Thanks to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we indeed seem to be rushing headlong into a major war—possibly a World War Three, possibly the world’s first (and perhaps last) nuclear war. Ukraine leadership and their Western backers seem hell-bent on fighting to the last man, and Vladimir Putin, as an old-school Cold Warrior, seems equally determined to press ahead until achieving “victory.” The cause seems hopeless for Ukraine, who cannot reasonably expect to prevail in an extended conflict with one of the largest militaries on Earth. At best, they may bleed Russia over a period of months or years, but only at the cost of massive blood-letting themselves. It seems that Ukraine will be the loser in this struggle, no matter what comes.
In the Western media, we are presented with a remarkably simplified storyline: Putin is an evil warmonger who simply wants to extend Russian territory; to this end, he is exploiting events in Ukraine, deploying his military ostensibly to support the Russian-speaking districts of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. But this is just cover, they say, for his mad quest to rebuild the Russian empire. In pursuit of his goal, he is willing to inflict any amount of material damage and kill any number of civilians. Fortunately, say our media, Putin has thus far been largely contained; the brave Ukrainian fighters are constantly “reclaiming” land, Russia’s advance has “stalled,” and indeed, Russia seems to be in danger of losing.
Consequently, the US and its allies must do all they can to “aid” and “support” the brave Ukrainians and their beleaguered but heroic leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. No amount of money, no assortment of deadly weaponry, no military intelligence, is too much. Like World War Two, this “war” is an unconditional struggle of Good versus Evil; therefore the West, as the moral paragon of the world, must step up, undergo sacrifice, and ensure that Good prevails.
And indeed, the financial support from just the United States is breathtaking: As of early May, Congress has approved $13.6 billion in aid, much of it for direct Ukrainian military support. And yet this would only cover costs through September. Thus, president Biden recently called for an additional package of $33 billion, which would include over $20 billion in military and security aid, and, surprisingly, $2.6 billion for “the deployment of American troops to the region,” in order to “safeguard NATO allies.” Incredibly, Congress responded by approving $40 billion, bringing the total aid thus far to $54 billion. For perspective, this represents over 80% of Russia’s annual defense budget of $66 billion. (By contrast, America allocates well over $1 trillion—that is, $1,000 billion—annually in direct and indirect military expenditures.)
Notably, such unconditional support and defense of Ukraine is a virtually unanimous view across the American political spectrum, and throughout Europe. Right and left, conservative and liberal, working class or wealthy elite, all sectors of society are apparently united in opposition to the evil Putin. In an era when virtually no issue garners unanimous support, the Ukrainian cause stands out as an extremely rare instance of bipartisan, multi-sector agreement. The rare dissenters—such as Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and a handful of alt-right renegades—are routinely attacked as “Russian assets” or “tools of Putin.” There is no room for disagreement, no space for debate, no opposing views allowed.
In fact, though, this is yet another case of what I might call the “unanimity curse”: when all parties in American society are united on a topic, any topic, then we really need to worry. Here, it seems that the reality is of a potent Jewish Lobby, exerting itself (again) in the direction of war, for reasons of profit and revenge against a hated enemy. There is, indeed, a Jewish hand at work here, one that may well drive us into another world war, and even a nuclear war—one which, in the worst case, could mean the literal end of much of life on this planet. The unanimity comes when all parties are subject, in various ways, to the demands of the Lobby, and when the public has been misled and even brainwashed by a coordinated Jewish media into believing the standard narrative.
The best cure for this catastrophic situation is unrestricted free speech. The Lobby knows this, however, and thus takes all possible measures to inhibit free speech. Normally, such a struggle ebbs and flows according to the issue and the times; but now, the situation is dire. Now more than ever, a lack of free speech could be fatal to civilized society.
Context and Run-Up
To fully understand the Jewish hand in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we need to review some relevant history. Over the centuries, there have been constant battles over the lands of present-day Ukraine, with Poles, Austro-Hungarians, and Russians alternately dominating. Russia took control of most of Ukraine in the late 1700s and held it more or less continuously until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991; this is why Putin claims that the country is “part of Russia.”
For their part, Jews have experienced a particularly tumultuous relationship with Russia, one that ranged from disgust and detestation to a burning hatred. As it happened, Jews migrated to Russia in the 19th century, eventually numbering around 5 million. They were a disruptive and agitating force within the nation and thus earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reign 1825 to 1855), Alexander II (1855 to 1881, when he was assassinated by a partly-Jewish anarchist gang), and especially Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)—the latter of whom was famously murdered, along with his family, by a gang of Jewish Bolshevists in 1918. Already in 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could refer to the Russian Jews as “a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite”.[1] The assassination of Alexander initiated a series of pogroms that lasted decades, and which set the stage for a lingering Jewish hatred of all things Russian.[2]
For present purposes, though, we can jump to the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (I note that Ukraine also has a prime minister, but unlike most European countries, he typically has limited powers). In 2004, it came down to “the two Viktors”: the pro-Western V. Yushchenko and the pro-Russian V. Yanukovych. The first round was nearly tied, and thus they went to a second round in which Yanukovych prevailed by around three percentage points. But amid claims of vote-rigging, Western Ukrainians initiated an “Orange Revolution”—backed by the Ukrainian Supreme Court—that annulled those results and mandated a repeat runoff election. The second time, the tables were turned, and the pro-West Yushchenko won by eight points. The West was elated, and Putin naturally mad as hell.
The following years witnessed financial turmoil and, unsurprisingly, constant harassment from Russia. By 2010, Ukrainians were ready for a change, and this time Yanukovych won handily, over a Jewish female competitor, Yulia Timoshenko—notably, she had “co-led the Orange Revolution.” Russia, for once, was satisfied with the result.
But of course, in the West, Europe and the US were mightily displeased, and they soon began efforts to reverse things yet again. Among other strategies, they apparently decided to deploy the latest in high tech and social media. Thus in June 2011, two of Google’s top executives—Eric Schmidt and a 30-year-old Jewish upstart named Jared Cohen—went to visit Julian Assange in the UK, then living under house arrest. It is well-known, incidentally, that Google is a Jewish enterprise, with Jewish founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page running the ship.[3]
The nominal purpose of the trip was to conduct research for a book that Schmidt and Cohen were working on, regarding the intersection of political action and technology—in plain words, how to foment revolutions and steer events in a desired direction. As Assange relates in his 2014 book When Google Met Wikileaks, he was initially unaware of the deeper intentions and motives of his interviewers. Only later did he come to learn that Schmidt had close ties to the Obama administration, and that Cohen was actively working on political upheaval. As Assange wrote, “Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change’.” Their immediate targets were Yanukovych in Ukraine and Assad in Syria.
By early 2013, the American Embassy in Kiev was training right-wing Ukrainian nationalists on how to conduct a targeted revolt against Yanukovych. It would not be long until they had their chance.
In late 2013, Yanukovych decided to reject an EU-sponsored IMF loan, with all the usual nasty strings attached, in favor of a comparable no-strings loan from Russia. This apparent shift away from Europe and toward Russia was the nominal trigger for the start of protest actions. Thus began the “Maidan Uprising,” led in large part by two extreme nationalist groups: Svoboda and Right Sector.[4] Protests went on for nearly three months, gradually accelerating in intensity; in a notable riot near the end, some 100 protestors and 13 police were shot dead.
As the Uprising reached its peak, at least one American Jew was highly interested: Victoria Nuland. As Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State (first under Hillary Clinton, and then under the half-Jew John Kerry), Nuland had direct oversight of events in eastern Europe.[5] And for her, it was personal; her father, Sherwin Nuland (born Shepsel Nudelman), was a Ukrainian Jew. She was anxious to drive the pro-Russian Yanukovych out of power and replace him with a West-friendly, Jew-friendly substitute. And she had someone specific in mind: Arseniy Yatsenyuk. On 27 January 2014, as the riots were peaking, Nuland called American Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt, to urgently discuss the matter. Nuland pulled no punches: “Yats” was her man. We know this because the call was apparently tapped and the dialogue later posted on Youtube. Here is a short excerpt:
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step? […]
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
It was clear to both of them, though, that the EU leadership had other ideas. The EU was much more anxious to be a neutral party and to avoid direct intervention in Ukrainian affairs so as to not unduly antagonize Russia. But in time-tested Jewish fashion, Nuland did not give a damn. A bit later in the same phone call, she uttered her now-famous phrase: “Fuck the EU.” So much for Jewish subtlety.[6]
But there was another angle that nearly all Western media avoided: “Yats” was also Jewish. In a rare mention, we read in a 2014 Guardian story that “Yatsenyuk has held several high-profile positions including head of the country’s central bank, the National Bank of Ukraine… He has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party’s western Ukraine heartland.” For some reason, such facts are never relevant to Western media.
As the Maidan Uprising gave way to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014, Yanukovych was forced out of office, fleeing to Russia. Pro-Western forces then succeeded in nominating “Yats” as prime minister, effective immediately, working in conjunction with president Oleksandr Turchynov. This provisional leadership was formalized in a snap election in May 2014 in which the pro-Western candidate Peter Poroshenko won. (The second-place finisher was none other than Yulia Timoshenko—the same Jewess who had lost to Yanukovych in 2010.)
It was under such circumstances that Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, in February 2014. It was also at this time that Russian separatists in Donbass launched their counter-revolution, initiating a virtual civil war in Ukraine; to date, eight years later, around 15,000 people have died in total, many civilians.
With this American-sponsored coup finished, Ukrainian Jews began to reach out to the West to increase their influence. Thus it happened that just a few months after Maidan, the wayward son of the American vice president got in touch with a leading Ukrainian Jew, Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran a large gas company called Burisma. In this way, Hunter Biden incredibly found himself on the board of a corporation of which he knew nothing, in an industry of which he knew nothing, and which nonetheless was able to “pay” him upwards of $500,000 per year—obviously, for access to father Joe and thus to President Obama. Hunter carried on in this prestigious role for around five years, resigning only in 2019, as his father began his fateful run for the presidency.[7]
Despite a rocky tenure, Yatsenyuk managed to hold his PM position for over two years, eventually resigning in April 2016. His replacement was yet another Jew, Volodymyr Groysman, who served until August 2019. The Jewish hand would not be stayed. All this set the stage for the rise of the ultimate Jewish player, Volodymyr Zelensky.
This situation is particularly remarkable given that Jews are a small minority in Ukraine. Estimates vary widely, but the Jewish population is claimed to range from a maximum of 400,000 to as low as just 50,000. With a total population of 41 million, Jews represent, at most, 1% of the nation, and could be as small as 0.12%. Under normal conditions, a tiny minority like this should be almost invisible; but here, they dominate. Such is the Jewish hand.
Enter the Jewish Oligarchs
In Ukraine, there is a “second government” that calls many of the shots. This shadow government is an oligarchy: a system of rule by the richest men. Of the five richest Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews: Igor (or Ihor) Kolomoysky, Viktor Pinchuk, Rinat Akhmetov, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov. Right behind them, in the multi-millionaire class, are Jews like Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban. Collectively, this group is often more effective at imposing their will than any legislator. And unsurprisingly, this group has been constantly enmeshed in corruption and legal scandals, implicated in such crimes as kidnapping, arson and murder.[8]
Of special interest is the first named above. Kolomoysky has long been active in banking, airlines and media—and in guiding minor celebrities to political stardom. In 2005 he became the leading shareholder of the 1+1 Media Group, which owns seven TV channels, including the highly popular 1+1 channel. (The 1+1 Group was founded in 1995 by another Ukrainian Jew, Alexander Rodnyansky.) Worth up to $6 billion in the past decade, Kolomoysky’s current net wealth is estimated to be around $1 billion.
Not long after acquiring 1+1, Kolomoysky latched on to an up-and-coming Jewish comedian by the name of Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky had been in media his entire adult life, and even co-founded a media group, Kvartal 95, in 2003, at the age of just 25. Starring in feature films, he switched to television by the early 2010s, eventually coming to star in the 1+1 hit show “Servant of the People,” where he played a teacher pretending to be president of Ukraine. Then there was the notable 2016 comedy skit in which Zelensky and friends play a piano with their penises—in other words, typical low-brow scatological Jewish humor, compliments of Zelensky and Kolomoysky.
By early 2018, the pair were ready to move into politics. Zelensky registered his new political party for the upcoming 2019 election, and declared himself a presidential candidate in December 2018, just four months prior to the election. In the end, of course, he won, with 30% of the vote in the first round, and then defeating incumbent Poroshenko in the 2nd round by a huge 50-point margin. Relentless favorable publicity by 1+1 was credited with making a real difference. Notably, the third-place finisher in that election was, yet again, the Jewess Yulia Timoshenko—like a bad penny, she just keeps coming back.[9]
Zelensky, incidentally, has dramatically profited from his “meteoric rise” to fame and power. His Kvartal 95 media company earned him some $7 million per year. He also owns a 25% share of Maltex Multicapital, a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands, as part of a “web of off-shore companies” he helped to establish back in 2012. A Ukrainian opposition politician, Ilya Kiva, suggested recently that Zelensky is currently tapping into “hundreds of millions” in funding that flows into the country, and that Zelensky himself is personally earning “about $100 million per month.” A Netherlands party, Forum for Democracy, recently cited estimates of Zelensky’s fortune at an astounding $850 million. Apparently the “Churchill of Ukraine” is doing quite well for himself, even as his country burns.
In any case, it is clear that Zelensky owes much to his mentor and sponsor, Kolomoysky. The latter even admitted as much back in late 2019, in an interview for the New York Times. “If I put on glasses and look back at myself,” he said, “I see myself as a monster, as a puppet master, as the master of Zelensky, someone making apocalyptic plans. I can start making this real” (Nov 13). Indeed—the Kolomoysky/Zelensky apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Between rule by Jewish oligarchs and manipulations by the global Jewish lobby, modern-day Ukraine is a mess of a nation—and it was so long before the current “war.” Corruption there is endemic; in 2015, the Guardianheadlined a story on Ukraine, calling it “the most corrupt nation in Europe.” An international corruption-ranking agency had recently assessed that country at 142nd in world, worse than Nigeria and equal to Uganda. As a result, Ukraine’s economy has suffered horribly. Before the current conflict, their per-capita income level of $8700 put them 112th in the world, below Albania ($12,900), Jamaica ($9100), and Armenia ($9700); this is by far the poorest in Europe, and well below that of Russia ($25,700 per person). Impoverished, corrupt, manipulated by Jews, now in a hot war—pity the poor Ukrainians.
Hail the American Empire
Enough history and context; let’s cut to the chase. From a clear-eyed perspective, it is obvious why Zelensky and friends want to prolong a war that they have no hope of winning: they are profiting immensely from it. As an added benefit, the actor Zelensky gets to perform on the world stage, which he will surely convert into more dollars down the road. Every month that the conflict continues, billions of dollars are flowing into Ukraine, and Zelensky et al. are assuredly skimming their “fair share” off the top. Seriously—who, making anywhere near $100 million per month, wouldn’t do everything conceivable to keep the gravy train running? The fact that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dying has no bearing at all in Zelensky’s calculus; in typical Jewish fashion, he cares not one iota for the well-being of the White Europeans. If his soldiers die even as they kill a few hated Russians, so much the better. For Ukrainian Jews, it is a win-win proposition.
Why does no one question this matter? Why is Zelensky’s corruption never challenged? Why are these facts so hard to find? We know the answer: It is because Zelensky is a Jew, and Jews are virtually never questioned and never challenged by leading Americans or Europeans. Jews get a pass on everything (unless they are obviously guilty of something heinous—and sometimes even then!). Jews get a pass from fellow Jews because they cover for each other. Jews get a pass from media because the media is owned and operated by Jews. And Jews get a pass from prominent non-Jews who are in the pay of Jewish sponsors and financiers. Zelensky can be as corrupt as hell, funneling millions into off-shore accounts, but as long as he plays his proper role, no one will say anything.
So the “war” goes on, and Zelensky and friends get rich. What does Europe get from all this? Nothing. Or rather, worse than nothing: They get a hot war in their immediate neighborhood, and they get an indignant Putin threatening to put hypersonic missiles in their capital cities in less than 200 seconds. They get to deal with the not-so-remote threat of nuclear war. They get to see their currency decline—by 10% versus the yuan in a year and by 12% versus the dollar. They get a large chunk of their gas, oil, and electricity supplies diverted or shut off, driving up energy prices. And they get to see their Covid-fragile economies put on thin ice.
But perhaps they deserve all this. As is widely known, the European states are American vassals, which means they are Jewish vassals. European leaders are spineless and pathetic lackeys of the Jewish Lobby. Judenknecht like Macron, Merkel and now Scholz, are sorry examples of humanity; they have sold out their own people to placate their overlords. And the European public is too bamboozled and too timid to make a change; France just had a chance to elect Le Pen, but the people failed to muster the necessary will. Thus, Europe deserves its fate: hot war, nuclear threat, cultural and economic decline, sub-Saharan and Islamic immigrants—the whole package. If it gets bad enough, maybe enough Europeans will awaken to the Jewish danger and take action. Or so we can hope.
What about the US? We could scarcely be happier. Dead Russians, the hated Putin in a tizzy, and the chance to play “world savior” once again. American military suppliers are ecstatic; they don’t care that most of their weapons bound for Ukraine get lost, stolen or blown up, and that (according to some estimates) only 5% make it to the front. For them, every item shipped is another profitable sale, whether it is used or not. And American congressmen get to pontificate about another “good war” even as they approve billions in aid.
And perhaps best of all, we get to press for an expansion to that American Empire known as NATO. We need to be very clear here: NATO is simply another name for the American Empire. The two terms are interchangeable. In no sense is NATO an “alliance among equals.” Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Albania have absolutely nothing to offer to the US. Do we care if they will “come to our aid” in case of a conflict? That is a bad joke, at best. In reality, what such nations are is more land, more people, and more economic wealth under the American thumb. They are yet more places to station troops, build military outposts, and run “black sites.” NATO always was, and always will be, the American Empire.
The push for Ukraine to join NATO by the West-friendly Zelensky was yet another blatant attempt at a power grab by the US, this one on Russia’s doorstep. Putin, naturally, took action to circumvent that. But of course, now the push moves to Sweden and Finland, both of whom are unwisely pursuing NATO membership in the illusory quest for security, when in reality they will simply be selling what remains of their national souls to the ruthless Judeo-American masters. For their sake, I hope they are able to avoid such a future.
And all the while, American Jews and a Jewish-American media play up the “good war” theme, send more weapons, and press ever further into the danger zone. Ukrainian-American Jews like Chuck Schumer are right out front, calling for aid, for war, for death.[10] “Ukraine needs all the help it can get and, at the same time, we need all the assets we can put together to give Ukraine the aid it needs,” said Schumer recently, eager to approve the next $40 billion aid package. As Jews have realized for centuries, wars are wonderful occasions for killing enemies and making a fast buck. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the present proxy war against Jewish enemies in eastern Europe began not long after the 20-year war against Jewish enemies in Afghanistan ended. Life without war is just too damn boring, for some.
Public Outrage?
If more than a minuscule fraction of the public knew about such details, they would presumably be outraged. But as I mentioned, the Jewish-controlled Western media does an excellent job in restricting access to such information, and in diverting attention whenever such ugly facts pop up. The major exception is Tucker Carlson, who is able to reach some 3 million people each night; this is by far the widest reach for anything like the above analysis. But Carlson falls woefully short—pathetically short—in defining the Jewish culprit behind all these factors. Jews are never outed and never named by Carlson, let alone ever targeted for blame. This crucial aspect is thus left to a literal handful of alt-right and dissident-right websites that collectively reach a few thousand people, at best.
And even if, by some miracle, all 3 million Tucker viewers were enlightened to the Jewish danger here, this still leaves some 200 million American adults ignorant and unaware. The mass of people believes what they see on the evening news, or in their Facebook feeds, or Google news, or on CNN or MSNBC, or in the New York Times—all Jewish enterprises, incidentally. This is why, when polled, 70% of the American public say that current aid to Ukraine is either “about right” or even “too little.” This, despite the fact that around 50% claim to be “very concerned” about nuclear war; clearly they are unable to make the necessary connections. And for many, it is even worse than this: around 21% would support “direct American military intervention” against Russia, which means an explicit World War Three, with all the catastrophic outcomes that this entails. Our Jewish media have done another fine job in whipping up public incitement.
In sum, we can say that our media have cleverly constructed a “philo-Semitic trap”: any mention or criticism of the Jewish hand in the present conflict is, first, highly censored, and then, if necessary, is dismissed as irrational anti-Semitism. Sympathy toward the (truly) poor, suffering Ukrainians is played up to the hilt, and Putin and the Russians relentlessly demonized. Leading American Jews, like Tony Blinken and Chuck Schumer, are constantly playing the good guys, pleading for aid, promising to help the beleaguered and outmanned Ukrainian warriors. Who can resist this storyline? Thus, we have no opposition, no questioning, no deeper inquiries into root causes. Jews profit and flourish, Ukrainians and Russians suffer and die, and the world rolls along toward potential Armageddon.
The reality is vastly different. Global Jews are, indeed, “planetary master criminals,” as Martin Heidegger long ago realized.[11] They function today as they have for centuries: as advocates for abuse, exploitation, criminality, death and profits. This is self-evidently true: if the potent Jewish Lobby wanted true peace, or flourishing humanity, they would be actively pushing for such things and likely succeeding. Instead, we have endless mayhem, war, terrorism, social upheaval and death, even as Jewish pockets get ever-deeper. And the one possible remedy for all this—true freedom of speech—recedes from our grasp.
On the one hand, I fear greatly for our future. On the other, I feel that we get what we deserve. When we allow malicious Jews to dominate our nations, and then they lead us into war and global catastrophe, well, what can we say? Perhaps there is no other way than to await the inevitable conflagration, exact retribution in the ensuing chaos, and then rebuild society from scratch—older and wiser.
Notes
[1] Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.
[2] Russia’s recent defense of Assad in Syria, against Israel, has obviously not made things better. Nor has the fact that Putin, once thought to be a tool of Jewish-Russian oligarchs, has been able to turn the tables and hold them in check.
[3] Google has been particularly tenacious in altering its search engine results to censor (‘de-rank’) critics of Jewish power and stifle alternative voices. And Google owns Youtube, another force for censorship, which is currently run by the Jewess Susan Wojcicki. For their efforts, Brin and Page have become among the wealthiest men in the world; each is currently worth in excess of $100 billion.
[4] Svoboda began its existence as the “Social-National Party of Ukraine”—a not-so-subtle allusion to National Socialism. This is, in part, why both Svoboda and their allies have been called ‘neo-Nazi.’
[5] Nuland is currently “Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs” in the Biden administration.
[6] Another Jew likely involved in this incident was the Hungarian-American investor George Soros. In late 2019, the lawyer Joseph diGenova appeared in the news, openly charging Soros with direct intervention in American policy: “Well, there’s no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the career Foreign Service at the United States State Department. … But the truth is George Soros had a daily opportunity to tell the State Department through Victoria Nuland what to do in the Ukraine. And he ran it, Soros ran it.”
[7] For what it’s worth, Hunter seems to have a “thing” for Jewesses. In 2016, while married, he took up with his dead brother’s Jewish widow, Hallie Olivere Biden. The marriage failed and the illicit affair died out after a year or so, but then the ever-industrious Hunter latched on to another Jewess, “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen, in 2018. They married in 2019.
[8] In a revealing quotation, Ukrainian nationalist Dmytro Yarosh once asked this question: “I wonder how it came to pass that most of the billionaires in Ukraine are Jews?” Criminal activity is surely a large part of the answer.
[9] Not long after winning the presidency, Zelensky named another Jew, Andriy Yermak, as “Head of Presidential Administration.” (The current prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, seems not to be Jewish.)
[10] Other Ukrainian-American Jews, like Steven Spielberg and Jon Stewart, and the heirs to the Sheldon Adelson fortune, are assuredly equally elated about the course of events.
[11] Cited in P. Trawney, Heidegger and the Myth of a Jewish World Conspiracy (2015), p. 33.
The agency said the initiative aims to “serve over 2.3 billion school-age children” worldwide.
But critics say that behind the WHO’s noble-sounding plan to expand health-promoting schools — also known as school-based health centers (SBHCs) — is an attempt to gain “a foothold in our schools,” to bypass parental consent and expand vaccination, data collection and surveillance.
Laura Sextro, CEO and chief operating officer of The Unity Project, a California-based health freedom and parental rights nonprofit, told The Defender that SBHCs are “very, very agenda-driven organizations within the school system.”
Sextro said SBHCs “will cover everything from sex education [to] radical gender ideology. They’ll be talking about driving vaccines … That is something that frankly parents should have the autonomy” over.
Valerie Borek, associate director and lead policy analyst for Stand For Health Freedom, said SBHCs will promote “vaccines, especially COVID, HPV, and influenza.”
“School-based health centers have no place in public schools,” said Sheila Matthews, co-founder of AbleChild: Parents for Label and Drug Free Education. Matthews alleged the centers allow “Big Pharma access to our children, who are a captive audience.”
Nigel Utton, a board member of the World Freedom Alliance and coordinator of its Education Charter, said the WHO can’t be trusted to support the health of young people. “If it did, no child in the world would live in unsanitary conditions, or be subjected to trafficking, poor nutrition or emotional intimidation within school systems,” he said.
“Instead, the WHO wastes enormous resources on forcing vaccination programs — injecting children with dangerous chemicals including animal proteins, heavy metals and other unspecified ingredients,” Utton added.
Critics also question the involvement of private interests in SBHCs, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — and Bill and Melinda Gates themselves — in promoting SBHCs and funding the WHO’s reports on the subject.
School-based health centers give ‘Big Pharma access to our children’
A 2020 paper in Health Promotion Perspectives, whose lead author, Manuela Pulimeno, Ph.D., is UNESCO’s chair on health education and sustainable development, said health-promoting schools help “integrate health educational goals in a holistic perspective at school” and have shown positive outcomes.
“To achieve this goal, health-related contents may be embedded in the school curricula as core discipline,” the paper states.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has endorsed SBHCs, stating they “improve access to health care services for students by decreasing financial, geographic, age, and cultural barriers.”
On a global level, “work is currently underway with early adopter countries such as Egypt, Kenya, North Macedonia and Paraguay to support governments in building a new generation of school health programmes,” the WHO said in a May 26 report.
WHO’s global standards for SBHCs include censorship and surveillance
In their report, the WHO developed eight “global standards” for SBHCs (page 3), in which school health services represent just one such standard. Other standards include school and government policies, school governance and leadership, school and community partnerships, schools social-emotional and physical environments and curriculum.
These are accompanied by 13 “implementation areas,” (page 17) calling for reinforcement of “intersectoral government and multi-stakeholder coordination,” strengthening “school and community partnerships,” curriculum development, “teacher training and professional learning” and monitoring and evaluation.
Critics say these proposals allow schools to implement vaccine programs. For instance, SBHCs have been linked to higher human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates, according to a 2022 report.
The Gardasil HPV vaccine is often administered to teenagers as part of school vaccination programs. In October 2023, a 12-year-old boy in France died days after collapsing and injuring himself minutes after HPV vaccination at his school.
“Increased vaccine uptake is a mark of success for school-based health programs,” Borek said. “They’re considered an optimal place to promote and administer vaccines. In fact, schools and vaccine policy go hand in hand historically — vaccines didn’t have a strong foothold until schools mandated them for admission.”
Utton pointed out that “schools have been used to coerce and manipulate children into taking vaccinations against the will of their parents. Teachers have been indoctrinated, and those who have questioned the manipulative agenda have been ostracized.”
Borek said the “psychological pressure” a child experiences when a school authority figure recommends any kind of medical care creates a “fertile ground for pushing policy.”
SBHCs ‘will certainly be a tool to collect data’
Included among the WHO’s global standards for SBHCs are interventions in school curriculums and proposals to “embed school health content” in training for educators.
The 2020 Health Promotion Perspectives paper said the WHO calls for the incorporation of “health literacy” in “the core curriculum as children enter school.”
Critics told The Defender that changes like these could lead to the inclusion of non-health-related topics in school curricula under the guise of health education.
Virginie de Araujo-Recchia, a French lawyer and member of ONEST, France’s National Organization of Ethics, Health and Transparency, told The Defender that SBHCs may be “favored by the political powers in an attempt to achieve a fusion between education, citizenship and environmental causes.”
The WHO’s global standards for SBHCs also target “misinformation.” According to UNESCO, SBHCs “can … teach young people develop the critical thinking skills they need to reject harmful health-related myths and misconceptions,” noting that “This is a key in responding to pandemics like Covid-19 and HIV.”
The global standards call on schools to develop “versatile physical spaces that can be adapted to changing restrictions, as in managing the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The WHO’s global standards also contain provisions for increased data collection and surveillance in schools, with the 13th “implementation area” calling on schools to “Design, develop and share practices for collecting, storing and analysing data.”
This is linked to calls to provide “capacity-building in evaluation (e.g. data collection and analysis)” and investments “in feasible … interoperable systems for collecting and storing data from monitoring at all levels of the education and/or health system.”
SBHCs “will certainly be a tool to collect data on anything from vaccine status to sexual preference,” Sextro said.
Children can become ‘health trainers of their parents’
The WHO claims SBHCs involve “all stakeholders, and particularly students, parents and caregivers.” The agency’s global standards call for “opportunities for parents … to participate meaningfully in the governance, design, implementation and evaluation” of SBHCs and their inclusion on “design teams” and governance boards.
But the WHO appears to contradict itself, excluding parents from the “system of global standards for health-promoting schools” and noting that the “target readership” of its SBHC-related documents is “mainly people in government.”
According to Nemours KidsHealth, the centers “only provide care to children with parents’ written permission.” However, the organization notes that this “permission” usually consists of “the option to sign a permission form at the beginning of each school year.”
A consent form for an Atlanta SBHC shared with The Defender says nothing about parents being notified before, during or after treatment. Last year, a Connecticut school board was sued for rejecting a government-funded school-based mental health clinic that aimed to treat teens without parental consent.
“The reason they’re doing this is because they don’t want parents to be able to exercise their rights, which is to … make medically informed decisions on behalf of their children. And so, they’re usurping the parents,” Sextro said.
“Parents need to be front and center in their child’s medical care,” Borek said. “These centers are cleaving that relationship by promoting medical assessments and treatment without the presence of a parent.”
“Schools are clearly not the place to introduce school health centers,” de Araujo-Recchia said. “Our children are neither guinea pigs for mass medical experimentation nor beings to be sacrificed.”
Notably, UNESCO suggests SBHCs can help children “educate” their parents on health matters. According to the 2020 Health Promotion Perspectives paper, SBHCs can help children “become health trainers of their parents, relatives and friends, impacting positively the entire society.”
Gates ‘has a direct financial benefit’ from SBHCs
Earlier this year, Melinda French Gates announced a $23 million investment in the School-Based Health Alliance, alongside fellow billionaire MacKenzie Scott, ex-wife of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.
The Gates Foundation has also provided financial support for the publication of at least two WHO reports on SBHCs.
“The Gates Foundation and Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance [founded and funded by Gates] fiercely promote childhood vaccination, and make a lot of money from it,” de Araujo-Recchia said. “This is not philanthropy at all, but a stranglehold and ideology,” citing the WHO’s partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation as another example.
Sextro said Gates “has a direct financial benefit and interest in promoting these school-based health centers, because they will directly promote everything from the pharmaceutical to the vaccine interest that he and the Gates Foundation have.”
The WHO’s global standards for SBHCs include calls for the delivery of “comprehensive school health services based on a formal agreement between schools (or local education departments) and health service providers.”
According to the School-Based Health Alliance, 21% of funding for SBHCs in the U.S. came from private foundations in 2022, while according to the AAP, “local hospitals [may] provide … financial support for SBHCs.”
The WHO “is mainly financed by private funds from companies or foundations owning pharmaceutical labs,” de Araujo-Recchia said. “The capital links between the mainstream media, digital giants, American financial giants and the WHO demonstrate real collusion.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
It is not difficult to be astonished these days, given how many things going on around us warrant astonishment. To pull something out of a hat at random, the Democratic apparatus has openly, brazenly politicized the judicial system—weaponized it, if you prefer—in its determination to destroy Donald Trump and now has the temerity to warn in the gravest terms that a second Trump term would mean… the politicization of American justice.
Again at random, in The Washington Post’s June 7 editions George Will tells us President Biden “has provided the most progressive governance in U.S. history.” Yes, he wrote that. Give in to your astonishment.
It is interesting in this case to note that, during the reign of Ronald Reagan 40 years ago, our George thought big government was bad, bad, bad. Now it is a fine thing that Biden is “minimizing the market’s role by maximizing the government’s role in allocating society’s resources and opportunities.” Apart from turning his own argument hourglass upside-down, this assessment of our swiftly declining president is preposterously, right-before-your-eyes false.
You cannot tell the AC’s from the DC’s these days. But this is not the half of it in the way of astonishing events, things done, things said and such like.
Last week, as many readers will have noticed, Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector and now a widely followed commentator, was about to board a plane bound for Turkey when armed police officers stopped him, confiscated his passport and escorted him out of Kennedy International Airport. Ritter was booked to transit through Istanbul for St. Petersburg, where he planned to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an annual gathering.
Here is Ritter recounting this incident in an interview with RT International:
I was boarding the flight. Three officers pulled me aside. They took my passport. When asked why, they said, “Orders of the State Department.” They had no further information for me. They pulled my bags off the plane, then escorted me out of the airport. They kept my passport.
No passport, no freedom to travel, no explanation. I have it on good authority that Ritter subsequently advised other Americans who were to attend the St. Petersburg events not to risk it.
I have had countless conversations over many years in which the question considered has been “Is this as bad as the 1950s?” The matter has been especially vital since the Russiagate fiasco began during the Clinton–Trump campaign season in 2016. It was in the ensuing years that the authoritarianism implicit in American liberalism from the first burst upon us like some weird grotesque out of a Dr. Seuss book.
I always urge caution when invoking comparisons between our corruptions and ideological extremes and those of the McCarthy era. Hyperbole and exaggeration never serve one’s understanding or one’s argument. But the confiscation of Scott Ritter’s passport on the instructions of Antony Blinken’s State Department seems to me a radical step too far. The liberal authoritarians now in command of the nation’s major institutions, the House of Representatives among the only exceptions, have just signaled they are quite prepared to act at least as undemocratically as the House Un–American Activities crowd, the FBI and the rest of the national-security state did during the 1950s to preserve their political hegemony.
When I think of confiscated passports I think of Paul Robeson, the gifted singer, the courageous political dissenter, the civil rights advocate — here he is singing his famous Water Boy — whose documents were seized in 1950 because he refused to indulge in the Cold War paranoia that was already prevalent. His performing career collapsed and he nearly went broke before a Supreme Court decision restored them in 1958. Or I think of all the screenwriters, novelists, poets, painters and activists whose papers were canceled while they were in Mexico — or in France or in Sweden or in England — to avoid HUAC and expatriation turned into exile.
And when I am finished thinking of these people, about whom there is a rich, inspiring literature, I think of how far America descended into a derangement we tend to look back upon in some combination of wonder, derision and contempt.
We can no longer look back in this fashion. The revocation of Scott Ritter’s passport, along with the destruction of the judicial system, the myth-spinning about our purported leaders and all the rest pushes this in our faces. Let us give this a moment’s thought to see if we can determine what is likely to be in store.
Why Scott Ritter, I have wondered these past few days. Of all the dissident commentators of too many stripes to count, why Scott? I reply to myself, “Because Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer, a former U.N. arms monitor in Iraq and he enjoys big-time credibility as a patriotic American.” His voice, in short, is the sort that can carry weight in sectors of the voting public that may well prove key in determining the outcome in the Trump–Biden election this Nov. 5.
Viewed in this context, I take the full-frontal suppression of Ritter’s rights last week as very likely tied to the liberals’ political prospects, other than brilliant as they are at this point. Censorship, suppression of various kinds taking various forms, “canceling”—these are nothing new, of course. But I sense things may get a great deal worse from here on out.
This is a year of global elections, as has often been remarked. The Associated Press counted 25 major national elections in a piece published at the start of the year. Taiwan, El Salvador, Indonesia, Russia, Slovakia, India, Mexico: These are among the big ones that have already taken place. The European Union is holding parliamentary elections June 6–9, cited in liberal quarters as the most important in decades. When Americans vote Nov. 5, it will be in this context.
In many of these elections — not all but many — the core issues are variants on a theme. The liberal order, such as we have it, is cast as defending itself against the onslaughts of —take your pick — populists, authoritarians, here and there a dictator. This is certainly how liberal media encourage American voters to view the Biden – Trump contest. And it is for this reason I think we must all brace ourselves for what may turn out to be a very major disaster for what remains of American democracy — and by extension the West’s.
Cast your mind back to 1992, when the Soviet Union was no more, an incipient triumphalism was taking hold in the U.S. and Francis Fukuyama published his famous (or infamous) The End of History and the Last Man (Free Press). Fukuyama, then a middling bureaucrat at the State Department, made the case that liberal democracy had won out and would stand as the ultimate, unchallenged achievement of humankind. A sort of happy political monoculture was destined to prevail eternally across the planet.
However sophomoric you may find this thesis, and I find it almost juvenile in its silliness, it came to define the expectations of all righteous American liberals. There was the Bush II administration, a major setback for the liberal narrative, although at the horizon this was merely a variation on the liberal theme. Then came the Obama years. And the Obama years set up the Democrats for a kind of fateful consummation in 2016. Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy that November was incontrovertibly the surest of outcomes because it was… what is my phrase?… a matter of historical destiny.
This is why Clinton’s defeat landed so hard among the mainstream Democrats. It was more, much more, than a loss at the polls. Trump’s victory contradicted what had become a prevalent consciousness among American liberals. Biden’s win in 2020 was a kind of salvage job: It put the liberal narrative back on track. But something had happened in the years after Clinton’s November 2016 loss. Liberals had assumed an uncompromising ideological righteousness such that we can now legitimately call them authoritarians—soft despots in de Tocqueville’s terminology, apple-pie authoritarians in mine. The cause is upside-down to the Cold War cause, but these people are at least as dangerous as the McCarthyites, and, as I have suggested, maybe more so.
We learned something important during those years. Deprived of what they considered their right as conferred by the force of history, liberals demonstrated that they would stop at nothing in the cause of retrieving it. Even those institutions that must stand above the political pit if a democracy is to have any chance of working, notably but not only the judiciary, were intruded upon in the liberal authoritarian project. Nothing was off limits.
Here we are again. We are headed into another confrontation of the kind that set liberals on the path of destruction they began to walk in 2016. We are already seeing a new wave of preposterous, utterly unsubstantiated charges of Russian or Chinese interference. Trump will turn America into a dictatorship. Trump will go on a rampage of retribution. Trump—we hear this already, as noted—will corrupt the courts, our courts, the courts we have kept pristine.
The Scott Ritter affair astonishes me yet more than any of the other astonishing developments of late. I read it as a warning of how extreme things may get, what irreparable damage to the American polity may be done, if liberal authoritarian cliques determine that a broad campaign to suppress dissent will be necessary if Biden is to have a chance of winning a second term and they are to fulfill their end-of-history destiny.
Let me put it this way. Liberal media now routinely bait Trump to say whether he will automatically accept the outcome this Nov. 5. One would have to be naïve in the extreme to make any such commitment as things now stand.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a media critic, essayist, author and lecturer. His new book, Journalists and Their Shadows, is out now from Clarity Press. His website is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.
In June 2021, Dr. Sam White, a general practitioner, released a video calling out harmful covid policy. From a scientific perspective every word he said was entirely defensible. Moreover it is clear that he was speaking from an ethical position of wanting to protect his patients from harm. He pulled no punches in addressing the most prominent issues that were causing harm – lack of treatment for the frail, inappropriate gene therapies and masking. In interviews, in 2022, he called the situation a war between good and evil. In doing so he unleashed a torrent of anger among those in a position of power over him, which, three years on, continues to harm him.
He had already resigned from his GP partnership in protest at their vaccination policy in February 2021. His conscience had been keeping him awake at night because he did not want to be a part of the vaccine rollout. Consequently, after resigning he was signed off with stress rather than having to work his notice. NHS England still saw fit to suspend him with an emergency order in June. Dr White managed to record a conversation with an NHS senior clinical adviser who implied that he was mentally unwell. Dr White believes that possession of that recording led the NHS to revoke their suspension. However, by then the NHS had referred him for a GMC investigation and an automatic GMC suspension.
The GMC overturned the suspension in August 2021 but imposed restrictions on him including a ban on mentioning covid on social media and requiring the removal of his previous posts. The legal position is that doctors have a right to free speech but if the GMC could prove Dr White’s speech was a threat to the health of the public or undermined trust in the profession then he could be sanctioned.
Dr White looked to his indemnity provider for support to fund his legal case but they washed their hands of him saying it was a “conduct issue”. With the help of crowd funding support, Dr White took the case to the High Court in November 2021. The verdict was published in December 2021, overruling the GMC and saying they had not followed due process in their actions. The High Court documentation was removed from the judiciary’s website in September 2022 such that other doctors in a similar position will be unable to refer to it in their defence. It is available on the Wayback Machine.
Dr White has asked to be removed from the register, as he is no longer practising conventional medicine, but the GMC have refused and are continuing to persecute him. Every interview he has undertaken has been transcribed and put forward as evidence that he is undermining public health policy and causing the public to lose trust in the profession. The next tribunal hearing is scheduled to last three weeks in August and September 2024. This ongoing investigation, three years later, indicates a relentless effort to discredit and punish Dr. White for his dissenting views.
If that sounds bad, wait until you hear about the NHS’s role.
The same day as the High Court hearing, unbeknown to Dr White or his lawyers, NHSE had a meeting where they decided to refer Dr White for a health assessment, despite the fact he no longer worked in the NHS. This was an opportunity to reopen the investigation into him. They have repeatedly asked if he had returned to NHS work and said he must tell them if he did. What was their intent here? Were they planning to ask any future employer to suspend him all over again?
NHS England has a list of “approved providers”. Any doctor not on their list cannot work for the primary employer of doctors in the country. In 2023, NHS England removed Dr White from their list, effectively barring him from practising within the NHS. He had already shifted his practice to private healthcare with a holistic focus, but this further punishment leaves him with no other options.
The GMC is far from perfect but at least it has due process and a system of appeal for where there might be an injustice. NHS England can unilaterally destroy a career, with no legal recourse.
In some ways, the most disturbing aspect of the whole affair was revealed in the communications between the GMC and NHS England. Firstly, the derogatory terms used about the doctor to justify their behaviour are shocking and reveal a lack of professionalism and intolerance for differing opinions within the medical establishment. Moreover, this language served as a means to rationalise their harsh and unjust actions towards him. Secondly, they appeared to be acting in cahoots. The GMC’s apparent open and fair processes have been bypassed by direct communication with NHS England, stripping Dr White of a right to employment.
Dr. Sam White’s case is a stark example of systemic injustice and the erosion of professional rights within the NHS and the GMC. His ongoing persecution for voicing dissenting views underscores a troubling intolerance for ethical and scientific debate, reminiscent of a Kafkaesque nightmare where rationality and justice are subordinated to bureaucratic oppression.
Several medical credentialing boards instituted COVID-19 Misinformation Policies in September of 2021 and have used them to censor and retaliate against academics and practicing physicians who performed research, clinical care, and presented their findings on the early treatment of acute COVID-19 and vaccine safety. The boards’ position is that they and the government agencies they agree with, hold agency over the truth. By establishing that power dynamic, members who disagree with them are spreading misinformation and can be convicted in closed panel meetings without the member being allowed to present their views based upon the data and evidence at hand.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons sued three medical specialty boards for their threatened actions against the board certifications of physicians because of speaking out on medical controversies. Physicians earned and need these board certifications in order to hold professorships, practice medicine in most hospitals, and remain in most insurance networks.
Defendants are the American Board of Internal Medicine (“ABIM”), the American Board of Family Medicine (“ABFM”), and the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (“ABOG”). In addition, Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary, is a defendant due to alleged government interference with freedom of speech.
The Fifth Circuit also invalidated Galveston Local Rule 6, by which that federal district court has infringed on plaintiffs’ right to amend their lawsuits. The Fifth Circuit agreed with AAPS that this district court rule is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus must be voided.
“AAPS can now pursue its claim against censorship by the Biden Administration,” AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient, M.D., stated.
Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho agreed with the panel majority on the key issues and wrote separately to decry attempts by some today to impose censorship on others. “In America, we don’t fear disagreement—we embrace it. We persuade—we don’t punish. We engage in conversation—not cancellation,” Judge Ho wrote.
“We know how to disagree with one another without destroying one another. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work,” Judge Ho added as he sided fully with this lawsuit against censorship.
The precedent-setting ruling in favor of the First Amendment was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This influential Court established the right to object in court to censorship of physicians’ speech on topics ranging from government Covid policies to abortion. AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly should be congratulated for this stalwart effort in defense of our civil liberties.
Hamburg MP Olga Petersen has sought refuge in Russia, telling Bild that she feared having her children taken by the German state over her perceived support for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Petersen left Hamburg with her children last month, prompting widespread speculation about her whereabouts. Several weeks before her disappearance, her party – the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) – expelled her from its Hamburg faction for traveling to Russia as an election observer in March and declaring the vote “open, democratic, and free.”
Alexander Brod, a member of the Russian Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, told TASS last week that Petersen had settled in Russia with three of her four kids.
Petersen broke her silence on Friday. “I have indeed taken my children out of the country,” she told Bild. “I want to know that my children are safe and that they remain in my care. Without my children, I would no longer see any meaning in life.”
According to Brod’s account, social workers had begun proceedings to take the three children – all of whom are in elementary school – into state care. Petersen offered no further details on the alleged efforts to take her children, and Bild questioned these claims, stating that the kids had been reported to youth welfare workers over behavioral problems.
Expressions of support for Russia’s military operation in Ukraine are illegal in Hamburg, with a court in the city sentencing a man to three years in prison last May for sharing “pro-Russian ideas” and using the ‘Z’ symbol – painted on some Russian military vehicles operating in the conflict – on his Telegram channel.
While there were no criminal proceedings being taken against Petersen, any kind of prison term would have resulted in her losing custody of her children. German courts can also strip a parent of their custody rights if they are deemed abusive, violent, or negligent.
Although Petersen has been expelled from the AfD’s faction in Hamburg, she remains a member of the region’s parliament and will appear on ballot papers as an independent in Hamburg’s district election on Sunday.
“I will remain a member of the Hamburg Parliament and will fulfill my obligations to the best of my knowledge and belief,” she told Bild, adding that she will ensure her children’s safety before deciding whether she is “fit for political action again.”
The EU-funded International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) has asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for several high-profile Russian media figures and officials, including former President Dmitry Medvedev and RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, over alleged “hate speech.”
In a statement on Thursday, the IFHR called on the ICC to investigate what it called six “Russian propagandists,” including Medvedev, Simonyan, Russian journalist Dmitry Kiselyov, TV host Vladimir Solovyov, TV presenter Sergey Mardan, and Alexey Gromov, who serves as First Deputy to the Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office.
Like the US, Russia does not recognize the authority of the ICC, dismissing its rulings as “null and void.”
In its communication to the ICC, the IFHR alleged that Medvedev, Simonyan, Kiselyov, Solovyov, and Mardan “played a leading role in the dissemination of discriminatory hate speech targeting Ukrainians on the basis of their political views.”
The organization, which filed the document together with the Kharkov Human Rights Protection Group (KHPG), the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), and an undisclosed Russian NGO, also accused Gromov of “personally shap[ing] core propaganda narratives.”
The IFHR has also claimed that the targeted figures were “spreading false and distorted narratives,” including “portraying Ukrainians as Nazis” and claiming that Ukrainian “state ideology is hatred for everything Russian.”
Moscow has for years voiced concerns about a resurgence of Nazi ideology in its neighbor, pointing in particular to ample evidence of the Nazi symbolism being used by Ukrainian nationalists.
It has also repeatedly denounced what it terms a long-running campaign to eradicate the Russian language from all spheres of life in Ukraine as well as a crackdown on Russian and Soviet cultural heritage. Officials in Moscow have named the “denazification” of Ukraine as one of the main goals of the military campaign against Kiev.
The IFHR is mostly funded by grants and donations. In 2022, its sponsors included the French Development Agency ($6.6 million), the European Commission ($6.4 million), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ($3.6 million), and the Open Society Foundations ($1.1 million). The latter was founded by activist billionaire George Soros.
Last year, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for allegedly participating in “unlawful” deportations of Ukrainian children to Russia. Moscow has said that the children were evacuated from the combat zone to ensure their safety, stressing that they could be returned to their parents or legal guardians upon request.
Commenting on the IFHR’s request, Medvedev called it an “acknowledgment of the effectiveness of our combined effort against the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.” He also said that such NGOs have essentially become accomplices of Ukraine’s attacks on Russian civilians.
The US government-affiliated Ukrainian web publication “Data Journalism Agency” (TEXTY) has just released a report attacking hundreds of prominent American individuals and organizations as enemies for not supporting sending more US money and weapons to Ukraine.
The report, titled “Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it,” intends to smear American politicians, journalists, and social media influencers as tools of Russia, writing:
Most of the people in our study do not have direct, proven ties to the Russian government or propagandists. However, the arguments they use to urge authorities to distance themselves from Ukraine echo key messages of Russian propaganda aimed at depriving Ukrainians of the ability to defend themselves with Western weapons and funds. (emphasis added)
Although the “enemies list” purports to correct disinformation about Ukraine spread by those on its list, the report itself is full of crude disinformation. For example this bit:
Even long-debunked myths continue to surface, such as claims of Nazi dominance and American Biolabs in Ukraine and the portrayal of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity as a coup.
The organization’s assertion that these claims are “long-debunked” may be wishful thinking, but back on planet reality even mainstream, pro-Ukraine media sites in the US wring their hands over the disturbing, extremist images coming out of the country. For example, NBC News wrote that, “Ukraine’s Nazi problem is real, even if Putin’s ‘denazification’ claim isn’t.” Newsweek wondered, “Why Have So Many Neo-Nazis Rallied to Ukraine’s Cause?” Even before the current conflict, mainstream pro-Ukraine publications such as Reuters worried in 2918 about “Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem.”
As to the biolabs, none other than Mother of the Maidan Victoria Nuland admitted in a US Senate hearing that there were biolabs in Ukraine. Ah, but one may counter that these were not “American biolabs.” In fact with the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop now absolutely confirmed during his trial, a report by the New York Post two years ago based on the laptop also must be considered accurate. According to the article, “Russia’s assertion that President Biden’s son Hunter was ‘financing . . . biological laboratories in Ukraine’ was based in truth, according to e-mails reviewed by The Post.”
And on whether the Maidan events of 2014 were a “Revolution of Dignity” or a coup, we again only need turn to Victoria Nuland’s infamous phone call with US Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, for all the evidence needed that the US was micromanaging the removal of an elected leader and replacing him with hand-picked US puppets.
The report also includes such prominent American politicians and journalists as Sen. JD Vance, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Col. Douglas Macgregor.
Even our friends at Antiwar.com… and your own correspondent (!) find ourselves appearing on the Ukrainian “enemies list”:
As the report states:
There are 391 individuals and 76 organizations in our list. These include politicians, political movements and groups, media and journalists, experts, and think tanks (some individuals appear in multiple categories).
Perhaps what is most shocking about this attack on American citizens is the fact that the Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) has a long affiliation with the US Government itself! In fact, the founder of the publication Anatoly Bondarenko appears prominently on a US Government website as a participant in the US State Department’s “TechCamp” project.
The Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) is listed as an “Implementing Partner” of the US Agency for International Development’s Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services/ TAPAS Project.
The Ukrainians seemingly love to make lists of their “enemies.” One of their most notorious of these is the infamous “kill list” put out by the Mirotvorets Center in Kiev. From that list several have already been murdered by Ukraine, including prominent Russian journalist Daria Dugina.
One wonders how, for example, former US President Donald Trump and dozens of members of the US Congress will react when they hear that US tax dollars are being sent to Ukraine for US-backed Ukrainian organizations to make “hate lists” and “kill lists” of patriotic Americans like themselves.
Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
The European Union (EU) is planning to implement a new set of draconian mass surveillance rules shortly after Sunday’s EU Parliament election, a member of the EP has warned after the plans surfaced on the internet.
The conclusion that radical surveillance measures are in the works proceeds from documents detailing the meetings of working groups, dubbed “high level group(s) on access to data for effective law enforcement.”
The documents originate from the EU Commission, and contain a number of recommendations, including reintroducing indiscriminate retention of communications data in the bloc, creation of encryption backdoors, as well as forcing hardware manufacturers to give access to anything from phones to cars to law enforcement through what is known as “access by design.”
MEP Patrick Breyer announced that the plan contains 42 points produced by the EU Commission and governments of member-countries. The purpose of being able to access phones, IoT (such as “smart home”) devices, and cars is to make sure they can be monitored around the clock.
Meanwhile, the return of controversial data retention is planned despite a previous ruling of the EU Court of Justice, and could even be extended to include over-the-top services such as messengers (this is defined as retaining IP information data “at the very least”). That, Breyer explains, means that all internet activities will become trackable.
A favorite target of authorities actively undermining their image as democracies has for a while been end-to-end encryption. Here, the EU intends to ban secure encryption of metadata and subscriber data, as well as force messaging services who implement encryption to allow interception.
The EU further plans to “tackle” the use of encryption devices that it declares are “proven to be used solely” by criminals. In reality, the right to install encryption backdoors in phones and computers can be abused to spy on anyone, dissidents and critics included.
Technology providers will, if so ordered by judicial authorities, have to break encryption in order to “facilitate access to data at rest in user’s devices.” And there will be “mechanisms for robust cooperation with communication and technology providers” – meaning they will have to share data with governments and law enforcement.
If these agencies demand, service providers must activate GPS location tracking, according to these recommended “solutions for effective law enforcement.” Representatives of providers who refuse could end up in jail.
“This extreme surveillance plan must not become a reality, if only because it has been cooked up by a completely one-sided secret group of surveillance fanatics working without any real transparency or democratic legitimacy,” Breyer stated.
Technology is a tool and a weapon. It may enhance and empower or disempower and enslave. A simple hammer can be a tool to construct a house or a weapon to bludgeon a man’s skull. As technology enhances, optimally, it would enhance the human condition. There is a delicate balancing between technological advancement and the wisdom to manage that advancement without causing destruction. Unfortunately, the wisdom to manage technological advancement often lags behind.
We are continuously told that there needs to be a balance between freedom and security. This of course is a false narrative, as once there is no freedom, there will be no security. If we examine what has been done in the name of security, it is astounding.
Our conversations are listened to and stored in databases, every keystroke on our keyboards is recorded, there are cameras on street corners, and the list goes on. All of this is in the name of security. The post 911 security state is something out of George Orwell’s 1984 where big brother is always watching you. It is clear that if you induce enough fear and hate, coupled with enough drugs and entertainment, people will willingly give up their liberty for a false sense of security. The result, of course, is that they will end up with neither.
So why am I suggesting we need a new government surveillance program?
The answer is simple. We don’t have one. Sure, we can file a FOI request. Maybe if we are lucky, we will get documents months later that is often heavily redacted information, and if we are really lucky, as a result, expose illegal activity. As was reported by Emerald Robinson, this of course recently happened, when it was discovered by Congress, that NIH scientists appeared to deliberately circumvent the law for the purposes of obstructing justice by using private emails, and even miss spelling words to avoid searches. These actions seem to indicate a criminal intent to obstruct justice.
I recently suggested in an interview on the Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson that FOI requests are obsolete. To elaborate on that discussion, instead of FOI requests, we as civilians should be able to access government employee communications in real time whenever we want to. We should simply be able to look up one of our government employees and track all of their communications while they are working. We should also be able to track their phone conversations in real time and access transcripts of these conversations as they are occurring. This should all equally apply to government contractors.
It isn’t enough to be able to monitor their communications. We should also be able to watch what they are doing at all times in real time as well. As a civilian employer, you should be able to look up a government employee and watch what they are doing at all times while they are on the clock. For higher up level employees, you should be able to watch them after hours if they are meeting with other employees or government contractors. Body cameras would do the trick.
That’s right. Those cameras need to be turned around. If those cameras were monitoring in real time the employees in the prison where Epstein was held do you really think he would have committed suicide?
Of course, I am not excluding politicians or their interactions with each other or their staff. Politicians, government employees, and government contractors need to sacrifice their freedom for our security. Would the undeclared war on Russia have started, let alone escalated, if we as civilians were able to watch every conversation? Would we have ended up on the precipice of global war?
Imagine if every conversation of a war criminal like Fauci and other conspirators was on video. Global genocide would not be occurring. The people you know and love, would not be getting turbo cancers, strokes, heart attacks, autoimmune diseases, chronic fatigue, and neurological, problems to name a few.
Again, politicians sacrificing their freedom, is not merely for our freedom and security, it is for their security too. If we had constant monitoring of their activities, it is true they would not be able to make as much money in bribes, still, they are less likely to compromise themselves for blackmail purposes. The odds are that the typical politician’s blackmailable behavior will significantly decrease after the first real time escapades are viewed all over the place. I would maintain that physical intimidation will also decrease if there is constant monitoring of the typical politician. So, you see, if they sacrifice their freedom, it is clearly to maintain their safety as well. It is our duty to save the typical politician or government employee from themselves.
The reality is that we have created an upside down world with unfettered government that has become a direct threat to the people. The privacy of individuals and basic private property rights, and human rights in general have been kicked to the curb. Politicians and the government have been captured. A government that has secrets is inherently oppressive and contrary to the concept of a Constitutional Republic. Secret agencies and secret budgets are devastating to humanity.
Individual privacy and even communications are under attack. The idea that your private texts can be monitored, let alone censored from being sent, on its own should cause upheaval. Social media acting under the color of law censored medical information that could have saved countless lives over the past four years. So called hate speech laws are seeking to outlaw common sense. Canada’s laws preventing healthcare professionals from protecting children from gender mutilation are an example.
Maybe we should pass laws restricting the free speech of elected officials and government employees instead of limiting the free speech of us, the civilian employers?
Okay, maybe I am taking it a bit too far… The point is that the government, i.e. deep state, is an uncontrollable monster that must be reined in. Literally, the government is waging war against the people. The tightening noose of oppression will continue until we stop it. The deep state envisions a world, where most of us no longer exist, and for those that do remain, it will be a world transformed into the airport, degrading, humiliating, and exhausting.
Yet another University of Sydney academic has been targeted for offending the Australian Zionist lobby, a major funder of the university.
In a lecture to first-year students, Professor Sujatha Fernandes accused “Israel” of lying about “Hamas beheading babies and carrying out mass rape,” and accused the Australian media of spreading those lies to shore up support for “Israel’s” ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
Alex Ryvchin, co-chief of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, demanded that Professor Fernandes be investigated, and the university has capitulated to the demand. The Rupert Murdoch media has also initiated a witch hunt against the professor.
This comes two weeks after the University of Sydney won its appeal over the unfair dismissal of Sydney Lecturer Dr. Tim Anderson, who was similarly attacked by the Zionist lobby for criticising “Israel.
When asked to comment on the case of fellow academic Professor Fernandes, Dr. Anderson, said:
“The Murdoch media claims she is being ‘investigated’ for her comments, exactly how they started with me. I am sure they will further target her for speaking the plain truth about the Israeli regime.”
Dr. Anderson fought a lengthy legal battle with the university, starting in 2019, after being dismissed for including a lecture slide that compared Israeli atrocities to those of Nazi Germany. The case began with university managers claiming Anderson’s social media comments had offended Israelis and their supporters.
Intellectual freedom in Australia is defined in industrial agreements. In Dr. Anderson’s case, the Federal Court initially affirmed the right to academic freedom, but its most recent decision has muddied that position. In particular, Judge Michael Lee now asserts that the burden is on the individual claiming intellectual freedom to prove that they were acting in the highest professional standards, without providing clear criteria. Overall, five Federal Court judges ruled in favour of Anderson, but the last two tipped the balance against him.
Regarding his dismissal, Dr. Anderson stated:
The reasons behind my sacking were:
(1) Pressure from the Israeli lobby, including corporate media and Israeli funding at the University of Sydney.
(2) Corruption by University of Sydney managers, and
(3) Reactionary politics at the Federal Court of Australia, which dismantled five years of previous decisions on intellectual freedom.
The power of the Zionist lobby in Australia comes from their direct funding of universities and their influence in the media. The National Advisory Committee on Jewish Education, which has donated more than half a million dollars annually to the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, exemplifies this. The committee’s chair, Emeritus Professor Suzanne Rutland, noted on her CV that the committee was a branch of the World Zionist Organisation (WZO), one of the groups instrumental in the creation of “Israel”. Additionally, the committee provided bonuses to all University of Sydney senior managers based on their performance, creating a financial incentive to target professors who criticize “Israel”.
Growing concerns arise regarding evidence of foreign interference in Australian universities due to these practices. The witch hunt against these professors has caused a chilling effect, and academics may begin to self-censor in future academic discourse on “Israel”.
The Israeli and US funding for the University of Sydney has corrupted managers and killed intellectual freedom at Australia’s oldest university.
The continued attacks on these academics come in the context of the International Court of Justice ruling that there is credible evidence that “Israel” is committing a genocide in Gaza. The story of babies being beheaded on October 7th has been conclusively debunked, and the story of rapes on Oct 7 was found to have a lack of evidence. After examining all of the 5,000 photos, 50 hours of videos, and audio from October 7, the UN Secretary General’s report said, “No tangible indications of rape could be identified.” The report goes on to say that the UN did not find a single victim of sexual violence on Oct 7, despite their best efforts to encourage victims to come forward.
In spite of the control that the Zionist lobby has over the faculty, students of Sydney University continue their weeks-long protest against the genocide in Gaza, demanding that Sydney University divest from “Israel”.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has argued that the assassination attempt that nearly killed him last month emanated from foreign-backed politicians who refuse to accept foreign policies that prioritize Bratislava’s interests over the agendas of major Western powers.
Fico posted a video statement on Wednesday, marking his first public appearance since the May 15 shooting in which he was critically wounded. He credited medical workers with saving his life and said he expects to resume at least some of his work duties by around the end of this month or in early July.
The PM condemned efforts to downplay the assassination attempt and blame it entirely on a deranged gunman. “I forgive him and let him sort out what he did and why he did it, in his own head,” Fico said. “In the end, it is evident that he was only a messenger of evil and political hatred, which the politically unsuccessful and frustrated opposition developed in Slovakia to unmanageable proportions.”
Fico returned to power for a fourth term as prime minister after his Slovak Social Democracy (SMER-SD) party won the country’s parliamentary election last September. He said his wounds from last month’s shooting were so severe that it would be a “minor miracle” for him to resume his work duties within a few weeks. He warned against efforts by political adversaries – including media outlets bankrolled by billionaire political activist George Soros – to shrug off the implications of the attempted assassination.
“I want to ask the anti-government media, especially those co-owned by the financial structure of George Soros, not to go down this path and to respect not only the gravity of reasons for the attempted murder, but also the consequences of this attempt,” Fico said.
The long-time leader added that he had been warning for several months of likely political violence because of the “hatred and aggressiveness” of Slovakia’s opposition parties. He lamented that major Western democracies stood silent as those parties attacked political opponents and stoked hatred.
He warned that more political violence is to be expected if opposition forces continue on their present course. “The horror of May 15th, which you all had the opportunity to see practically live, will continue, and there will be more victims.”
“Violent and hateful excesses against legitimate governmental power are tolerated at the international level without any comment,” Fico added. “The opposition was unable to assess, because no one forced them to do so, where their aggressive and hateful politics had led sections of the society, and it was only a matter of time before a tragedy would occur.”
Fico claimed the parties that ruled Slovakia from 2020 to 2023 did whatever larger Western democracies demanded, including treating Russia and China as “mortal enemies.” The previous Bratislava regime also “looted” Slovak military stockpiles to provide weapons to Ukraine, he added. After returning to power in October, Fico’s government halted such aid, raising the ire of NATO powers.
“It is precisely the conflict in Ukraine that the EU and NATO have elevated even more, literally sanctifying the concept of the single correct opinion – namely that the war in Ukraine must continue at any cost in order to weaken the Russian Federation,” Fico said. “Anyone who does not identify with this single mandatory opinion is immediately labeled as a Russian agent and politically marginalized internationally. It is a cruel observation, but the right to a different opinion has ceased to exist in the EU.”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 