Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Facebook Pulls Plug on Anti-Immigration News Site Ahead of Danish Elections

Sputnik – 12.04.2019

The Danish alternative news outlet 24Nyt has had its Facebook page with over 34,000 followers closed. State-owned Danish Radio (DR) has acknowledged its role in the shutdown.

According to 24Nyt, Facebook announced that its page “doesn’t follow Facebook’s policy”, which is the standard message for users and organisations who have their profiles switched off. “It is known that people and media critical of immigration are exposed to Facebook’s censorship”, 24Nyt suggested.

The same day, 24Nyt started a new Facebook page that was also subsequently shut down.

Later, state-run Danish Radio acknowledged its part in the shutdown of their independent competitor.

A week ago, DR contacted Facebook and presented a dossier of 24Nyt’s actions on their platform, triggering an investigation. Facebook later confirmed that 24Nyt’s page had been closed with info from that exact investigation, but without disclosing the reason.

Danish Radio described 24Nyt as a page “that urged to fight against established media and left-wing bias”. Danish Radio also admitted that over the past two years, 24Nyt had had a “significant impact” on Facebook, which is now “over”.

Social media expert Johan Farkas of Malmö University called the measure “extraordinary”.

“It is highly unusual that Facebook throws out a Danish media. As far as I know, this is a first”, Farkas said.

24Nyt was banned from Facebook only weeks or months before the Danish election, which is to be held no later than June this year.

“We have discovered that Facebook chose to close our site. Immediately afterwards, I was called by a journalist from Danish Radio. He wanted to know if I knew what the basis for Facebook’s decision was. I didn’t. Shortly afterwards, DR published an article on his website where they wrote that Facebook closed us down based on the material they received from them. We believe that this is very problematic, of course, because DR is a tax-financed media that does not have the task of silencing independent network media, or otherwise engaging in political activism”, 24Nyt’s editor-in-chief André Rossmann told the Swedish news outlet Samhällsnytt.

24Nyt is was founded in 2017 by Jeppe Juhl of the New Right party. The site is run by private enthusiasts and is funded by advertising revenues and donations. 24Nyt makes no secret that they are an opinion-based media. It bills itself as a “system-critical online newspaper with ‘dangerous opinions’ opposed to mainstream media”. Admittedly, they attempt “through strong opinions to open up the social debate trapped in an echo-chamber”. Their website informs that they are against “open EU borders and Muslim mass immigration”, “Islamisation of Danish society”, “totalitarian EU”, and “political correctness”.

Leading tech companies have been repeatedly accused of quietly suppressing conservative political views. Earlier this week, Republican lawmakers publicly accused the “big three” (Facebook, Google, Twitter) of political bias and suppression of free speech. The way Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) put it, tech companies abuse their de-facto monopoly to promote left-leaning values.

Dozens of alt-media pages with millions of subscribers, including InfoWars and the Free Thought Project were previously banned from Facebook.

April 12, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Greta Thunberg: when discussion becomes impossible

By Luboš Motl | The Reference Frame | March 28, 2019

I haven’t dedicated a separate blog post to the “climate school strike movement” founded by Greta Thunberg, (now) a 16-year-old Swedish girl, because it’s too sad and the people promoting this stuff are extremely far not only from science but from anything that we could call a rational approach to the world. But because it’s still an example of a campaign that greatly influences the kids’ education – and it is a good symbol of many other, comparably bad things that are happening at schools – I think that one needs to discuss this sad story.

OK, a girl – who claims to possess Asperger’s syndrome – went to skip the classes in order to express her desire to save the world from climate change. This stunt was immediately covered by the Swedish mainstream media – where Greta was promoted to God, a position she still holds – and some two weeks ago, 1.4 million students across the world followed in her footsteps. They skipped the classes in order to save the world from the climate Armageddon. It’s possible that the next strike will be much more massive than that.

I am using this language – including the “Armageddon” – in order to mock the people who support this pathology. But it’s an example of a social phenomenon in which the differences between the parody and the seriously meant claims have totally evaporated because some of the people could describe it in the same words.

There are lots of questions we should ask and answer if we want to understand why the world has gone this terribly wrong. First, is Greta “real” or “fake”? Well, I find it more likely that she’s “fake” and was “programmed” by somebody, most likely her dad (Svante Thunberg, an actor – who just happens to be a relative of Svante Arrhenius, a great chemist who has also written an influential paper about the greenhouse effect [and a eugenicist who planned to upgrade Swedish children by electric shocks]). For a while, she seemed to support nuclear energy. German eco-activists immediately attacked her, her dad joined, and she suddenly decided that she no longer likes nuclear energy.

Given the fact that the girl was already – somewhat unsurprisingly – nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, you could reasonably argue that people like her dad have quite a motivation to “invent such an activist”.

But my answer isn’t really an unambiguous “she is fake”. Why? Because I don’t see any beef in her at all. I think that the question is almost completely ill-defined because the girl hasn’t achieved anything special in her life (but this nothing will still be enough for a life-long job, I guess). What she has done was to skip the classes – millions of kids have done it for centuries – and she has parroted some hysterical quotes about the looming climate Armageddon – and tens of millions of kids across the Western World are expected to do the exact same thing by the schools that have turned into full-blown indoctrination centers. Her monologue is no different from the “essays about climate change” that tens of millions of kids are supposed to write at school these days.

She just looks like a random girl – who may be genuinely scared because she’s been brainwashed and she doesn’t have the mental power to see that the hysteria makes no sense – who has said and done some things that are (sadly) completely normal among the teenagers today. So what would be “real” or “fake” about her? Of course everything she has done may be “real”. Lots of kids parrot similar nonsense all the time. Even if she were “fake”, you could still find millions of kids saying almost indistinguishable things who would be “real”.

However, what is completely fake is the idea that she deserves to be covered by the media. She and her attitudes and gestures might be “real” but the idea that they should be widely discussed or even praised by the media is ludicrous. In other words, what is completely artificial is the “selection” of this “story” which must be considered a fabrication by the media. Incidentally, in a monologue, she said “it’s amazing, if I can be in so many newspapers by skipping the classes, we can do so many things together”. She must have missed that there is nothing amazing about it because some 98% of the media have been conquered by scientifically illiterate far left-wing activists for many years. They still haven’t achieved anything except for spreading falsehoods and poisoning the atmosphere in the society. Thankfully, almost all of their credibility has already evaporated.

Thousands of kids in many countries, including our relatively skeptical Czechia, joined the “skip the classes movement” two weeks ago. The European Union “works” in the education system which means that the Czech teenagers are arguably being brainwashed by complete junk that ultimately comes from the European Union and its allied NGOs – and they are being brainwashed as effectively as their German or Swedish colleagues. The European Union is really producing a brain-dead generation on the whole EU territory. Unless the kids see the light, there will really be a “new European nation” on our continent in a few decades and it won’t be a nice view.

These efforts don’t work for the older generations that no longer attend schools. But that shouldn’t make us too happy about the future because the older generations typically die away before the younger ones. At any rate, you may still see that the older Czech generations are still skeptical. Here is an interview with some teenagers that was aired by the Czech public radio, the ČRo Radio Wave station. The video is aptly titled “Fridays for Future: the Highest Time to Panic Is Now”.

The two kids, Miss Lucie “Lála” Myslíková (who looks like Leonid Brezhnev, many commenters have pointed out) and Mr Petr Doubravský, reveal that they don’t have time to study or learn something because “they have the last 12 years to do something”. (Great to learn that the end of the world is in 2031 now – it should have been in 2010 and many other years.) Instead, they need to panic because the roof is burning above our heads. We’ve had the time to panic for some time and we still have the time to panic. Also, they said that they’re not interested in any opinions of their parents’ generation that has destroyed the world. There are some other terrible things over there – these kids are really messed up.

You know, it’s been normal for teenagers to revolt against the system – but “the system” primarily started with the authorities at school. Too bad, the contemporary teenagers don’t show any rebellion in this traditional sense because they seem to be proud about having become mindless slaves of their brainwashers. Greta did most of her pieces in Stockholm – the phrase “Stockholm syndrome” seems quite appropriate here.

Over 80% of the votes under the Czech video are negative. Commenters point out that the kids speak like some “pioneers” during the brutal years of the totalitarian communism – youth that needed to express their unconditional loyalty to the communist leaders. I can’t be certain that the kids really believe what they say but the appearances surely suggest that they have been more thoroughly brainwashed than any kids I have met during the communism of the 1980s. Maybe these present kids could be compared to some kids of the Stalin era. But I wasn’t alive yet. I find it rather likely that their loss of common sense probably exceeds that of any kids from the Stalin era, too.

(Incidentally, especially because Greta and kids are being framed as antagonists of their parents, there is a striking similarity between the Thunberg symbol and a notorious martyr in the Stalinist propagandist mythology, Pavlik Morozov who lived near Pilsen’s twin city of Yekaterinburg – which I visited in 1988. The 13-year-old boy was a fanatical fan of the communist collectivization of farms but his father, a communist official, was actually a closet supporter of private farms and “kulaks”. Well, in 1932, Pavlik reported his father as a “fraudster” to the Stalinist political police, GPU. According to the legend, the village people – officially led by Pavlik’s granddad – killed Pavlik. And because Pavlik represented the victory of the Stalinist morality against the Christian one [where one is supposed to respect the parents], he was promoted to a martyr by the Stalinist propaganda. In a “happy end”, the GPU-led firing squad has exterminated the village – with the exception of an uncle. Imagine how sick the Stalinist morality actually was and don’t overlook the similarities with the so far less violent climate hysterical ideology.)

Also, if the kids compete for the most unreasonable, hysterical quotes about the climate, why is Greta Thunberg the leader? Why didn’t they pick Lála and Petr, or millions of other kids in Czechia or the rest of the world? I don’t see any difference. Millions of kids have been robbed of their common sense – and, in many cases, of the psychological stability.

Numerous people have criticized Greta for her hypocrisy. She likes to eat tropical fruits which had to be delivered from far away. She feeds her big dogs and greenhouse gases are created along the way. She is using lots of plastics. And so on. I agree with these observations but in some sense, I think it’s counterproductive to exert this pressure on her because she’s doing what almost every person in the Western civilization does. There is nothing wrong about it. What’s wrong is the idea that this normal behavior should be demonized.

Three hours ago, an old Gentleman named Roberto Savio wrote an incredible text, The Campaign Against Greta is an Index of the Loss of Values. All the people who dare not to worship Greta and her idea to skip the classes have become heretics who have “lost values”. These heretics belong to four groups, Savio argues: the stupid, the jealous, the purists, and the paternalists. He indicates that these sets are complementary but – if you kindly ignore his offensive terminology – I surely belong to all these four groups. And many more – groups and reasons to criticize her and her champions that he apparently can’t even envision.

I am “stupid” because I find it absolutely appropriate and desirable to mock her for the self-evident lack of realism or inconsistency of her plans and/or for her hypocrisy. Also, I am “jealous” because I believe that the scientifically literate and experienced people should be listened to, not some random emotional teenagers. Interestingly enough, some alarmist climate scientists have been clumped along with me to the “jealous” class by Mr Savio.

This is a very cute observation that deserves two special paragraphs. Well, Savio has seen some climate scientists who have promoted the climate hysteria for years and who feel “jealous” because an uneducated teenage girl has “superseded them” as the source of the key statements in the fight against climate change. On one hand, as I mentioned, I have some understanding for these adult alarmists because the switch from scientists like themselves to a teenage girl – as the main source of wisdom about climate change – indicates an intellectual deterioration to a new low.

On the other hand, I find this evolution rather logical because the climate hysteria has never been about proper scientific research. It was a classic example of a fake science pushed by the conclusions – that were always convenient to special groups for ideological and financial reasons. When this movement with its wide network of misconceptions about science was just growing, it needed some credibility and the people pretending to be scientists – even though they were mostly hired guns defending predetermined conclusions – were helpful. But the climate hysteria has transitioned to a new stage. It no longer needs the credibility because it has hijacked a huge majority of the powerful institutions in the society – schools, universities, mainstream media but also the Pentagon, influential Silicon Valley companies, and more. And this fact has consequences: The would-be scientists are no longer needed – because those who have had scientific reasons not to take the hysteria seriously have already been “defeated” at the political level. An indoctrinated, terrified teenage girl is equally good if not better! Finally, all the redundant aspects of the religion – like the illusion that it has something to do with science – may be thrown away.

I am called a “purist” because I am annoyed by the fact that Greta doesn’t fight against some real problems, instead of the fake ones. And I am also a “paternalist” who is very sad that kids are being psychologically tortured by similar falsehoods.

OK, the EU-controlled education system has adopted new standards in which skipping the classes is the best thing that a teenager may do in order to connect himself or herself with the important scientific questions. How is it possible? The hysterical delusions about the climate – just like many other pieces of the EU-sponsored propaganda – have become so widespread that their champions no longer need to pretend that they have something to do with the proper and impartial scientific research, with the proper learning, or with any kind of hard work. The proponents of this new de facto religion already feel so self-confident that they may serve the emotional pseudoscientific myths in their pure, naked form – through girls who haven’t studied any atmospheric physics but who have already been persuaded to be terrified which is more valuable according to the EU and its school system than any knowledge or the truth today.

It’s really sad and it’s obvious that things have deteriorated so far that there doesn’t exist any “marginal fix”. The cure of this mess cannot be described as a small perturbation. It isn’t possible to discuss with the people who represent this kind of evolution of the schools. The potential for any mutual understanding between them and the sensible people is almost non-existent. Schools and teachers who have aligned themselves with this trend must be treated as rotten apples, thrown away, and the schools must be basically rebuilt from scratch.

And that’s the memo.

April 1, 2019 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Can the EU Survive Its Own Censorship?

The EU has destroyed the Internet with Article11 and Article13

By Tom Luongo | March 27, 2019

The EU’s new, comprehensive new Copyright Directive passed the European Parliament ensuring the way we use the Internet will change in the future.

And not for the better.

The controversial parts are Articles 11 and 13, the “link tax” and the “upload filter” requirements. For a good run down of how terrible these new rules are look anywhere on the internet but this article at Gizmodo (who I hope doesn’t charge me a link tax for doing so!) will do.

I would also watch this video from Dave Cullen, a resident of Ireland, i.e. the EU, as to what he thinks this means.

Dave makes a number of fantastic points about the ramifications of Articles 11 and 13 which I will not dispute.

The arrogance and pig-headedness of EU MEPs to push this through without even listening to arguments for Amendments speaks volumes as to how much this legislation was bought and paid for.

And you know who was doing the buying. The same folks currently behind destroying Brexit — The Davos Crowd. I don’t want to put too fine a point on this now, since I’ve covered all this recently (here) and in the past (here ).

Controlling The Wire

But there are very valid reasons why this push for control of information flow from the EU is yet another example of their desperations to keep control of what I’ve in the past called The Wire:

In short, The Wire is the main conduit through which we communicate with each other. Even money is The Wire. What are prices if not information about what we are willing to part with our money in exchange for?
Without The Wire modern society fails. So, government can’t shut it down but neither can it allow unrestrained access to it.

Electricity, commerce, communications, everything, goes over The Wire.
This isn’t a radical concept but like all important ideas, once it is presented to you you can’t unsee it.

Control of The Wire is the only fight that matters or has ever mattered in society. The Internet is The Wire writ large. Therefore, it only makes sense that control of it is paramount to maintaining any control over society at large.

The corporate oligarchs are in fear for their projects. They want desperately to maintain control. They’ve worked for decades to evolve the nation-state into the new shiny transnational superstate the EU exemplifies.

The new Copyright Directive is designed to erect barriers-to-entry and shut down opposition speech by outsourcing the enforcement to the platforms hosting the material.

And those platforms are only too happy to do this because they get to crowd out any potential competition. So, while their costs increase slightly, they are now immune to the competition which would grind out their margins to zero over time, as any unfettered market would.

Remember, that in all human endeavors profit is an ever-elusive thing. With incentives properly aligned someone is always attracted to the profit someone else is achieving and will figure out a way to build a better mousetrap, as it were, grinding out that profit.

If you can short-circuit this process via control of The Wire then you can guarantee a profit for your past work for far longer than you would otherwise.

This is known as rent.

Fake Property, False Choices

This is why the music and film industry want their IP protected from ‘fair use’ policies. They see the plummeting margins and want to continue charging on a per use/listen/view basis things they retain the copyright to far beyond the public’s willingness to pay them.

It’s too expensive for these companies to go after us individually. That doesn’t work except in very limited ways. Yes, they can de-platform Alex Jones or Sargon of Akkad ad hoc but with predictable backlash against it.

Enshrining it in law takes this, however, to another level. And it is a yet another Hobson’s Choice put before people to either accept regulation of these companies as public utilities — ensuring their monopoly status — or render the internet unusable.

This Directive is pure protectionism of legacy media producers be it news, music, film, etc. whose business models haven’t just collapsed they’re literally now subsidized by other profitable industries, i.e. the Washington Post is, effectively, an Amazon company.

So, in effect, Article 11 and 13 are just typical corporatist honey pots, at least in theory.

But it is all bad? Is the future to be this and more laws and controls like this?

Likely not.

IP Deflation

Let’s look specifically at the link tax. To do this we have to look at a worst-case scenario where the EU disregards all cross-border treaty and tax-enforcement issues and our governments go along with this nonsense.

So, I want to link to an article in Der Speigel to make some point about Angela Merkel.

To do so now, under Article 13, I have to get a license to link from them and pay a fee. Let’s call that fee €100. Instead of paying that fee my natural reaction would be to not link to it and just make reference to it.

I’ll quote it and not put in a link.

If that doesn’t work and WordPress takes my post down, I’ll screencap the relevant section of the article (4chan-style) and then not link to it. This requires a more sophisticated sniffer to figure out what I did.

And in the worst case if they figure that out, I’ll simply not even quote them anymore. And I’ll write the article in such a way that I don’t need to. They don’t get the traffic anymore. They never got the license fee.

The result is they fall in the Google search rankings.

And I get to keep my traffic up and my audience happy.

Who wins here? Me or them?

Me.

Especially if I keep my link license fee set for my content at what it’s worth, zero.

To me a link is free advertising. I know that each one is a gift that pays huge dividends. I cherish people who contact me for permission to scrape my work.

The whole point of what I do is to reach as wide an audience as possible. Why would I put up barriers to that?

You have to put this in perspective. Ninety five percent of the news you read is a restatement of a government or corporate press release. If you think someone can’t reprint government or corporate press releases for less than €100 a head you are crazy.

Just like it is in retail sales. Amazon is killing local retailers because easily cross-shopped items are simply more efficiently delivered without a brick and mortar storefront. The costs of maintaining it and people going to the central location is a waste of scarce, precious capital.

It’s an old model without a future.

News organizations that don’t add anything but only disseminate the same stuff but with a slightly different spin on it won’t be able to charge a dime for links. Functionally, for 95% of news, is there any difference between Yahoo!, MSN, CNN or FOX?

No.

If you produce something that is value-added people will figure out a way to justify to themselves paying for it. Advertising covers some of that cost. If they don’t it isn’t lost revenue, it was revenue you never had in the first place at that price.

In the Internet business eyeballs are everything. Losing eyeballs for link taxes is just bad business.

The Last War

So the EU just gave these sclerotic, dying industries everything they’ve ever wanted. But, in the long run, it will be their undoing as it will incentivize an entire generation of citizen journalists to fill in the niches and do primary research.

Moreover, it will be unenforceable at any practical level, as Dave Cullen points out. The EU will itself cause a cratering of traffic to and from its IP ranges.

As the cost of The Wire drops on a per megabyte basis, think 5G, so too does the cost to resist control of it. Lower bandwidth costs makes possible peer-to-peer networking and decentralized autonomous organizations that even the most hardened crypto-enthusiast haven’t conceived of yet.

And once there are no middle men to go after and turn into the copyright police, we’re back to them going after individuals again. At that point it’s game over.

That’s a long way off at this point and the present will be difficult, at best, to navigate. But we’re not flat-footed here. I do feel for guys like Dave Cullen who build great content and now are looking at real constraints.

I don’t envy them in the slightest.

But to me this feels like just another desperation move by old men fighting the last war to hold onto The Wire that’s slipping out of their fingers, writing laws out of date before they are even implemented.

March 28, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The EU’s New Draconian Copyright Laws Should Make Every Young Person in Britain Rally For Brexit

By Adam Garrie – EurasiaFuture – 2019-03-26

The European Union parliament has just rubber-stamped new copyright legislation that will have a stifling effect on digital freedom of speech. Opposition to the proposals have seen big American tech companies including Google, online activists, world-wide-web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Paul McCartney and online star PewDiePie unite against the new draconian measures that will now need to be integrated into the corpus of national law throughout every EU member state. This process is expected to take around two years.

The worrying proposals

The most novel and therefore controversial aspects of the new EU copyright directive are contained in Articles 11 and 13 of the proposals. According to Article 11, any time a digital publisher links to or otherwise publishes even a small portion of copyrighted material, the owner of the outlet in question will have to pay a statutory rate (aka a tax) for the privilege of so doing.

Article 13 will force major online platforms, including and especially social media platforms to implement an automated vetting algorithm that will instantly censor any attempts at posting copyrighted material, without providing for any kind of reasonable appeal by the poster.

Arguments for the new proposals  

The arguments in favour of the new legislation suggest that such mechanisms are needed to prevent the unauthorised exploitation of copyrighted material without the owner receiving rapid remuneration. The arguments against the new proposals however are far more lengthy and manifold which is itself is a cautionary warning sign against legislation that may prima facie be overly broad and consequently do more harm than good.

Arguments against the new proposals 

–Stifling effect on the freedom of speech and artistic expression 

While no legal system encourages the violation of copyright, most legal systems allow for something that in the United States is known as fair use. According to the fair use doctrine, copyrighted material may be typically used without remuneration or permission from the copyright owner if the copyrighted work is used in the services of journalism, information decimation vital to the public good, critique/review/criticism/journalistic analysis, certain forms of advertising (e.g. a  cinema displaying an image of a film that is now playing or coming soon) and last but not least, parody (e.g. memes that show a copyrighted image of Kermit The Frog to illustrate a humorous or satirical message).

According to current EU copyright law, most of the fair use exceptions which have long been established in US law and most other Common Law countries also apply. However, many European judges take a narrower view of the concept of fair use than do most American judges.

Both Article 11 and Article 13 of the new EU copyright laws effectively end anything remotely related to the fair use doctrine. This would not only have a chilling effect on the ability of both small and large publishers who rely on fair use in order to produce the content that all readers, viewers and listeners now expect, but it will also vastly limit the freedom of expression of social media users who do not not even stand a chance of profiting from their creation and/or sharing of memes or short parody videos. This in and of itself will have a chilling effect on some of the main forms of free expression that makes the internet worthwhile to millions.

—Stifling effect on the freedom of information 

Journalists rely on quoting from a variety of sources in order to accurately convey information to their audience. For example, if I were to link someone else’s analysis of the present situation under the new laws, just this simple link would cost Eurasia Future money according to the proposed reforms. The result would be that most outlets would simply not bother to link or quote important sources which itself could expose publishers to allegations of spreading “fake news”, even if this was not the case. This could set off a dangerous chain reaction which could see media outlets deprived of the profits they would have otherwise legitimately earned for providing a much valued service in the private sector.

It is noteworthy that Article 11 will not only apply to websites that copy and paste entire stories or articles without remuneration or permission (a practice I personally find troubling), but it will effectively tax publishers for even quoting and crediting a small portion of a source that helps to bolster one’s argument. If lawyers for example had to pay other lawyers or judges whose legal precedent they were citing in a court of law – one could imagine how awkward the tasks of the legal profession would become.

In an internet age where both true and false information is ubiquitous, the job of publishers is as important as that of lawyers and to this end, both require similar tools in order to effectively execute their job.

–Major enforcement problems 

Because of the overreaching characteristics of the proposals, one must enquire as to weather the EU will soon chase down violators of these new laws outside of Europe in order to enforce its laws on publishers whose material on the world wide web can be viewed and in many cases likely will be viewed in the EU. Not only would this be costly but in many cases it would be fruitless as most countries outside of the EU will not likely comply with a foreign organisation effectively harassing their citizens. An example of a related concept was when in 2010 the US President specifically signed a law stating that US courts would not enforce foreign libel judgements on US citizens if the foreign country’s libel standards are more severe towards the defendant than those in the US. Due to the fact that the outcry against the EU’s new legislation has been louder in America than in much of Europe, one might reasonably expect something similar from Washington in respect of the new EU copyright law. This is true especially given the currently poor status of EU-US relations on the all important matter of trade.

Then there are the technical issues of enforcement. How could an as of yet unknown algorithm designed to censor the posting of copyrighted content on social media determine whether or not the person posting a copyrighted image is the owner of the copyright? Would one have to post all of his or her original art pieces for example into a mega data-base even if they are only sharing their original drawing with a small number of Facebook friends? Furthermore, who would own such a data-base and could the copyright holder’s right to exploit his material be trusted in the hands which every private or public entity controls this date-base? This could well be the road to a repeat of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in more ways than one. Lastly, if one is posting copyrighted material with the full permission of the copyright owner, how is the algorithm going to determine this?

Furthermore, when it comes to Article 11, it is not entirely clear who would collect the link tax and how? Take for example an 18 year old with no income or savings who runs a small website and posts copyrighted images or links to other websites. How much money is the EU prepared to spend on chasing such an individual down only to find that he is judgement proof? There’s a reason that the existing private sector doesn’t chase down judgement proof individuals and its called logic. 

–Outlandish burden shifting 

As it stands, copyright is almost always a civil rather than a criminal issue. As such, it is up to the copyright holder to discover that his or her work has been used without permission or remuneration and to then decide whether he or she will reach a settlement over the matter or take the infringing party to court. Realistically, copyright holders will not waste time and money on small matters. If a website nobody reads decides to publish entire copyrighted pieces with no permission, the publisher of the original piece – Eurasia Future for example, would likely ignore the matter. However, if the New York Times copied an entire article from Eurasia Future without permission or remuneration and if furthermore it could not be justified in any way by fair use – the matter would be raised in the appropriate way.

Under the new laws the EU will force third parties like Facebook and Twitter to automatically enforce copyright rules, thus shifting the burden of enforcement of copyright from the copyright owner to social media owners, search-engine owners and other website owners.  This approach is entirely impractical as it invokes the power of law to force third parties to take a greater interest in protecting the use of copyrighted material than many copyright holders themselves have ever taken or care to take.

The same is true of the link-tax. Why should a public or private body collect taxation via statute when existing laws, however flawed one might argue they are, are still less burdensome on the entire public and private sector than the new proposals?

Geopolitical policy hypocrisy

The EU itself is a frequent critic of alleged internet censorship in China and Russia, even though the laws in China and Russia cannot be compared to the new EU proposals. In China, the only materials censored online are those which are deemed to be provocative in respect of the civil order, those which threaten the public peace and those which violate the social norms of the People’s Republic of China. In other words, China’s internet regulations are derived from a desire to protect China’s internal peace and cultural characteristics, rather than a cynical ploy to pit those with lots of money against those with little.  Even an article critical of China’s internet policy accurately described the nature of internet regulation in the country, in spite of its overly cynical editorial overtones. It should also be noted that while western states criticise China for its policies, many western governments are trying to randomly censor free speech under the guise that it is “hate speech”, even though strongly worded and aggressive speech has traditionally been protected in the US and much of Europe so long as it doesn’t contain a specific criminal threat. This is in fact the very essence of the US First Amendment which has long been admired throughout Europe.

Russia has some laws which also seek to prohibit the posting of anti-social material online. But in reality, unlike China, Russia rarely tries to enforce any internet regulations and when it tries, it usually fails miserably. Thus, the internet in Russia is actually incredibly free in terms of an absolutist view of free speech.

Because of the new laws, the EU risks becoming a laughing stock in multiple countries including the United States – a country that clearly values fair use, in Russia – a country which realistically doesn’t censor anything on the internet and in China – a country where measures taken to protect people from being needlessly provoked are prioritised over protecting huge corporations from small social media users who aren’t seeking to make a profit from the memes they post online. Of course notably absent from the wider debates about the new EU laws were any commentary from the governments of China or Russia. If the tables were turned, one could imagine the chorus of excoriation against the eastern superpowers coming from both Brussels and Washington.

Brexit takes on a new importance 

Of course, if the United Kingdom successfully exits the European Union, none of these new draconian measures will apply to Britain, just as they don’t apply to the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand or other countries in the English speaking world with similar domestic legal systems to that in Britain.

Furthermore, while Brexit has often been portrayed as a policy favoured by older British voters, because the new EU legislation will disproportionately impact young people whose business and leisure is largely centred around the internet, it is now crucial for young people in the UK who are opposed to the EU’s anti-free speech laws to rally behind a full Brexit that does not reduce the process to a series of halfway measures.

Only by remaining fully out of the EU Single Market and Customs Union can it be guaranteed that this regressive, repressive and oppressive legislation is kept away from British publishers and ordinary people who are active online.

Conclusion 

The EU has made some powerful new enemies including the world’s largest tech firms. While the lights of free speech are dimming in Europe, at least for one European country, there is a clear path to the sunlit uplands of freedom. That path is called Brexit.

March 27, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

UN and EU statements reveal their overt support for Israel

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | March 26, 2019

Predictably, the UN’s first remarks about Israel’s bombing of the Gaza Strip focused more on a single rocket reaching north of Tel Aviv than the Zionist state’s ongoing colonial violence against Palestinian civilians and its destruction of what remains of the enclave. Likewise, the Palestinian people themselves will be of no concern to the international body unless there is a rising death toll and images of severely wounded people splashed across social media.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, we are told, is “gravely concerned” and, again predictably, has asked for maximum restraint from “both sides”. However, his “concern” was framed thus: “Today’s firing of a rocket from Gaza towards Israel is a serious and unacceptable violation.”

Nickolay Mladenov, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, echoed the statement from Guterres in a tweet which deplored the firing of a rocket as “absolutely unacceptable”. So far, Mladenov has not updated his concerns to describe the shelling of Gaza by Israel in the same terms, despite its bombs inflicting infinitely more damage. The EU has followed suit, emphasising its “fundamental commitment to the security of Israel.” The lives and property of Palestinians mean nothing to such people.

Even as a ceasefire was purportedly reached, Israel continued targeting the densely-populated enclave and the Gaza border was declared to be a closed military zone. It is more than likely that international institutions are waiting for further violations before they order pointless inquiries and studies, and issue conclusions and recommendations, all the while forcing Palestinians into diplomatic irrelevance by allowing Israel to exacerbate the humanitarian situation which has conveniently erased the political obligation to end colonisation.

Since Operation Protective Edge in 2014, Israel has targeted Gaza repeatedly to the point that it has now normalised air strikes and the international community has accommodated its violence and rights violations by refusing to respond and react accordingly. Both Israel and international institutions, however, need a point of reference to justify such impunity. A rocket, despite its relative insignificance, when compared with Israeli air strikes and shelling, is enough to prompt official statements that start off with concern and end with declaring the priority of Israel’s security over Palestinian lives.

An unnamed diplomatic source referred to by Israel National News has dismissed the possibility of a large-scale operation and described the reinforcements along Gaza’s nominal border as “deterrents”. Air strikes, however, are set to continue.

In line with the current General Election frenzy in Israel, several ministers and candidates, including former Israel Defence Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, have requested further action. Gantz described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who also holds the defence portfolio — as having “lost his grip on security”, while Economy Minister Eli Cohen called for targeted assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders. All this in retaliation for a rocket, as Israel would have the rest of the world believe.

As an aggressive occupier, though, Israel cannot define its actions as “retaliation” and “self-defence”. It is an instigator and has committed war crimes ever since its creation on Palestinian land in 1948.

Why, we must ask, are the UN and the EU intent on removing the distinction between possible war crimes and security when it comes to Israel? Both are trying to frame their political intent as a response to the rocket which landed north of Tel Aviv, yet the UN and the EU have clearly planned strategically for the moments when they can declare their allegiance and support for Israel without having to maintain an illusion of concern for human rights. Yet another opportunity for them to reveal their overt support for the colonial-occupation state arrived on Monday.

 

March 26, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The « American Party » within the institutions of the European Union

By Manlio Dinucci | Voltairnet | March 20, 2019

« Russia can no longer be considered as a strategic partner, and the European Union must be ready to impose further sanctions if it continues to violate international law » – this is the resolution approved by the European Parliament on 12 Mars with 402 votes for, 163 against, and 89 abstentions [1]. The resolution, presented by Latvian parliamentarian Sandra Kalniete, denies above all any legitimacy for the Presidential elections in Russia, qualifying them as « non-democratic », and therefore presenting President Putin as a usurper.

She accuses Russia not only of « violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Georgia », but also the « intervention in Syria and interference in countries such as Libya », and, in Europe, of « interference intended to influence elections and increase tensions ». She accuses Russia of « violation of the arms control agreements », and shackles it with the responsibility of having buried the INF Treaty. Besides this, she accuses Russia of « important violations of human rights in Russia, including torture and extra-judicial executions », and « assassinations perpetrated by Russian Intelligence agents by means of chemical weapons on European soil ».

After these and other accusations, the European Parliament declared that Nord Stream 2 – the gas pipeline designed to double the supply of Russian gas to Germany across the Baltic Sea – « increases European dependence on Russian gas, threatens the European interior market and its strategic interests […] and must therefore be ended ».

The resolution of the European Parliament is a faithful repetition, not only in its content but even in its wording, of the accusations that the USA and NATO aim at Russia, and more importantly, it faithfully parrots their demand to block Nord Stream 2 – the object of Washington’s strategy, aimed at reducing the supply of Russian energy to the European Union, in order to replace them with supplies coming from the United States, or at least, from US companies. In the same context, certain communications were addressed by the European Commission to those of its members [2], including Italy, who harboured the intention to join the Chinese initiative of the New Silk Road. The Commission alleges that China is a partner but also an economic competitor and, what is of capital importance, « a systemic rival which promotes alternative forms of governance », in other words alternative models of governance which so far have been dominated by the Western powers.

The Commission warns that above all, it is necessary to « safeguard the critical digital infrastructures from the potentially serious threats to security » posed by the 5G networks furnished by Chinese companies like Huawei, and banned by the United States. The European Commission faithfully echoes the US warning to its allies. The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, US General Scaparrotti, specified that these fifth generation ultra-rapid mobile networks will play an increasingly important role in the war-making capacities of NATO – consequently no « amateurism » by the allies will be allowed.

All this confirms the influence brought to bear by the « American Party », a powerful transversal camp which is orienting the policies of the EU along the strategic lines of the USA and NATO.

By creating the false image of a dangerous Russia and China, the institutions of the European Union are preparing public opinion to accept what the United States are now preparing for the « defence » of Europe. The United States – declared a Pentagon spokesperson on CNN – are getting ready to test ground-based ballistic missiles (forbidden by the INF Treaty buried by Washington), that is to say new Euromissiles which will once again make Europe the base and at the same time, the target of a nuclear war.

March 26, 2019 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The new EU copyright law closes the book on free speech online. That’s a feature, not a bug.

By Helen Buyniski | RT | March 26, 2019

The controversial copyright law facing a final vote in the EU parliament is less about copyright than it is about hammering a final nail in the coffin of the freedoms the internet once promised. Yes, Article 13 is that bad.

Most laws address themselves toward tangible, human-sized problems. Article 13, the sweeping European copyright legislation that proposes to filter all content on its way to the web to ensure no rights are being violated, isn’t interested in such prosaic stuff. It seeks to defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Physics? In my internet? The web operates according to the laws of entropy. It trends toward decentralization – of ideas, of social groups, but most importantly of power. Authority looks at this delightful disorder and sees only malevolent chaos that needs to be reined in. Legislators and the corporations that run their countries have spent a lot of time brainstorming on how to put the cat back in the bag, and Article 13 is the result.

This is not just a European problem. Like a catastrophic nuclear meltdown, there is no containing the fallout from this kind of measure, designed to effectively destroy the internet as we know it. Companies and platforms may start by leaving Europe, or refusing to serve European customers, but the internet has no borders, and the big platforms will embrace whatever filters are required to maintain their hold on their users – no matter what country they inhabit. One need only witness the absurdity when Canadian, American and Australian Twitter users are sanctioned for violating Pakistani blasphemy laws to understand the willingness of these platforms to cater to the most oppressive common denominator.

It’s almost surprising that the EU isn’t trying to sell this law as the killer weapon in the ongoing War on Fake News, given its member countries’ use of that trendy adversary to justify increasingly draconian speech restrictions – from the proposed end of anonymity in France to criminal charges for platforms that don’t take down “problematic” speech quickly enough in the UK. But then, EU leaders aren’t actually elected, so they don’t have to sell the people anything. Like the monopolies Article 13 enables, the EU gives its users no choice – accept this degraded, deliberately-hobbled, entropically-eviscerated parody of the internet, or stay offline (by the time they’re done with it, you’ll hardly be able to tell the difference, anyway).

Google spent $100 million to develop a filter capable of screening uploaded content in real time in order to prevent wrong-think from seeping into YouTube livestreams. There are few feelings as unsettling as livestreaming to an audience only to find one’s mic cut after broaching a topic that has been declared off-limits. For now, those who would resist the jackbooted march of “progress” can join another platform, but under Article 13’s restrictions, will that other platform be able to afford a $100 million content filter of its own?

Algorithms are dumb – dumber than even the most clueless human forum moderator – and automated filters cannot tell the difference between fair use, parody, and straight-up rip-offs any more than they can tell the difference between real and fake news. Collateral censorship will tear a hole in casual communication – forget memes and similar forms of humor. AI doesn’t laugh.

To their credit, many of the early architects of the internet see this legislation for the threat that it is and have spoken passionately against it. They understand the threat posed to innovation and the free exchange of ideas, but they naively believe those who wrote the legislation do not. “Indeed, if Article 13 had been in place when the Internet’s core protocols and applications were developed, it is unlikely that it would exist today as we know it,” warned a letter signed by 70 web pioneers in opposition to the law.

The way the web developed the first time was not ideal for centralized power structures. Only a nuclear option like Article 13 could ever hope to rein in the human potential unleashed by the web and give them a second chance to get it right.

Article 13, the internet’s founding fathers warn, means the “transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.” That’s a feature, not a bug. Keeping out small platforms that could challenge the monopolies that have shown they’re willing to work with governments certainly makes life easier for those governments. The internet once held the promise to liberate humanity. The European Parliament believes that’s too big a risk to take.

March 26, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Tens of Thousands of Germans Take to Streets to Protest EU Copyright Reform

Sputnik -23.03.2019

Tens of thousands of people in different German cities have gathered for a massive protest against copyright reforms planned by the European Union, DPA reported.

The planned changes would require, in part, that tech giants such as Facebook and YouTube take responsibility for copyright materials users upload to their platforms. Though the measure is claimed to be aimed at protecting copyright holders, many note that it can easily be used to restrict freedom of speech.

The outrage is connected with some parts of the legislation: in particular, Article 11, which allows publishers to charge platforms if they link to their stories (the “link tax”), and Article 13, putting legal responsibility on platforms for users uploading copyrighted material (the so-called ‘upload filter’).

Though the reform is believed to help authors, artists and journalists to ensure payments for their works, opponents of the legislation insist it would force websites to install filters, hinder online creativity and restrict the freedom of speech.

According to the news agency, the biggest demonstration was held in Munich, where some 40,000 to protested the legislation, marching under the motto “Save your internet”.

March 24, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Mueller Report: ‘US Forced EU to Follow Through on Sanctions Without Proof’

Sputnik – March 23, 2019

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report on suspected collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to the attorney general, with the report not recommending any further indictments. Eurasia Centre senior researcher Earl Rasmussen spoke to Sputnik about the report’s implications for Trump and his opponents.

Sputnik: What do we know? What can we expect? It looks like Donald Trump won’t receive any political damage to his image, because of course the report doesn’t recommend any further indictments. What’s your stance?

Earl Rasmussen: Obviously there are certain elements, mostly in the mainstream media that’s been stoking this, and certain members on the Hill, in Congress, that were hoping for something, because we heard over and over again that the next bombshell was coming.

But you’re correct, there’s nothing explosive, and with no new indictments coming out, and really if you look at the indictments that were there, there’s nothing related at all to any type of conspiracy or collusion as far as the six people indicted who are US citizens. And the Russians that are indicted are questionable. Let’s face it, Concord Management tried to file discovery, and now [prosecutors are] trying to block information, saying it’s ‘classified’.

There’s really no evidence, and for Mr. Trump, although he will suffer some political damage, I think for the most part the objective of this whole hoax is not coming to fruition.

Sputnik: For now of course, no one really knows what’s in the report, how long it is, how much it actually deals with the president’s own actions. However, a lot of political and perhaps emotional capital was invested in this Mueller probe. Is this a bit of an anticlimax?

Earl Rasmussen: I think for many it is an anticlimax, absolutely. There’s so much invested here. Two plus years, millions of dollars, political capital on both sides, and you’ve got people who have lost their livelihoods. A lot of the people that were brought in, their names exposed, their reputations were damaged. We’ve got the six people that have been charged [for] things that happened ten years ago; some are financially ruined now; some will spend time in jail for lying to Congress or lying to the FBI over minor financial things that may have gone unnoticed without this.

You look at the other side too, and we’ve got damage to international relations, not just with Russia, where what has occurred is just outrageous, but also Europe. I mean we forced Europe to follow through on sanctions that there’s no evidence for. They’ve lost business as a result of that, so I’m sure the Europeans will be quite interested in seeing more and learning more about what’s coming out of this as well.

The country is divided. Talk about political discord – the media here has done a great job doing that. In a lot of ways we’ve done a lot of damage to ourselves chasing after something that’s not there.

Sputnik: US Attorney General William Barr is going to now summarise the report and decide on how much to share with Congress. What can we expect? 

Earl Rasmussen: Personally I think the whole report should be released to the public at some point in time. He’ll release it to Congress, I think most of it will probably be provided to Congress. There should be nothing there that they don’t already know. They’ve been doing their own investigations, have called in their own witnesses, so there really should be no surprises there. Obviously the parties will probably try to manipulate the report [against the other party] in order to potentially posture for the 2020 presidential elections.

Listen to Earl Rasmussen’s complete interview with Sputnik here:

Earl Rasmussen is the executive vice president of the Eurasia Centre, an independent, non-profit Washington-based think tank specialising in European and Asian political and economic issues.

March 23, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

May and Merkel Fiddle While Their Unions Burn

By Tom LUONGO | Strategic Culture Foundation | 16.03.2019

When it was reported by John Petley of the Bruges Group that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had, in effect, written the Brexit withdrawal agreement Theresa May has now twice had turned down by her parliament it should have come as no shock to anyone closely following the Brexit drama.

Uncorroborated? Sure. Most likely true. Of course.

The European Union doesn’t want Brexit to happen. And if it were to happen it would only be acceptable to them if it looks like the deal Mrs. May put before the House of Commons twice only to be rebuked by historic margins.

This was not a version of Brexit anyone had in mind. Not the softest-minded Labour voter and especially not the sovereignty-minded Leave voter of the Nigel Farage persuasion.

It was, in short, a betrayal of all things fundamentally nationalist.

For the past week I’ve been watching a lot of British Parliament as it debates, and I use that word very loosely, the situation Mrs. May and the MP’s themselves have put the country in. And, in a word, it is shameful.

May and Merkel both miscalculated terribly on what the British people would accept. It’s obvious that both only thought in terms of the kind of political leverage they could bring to bear on the House of Commons which would eventually force them to cave to supposed horror-show of a ‘No-Deal’ Brexit.

Make no mistake, the horror show would mostly fall on Germany – whose banking system, already teetering on collapse thanks to other rifts forming within the currency bloc – and export-driven economy would suffer from the Brits having more control over the exchange rate of the pound versus the euro.

A lower pound would be the first result of a no-deal Brexit. Good for long-suffering British manufacturing and bad for Germany’s, since the UK is Germany’s biggest export market.

Economically and philosophically, no-deal is the best deal for the UK But don’t tell that to the MP’s who are scared to death of it.

But what’s most important about all of this is that it is all just a symptom of a much deeper problem, the unwieldy nature of the European Union itself.

Germany and the elites who have pushed this project, the unelected financiers I like to call The Davos Crowd, are dead set against anything that obstructs its completion.

The wave of nationalist political fervor racing across the continent is, however, a consequence of their trying to form a political and fiscal union that far exceeds the original mandate sold to voters when they joined.

And that is threatening to tear Mrs. Merkel’s union to pieces. This is why she and her posse in Brussels are so committed to screwing the British people. They have to send the right message to Italy and Hungary. It’s why they want $39 billion.

It’s why they are using the non-issue of the Irish border to tie the UK into the customs union and single market forever. But, make no mistake, just like Merkel’s horrific treatment of Greece was seen as unconscionable by people across Europe in 2015 they are looking at how the Brits are being treated and are equally as appalled.

Merkel, Juncker et.al. all saw the divisions within the Labour and Conservative parties that have resulted from their planning and thought them to be assets. But they aren’t. Maybe in the short-run it will get them what they want, another moment to kick the can down the road a little bit further.

But in the long-run all it is doing is setting up for another round of Brexit in the future with a much less plastic set of circumstances. Because, as I said earlier, they have miscalculated. The British people are fed up with them and with their own government.

The Labour party is squealing out of both sides of its mouth trying to get themselves out of the corner they’ve painted themselves into. Because they can read the polls. And what was a solid Labour lead in the winter has become a solid Tory lead in the Spring.

Because as split as the Tories are, voters understand that there are more of them trying to implement their will than there are Labour MP’s. And that counts for something.

Mrs. May has made a mess of things thinking she could shoe horn a terrible deal through parliament that would satisfy the EU while blowing up the traditional two-party system in the House of Commons.

And this is why I say to hardened cynics who think these people are all-powerful that they aren’t. They are smart but they aren’t clever. They do the same thing that has worked before and run the same playbook. Brexit looks exactly like the Greek debt talks.

Merkel didn’t update her playbook for 2018. It wasn’t a short-term negotiation. It was a three-year process that tried the patience of 66 million Brits. And they have seen the real face of the EU and many more of them want no part of it.

Merkel and Juncker are trying to hold onto their manufactured leverage over the Brits to, in turn, hold onto a Union that is in the process of failing. May and her cabinet are trying to hold onto a relationship with the EU while the UK itself is now in danger of failing.

The Scots are pushing for independence to stay in the EU. Wales is beginning to consider it. Northern Ireland doesn’t like being anyone’s Trojan Horse.

They have thoroughly underestimated the will of the people and it will cost them what little cache they have left with voters. Remember, confidence lost in the institutions of government begets a loss of confidence in the money and their ability to manage it.

If you want a catalyst for a European sovereign debt crisis, look no further than Brexit now or the downstream effects of a delayed Brexit later.

If an extension is approved by the EU and given to the Brits, Euroskeptics will go from commanding a projected 32-33% of a 705 seat European Parliament to possibly 35-36% of a larger one that includes the Brits.

Because if Brexit is delayed and betrayed do you think Remainers will be elected en masse? Or do you think Farage et.al. will not storm into Brussels mad as hell?

Merkel and May may have won this battle using their useful idiots like Anna Soubry and Ian Blackford but they will lose the war as the rest of Europe comes to terms with being frog-marched towards a future they neither want, signed up for or are willing to pay for anymore.

No wonder the Yellow Vests keep showing up every weekend.

March 16, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

Germany’s Über Hypocrisy over Venezuela

By Finian CUNNINGHAM | Strategic Culture Foundation | 12.03.2019

Germany has taken the lead among European Union member states to back Washington’s regime-change agenda for Venezuela. Berlin’s hypocrisy and double-think is quite astounding.

Only a few weeks ago, German politicians and media were up in arms protesting to the Trump administration for interfering in Berlin’s internal affairs. There were even outraged complaints that Washington was seeking “regime change” against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government.

Those protests were sparked when Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, warned German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia that they could be hit with American economic sanctions if they go ahead with the Baltic seabed project.

Earlier, Grenell provoked fury among Berlin’s political establishment when he openly gave his backing to opposition party Alternative for Germany. That led to consternation and denunciations of Washington’s perceived backing for regime change in Berlin. They were public calls for Grenell to be expelled over his apparent breach of diplomatic protocols.

Now, however, Germany is shamelessly kowtowing to an even more outrageous American regime-change plot against Venezuela.

Last week, the government of President Nicolas Maduro ordered the expulsion of German ambassador Daniel Kriener after he greeted the US-backed opposition figure Juan Guaido on a high-profile occasion. Guaido had just returned from a tour of Latin American countries during which he had openly called for the overthrow of the Maduro government. Arguably a legal case could be made for the arrest of Guaido by the Venezuelan authorities on charges of sedition.

When Guaido returned to Venezuela on March 4 he was greeted at the airport by several foreign diplomats. Among the receiving dignitaries was Germany’s envoy Daniel Kriener.

The opposition figure had declared himself “interim president” of Venezuela on January 23 and was immediately recognized by Washington and several European Union states. The EU has so far not issued an official endorsement of Guaido over incumbent President Maduro. Italy’s objection blocked the EU from adopting a unanimous position.

Nevertheless, as the strongest economy in the 28-member bloc, Germany can be seen as de facto leader of the EU. Its position on Venezuela therefore gives virtual EU gravitas to the geopolitical maneuvering led by Washington towards the South American country.

What’s more, the explicit backing of Juan Guaido by Germany’s envoy was carried out on the “express order” of Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, according to Deutsche Welle.

“It was my express wish and request that Ambassador Kriener turn out with representatives of other European nations and Latin American ones to meet acting President Guaido at the airport,” said Maas. “We had information that he was supposed to be arrested there. I believe that the presence of various ambassadors helped prevent such an arrest.”

It’s staggering to comprehend the double-think involved here.

Guaido was hardly known among the vast majority of Venezuelans until he catapulted on to the global stage by declaring himself “interim president”. That move was clearly executed in a concerted plan with the Trump White House. European governments and Western media have complacently adopted the White House line that Guaido is the legitimate leader while socialist President Maduro is a “usurper”.

That is in spite of the fact that Maduro was re-elected last year in free and fair elections by a huge majority of votes. Guaido’s rightwing, pro-business party boycotted the elections. Yet he is anointed by Washington, Berlin and some 50 other states as the legitimate leader.

Russia, China, Turkey, Cuba and most other members of the United Nations have refused to adopt Washington’s decree of recognizing Guaido. Those nations (comprising 75 per cent of the UN assembly) continue to recognize President Maduro as the sovereign authority. Indeed, Russia has been highly critical of Washington’s blatant interference for regime change in oil-rich Venezuela. Moscow has warned it will not tolerate US military intervention.

Russia’s envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzia, at a Security Council session last month, excoriated the US for its gross violation of international law with regard to Venezuela. Moscow’s diplomat also directed a sharp rebuke at other nations “complicit” in Washington’s aggression, saying that one day “you will be next” for similar American subversion in their own affairs.

Germany’s hypocrisy and double-think is, to paraphrase that country’s national anthem, “über alles” (above all else).

German politicians, diplomats and media were apoplectic in their anger at perceived interference by the US ambassador in Berlin’s internal affairs. Yet the German political establishment has no qualms whatsoever about ganging up – only weeks later – with Washington to subvert the politics and constitution of Venezuela.

How can Germany be so utterly über servile to Washington and the latter’s brazen criminal aggression towards Venezuela?

It seems obvious that Berlin is trying to ingratiate itself with the Trump administration. But what for?

Trump has been pillorying Germany with allegations of “unfair trade” practices. In particular, Washington is recently stepping up its threats to slap punitive tariffs on German auto exports. Given that this is a key sector in the German export-driven economy, it may be gleaned that Berlin is keen to appease Trump. By backing his aggression towards Venezuela?

Perhaps this policy of appeasement is also motivated by Berlin’s concern to spare the Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions. When NS2 is completed later this year, it is reckoned to double the capacity of natural gas consumption by Germany from Russia. That will be crucial for Germany’s economic growth.

Another factor is possible blackmail of Berlin by Washington. Recall the earth-shattering revelations made by American whistleblower Edward Snowden a few years back when he disclosed that US intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone communications of Chancellor Merkel and other senior Berlin politicians. Recall, too, how the German state remarkably acquiesced over what should have been seen as a devastating infringement by Washington.

The weird lack of action by Berlin over that huge violation of its sovereignty by the Americans makes one wonder if the US spies uncovered a treasure trove of blackmail material on German politicians.

Berlin’s pathetic kowtowing to Washington’s interference in Venezuela begs an ulterior explanation. No self-respecting government could be so hypocritical and duplicitous.

Whatever Berlin may calculate to gain from its unscrupulous bending over for Washington, one thing seems clear, as Russian envoy Nebenzia warned: “One day you are next” for American hegemonic shafting.

March 12, 2019 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

The Final Version of the EU’s Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet

By Cory Doctorow | EFF | February 13, 2019

Despite ringing denunciations from small EU tech businesses, giant EU entertainment companies, artists’ groups, technical experts, and human rights experts, and the largest body of concerned citizens in EU history, the EU has concluded its “trilogues” on the new Copyright Directive, striking a deal that—amazingly—is worse than any in the Directive’s sordid history.

Goodbye, protections for artists and scientists

The Copyright Directive was always a grab bag of updates to EU copyright rules—which are long overdue for an overhaul, given that it’s been 18 years since the last set of rules were ratified. Some of its clauses gave artists and scientists much-needed protections: artists were to be protected from the worst ripoffs by entertainment companies, and scientists could use copyrighted works as raw material for various kinds of data analysis and scholarship.

Both of these clauses have now been gutted to the point of uselessness, leaving the giant entertainment companies with unchecked power to exploit creators and arbitrarily hold back scientific research.

Having dispensed with some of the most positive versions of the Directive, the trilogues have also managed to make the (unbelievably dreadful) bad components of the Directive even worse.

A dim future for every made-in-the-EU platform, service and online community

Under the final text, any online community, platform or service that has existed for three or more years, or is making €10,000,001/year or more, is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily. This is impossible, and the closest any service can come to it is spending hundreds of millions of euros to develop automated copyright filters. Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work. They are a gift to fraudsters and criminals, to say nothing of censors, both government and private.

These filters are unaffordable by all but the largest tech companies, all based in the USA, and the only way Europe’s homegrown tech sector can avoid the obligation to deploy them is to stay under ten million euros per year in revenue, and also shut down after three years.

America’s Big Tech companies would certainly prefer not to have to install these filters, but the possibility of being able to grow unchecked, without having to contend with European competitors, is a pretty good second prize (which is why some of the biggest US tech companies have secretly lobbied for filters).

Amazingly, the tiny, useless exceptions in Article 13 are too generous for the entertainment industry lobby, and so politicians have given them a gift to ease the pain: under the final text, every online community, service or platform is required to make “best efforts” to license anything their users might conceivably upload, meaning that they have to buy virtually anything any copyright holder offers to sell them, at any price, on pain of being liable for infringement if a user later uploads that work.

News that you’re not allowed to discuss

Article 11, which allows news sites to decide who can link to their stories and charge for permission to do so, has also been worsened. The final text clarifies that any link that contains more than “single words or very short extracts” from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.

Will Members of the European Parliament dare to vote for this?

Now that the Directive has emerged from the Trilogue, it will head to the European Parliament for a vote for the whole body, either during the March 25-28 session or the April 15-18 session—with elections scheduled in May.

These elections are critical: the Members of the European Parliament are going to be fighting an election right after voting on this Directive, which is already the most unpopular legislative effort in European history, and that’s before the public gets wind of these latest changes.

Let’s get real: no EU political party will be able to campaign for votes on the strength of passing the Copyright Directive—but plenty of parties will be able to drum up support to throw out the parties that defied the will of voters and risked the destruction of the Internet as we know it to pour a few million Euros into the coffers of media companies and newspaper proprietors—after those companies told them not to.

There’s never been a moment where your voice mattered more

Watch this space. We will be working with allies across the EU to make this upcoming Parliamentary vote into an issue that every Member of the European Parliament is well-informed on, and we’re going to make sure that every MEP knows that the voters of Europe are watching them and taking note of how they vote.

All that it takes is for you to speak up. Over four million Internet users have signed the petition against the Directive. If you can do that, you can pick up the phone and call your MEP. Tell them why you’re against the Directive, what it means for you, and what you expect your representatives to do in the forthcoming plenary vote. It really is the last chance to make your voice heard.

Take Action – Stop Article 13

March 10, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »