unrelated to the Middle East. Previously, he would send a generic one-liner when he rejected an idea. “I won’t be able to use this, but thanks for letting me see it.” Lately, my pitches don’t even merit a formal rejection. I went from being a regular contributor and on friendly enough terms to socialize after-hours, to being ghosted.

My apparent dismissal at City Journal, where I contributed 62 columns from 2020-2024, took longer and my editor there, Paul Beston, was kinder, but the result was the same. Rather than ignoring me, Beston would apologetically respond to my pitches weeks or even months later once the idea was too late to publish. He also stopped asking me to write columns for the website. Around the same time, the Manhattan Institute, which produces City Journal, fired prominent conservative economist Glenn Loury for being too critical of Israel, so perhaps there was a purge of Israel critics afoot. At least one other Manhattan Institute fellow who was critical of Israel, Christopher Brunet, was also fired last year.

My seeming dismissal at the rabidly pro-Israel Daily Telegraph, where I contributed 30 columns from 2023-2024, was similar to the City Journal experience. My editor there, Lewis Page, was cordial enough, but he, too, started to ignore my emails and stopped asking me to write for his publication. In one case, he asked me to write a column but then never published it.

Is it a coincidence that these three prominent, pro-Israel publications all stopped publishing me last year as I started to criticize Israel in other outlets? It’s conceivable, but quite unlikely given the zero tolerance for dissent on Israel that now permeates much of conservative media.

RS asked Taranto whether the Journal had stopped publishing me because of my views on Israel. Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot — whom I did not work with — responded that Taranto had passed on our inquiry and said, “I don’t recall ever reading a piece by Mr. Seminara on Israel or Gaza, so I have no idea what his views on those subjects are.”

Lewis Page at the Telegraph said my version of this story is “false” and that neither he nor anyone else at his publication knew that I had been critical of Israel. He added that the paper has not “consciously stopped using” my copy.

A spokesperson I do not know and never worked with at City Journal said that they are unaware of my position on Israel. Of course, I don’t expect any of these publications to say, “We stopped commissioning you because we don’t agree with your position on Israel.”

The bottom line is that my views on Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel are in line with those of the majority of Americans and even of a majority of American Jews. According to a Washington Post poll conducted in October, 69% of American Jews think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% believe it is guilty of genocide. A Pew Research poll released around the same time revealed that 59% of Americans have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. And in a September New York Times/Sienna poll, 35% of Americans said they sympathize with Israel, while 36% said they side with Palestinians.

I am not sorry for criticizing Israel even though it has cost me professionally. In fact, I was probably too cautious and diplomatic in my critiques. But I think it’s a very sad statement on conservative media when news outlets that many Republicans trust have so little tolerance for dissent on a critical issue that undermines American national interests and damages our credibility around the world.

During the crazy, cultural revolution days of 2020, when statues were being toppled and progressives were claiming scalps on a weekly basis, I thought it was just the left that embraced cancel culture and silenced enemies through intimidation. Now I know better.

Dave Seminara is a writer and former diplomat based in St. Petersburg, Florida. He’s the author of four non-fiction books, including, most recently, “Mad Travelers: A Tale of Wanderlust, Greed & the Quest to Reach the Ends of the Earth.” He vlogs about his travels on his YouTube channel, @MadTraveler.

December 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | 1 Comment

US May Require Digital Background Checks for Tourists and Their Families

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | December 10, 2025

Foreigners planning trips to the United States may soon face one of the most extensive digital disclosure requirements ever introduced at a national border.

Under a new directive from the Trump administration, travelers will have to submit five years of their social media history along with extensive personal data before being allowed entry.

The rule, described in new documents released by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), affects even citizens of visa waiver countries such as the UK, Germany, and France.

We obtained a copy of the new documents for you here.

What was once a short online form for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is set to become a far more intrusive process.

Applicants will be expected to upload a selfie, provide every phone number and email address used over the last five years, and list relatives’ names, addresses, and birth dates. Authorities have stated that compliance will be “mandatory.”

Currently, the ESTA system is relatively straightforward: travelers pay $40 to give basic contact and emergency information, and if approved, receive permission to visit.

The proposed expansion transforms this into a digital audit of a person’s communications.

The move follows an earlier decision by the State Department in June to make some visa holders’ social media profiles publicly viewable.

Officials have justified these changes as a national security measure, saying that online behavior could reveal “anti-American activity.”

The timing of the new requirement coincides with preparations for the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympic Games, both of which will take place on US soil.

The administration argues that large international events draw heightened security risks, though the new data collection policy would apply broadly to all visitors, not only those attending the games.

It marks a shift from traditional border checks to a continuous form of data surveillance, where online activity becomes part of a traveler’s permanent record; an new precedent for global movement and personal privacy alike.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | | 1 Comment

Supreme Court Vacates NY Ruling That Amish Cannot Have an Exemption to Vaccination Requirements

By Aaron Siri | December 10, 2025

I’m pleased to announce that the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has 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. SCOTUS remanded the case (Miller v. McDonald) to the Second Circuit to reconsider its illiberal and unconscionable decision. A huge step in the right direction—the day the Amish are compelled to pierce their bodies in violation of their religion is the day religious freedom dies in this country.

I discussed the Amish situation further in Chapter 11 of my book, Vaccines, Amen, including how their children are far healthier than the surrounding vaccinated population:

[T]he NYS DOH decided to wage war on the Amish community, seeking to levy financially ruinous fines on them unless they vaccinate their children. My firm has the privilege of representing the three Amish schools that received these violations. The sworn court papers in this case evidenced to the Court that the families with children in these three Amish schools have a total of 168 unvaccinated children (no vaccines) and that none of these children have any of the chronic health issues that plague children in the United States.

We also provided sworn expert evidence to the Court 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 the NYS DOH to leave them alone. But that is not how this religion works. The vaccine zealots in the NYS DOH cannot stand that the Amish refuse to abandon their beliefs in favor of the religious beliefs held by the NYS DOH officials regarding vaccines. The “health” officials are willing to sacrifice the way of life and belief system of these Amish children and their community, that has 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 the impossible position of being required to leave New York to simply send their healthy children to Amish schools on Amish land. As of this writing, my firm, along with co-counsel, continues to litigate on behalf of the Amish to defend their freedom to practice their religion in peace.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »