Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

War and Business. Peace Negotiations are “A Waste Of Time”.

By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | October 25, 2025

Following the announcement of the impending summit with President Putin in Hungary, President Trump declared that the summit with the Russian President on Ukraine would be a “waste of time” on the grounds that “Russia is pursuing territorial ambitions that make a peace agreement with Ukraine impossible”.

He then proceeded to summon NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to the White House, wherein he conveyed his decision to withhold the provision of US Tomahawk missiles to Kiev at that particular juncture.

This decision was precipitated by the perceived impracticality of allocating a substantial amount of time to train the Ukrainian army in the utilisation of such missiles. Concurrently, the US lifted the key restriction on the use of long-range missiles supplied by other NATO members to Ukraine, while NATO conducted the Steadfast Noon nuclear warfare exercise directed against Russia in Europe under US command. In response to the aforementioned events, a Strategic Nuclear Forces exercise was conducted in the Russian Federation. President Putin observed this exercise via video conference.

One example among many: that of the fast-growing German Rheinmetall, which is integrated into the US military-industrial complex through American Rheinmetall Munitions.

Rheinmetall has announced its intention to supply Ukraine with an electronic system designed to enhance the combat capabilities of the German Leopard tanks that have already been supplied to Kiev. The production and integration of this system is carried out by the Italian subsidiary of Rheinmetall, Rheinmetall Italia SpA, at its headquarters in Rome. In Italy, Rheinmetall has established a facility dedicated to the assembly, testing and production of warheads for kamikaze drones. The series is being produced at full speed. The plant is operated by the Italian subsidiary RWM Italia at its sites in Musei and Domusnovas in Sardinia. Rheinmetall is collaborating with the Israeli manufacturer UVision Air Ltd. on this project. It is evident that these Italian-manufactured kamikaze drones will be utilised by the Israeli army in attacks against Palestinians in Gaza, as well as in other operations primarily conducted in Libya, Yemen, and other regions.

Trump has imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies, representing the most stringent measures yet taken by the US against the Russian energy sector. It is evident that these sanctions are favourable to large US oil and gas companies. The European Union is participating in this operation, which has decided to completely block the import of Russian natural gas in three stages: from 1 January 2026, it will be forbidden to sign new contracts; short-term agreements already in place must end by 17 June 2026; and long-term agreements by 31 December 2027.

It should be noted that the aforementioned proposals have met with opposition from the countries of Hungary and Slovakia. Concurrently, Italy’s Edison entered into an agreement with Shell, securing the procurement of US liquefied natural gas (LNG) for a duration of 15 years. In consideration of the marked disparity between the price of gas in the US and that of gas in Russia, it is evident that consumer gas prices for households in Italy are rising.

The United States and the State of Israel are contemplating a plan to divide the Gaza Strip into two separate zones: one to be controlled by Israel, the other formally by Hamas pending its “disarmament”. This was announced at a press conference in Israel by US Vice President Vance and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The plan is to immediately start “reconstruction” in the Israeli-controlled area, according to Trump’s plan to transform Gaza into a luxurious “Riviera of the Middle East”.

The Palestinian area, de facto controlled by Israel, would remain in its current situation: the Palestinian population would be locked there in a scenario of destruction and deprivation that would continue the genocide.

President Trump confirmed that Australia will obtain nuclear-powered submarines from the United States and the United Kingdom, indicating a strategic focus on deterring China and Russia.

Concurrently, he signed an agreement on rare earth minerals with the Australian Prime Minister at the White House. The AUKUS submarine agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States could cost Australia up to $235 billion over the next 30 years. The governments of the United States and Australia have announced their intention to invest in excess of $3 billion in critical minerals projects over the forthcoming six-month period. The recoverable resources in these projects are estimated to be worth $53 billion.

The US Department of War expressed its intention to invest in the construction of an advanced gallium refinery with a capacity of 100 metric tonnes per year in Western Australia. Gallium has several military applications, primarily in high-tech electronics such as radar and satellite communications. The material is also used as an alloy to stabilise nuclear weapons components and in aluminium-gallium alloys for the production of hydrogen bombs for thermonuclear warfare.

October 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Australian statement attempts to cover up military aircraft’s illegal intrusion into China’s territorial airspace: MOD

By Liu Xuanzun, Liang Rui and Guo Yuandan | Global Times | October 22, 2025

Australia’s accusation of a Chinese warplane’s interaction with an Australian military aircraft in the South China Sea is an attempt to cover up its illegal intrusion into China’s territorial airspace, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday, stressing that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Southern Theater Command’s operations to resolutely stop and expel the Australian aircraft are lawful and professional.

In response to Australian Defense Ministry’s recent statement claiming that an Australian military P-8A patrol aircraft conducting a patrol in the South China Sea experienced an “unsafe and unprofessional interaction” with Chinese military aircraft on Sunday, with the Chinese aircraft releasing flares that “posed a risk” to the Australian aircraft and its personnel, Jiang Bin, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson, said on Wednesday that the Australian statement confounded right and wrong and misplaced the blame to the Chinese side, attempting to cover up its serious misconduct of sending a military aircraft to illegally intrude into China’s territorial airspace. “We express strong dissatisfaction with this and have made stern representations to the Australian side,” he said.

The troops of the PLA Southern Theater Command organized forces to resolutely stop and expel the Australian military aircraft that intruded China’s territorial airspace over Xisha. The relevant operations are lawful, professional, up to standard and restrained. Australia made infringements and provocations against China, but falsely accused China’s legitimate rights-protecting actions as “unsafe” and “unprofessional.” Such fallacy finds no market anywhere, Jiang said.

“We urge Australia to immediately stop infringement and provocation and stop hyping up the matter, and strictly restrain its maritime and air force military operations to avoid undermining the bilateral relations and military relations between the two countries,” Jiang said, noting that the Chinese military will continue to take all necessary measures to resolutely defend national sovereignty and security and firmly uphold peace and stability in the region.

Jiang’s remarks came after Senior Colonel Li Jianjian, spokesperson for the air force of the PLA Southern Theater Command, said in a statement on Monday that an Australian P-8A aircraft on Sunday intruded into China’s territorial airspace over the Xisha Qundao without the approval of the Chinese government, and the PLA Southern Theater Command organized naval and air forces to track and monitor the Australian aircraft, take powerful countermeasures and warn it away in accordance with laws and regulations

The Australian move seriously violated China’s sovereignty and could have easily triggered maritime and aerial accidents, Li said.

“We urge the Australian side to immediately stop such provocative moves. The troops in the theater are on high alert at all times to resolutely defend national sovereignty and security and peace and stability in the region,” Li said.

Chinese military affairs expert Wang Yunfei told the Global Times that Australia is shifting the blame to the victim. He noted that it is the Australian side that has sent a military aircraft to China’s doorstep in the South China Sea and intruded into China’s territorial airspace, while the Chinese side’s countermeasures are legitimate and professional.

Zhang Junshe, another Chinese military affairs expert, told the Global Times that the Chinese military’s countermeasures against the Australian aircraft that intruded into Chinese territorial airspace of Xisha Qundao have been professional, up to standard, and restrained. However, Australia should not mistake China’s restraint as weakness. He said that “If the Australian military repeatedly engages in deliberate provocations and causes any maritime or aerial incident between the Chinese and Australian militaries, Australia shall bear full responsibility for all consequences.”

October 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025

The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.

But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”

The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”

A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.

A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.

According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.

As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.

However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.

Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.

“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.

The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.

According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.

Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.

Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.

Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”

Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.

According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.

Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’

The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.

According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.

Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.

Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.

However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.

“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”

Bruner told The Defender :

“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.

“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”

Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”

Hinchliffe said:

“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”

Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.

The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.

According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”

Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.

“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”

Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’

London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.

“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.

“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”

Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.

According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:

“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”

Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.

U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.

Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.

“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”

The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.

Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy

In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.

According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.

Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.

Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”

“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.

In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.

In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.

According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.

In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.

The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”

Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.

The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.

“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.

Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?

Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.

In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.

Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.

Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”

Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.

Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.

“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s “eSafety” Commissioner Holds 2,600+ Records Tracking Christian Media Outlet

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 3, 2025

Australia’s online safety regulator is refusing to process a Freedom of Information request that would expose how it has tracked the activity of a prominent Christian media outlet and its leaders, citing excessive workload as the reason for denial.

The office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has confirmed it is holding more than 2,600 records connected to The Daily Declaration, its founding body The Canberra Declaration, and three of its editorial figures: Warwick Marsh, Samuel Hartwich, and Kurt Mahlburg.

Despite admitting the existence of these records, the agency says reviewing them would take more than 100 hours and would therefore unreasonably impact its operations.

In a formal response dated 29 September, the regulator explained that it had identified thousands of documents referencing the group and its members. “Processing a request of this size would substantially impact eSafety’s operations,” the notice read.

The documents include media monitoring reports automatically generated whenever The Daily Declaration or its editors have posted online about the regulator or been tagged in relevant conversations.

Every mention gets captured by automated tracking tools, creating a growing pile of files that the agency now claims is too large to review.

After filtering for duplicates, around 650 documents were considered potentially relevant.

Yet the agency still refused, estimating that sorting and redacting them would consume over 100 hours. That figure triggers what the law defines as a “practical refusal,” giving agencies legal cover to reject the request altogether.

Government departments are allowed to deny FOI requests if they consider them too broad or resource-heavy.

But in this case, the regulator’s own mass monitoring appears to be the reason it can now avoid public scrutiny.

A system that routinely generates digital records of online commentary is then used to block access to those very records, effectively protecting the agency from oversight.

Mahlburg, senior editor at The Daily Declaration, called out the move, saying, “The very mechanism designed to protect Australians ends up shielding the government from scrutiny.”

The Commissioner’s office has given a deadline of 13 October for the request to be narrowed.

If that does not happen, it will be treated as withdrawn, and none of the 2,600 documents will be released.

Suggested limitations include trimming the date range, excluding auto-generated reports, or focusing only on specific individuals.

Although The Daily Declaration has said it will resubmit the FOI request with a more restricted scope, the case raises broader concerns. The regulator has amassed a significant database tracking Christian organizations and individuals who speak on topics such as faith, freedom, and family.

By leaning on its own volume of monitoring data to block transparency, the agency sets a dangerous precedent.

While the public is told this is a matter of efficiency, the reality is that routine surveillance of dissenting voices is being shielded from exposure. The more the agency monitors, the easier it becomes to deny public access.

October 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

Australia secretly ships F-35 jet parts to Israel amid Gaza genocide, leaks reveal

Press TV – October 1, 2025

Leaked documents reveal that Australia has exported multiple F-35 fighter jet components directly to Israel, bypassing global supply hubs, even as Israel’s military continues its genocidal campaign in Gaza.

Declassified Australia published a report on Wednesday saying detailed shipping records reveal a total of 68 shipments of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter components flown from Australia to Israel on commercial passenger planes between October 2023 and September 2025.

The most recent shipment departed Sydney two weeks ago, carried in the cargo hold of a scheduled passenger flight bound for Tel Aviv, the report said.

According to the documents, direct shipments from Australia spiked immediately after Israel unleashed its genocidal campaign on Gaza on October 7, 2023, with 10 separate shipments sent in November 2023 alone.

Of the 68 documented shipments, 51 were destined for Nevatim Airbase in Israel’s Negev desert, home to the Israeli military’s three F-35 squadrons, the report stated.

The actual number of shipments may be even higher, with at least another 24 parts matching previous export approvals being sent during the same period.

The latest shipment, sent in mid-September 2025, contained an “Inlet Lube Plate” for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Shipping records show the export was classified as “Military Goods – Aircraft parts,” highlighting the direct military support Australia is providing for the Israeli regime.

The shipment left Sydney for Tel Aviv just 24 hours after a United Nations investigation had concluded that “Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide.”

Despite mounting evidence of direct F-35 parts shipments being supplied from Australian bases to Israel, the government has repeatedly claimed that it “has not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years.”

The revelation comes less than two weeks after Australia, along with Britain and Canada, formally recognized Palestinian statehood.

International human rights groups have constantly warned that sending weapons or military components to Israel makes states complicit in the regime’s genocide in Gaza.

October 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

New Book: Covid Through Our Eyes

Review by Maryanne Demasi, PhD | September 28, 2025

When Covid hit, governments, health agencies and the media marched in lockstep. Their united front was sold as “consensus.”

In reality, it was compliance by coercion. Dissenters were punished, questions suppressed, and the public was fed slogans instead of science.

Covid Through Our Eyes tears away that façade.

This collection of essays—written by doctors, scientists, lawyers, journalists, economists and ordinary Australians whose lives were upended—restores the voices silenced during the pandemic.

Each chapter forms part of a collective testimony. And in a final act of principle, not a cent of the book’s sales goes to the authors; all proceeds support Australia’s vaccine injury class action.

A chorus of voices

Editors Robert Clancy, an immunologist, and Melissa McCann, a physician, have gathered an extraordinary range of perspectives.

Among them, British oncologist Angus Dalgleish describes patients relapsing into aggressive cancers after years in remission. He argues that repeated boosters and chronic spike protein exposure created a “pro-cancer milieu.”

Vaccinologist Nikolai Petrovsky recounts how his homegrown vaccine, built on decades of expertise, was cast aside in favour of untested mRNA technology.

Statistician Andrew Madry lays out devastating evidence of excess mortality and the government’s refusal to investigate the causes.

Other contributors highlight phenomena dismissed at the time: immune system imprinting, shifts in antibody subclasses, and persistence of mRNA in the body.

Regulatory expert Philip Altman details how the Therapeutic Goods Administration ignored clear safety signals, choosing convenience over caution.

Lawyers and doctors tell of their battles in the courts and on the streets against vaccine mandates—small victories, bitter defeats, and governments that seemed more determined to silence critics than to defend their policies with evidence.

Clancy himself turns a sharp eye on Australia. Once a nation of independent scientists—from Burnet to Fenner, with pandemic plans crafted at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—by 2020 it had surrendered to bureaucracy.

He argues that recovery depends on restoring the doctor–patient relationship and returning vaccine development to proven antigen platforms, not experimental technologies rushed to market.

The media that failed

My own chapter in the book examines how mainstream media collapsed.

Newsrooms abandoned their adversarial role and parroted government lines. Contradictory evidence was buried. Scientists who asked questions were branded fringe. Patients who reported harm were cast as public health risks.

The press did not simply fail; it became an enforcer. That betrayal corroded trust, and the damage persists today.

Stories of loss

The most haunting chapters are personal.

Antonio DeRose, left in a wheelchair after transverse myelitis, describes doctors who refused to acknowledge the cause.

Queenslander Caitlin Gotze died six weeks after her second Pfizer dose, with her myocarditis misdiagnosed as asthma.

Actor and writer Katie Lees collapsed from clotting linked to AstraZeneca; her death was reduced to a single line on a regulator’s website.

These are stories of grief, stark reminders of what happens when agencies, designed to protect, instead deny responsibility.

This book matters

Covid may have slipped from the headlines, but its consequences have not.

Excess deaths remain unexplained. Injured families still fight for recognition. Trust has been squandered. And this nation has yet to hold a Royal Commission into Covid.

Covid Through Our Eyes is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what really happened to Australians—a nation of people once known for their laid-back spirit, now grappling with a legacy of coercion and injury.

Buy it, read it, and judge for yourself.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Minister Bowen says costs of inaction definitely higher even though we don’t know the cost of doing something

It’s a Pantomine from beginning to end — the fakery never ends

By Jo Nova | September 16, 2025

Australia’s National Climate Risk Assessment has dropped on us yesterday like a mass-produced propaganda-bomb. Life and death depends upon “the science”, but the intense, dire and secret climate modeling was mysteriously delayed last month for no reason (except to get some spooky headlines), whereupon the Greens jumped up and down to get it released, and then patted themselves on the back saying Labor caved in. Yes, indeedy, the Government put out the report with perfect PR timing a few days before they plan to tell us how they are raising our emissions target from impossible to astronomical. If they released the “science” a month ago, people would have more time to pick apart the 274 pages of propaganda (or even read it).

Science is just a marketing tool for Big Government now, and the document is a fishing mission for catastrophe.

We know it’s not science because everything is 100% bad. It’s the purity that gives it away. In the real world, there are always trade-offs.

It’s all cost and no benefit

The document is a risk assessment which calculates the cost of inaction, but not the cost of action. Not surprisingly, the cost of inaction is always going to be “higher” (higher than nothing). It was apparently, exactly what the Minister wanted:

“One thing that is very clear from this climate assessment is that our whole country has a lot at stake,” Bowen said. “The cost of inaction will always outweigh the cost of action.” — The BBC

Nobody knows what the cost is, not the Minister of the Department of Better Weather and Energy. Though one guesstimate from a group called Net Zero Australia in 2023 tossed out numbers like $1.5 trillion by 2030 and $7-$9 trillion by 2050. That’s a lot of cost savings we need to make to make action make sense. Grown ups would like to discuss this, perhaps?

It’s all deaths and no lives saved

Heat waves will kill more people, but somehow warmer winters won’t reduce any deaths, even though moderate winter cold kills 6 times as many people as summer heat does.

Attributable fraction of deaths: Heat, cold and temperature variability together resulted in 42,414 deaths during the study period, accounting for about 6.0% of all deaths. Most of attributable deaths were due to cold (61.4%), and noticeably, contribution from temperature variability (28.0%) was greater than that from heat (10.6%). (Cheng et al)

Heatwave mortality will increase by 444% in Sydney if the world warms by 3°C the report tells us, with no mention of the word “air-conditioning”.

If reckless spending to stop-storms-in-2100 makes energy unaffordable, heatwave mortality will increase even if the world doesn’t warm at all. No one will be able to afford air-conditioning.

The only mention of “benefits” in the whole document is that  a few areas might benefit from reduced frosts — not that our expert modelers can say which areas, or which seasons that will happen in.

Like advertising, “everyone” will be better off if they just buy this weather controlling widget.

The 72-page report – released days before the government announces its emissions reduction targets for 2035 – found that no Australian community will be immune from climate risks that will be “cascading, compounding and concurrent”. — The BBC

The 274 page blockbuster has a nifty 74 page overview for anyone who only has a day or two to devote to the combinations and variations of modeled imaginary catastrophe. There’s nothing there that we haven’t seen a million times before.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Only 36 countries back Ukraine in key UN vote

RT | September 24, 2025

A joint statement by Ukraine and the EU condemning Russia has received the backing of only 36 out of the 193 UN member states. The US notably abstained.

Presented by EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga at the UN Headquarters in New York on Tuesday, the document describes Russia’s actions vis-a-vis Ukraine as a “blatant violation of the UN Charter.” It also calls on the global community to “maximize pressure” on Moscow, and to support Ukraine’s “territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.”

The joint statement was endorsed by the 26 EU member states, with the exception of Hungary, and also endorsed by Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK.

Back in February, the UN Security Council rejected a resolution drafted by Kiev and its European backers that contained similar anti-Russian rhetoric. A competing resolution promoted by the US was eventually adopted, with Washington, Moscow, and eight other members voting in favor and five European nations abstaining. That version avoided branding Russia as an aggressor and called for a “swift end” to the Ukraine conflict.

Moscow’s deputy envoy to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, at the time described the outcome as a victory for common sense, claiming that “more and more people realize the true colors of the Zelensky regime.”

Moscow has consistently characterized the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war being waged against it by the West.

The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that the hostilities would end were Kiev to renounce its claims to the five regions that have joined Russia through referendums since 2014, reaffirm its neutral status, and guarantee the rights of the Russian-speaking population on its territory.

September 25, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ACMA Pressures Tech Giants to Maintain State-Backed Fact-Checking in Australia

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 16, 2025

Australia’s communications regulator is once again pushing for tighter control over online speech, using the language of “misinformation” as justification for expanding censorship.

In its latest report on the voluntary Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) criticizes major platforms for stepping away from state-aligned fact-checking programs and chastises others for refusing to sign up to the code at all.

The regulator insists that “support for independent fact-checking in Australia appears to be stalling” and warns of “the potential impact of pulling away from, or limiting support for, independent fact-checking by signatories in Australia.”

This complaint exposes the real agenda: keeping tech companies tethered to outside arbiters of truth rather than trusting users to decide for themselves.

ACMA singles out Google, noting: “In July 2025, it was reported that Google would not renew its partnership with the Australian Associated Press’s fact-checking team.”

Meta is also put on notice after adopting a more open model in the United States, moving away from contracted fact-checkers in favor of community-driven notes.

Even though no such shift has been formally announced in Australia, ACMA underlines that Meta admits “4 of its 2025 commitments are contingent on it engaging third-party fact-checking organizations to fact-check content on their services.”

The report further scolds companies that never joined the code, declaring:

“It is disappointing that several major platforms have not signed up to the code. By electing not to submit their systems and processes to the same scrutiny as signatories, these platforms are sending a strong message to Australians that they are not supporting a coordinated industry-led approach to combatting disinformation and misinformation.”

ACMA then issues a direct demand: “We call on major non-signatories to sign up to the code to provide greater transparency to Australians about what they are doing to address disinformation and misinformation.”

What the regulator portrays as “voluntary” is in reality a pressure campaign: comply with outside “fact-checking” oversight or be publicly shamed as irresponsible.

By holding up third-party fact-checkers as the only credible safeguard, ACMA is endorsing a censorship regime where a handful of organizations act as gatekeepers of truth.

Community-led models that allow citizens to challenge and contextualize claims are sidelined, while central authorities are favored.

To those paying attention, ACMA’s report reads like an attempt to lock platforms into a system that elevates government-aligned “fact-checkers” above open discussion.

Australians have a right to free expression without bureaucrats or their preferred partners deciding what information is fit to see.

The louder ACMA complains about companies moving away from fact-checking, the clearer it becomes that the real “harm” being prevented is not misinformation itself, but the risk of ordinary people making up their own minds.

September 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Australia Orders Tech Giants to Enforce Age Verification Digital ID by December 10

A safety law that reads like a blueprint for a surveillance state

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 8, 2025

Australia is preparing to enforce one of the most invasive online measures in its history under the guise of child safety.

With the introduction of mandatory age verification across social media platforms, privacy advocates are warning that the policy, set to begin December 10, 2025, risks eroding fundamental digital rights for every user, not just those under 16.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has told tech giants like Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap that they must be ready to detect and shut down accounts held by Australians under the age threshold.

She has made it clear that platforms are expected to implement broad “age assurance” systems across their services, and that “self-declaration of age will not, on its own, be enough to constitute reasonable steps.”

The new rules stem from the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which gives the government sweeping new authority to dictate how users verify their age before accessing digital services. Any platform that doesn’t comply could be fined up to $31M USD.

While the government claims the law isn’t a ban on social media for children under 16, in practice, it forces platforms to block these users unless they can pass age checks, which means a digital ID.

There will be no penalties for children or their parents, but platforms face immense legal and financial pressure to enforce restrictions, pressure that almost inevitably leads to surveillance-based systems.

The Commissioner said companies must “detect and de-activate these accounts from 10 December, and provide account holders with appropriate information and support before then.”

These expectations extend to providing “clear, age-appropriate communications” and making sure users can download their data and find emotional or mental health resources when their accounts are terminated.

She further stated that “efficacy will require layered safety measures, sometimes known as a ‘waterfall approach’,” a term often associated with collecting increasing amounts of personal data at multiple steps of user interaction.

Such layered systems often rely on facial scanning, government ID uploads, biometric estimation, or AI-powered surveillance tools to estimate age.

Privacy campaigners warn that these approaches risk normalizing the constant collection of sensitive personal data, building infrastructure that could easily be repurposed for broader tracking or profiling.

To support enforcement, eSafety has launched a self-assessment tool for companies to determine whether their services are covered by the law.

The Commissioner noted that the tool would help companies figure out if “any of their services may be excluded” under the legislative rules issued by the Minister for Communications.

However, most major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and X are almost certain to be included.

eSafety is also developing regulatory guidance to clarify what “reasonable steps” will mean in practice.

The Commissioner has made it clear that platforms must already be preparing to prevent children from manipulating settings to bypass restrictions, ensure that complaint mechanisms are functional and accessible, and plan for full implementation ahead of the December deadline.

Citing consultations with over 160 organizations and more than 50 young people aged 13 to 23, the Commissioner claims there is “strong community support for measures to better protect children online.”

She added, “Australians have told us they want strong, practical protections that keep children safe without compromising privacy or fairness. We have listened, and this feedback is shaping the guidance we are putting in place for industry.”

However, many in the privacy and digital rights communities question whether such a balance is possible when the state’s approach is to compel private companies to verify the age of every user, regardless of whether they’re children.

The phrase “without compromising privacy” rings hollow for those who recognize that age verification at this scale often relies on intrusive surveillance methods that compromise anonymity for everyone, not just young users.

The government maintains that only services with core social networking features are affected.

Online games and basic messaging apps may be excluded. But messaging functions embedded in social media platforms, like DMs on Instagram or group chats on Snapchat, will fall under the new restrictions. The definition is broad enough that many widely used platforms could be swept into the regulatory net.

Although the Commissioner has publicly insisted that safety and privacy “do not have to be mutually exclusive,” the architecture required to meet the government’s demands suggests otherwise.

Once systems are in place to scan faces, verify IDs, or track user activity for the sake of age assurance, they can be leveraged for other purposes by platforms or the state.

Australia’s move places it at the frontier of a growing global trend where safety rhetoric is used to justify mass surveillance.

Privacy advocates argue that introducing mandatory identification online not only limits access but also normalizes tracking in digital spaces that once allowed for anonymity, freedom of expression, and private communication.

Despite these concerns, the Commissioner urged platforms not to delay. “This is the time for companies to start mobilizing and planning for implementation,” she said, adding that “children, parents and carers are counting on services to deliver on their obligations and prepare their young users and the trusted adults in their lives for this monumental change.”

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The End of the Free, Global Internet

By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | September 1, 2025

It appears that the free global internet, such as it was, which many of us loved and grew up with, is nearly dead. Long gone are the days of anonymous IRC chats or where only paranoiacs thought their emails were monitored. The growing standard is the government demanding websites know who you are all the time to “protect” you from a myriad of trivial things such as “hate speech” or videos of people eating too much.

As has become common, it is not any of the “authoritarian” states we hear about leading the way to the end of internet freedom, but instead the ethnic European parts of the former British Empire. The United Kingdom itself has just implemented legislation which demands all users upload ID to show they are over eighteen when using anything it deems “dangerous,” while Australia is restricting all of those sixteen and under from having social media accounts whatsoever, again to protect them primarily from thoughts the government dislikes. The British legislation is particularly dangerous as it is expected that sites based anywhere in the world comply with expansive moderation rules, while Australia’s law is a blanket ban on social media usage for an age category. In both cases, however, they kill internet anonymity and set a terrible precedent.

The internet has been under siege from many directions for many years. It is true that America’s regime change class found free internet useful for “Color Revolutions” and did at times use it to undermine foreign governments. As a consequence, it has historically acted as a defender of internet freedom when it advances other objectives. Thus, something like “The Great Firewall of China” which we were conditioned to care about, though it did not impact anyone outside of China.

The attacks on the internet have only grown more blatant, such as in Brazil where Judge Alexandre de Moraes has been on a rampage trying to “protect” the public from political speech he dislikes. In the United States, however, the bigger problem was originally just collecting enormous amounts of data secretly, which they did while encouraging people to use the internet however they wished—creating all the more data. The attempts at algorithmic mind control pushed by the Joe Biden administration and complacent—or enthusiastic—tech companies was again done while purporting to be for a free internet. Despite government hypocrisy and abuses, the internet remains the greatest communication tool in human history and we should protect it at all costs, while remaining mindful of government data collection activities, information control, and regime change operations.

The British and Australian laws are all the more nefarious as they impact almost all internet activity, and of course, they use the classic line “Won’t someone think of the children!” Age verification for pornography is one thing—that brings the internet in line with the laws of the physical world where you can’t walk into a store and buy that content without an adult ID; but this is much broader. As a recent Politico article explains, as well as pornography, there are age verification limits on, “hate speech, content promoting drugs and weapons, online harassment and depictions of violence… Large platforms restricted everything from X posts on Gaza to subreddits on cigars, and blocked content entirely in certain cases.” As Kym Robinson recently explained, they are rapidly medicalizing internet use and making it about physical and mental health, which for eKarens is an endless justification for meddling. In short, nearly anything fun or interesting could be considered adult content and the sites themselves are being made to police this or face significant fines, which intentionally creates a situation where cautious site owners will expand it past anything the government demands. No reasonable man can have any faith in any supposed privacy protections which are said to stop governments from accessing the ID used to age verify an account.

It’s easy as an adult to forget the experience of being a child, and imagine children lack the ability to understand anything about the world around them, when in fact they are learning such things at a rapid pace. It happens to be the case that I was twelve in the year 2000 when the first major law on this topic went into effect in the United States: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA.] This law, in its original form, stopped kids under thirteen from having accounts on any website without a parent’s permission. To recover your email address your parent had to put in credit card information, which many were hesitant to do back then in an era where online shopping was still fairly rare. The thing about that though was the sites simply removed the option to sign up if you were under thirteen and had no verification option, so no one’s privacy was made worse; it was just annoying and condescending towards children.

What is notable about this is that at the time I wrote a persuasive speech for English class against this law. I have a reason to remember at age twelve that my classmates and I were able to understand the policy being unfairly implemented and I was able to write a formal argument against it. Now, being a parent instead of a twelve-year old, I certainly have some different views about what is appropriate for children, but the ability of children to understand what is going on around them is greater than commonly realized. The Australian Communications Minister tried to defend their ban on all social media use, including YouTube, for kids under sixteen by likening it to teaching your kid to swim in the pool before putting them in the ocean with the sharks and rip currents. In fact it is the exact opposite: it throws kids right in at sixteen with no experience when they are the most irresponsible and difficult to control.

What is the most nefarious about these “age verification” laws is that the United Kingdom and Australia both regularly arrest internet users for posts that they don’t like. The end of anonymity will kill the most valuable discourse coming from either country. Both of these countries in many ways seem completely defeated and devoid of the love of liberty, but in fact have thriving and creative “anon” communities still carrying the fire of freedom. The ability to express opinions and tell the world what is happening will all but disappear under a regime where you have to verify your age to use Spotify—not to mention how ridiculous it is to ban seventeen-year olds from using Spotify even if it impacted no one eighteen and above. Everything that has happened up to now shows that age verification laws in these countries will set the stage for an even larger crackdown on all unapproved thoughts.

Something I have noticed in my time on this Earth is that you can tell a lot by a man for how he uses the term “the Wild West.” It is generally either used by liberty lovers to mean, “You’re allowed to do what you want and it’s awesome,” or by sniveling Mandarins to mean “This is terribly dangerous and needs to be regulated.” I have long feared a future where the young say that the internet used to be like the Wild West and view this as scary and dangerous. Now, the younger generation seems to be coming up tired of the schoolmarm government, but it will be a hard fight to keep any of the internet’s Wild West charm as it is consumed by meddlesome nanny states.

If these laws in the United Kingdom and Australia are allowed to stand it will represent a major step in a perhaps irreversible process whereby the internet will become ever more broken up by the country of the user, and in most of them much less free. I would be able to take some comfort in the idea that this could send people back to the pubs to talk in person, but the Brits are also cracking down on pub banter, and I somehow doubt other states are far behind them.

September 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

The reek of desperation hangs over Albanese’s Iran conspiracy theories

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | August 31, 2025

The Australian Prime Minister and his government are resorting to increasingly laughable measures to deflect public anger at their continued support for “Israel”.

A day after “Israel” had committed yet another massacre against journalists in Gaza, luring them with a strike on a hospital before eliminating them in a “double-tap” maneuver, the Labor government of Australia announced a major imminent foreign policy measure.

For a brief, fleeting moment, it appeared as though Anthony Albanese had listened to the demands of hundreds of thousands of protesters marching almost constantly throughout the country and was going to impose sanctions on the Israeli entity or even expel its ambassador over the Gaza slaughter.

Instead, the PM and his foreign minister, Penny Wong, engaged in a kind of public humiliation ritual, in which they asserted that Iran had “attacked” Australia by sponsoring the firebombing of a Melbourne synagogue and a Jewish delicatessen in Sydney through a convoluted web of criminal intermediaries.

Based on this “intelligence” provided by the national spy agency ASIO, the PM then announced the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador and his staff and the proscription of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, an institutional part of Iran’s political system, as a “terrorist organization”.

When questioned live on national television on the specifics of what he was claiming, Albanese cut the figure of a lying schoolboy caught in the act, refusing to disclose any level of detail beyond the assertions themselves.

Scarcely a day has gone by, and already members of the Israeli government are crowing that they were involved in pushing Australia to take this action. Whether the Mossad was a source of the “intelligence” provided to the Australian Prime Minister is unclear, but to this and almost every other query for the specifics of the claims underpinning this major foreign policy shift, Albanese has steadfastly refused to comment.

The public reaction to the government’s assertions, at least online, has been less than charitable. Elementary questions of why, amid the full spectrum of military, economic, and political pressure on the country, Iran’s leaders would choose to pay local vandals in Australia to firebomb a Melbourne synagogue and a Sydney deli, are curiously uninteresting to much of the country’s media, which is all too willing to accept the government’s assertions at face value.

What benefit would Tehran possibly achieve by doing this, in Australia, of all places? The only other country possibly more removed from the Islamic Republic’s circle of concern, at least physically, might be New Zealand.

Of course, many will, and already have, concluded that this charade has less to do with any actual facts than it does the government’s ham-fisted attempts to deflect growing public outrage at its obstinate refusal to impose sanctions on “Israel” or even censure it for its genocidal behavior.

For nearly two years, since Oct. 7, 2023, the foreign minister, Penny Wong, has made it a near-daily ritual that each successive Israeli atrocity, rather than being condemned, is deemed merely a source of “concern” to the government.

Albanese himself, when the question of sanctions against “Israel” is raised, clearly seems to resent even having to address the issue, at one point rhetorically questioning what sanctions Australia should impose, seeming blissfully ignorant of his obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The government’s total disengagement stands in marked contrast to the Australian public, which has kept up one of the most consistent routines of public protest in support of Gaza, anywhere in the world. Just weeks ago, despite attempts to ban it, a protest spanning the Sydney Harbour Bridge drew global media attention. Just the following week, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets around the country.

As of this week, tens of thousands of university students are voting in a nationwide referendum on whether to condemn the government for its inaction and to demand diplomatic expulsions and sanctions against Israel.

In May, the Australian Labor government was returned to power in a landslide election victory. The Liberal party, the official right-wing opposition, is widely considered unable to win back government even in the next election three years away, facing potentially as much as a decade in the wilderness.

Given its lack of any political rival, the government’s obstinate ignoring of public opposition to genocide hardly seems motivated by electoral calculations. In the face of an unstable Trump administration bringing the US alliance into question, it is more content to fall back on politicized narratives of “national security” written by the intelligence community rather than reacting dynamically to a changed world.

Whatever the real reasons for this government’s industrial-scale obfuscation, it speaks to a profound moral rot at the heart of its politics, rather than it needs to invent excuses to expel an ambassador, but cannot bring itself to expel that of an entity committing the defining slaughter of the century in real-time.

August 31, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »