Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany to combat ‘conspiracy theories’

RT | February 28, 2025

Germans who suspect that their relatives or friends have fallen for conspiracy theories can now seek official guidance, the Interior Ministry has announced. The government has launched a nationwide consultation center to combat “lies and disinformation.”

Known as the Advice Compass on Conspiracy Thinking, the service was launched on Thursday and is accessible online or by phone. According to the ministry, it aims to provide “the most tailored help and advice possible” for those seeking guidance.

The center offers consultations and can refer individuals to specialized agencies if necessary, according to Minister for Family Affairs Lisa Paus, without specifying which agencies will be involved.

Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said that an “open dialogue on equal terms” is often difficult with individuals deeply immersed in conspiracy beliefs. She hailed the initiative as “an important building block in the holistic fight against extremism and disinformation.”

Paus described conspiracy theories as “poison for our democracy” and a burden on families and colleagues. The Interior Ministry claimed that these beliefs can lead to extremist ideologies and incite violence, highlighting anti-Semitic conspiracies as a major concern.

The German authorities have been raising the alarm over the supposed rise of conspiracy theories. This trend is often linked to the Querdenker (lateral thinking) movement, which emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic to oppose lockdown measures and other government policies. Since then, Querdenker groups have organized protests against Germany’s foreign policy and weapons supplies to Kiev, which began in 2022 following the escalation of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Some factions have also called for “regionality, direct democracy, and limiting the power” of the federal government. Officials and media outlets often associate Querdenker groups with conspiracy theories and far-right organizations.

In 2021, the German domestic security agency (BfV) announced it would closely monitor some Querdenker groups, claiming that they could try to “delegitimize” the state and use legitimate protest to “provoke escalation.”

The announcement of the Advice Compass came just days after the right-wing Alternative for Germany party (AfD) secured second place in snap parliamentary elections, receiving 20.8% of the vote – a significant rise from the 10.4% they received in 2021. Despite the gains, the party remains ostracized by the other major political parties and is frequently labeled ‘far-right’ by officials and media.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

America as Republic, not as Empire – Europe’s “sound and fury” after jaw-dropping pivots in U.S. policy

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025

The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.

Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.

Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.

Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?

The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.

Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.

It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?

Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.

That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.

Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.

It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.

Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.

What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.

Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.

The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.

Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.

Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.

How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.

In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.

The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.

It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.

So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.

Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.

Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.

If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.

It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.

The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.

Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.

Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Merz adopts nationalist rhetoric to legitimize his anti-Russian plans

New German leader may be more bellicose than his predecessor

By Lucas Leiroz | February 26, 2025

The European sovereignty agenda is being hypocritically used by liberal leaders to fight Donald Trump’s policies. In Germany, the potential new chancellor is publicly advocating for Berlin’s “independence” from the US. Although such independence is indeed necessary, European liberals have anti-sovereign intentions in adopting these agendas.

Friedrich Merz is indicated by preliminary data as the winner of the German parliamentary elections. Leading the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Merz is expected to receive around 28,5% of the vote, becoming the country’s prime minister. His victory means that Germany will continue to be governed by a warmongering and anti-Russian political elite, with no significant change in Berlin’s foreign policy.

Merz, however, often seems to have an even more aggressive stance than Olaf Scholz. He has made it clear that he does not intend to engage in dialogue with Russia, which represents a setback for Germany, since Scholz himself, who is one of the most warmongering leaders of the EU, had taken the initiative to talk directly to Trump.

The possible new German chancellor has also been harshly critical of the US and Donald Trump. He has described American interference in European affairs as “outrageous” and “dramatic”. Merz believes that Trump is indifferent to Europe, not caring about the stability of his own allied countries. For this reason, he has called on Germany to achieve “independence from the US”, freeing itself from the negative external influence of Washington.

“The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic, drastic, and ultimately outrageous than the intervention we saw from Moscow (…) The Americans, at least those in the current government, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe (….) (Germany must) gradually achieve independence from the US (…) I would have never thought that I would have to say something like that on a TV show,” he said.

It is curious to see pro-war European leaders using this kind of narrative, since the struggle for European sovereignty contradicts the entire Western agenda advocated by the EU. It seems that the liberal politicians of the European bloc are trying to change their rhetoric towards the US just to react to Donald Trump’s nationalist and isolationist policies.

It is impossible to talk about sovereignty in Europe and support the continuation of the war against Russia at the same time, since NATO’s anti-Russian campaign was supported by the EU precisely in a gesture of subservience to Washington. The anti-Russian economic sanctions, for example, were imposed by the US and adopted by the Europeans even though it has been proven that such measures harm European strategic interests.

Europe has been harmed in all areas of its economy and diplomacy since the beginning of the special military operation. If it had adopted a sovereign and neutral stance, respecting Russia’s right to protect its people in the neighboring country, Europe would have avoided the serious economic crisis it is currently experiencing.

Without sanctions and preserving its strategic ties with Russia, the EU would have become a relevant power in the multipolar world. However, instead of acting sovereignly, European liberals have taken all sorts of irresponsible actions, dipping the continent into an unprecedented crisis.

Until then, there was almost complete alignment between all American and European decisions, but now this situation has changed. Trump fulfilled his promise to resume diplomatic dialogue and simply excluded the belligerent European countries from the talks. EU leaders are outraged by such an American decision – not because they feel their sovereignty is being compromised, but simply because they are against ending the war with Russia.

Europeans and Americans are falling out of alignment simply because Europeans do not agree with the American decision to pursue diplomacy and peace. By speaking of “German sovereignty,” Merz is not advocating the historical struggle of Europeans to end American influence. He is simply saying that Germany must continue to fight Russia regardless of American involvement.

It is possible to say that liberals are trying to co-opt a nationalist rhetoric typical of European conservative groups. The aim is to use the genuinely sovereigntist sentiments of ordinary Germans and Europeans to legitimize the advancement of an even more “globalist” and anti-sovereigntist agenda – which internationally materializes in even more military interventionism, aid to Ukraine and escalation of hostilities against Russia.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X and Telegram.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Three years of a cruel and destructive NATO proxy war in Ukraine

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | February 25, 2025

The end of February marks three years since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and 11 years since the ‘Euromaidan’ coup of February 2014. The coup was the main cause of the current military conflict.

The war in the now-former eastern territories of Ukraine could have been avoided had two successive presidencies in Kiev (Petro Poroshenko, 2014-2019 and Volodomyr Zelensky since 2019) complied with the Minsk 2 peace agreement of February 2015. Minsk 2 (text here), was agreed by Kiev and the pro-autonomy forces in the Donbass region on February 12, 2015. France, Germany, and Russia co-signed the agreement as guarantors. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by no less than the UN Security Council on February 17, 2015.

Minsk 2 envisioned the return of Lugansk and Donetsk (the two rebellious ‘peoples republics’ of the industrialized Donbass region) to the fold of the Ukrainian constitution, this time as semi-autonomous oblasts (provinces). Kiev also agreed to a neutral status for Ukraine. It could apply for membership in the European Union if it chose, but membership in the NATO military alliance was for Russia a non-starter.

EU membership increasingly became a goal of Western-oriented business interests in Ukraine during the decade of the 2000s. That decade followed 10 years of sharp economic decline following the dissolution in 1989-90 of Soviet Ukraine and of the Soviet Union (USSR, of which Soviet Ukraine was a key constituent).

Tragically for the people of post-Soviet Ukraine, the Western countries, particularly the leading powers of NATO, quietly and deceptively opposed Minsk 2. They worked quietly from the get-go to sabotage the agreement.

Deception of Ukrainians by the West

On February 12, 2025, the deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, Aleksey Shevtsov, spoke on the ninth anniversary of the signing of Minsk 2, explaining once again to those who would listen that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine would never have happened had the West honored the agreement. He stressed that the people of Ukraine today have every right to demand an accounting for the deceptions that took place in 2015 and after.

On the same day, the Ukrainian online publication Strana published a lengthy commentary in its Telegram messaging service headlined, ‘Why did the Minsk agreement fail?’ Strana wrote, “Russia says that Kiev deliberately refused to fulfill the conditions of the Minsk 2 agreement and instead proceeded to rearm its army and restart armed attacks against the people of Donbass. The Russian government says it can no longer trust the government in Kiev and so there is no possibility of a ‘Minsk 3’.” (‘Minsk 1’ was a first attempt, in September 2014, by the pro-autonomy forces of Donbass to reach a peace agreement with the new administration in Kiev.)

Strana wrote further, “Russia did not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014 or 2015. Perhaps it wanted to, who knows, but it could not do so because it would have been hit with harsh economic sanctions similar to those levied against it by the Western powers beginning in February 2022. It would have faced economic sanctions worse than those initially levied against it following the Crimea referendum of March 2014. The Russian economy was in no shape to easily withstand such sanctions, in contrast to the situation in 2022.

“Additionally, although the Ukrainian army back then was much weaker compared to 2022, this was also the case for the Russian army.”

In their recollections of the events of those years, leaders of today’s Donetsk Peoples Republic (today a constituent of the Russian Federation) say that the main opponent of a major military response to Kiev’s continued military provocations and sabotage of Minsk 2 was the Russian military. Russian military leaders said at the time that the Russian Federation did not have enough combat-ready troops to take on such a large and industrial country as Ukraine.

“From a purely military point of view, the rapid success of Russia in Crimea in the spring of 2014 was due to the fact that Russian troops were already present on the Crimean peninsula [by virtue of a 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine; see Wikipedia on the subject]. They needed no time to deploy, and they prevented armed attacks being threatened by the paramilitaries of the new administration in Kiev. At the time, there were no large military formations of the Russian Federation along the lengthy Russian-Ukrainian border. Donbass’s self-defense forces only began to form in the late spring of 2014 and it was several years before they were integrated as auxiliaries of the Russian armed forces.”

As Russian sources stated at the time, the initial military defense that arose in the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine against the paramilitaries of the 2014 coup bore the markings of a military adventure and were not at all coordinated with the political leadership of the Russian Federation. The self-defense forces hoped to convince or pressure Russia to join a war of defense for which Russia was not ready, not politically, economically nor militarily.

What the Western-incited war in Ukraine has wrought

In the lead-up to and since the 2014 coup, western and central Ukraine has been living the fate of a battering ram to be used by the Western imperialist powers to weaken Russia, regardless of the tragic human consequences and of the prospect of Ukraine being cast off once it is no longer needed for such a role. The results of this cruel and heinous policy are increasingly evident as graveyards continue to spread on Ukraine’s territory with each passing day.

The Politnavigator media outlet explained (as reported on Telegram on February 1) the consequences of such policy for the mortals conscripted into war, many against their will. The report cites Anton Cherny, an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He explains, “We are being lied to about the value of our soldiers’ lives. I watched the speech of our commander-in-chief that every soldier is valuable to Ukraine and worth his weight in gold. That’s what they tell the people, but it’s not true.”

Cherny says that 90% of the soldiers who die or succumb to injuries on the battlefields are simply buried there and then officially listed as missing. “Everyone there knows perfectly well what is happening.” And the indignities do not end there. The families of those reported as ‘missing’ do not receive the financial compensation to which they are entitled.

Cherny also explains that it is extremely difficult for surviving fighters to exit the grim fighting along the front lines. “It’s hard to get out of there by yourself, it’s unrealistic. How lucky it would be if there were fog, very big snow or some other bad weather.” He explains that Ukrainian lines are under constant surveillance from drones flying overhead. As soon as evacuation vehicles approach from the Ukraine side, the drones threaten to strike them, making it very difficult to evacuate the injured or the dead from the various battlefields.

Politnavigator continues its report:

‘The army doesn’t provide guidelines or instructions for soldiers to somehow make their tasks easier. Its words to this effect are just talk. Soldiers are told to go here or there and ‘do’ something, but as to what, where and why, you have to be some kind of superman to figure it out. It’s unreal,’ Cherny says indignantly.

Provoking the sleeping bear of Russia

Radical nationalist and neo-Nazi paramilitaries operating under the control of Kiev’s police and special services waged nine years of military conflict and terrorist attacks against civilians in Donbass from 2014 to 2021. This was bound to provoke a reaction from the Russian Federation sooner rather than later, as any serious commentator knew and reported.

Ukrainian commentators were writing more than three years ago that Kiev’s deployments of paramilitaries in Donbass and its turning a blind eye to their crimes, backed by promises of weapons by belligerent Western governments, would inevitably provoke Russia into responding, as though provoking a bear with a stick. The weapons of Ukraine, many provided by the West, did indeed, predictably, awaken the bear, and angrily.

In early February 2025, the prime minister of neighboring Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, told journalists that back in 2022, his country’s then-government was being encouraged by the West to open a ‘second front’ against Russia. The country was to be used just as Ukraine was being used. According to the Kobakhidze, Georgian officials of the day were told a fable by the Western powers to convince them to act. “They said Ukraine is winning the war; you should not miss this chance to strike against Russia.”

Kobakhidze believes it will now take Ukraine 100 years to return to a state of development comparable where it was prior to the 2014. He asks, “Why was all this done? No one is offering a clear answer to this question. However, there is an answer: some global interests, evil interests, have sacrificed our friendly country Ukraine.”

Full-fledged dictatorship

The eleven years that have elapsed since the Euromaidan coup of 2014 have been years of Ukraine sliding inexorably towards dictatorship, all the while accompanied by rosy phrases from EU leaders claiming that a ‘triumph of democracy’ was taking place. The ideology of Nazism from the World War II era has been officially rehabilitated, while opponents of this course have been targeted by armed, ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis.

All left-wing parties in Ukraine have been banned. Some of their members and leaders have been killed, while many more have been forced into exile. Protests against, and critics of, the ‘pro-European’ dictatorship in Kiev have been targeted for repression. The Western powers have turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed, while United Nations officials have occasionally issued toothless resolutions expressing ‘concern’ about the civil rights being violated.

In 2021, Zelensky banned more political parties critical of his government, and he closed all television channels deemed non-compliant with his policies. No court or other legal reviews of these decisions have taken place.

With the outbreak of war in February 2022, Zelensky imposed martial law and then canceled national elections for the presidency and the legislature (Rada). These were to take place no later than April 2024, according to the Ukraine constitution. Zelensky has said that Ukraine cannot hold elections until it has fully regained control over its former territories. Since this would be impossible to achieve, his statements on the matter mean that for all intents and purposes, elections will not take place in the remaining territories held by Kiev. Period.

Alexander Dubinsky, a former associate of Zelensky jailed by his administration, writes that the war became for Zelensky an escape from the social explosion building up inside the country and appearing inevitable by the end of 2021. “I think this largely determined why Zelensky promoted military rhetoric in every possible way, and why in March 2022 he ceded to Western government pressures to draw back from a political settlement with the Russian Federation.”

For Dubinsky, the end of the war would mean a loss of political power by Zelensky and his cohorts, and this, in turn, would expose them to direct conflict with all the enemies he has managed to make. He may be able to protect himself from the widows and mothers of the deceased, reasons Dubinsky, but not from the violent, ‘serious men’ who have proliferated under his government.

Detention camps using torture methods under Zelensky

Every day, more and more facts are emerging in Ukraine about the detention camps that Zelensky has created in order to sustain its power and continue the NATO proxy war.

In January, legislator Oleksandr Dubinskyy urged Ukrainians to report to U.S. authorities about the detention camps that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has organized, notably for the purpose of forcing accused conscription evaders to confess to accusations of state treason. According to him, the SBU detention camps are prototypes of what Ukraine as a whole has become under Zelensky.

Dubinskyy has been detained since November 2023 under accusations of financial crimes and treason. He has recently announced from detention his intention to run for president of Ukraine if and when a national election takes place.

Another former associate of Zelensky, legislator Artem Dmytruk, wrote on Telegram on January 30 that the entire special corps of the Lukyanivske pre-trial detention center in Kiev should be called a concentration camp and named ‘Zelensky’s Factory’. Legislators Oleksandr Dubinsky and Yevhen Shevchenko are among those imprisoned there. “90|% of detainees in this center face charges by the office of the expired president Zelensky.”

Dmytruk fled to Britain in August 2024 shortly after he was the only deputy in the Rada to speak and vote against a new law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which he is a subdeacon.

The Ukrainian magazine Liberal published a lengthy report in February saying that individuals and political formations connected to the Zelensky administration are the only ones in Ukraine not talking about political repression prevailing today in the country.

The authors claim that extensive political repression was being prepared and carried out well before the start of the Russian military intervention in February 2022. According to the publication, thousands of SBU employees were sent to border regions on the eve of the Russian intervention to monitor troop morale and other measures of the military situation.

At the same time, Kiev began to address its shortages of police and prison personnel in Kiev and other regions by recruiting ‘trained athletes’ into the ranks of the SBU after completing three-month courses in western Ukraine. ‘Trained athletes’ is a euphemism in Ukraine for members of criminal gangs.

“Thousands of bone-crackers performing police functions inside the country spread out without the slightest remorse to beat testimony out of Ukrainians using the most brutal forms of violence and creating torture institutions such as the famous ‘Sports Hall’ on Volodymyrska Street [in the center of Kiev],” writes Liberal.

“People were lying on floors, deprived of the right to move and subjected to constant beatings and humiliation. The Ukrainian anthem and nationalist songs were played continuously from loudspeakers. The eyes of the prisoners would be taped shut with duct tape or tied with rags, and they were taken to the toilet only once a day. They were also fed very sparingly, once per day.”

The authors note that political prisoners now account for about half of the prisoners in Ukraine. The main motives for many SBU officers, Liberal notes, have not been security concerns but the robbery of suspects. Detainees have been forced to surrender their personal wealth upon arrest and detention.

Two reports in English on prison conditions in Ukraine were published in 2024, one by a Danish government agency (110 pages) and one by an agency of the Council of Europe (46 pages). Both reports skirt incendiary accusations such as the one published by Liberal and the many ones appearing widely on social media.

On February 12, a German court for the first time approved the extradition of a conscientious objector to military service who had fled Ukraine. Ukraine prohibits men of military age (age 25 to 55, 60 for officers) from leaving the country. Many of the fugitives from Ukraine’s compulsory conscription have chosen to flee to Germany, attracted by Germany’s claimed liberal values. This court decision is the first warning sign that the authorities of European Union countries may begin to conduct forced deportations of the Ukrainian men who have managed by hook or by crook to escape from their homeland’s military conscription. It is reported that in 2024, there are some 200,000 Ukrainian men residing in Germany alone.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO to expand military pipelines in Eastern Europe – Spiegel

The bloc supposedly plans to extend pipelines from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic for rapid jet fuel supply in potential war with Russia

RT | February 22, 2025

NATO is supposedly set to extend its Cold War-era fuel pipeline system from western Germany into Poland and the Czech Republic, according to Der Spiegel citing an internal memo from the Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces. The move comes as the bloc makes “operational plans for a possible Russian attack on the eastern states”, the newspaper wrote on Friday.

NATO’s Central European Pipeline System was built in the late 1950s and was designed “to meet operational needs in central Europe in times of peace, crisis and conflict.” It transported large volumes of kerosene, gasoline, and diesel fuel through Germany, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and was also used by the United States.

The plans include “storing fuel as far east as possible near the potential area of ​​operations,” according to an internal memo. Now the fuel distribution is limited to NATO’s eastern flank, the existing pipeline network currently ends in western Germany.

The project is to cost €21 billion ($22 billion) and is expected to be largely completed by 2035, according to the report. Germany is ready to contribute more than €3.5 billion ($3,7 billion) to the project, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told Der Spiegel. “For our soldiers, a reliable fuel supply is one of the essential requirements for their operational readiness,” he added.

A senior NATO official told Der Spiegel that while ammunition and spare parts could be airlifted, fuel transport by plane would be nearly impossible due to “immense consumption”. He told Der Spiegel there are “significant problems in the sustainable supply of fuel to the forces that would have to be relocated to the eastern border if necessary”. “The demand is gigantic,” the official claimed.

However, some factors could delay construction and increase costs, Der Spiegel added. The pipeline is to be laid under several rivers, including the Weser and Elbe, that should be “protected from possible accidents”.

In addition, there might appear “land issues” with the authorities and land owners that should be “clarified”, the newspaper wrote.

Russia has repeatedly argued that the Ukraine conflict was provoked by NATO expansion towards its borders, Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led military alliance, and Ukraine’s policies toward the Russian-speaking Donbass region. Western officials have suggested that Russia could pose a threat to NATO amid the Ukraine conflict, but Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed these claims as ‘nonsense,’ arguing they are used to justify Western military spending.

In December 2024, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov stated that Russia must be prepared for any scenario, including a possible military conflict with NATO in Europe within the next decade.

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

Brazil’s Lula refused to sell Germany weapons ‘to kill Russians’

RT | February 21, 2025

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva rejected an approach by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to purchase arms for Ukraine. The Brazilian head of stage stressed he wouldn’t sell weapons “to kill Russians” or anyone else.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday at a joint media conference with the Portuguese Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, Lula reiterated Brazil’s neutral stance in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and Moscow.

Germany, in contrast, has been among Ukraine’s key backers, having supplied it with billions worth of military aid. Da Silva recalled that in January 2023, Scholz visited Brazil as part of a tour to drum up support for Kiev in South America and requested cannons for the war.

”I told my friend Olaf Scholz: ‘I will not sell weapons to kill a Russian, to kill anyone. So, I want to apologize, but Brazil will not sell the weapons you need because I want peace, and if I want peace, I cannot fuel the war. We want peace between Russia and Ukraine. Now, this is only possible if both are at the negotiating table’,” he said.

Lula has long advocated for talks to resolve the conflict and insisted that supplying arms would only escalate the situation, hindering prospects for peace.

Last May Brasilia and Beijing jointly issued a six-point plan for settling the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing “dialogue and negotiation” as the only “viable way out of the crisis.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky dismissed the proposal as “just a political statement,” accusing them of colluding with Russia.

Lula hit back, saying that Ukraine should heed Brazil’s advice about seeking peace in the conflict. “Those who want to talk to us now could have talked to us before the war had started,” he said.

On Thursday, Russia’s top diplomat Sergey Lavrov and his Brazilian counterpart Mauro Vieira discussed the need to address the root causes of the Ukraine conflict and this week’s Russian-US talks in Riyadh, the foreign ministry in Moscow said. Speaking on the sidelines of G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, they also discussed upcoming high-level meetings and plans for collaboration between Moscow and Brasília, especially within BRICS, the ministry statement added.

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

VP JD Vance Criticizes European Censorship, Calls for Free Speech as Basis for US-Europe Alliances at CPAC

Vance warns European allies that censorship threatens the foundation of Western alliances

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | February 21, 2025

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance sharpened his criticism of America’s European allies while issuing a strong warning against censorship. His speech, which kicked off the three-day gathering, echoed the assertive stance he took at the Munich Security Conference last week.

Vance took aim at one of America’s closest international partners, highlighting growing ideological rifts over free speech. He criticized restrictive online censorship laws in the European Union, arguing that such measures could drive a wedge between the US and its allies under President Trump’s leadership.

“We’re going to continue to have important alliances with Europe, but I really do think the strength of those alliances is going to depend on whether we take our societies in the right direction,” Vance stated.

“You have to allow free speech to debate this stuff,” Vance declared, emphasizing the importance of open discussion on controversial issues, particularly immigration. “You have to stop doing things to the populations of the world. You’ve gotta give the populations of the world the opportunity to speak up and say, no more of this BS.”

The Vice President did not hold back in his criticism of the previous US administration, stating, “The Biden administration did more to destroy free speech, not just in the United States, but also in Europe, than any administration in American history.”

Vance also took direct aim at Germany, highlighting the contradiction of American taxpayers funding the country’s defense while its government cracks down on free expression. “Germany’s entire defense is subsidized by the American taxpayer,” he said. “Do you think the American taxpayer is gonna stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet? Of course, they’re not.”

The Vice President framed his argument in terms of shared values, asserting that true alliances are built on a foundation of democratic freedoms. “You do not have shared values if you’re jailing people for saying we should close down our border,” he warned. “You don’t have shared values if you cancel elections because you don’t like the result. You do not have shared values if you’re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.”

His message resonated with conservative leaders attending CPAC’s international summit, where discussions focused on resisting censorship and preserving national sovereignty.

Vance closed with a call for unity among Western nations based on principles of democracy and free speech. “Let’s have shared values. Let’s defend democracy. Let’s have free expression, not just in the United States, but all over the Western world. That is the path to strong alliances in Europe.” His words were met with enthusiastic applause from the CPAC audience.

 

February 21, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Sacrificing Truth on Leviathan’s Altar

By James Bovard • Mises Wire • 02/19/2025 

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes featured tyrannical German prosecutors boasting about persecuting private citizens who made comments that officialdom disapproved. Three prosecutors explained how the government was entitled to launch pre-dawn raids and lock up individuals who criticized politicians, complained about immigrant crime waves, or otherwise crossed the latest revised boundary lines of acceptable thoughts.

In a craven slant that would have cheered any mid-twentieth century European dictator, 60 Minutes glorified the crackdown: “Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine in an effort to protect discourse.” Nothing “protects discourse” like a jackboot kick aside the head of someone who insulted a German politician on Facebook, right? Mocking German leaders is punished like heresy was punished 500 years ago—though no one has been publicly torched yet.

Do the priggish German prosecutors realize that they are the latest incarnation of nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel? Hegel declared: “Men are as foolish as to forget, in their enthusiasm for liberty of conscience and political freedom, the truth which lies in power.” Hegel bluntly equated government and truth: “For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements.” Hegel probably did more to propel modern totalitarianism than perhaps any other philosopher.

Unfortunately, many Americans favor the US government becoming a Ministry of Truth like the German government. Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information,” according to a 2023 poll. But other polls show that only 20 percent trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. So why would people trust dishonest officials to forcibly eradicate “false information”? Did some people skip logic class, or what? A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances”—perhaps only when a rascally Republican is president?

Hegelian notions of “Government = Truth” propelled censorship here in recent years. Three years ago, Americans learned they lived under a Disinformation Governance Board with a ditzy Disinformation Czar who boasted of graduating from Bryn Mawr University. A public backlash led to the board’s termination but federal censors quickly and secretly resumed their sway over the internet.

Though American censors rarely invoke Hegel, their schemes tacitly presume that political power is divine, if not in origin, at least in its effect. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), created in 2018, has relied on “censorship by surrogate,” subcontracting the destruction of freedom. CISA partnered with federal grantees to form the Election Integrity Partnership a hundred days before the 2020 presidential election. That project, along with the efforts of other federal agencies, created an “unrelenting pressure” with “the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” according to a 2023 ruling by Federal Judge Terry Doughty.

What standard did CISA use to determine whether Americans should be muzzled? CISA settled controversies by contacting government employees and “apparently always assumed the government official was a reliable source,” Judge Doughty noted. Any assertion by officialdom could suffice to justify suppression of comments or posts by private citizens. But when did government I.D. badges become the Oracle of Delphi?

During the 2020 presidential election campaign, CISA established a “Rumor Control” webpage to deal with threats to the election—including rumors that the feds were censoring Americans. CISA targeted for suppression assertions by Americans such as “mail-in voting is insecure”—despite the long history of absentee ballot fraud. Biden won the presidency in part thanks to Democrats exploiting the covid pandemic to open the floodgates to unverified mail-in ballots. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared, “Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over.”

Censors act as if truth and lies are both self-evident. But as an investigative journalist hounding federal agencies, I have seen how government minimizes disclosures of its outrageous conduct. On April 19, 1993, 80 people died in a massive fire during an FBI tank assault on the home of the Branch Davidians. On that day, the FBI was adamant that they had nothing to do with the fire and also claimed to possess audiotapes proving the Davidians intentionally committed mass suicide. They never disclosed that proof. But anyone who suggested that the FBI was connected to the fatal fire was derided as an anti-government nut case, if not a public menace. A Los Angeles Times book reviewer practically blamed my criticism of the feds on Waco and other cases for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But year by year, the FBI’s Waco storyline fell apart. Six years after the fire, a private investigator found proof that the FBI fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians’ home before the fire, obliterating the FBI cover-up.

The same pattern of delayed disclosures or leaks annihilated the US government’s credibility on the epidemic of Gulf War syndrome cases in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the glorious triumph for democracy and women’s rights after the US invaded Afghanistan. The “trickle down” version of truth was also stark in the notorious Duke Lacrosse case. With his persistent, savvy analysis and investigations, Mises editor Bill Anderson heroically helped vanquish a media and prosecutorial lynch mob.

Unfortunately, in Germany, and at least sporadically in the United States, “truth” is whatever the government proclaims. “Disinformation” is whatever contradicts the latest government pronouncements. It is irrelevant how many false statements politicians or bureaucrats make. Government retains a monopoly on truth and on the right to deceive.

Recent censorship schemes vivify how democracy is being turned into a parody: voters choose politicians who then dictate what citizens are permitted to think and say. Censors destroy freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech. Censorship seeks to force each person to live in mental isolation, with no sparks for their thoughts from fellow citizens. Shortly before Hegel’s rise to prominence, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The external power that deprives man of the freedom to communicate his thoughts publicly, deprives him at the same time of his freedom to think.” By barricading individuals from each other, censors create millions of intellectual Robinson Crusoes, stranded on islands and trying to figure out everything for themselves. Prohibiting citizens from sharing facts of government abuses spawns a bastardized form of sovereign immunity. It minimizes opposition to political power grabs—often until it is too late to resist.

Other European nations are as bad or worse than Germany. Britain is notorious for raiding the homes and arresting anyone who makes allegations about immigrants and crime. According to Irish Senator Pauline O’Reilly, government must “restrict freedoms for the common good” when “a person’s views on other people’s identities” makes them “insecure.” Can I demand that government censor anyone who makes me insecure about my identity by mocking my vintage railroad engineer cap? By vastly expanding the definition of “hate speech,” politicians justify suppressing any views they disapprove.

Faith in officialdom to decree truth and punish error exemplifies growing political illiteracy. In earlier eras, Americans were renowned for heartily disdaining politicians who rose to power by making endless bogus promises.

Why would any prudent person expect bureaucrats to deliver “the truth, and nothing but the truth” like FEMA officials coming to the rescue after a flood? If the government can’t be trusted for reliable mail delivery, why in Hades would anyone trust government to judge and safeguard any thoughts citizens choose to share? Do people honestly expect that turning politicians into censors will evoke their inner sainthood? How can freedom of speech or any other freedom survive if so many people fall for so much BS from Washington?

February 20, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

EU keeps trying to escalate Ukrainian conflict

By Lucas Leiroz | February 20, 2025

While the US and Russia are engaged in an incipient diplomatic process, taking the first steps towards a peaceful future, European countries continue to try to escalate the Ukrainian conflict, taking provocative measures to worsen tensions. Recently, European leaders announced a new aid package to the neo-Nazi regime, which shows how the EU is not interested in any diplomatic negotiations – despite hypocritically complaining about not being part of the talks in Riyadh.

Western media recently reported that a new pro-Ukrainian military aid package is being prepared by the EU. The aid is valued at more than 6 billion euros, making it one of the largest packages in the entire European support campaign for Kiev since 2022. The plan is believed to involve the supply of weapons such as artillery shells, missiles and air defense systems, among other lethal equipment. The approval of the package is expected to be announced on February 24, during the three-year anniversary of the special military operation – when a delegation of EU’s high officials will be in Kiev.

“EU countries are preparing a military aid package worth at least €6 billion for Ukraine as it seeks to shore up Kiev’s strategic position at the outset of U.S.-led talks with Russia, according to three EU diplomats. The package, which should include everything from 1.5 million artillery shells to air defense systems, would mark one of the EU’s largest military aid packages since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and could be unveiled ahead of a highly symbolic visit by European commissioners to Kiev on Feb. 24,” Politico reported.

The EU is not only sending more weapons to Ukraine, but it is also further tightening anti-Russian measures. The bloc has agreed on a new package of coercive measures against Moscow – the 16th since the start of the special military operation. Even though all the sanctions imposed on Russia have so far proven futile, Europe continues to pursue a boycott strategy against Moscow, thus damaging its own strategic interests – as the sanctions obstruct energy cooperation, affecting industry and several other important sectors.

It is important to remember that, in parallel to all this, European countries continue to hold discussions about “sending troops to Ukraine”. Even though Moscow has made it clear many times that it will not accept the presence of Western forces in the conflict zone, considering any foreign soldiers as legitimate targets – the EU insists on worsening the scenario.

In fact, the entire European aid campaign for Ukraine is useless. Kiev does not gain any strategic benefit with the arrival of new European weapons, since this equipment will not be enough to reverse the tragic military situation of the Ukrainian forces – which are rapidly losing ground due to the strong Russian advance. Like all NATO weapons previously sent to Ukraine, the new European artillery systems will most likely be quickly destroyed by Russian high-precision bombings, generating zero impact on the battlefield.

In the same sense, after three years of repeated sanctions against Russia, it already seems clear that Moscow knows how to deal with this situation, circumventing the effects of coercive measures and making the economy grow despite Western aggression. The country is definitely growing, with the economy reaching increasingly better numbers, which is why new sanctions are not a cause for concern for the Russians, but rather for the Europeans themselves, who are more and more being harmed by the side effects of their own measures.

Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that any Western military presence in Ukraine will be seen as direct intervention by Russia. Moscow has already repeatedly said that European soldiers on the battlefield will be legitimate targets for Russian troops. In practice, any Western military operation in Ukraine will be a real suicide, since foreign soldiers will be priority targets for the Russian armed forces.

Instead of trying to escalate the war, Europe should take advantage of the current situation of diplomatic progress to reverse the mistakes made over the past three years. European countries now have the opportunity to lift sanctions, stop engaging in the war and re-establish ties with Russia. Previously, the Democrats were pressuring Europe to get involved in the war. With Trump and the Republicans, this pressure no longer exists, and the EU can simply change everything it has done so far.

However, unfortunately, the Europeans seem to be much more aggressive than the Americans themselves. The EU’s goal seems to be in taking the conflict to its ultimate consequences, even if European own interests are harmed by such irresponsible measures.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on X and Telegram.

February 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Listen Carefully it’s Actually Much Darker”: How the Left is Framing Free Speech as a Front for Fascism

By Jonathan Turley | February 18, 2025

The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.

In one of the most bizarre examples,  CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.”

The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.

When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.

Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.

Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.

Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.

This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.

Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.

While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”

Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.

Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”

By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.

It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.

The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.

Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.

CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”

German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.

They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”

Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.

Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”

As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

February 19, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

AfD-supporting lawyer fined €3,000 for criticizing German government…

… has gun license revoked and complaint filed with bar association

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | February 19, 2025

The debate over free speech in Germany has taken a new turn following the case of Markus Roscher, a 61-year-old lawyer from Braunschweig, who was fined €3,000 for criticizing the government’s heating law.

Roscher described Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as “malicious failures” in a post on X back in 2021. He was subsequently issued a penalty notice under the controversial Paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized defamation against individuals engaged in public political life.

Roscher, who has been active on X for over 14 years and is well accustomed to the legal boundaries surrounding political debate, insists that his post was within the bounds of political criticism.

“I actually know myself to be quite well within the red lines,” he told Bild. “You have to formulate things pointedly to be heard. The lines of freedom of opinion have slipped with the red-green government (ed. the coalition of Social Democrats and Greens).” He further described his hefty fine as a “scandal for freedom of expression.”

Paragraph 188, introduced in April 2021, criminalizes insults against politicians if they significantly hinder their public work. It was initially passed under a coalition government of the CDU and SPD but has been increasingly enforced under the current administration. The law has led to numerous prosecutions against individuals who have criticized government officials online.

In Roscher’s case, the penalty order claimed that his statements portrayed politicians as “corrupt, stupid, and arrogant,” constituting “abusive criticism” that allegedly impeded their political activity. Following the charge, authorities also moved to revoke his gun license, citing “unreliability.”

Furthermore, his case was forwarded to the Kassel and Braunschweig Bar Associations, raising concerns that he could face professional sanctions. “If I now claim the same or something similar and get another conviction exceeding 90 daily rates, I can lose my license,” Roscher warned. “Then you get a job ban as a 61-year-old lawyer!”

Roscher believes that his support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has played a pivotal role in his prosecution. He asserts that the penalty order was politically motivated, arguing that he stood little chance in a legal battle, which led him to pay the fine without challenging it in the courts.

The scrutiny of political affiliations within Germany’s public sector was also highlighted by a leaked memo last month revealing that federal police officers who join or actively support the AfD could face disciplinary action, including dismissal. The memo cited a decree by Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, explicitly stating that officers suspected of affiliation with the party could see their employment terminated.

The controversy has drawn international attention from U.S. billionaire Elon Musk and most recently from U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who labeled Germany’s online speech laws this week as “Orwellian.” Responding to a CBS “60 Minutes” interview with German prosecutors, Vance argued that Germany was effectively “criminalizing speech” and urged Europeans to “reject this lunacy.”

Roscher’s case is part of a broader pattern of speech-related prosecutions in Germany. Other recent incidents include a Lower Saxony man, Daniel Kindl, who was fined €1,800 for allegedly insulting Green Party MP Janosch Dahmen in an online post. Kindl’s remark, which dismissed Dahmen’s concerns about an alleged attack on Robert Habeck, was deemed criminal by prosecutors.

Several other individuals have faced legal consequences for online speech. A pensioner was fined €800 for a satirical comment about Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, joking that she had hit her head too many times on a trampoline. Another was arrested for retweeting a meme that called Economy Minister Robert Habeck an “idiot,” classified as a “politically motivated right-wing crime.” A Bavarian woman was fined €6,000 for calling Baerbock a “hollow brat” but was later acquitted after a lengthy legal process. Additionally, a civil engineer was sentenced to 30 days in jail after failing to appeal a fine for calling SPD politician Manuela Schwesig a “storyteller.”

February 19, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Europe plans €700 billion for Ukraine defense spending, German FM let’s slip during interview

By Liz Heflin | Remix News | February 18, 2025

Germany’s left is going all in on its pro-war effort, with Europe reportedly plotting its own course behind the scenes, which was not supposed to be made public until after Germany’s elections on Feb. 23. The Berliner Zeitung has reported that German Defense Minister Annalena Baerbock, of the Green Party, let slip the details of Europe’s plan to provide weapons to Ukraine on its own, with a projected allocation of some €700 billion for such purchases, with much of the money coming from Germany.

“We will launch a large package that has never been seen on this scale before,” Baerbock told Bloomberg on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, calling it an emergency measure “for security in Europe.”

Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene also spoke to Bloomberg about the inspiration behind the move, saying the “realization that it is not the United States that will defend Europe, but that Europe will defend itself with the help of the United States (…) We need to spend quickly on defense, and spend a lot, hundreds of billions need to be spent immediately. We will all need to act quickly, including Germany.”

It is interesting that Sakaliene notes “with the help of the United States.” The question is: Will the U.S. want anything to do with Europe’s plan for massive arms procurements to Ukraine when Trump has made clear the only goal is peace. Of course, Trump has also been adamant that Europe ups its own defense spending, but that has nothing to do with U.S. “help,” in fact, it is meant to cut it.

The plans to boost defense spending at a historic scale came just after an emergency meeting hosted by French President Macron in Paris, Macron got behind the idea of a “security force” to be deployed behind the future ceasefire line. While British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the U.K. was ready to send troops to Ukraine if necessary, other countries are more reluctant.

“At the moment, no one is considering sending troops to Ukraine,” said Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albarez, reports Do Rzeczy, after a meeting of EU leaders in Paris. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said at the meeting that Poland was also not ready to send its troops to Ukraine, but promised that his country would continue to provide aid to Kyiv.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called sending troops to Ukraine “completely premature.”

“It is a difficult situation for Europe. We welcome the talks about peace for Ukraine. But it must be a fair and sustainable peace. And: Ukraine must be part of these talks. Europe will keep on supporting Ukraine. This is what I stressed in my meetings with Volodymyr Zelensky,” he wrote on his X account.

Just an hour later, Scholz also wrote: “NATO is based on the fact that we always act together and share risks. This must not be called into question. There must be no division of security and responsibility between Europe and the USA.”

In terms of enforcing any eventual peace agreement, President Trump has said the United States will send zero troops.

Present at the meeting were France, U.K., Spain, Poland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa have also been invited to Paris.

An area of agreement among all parties was the need for greater defense spending across Europe, with joint financing also discussed.

On X, Tusk wrote: “If we, Europeans, fail to spend big on defense now, we will be forced to spend 10 times more if we don’t prevent a wider war. As the Polish PM, I’m entitled to say it loud and clear, since Poland already spends almost 5% of its GDP on defense. And we will continue to do so.”

Of course, it is hard to draw any sort of consensus on what Europe wants or expects when the vast majority of EU countries were not even at this latest meeting. As Fidesz MEP Andrász László posted on X: “If the 8 countries who gathered in Paris on Monday for a crisis summit supposedly represent ‘EU unity’, what should the two-thirds of EU countries think, who were not invited?” He then called the meeting an “absolute clownshow.”

February 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »