And if political Cancel Culture fails?
What will Europe become if the populist sweep occurs across Europe?
Ashes of Pompeii | July 8, 2026
A couple of days ago I wrote about political Cancel Culture in Europe, how the establishment is using lawfare to try to sideline populist movements, usually right wing, across the continent. And from their perspective, it is not hard to understand why. Without cancelling these opposition groups, there seems little doubt that almost all of the establishment parties will be swept away and in a very short time, the political landscape of Europe will look radically different.
The sheer scale of this potential electoral shift means that the traditional mechanisms of political control will simply cease to function. Germany would see the AfD as either the by far largest party or actually forming the government. The UK would see Farage and Reform achieving a near absolute majority, fundamentally altering the British political system. France would face elections where the runoff is between Le Pen and Mélenchon, with both being complete outsiders loathed by the establishment for entirely opposite reasons. Spain would probably see a coalition between the right and the far right. Unlike other European countries, the Spanish right is not entirely uncomfortable with the far right, as many will have had family members who were entirely in synch with the National Catholic fascism of the past. Italy presents a fascinating case. Meloni came in as a far right outsider but adapted to become more centrist. It seems not unlikely that she will go back to her roots if all of her European peers more closely resemble where she came from than where she is now.
This sweeping transformation forces us to ask profound questions about the future of the continent. What does this mean for the EU project itself? Can a union built on ever closer integration survive when its largest members are led by sovereignists? What happens to Ursula von der Leyen personally and politically in such a scenario? Will she be forced out by a hostile council, or will she attempt to pivot her own agenda to survive? How will the European Commission function without its traditional center left/center right driving force? Will the entire bureaucratic apparatus in Brussels, itself built on this centrist tradition, face a complete dismantling?
We must also consider foreign policy and defense. What happens to the practically unified European support for Ukraine when the political winds shift so dramatically across the continent? How does this impact the cohesion and future of NATO? What becomes of the traditional EU north and south relations, or the dynamic with eastern Europe? How exactly do Hungary and Slovakia fit into this new paradigm? Do they transition from isolated outliers to the new ideological center of gravity? Will the Baltic states find themselves isolated in their hardline defense postures?
Furthermore, we must examine other continental relationships. What happens to relations with Russia and European energy security? Is Russia even interested in returning to basing much of its trade on Europe – once burnt, twice shy?
And of course, America. Many of these leaders are very pro-American, have good relations with Trump and are ideologically aligned. But how well will European sovereignty movements mesh with MAGA and America First? One thing is to be ideologically aligned, another very different thing is economic and military negotiations, and national interests.
On the domestic front, the cultural battles will undoubtedly intensify. How far would these outsiders go in dismantling wokist policies such as LGBT mandates and aggressive climate change legislation? Will they simply pause these initiatives or completely reverse decades of legislation? What happens to immigration rules and the millions of migrants already on the continent? Will mass deportations become a realistic policy goal?
It will not be surprising to see a certain amount of taming of the firebrands, just as we witnessed with Meloni before she fully embraced her current centrist posture. Governing requires compromise, and the responsibilities of state often moderate radical rhetoric. But if all of them are outsiders simultaneously, taming becomes much more difficult. There is no moderate center left to anchor them. Who would in this case do the taming?
When the core nations of Europe are all led by anti-establishment figures, the gravitational pull toward traditional compromise simply vanishes. The firebrands would have absolutely no reason to yield ground to a center that no longer holds power. Voters will demand immediate and radical changes, and leaders will have no institutional excuses to delay. The resulting political environment will be entirely uncharted territory for modern Europe.
The old consensus is dead. And either the traditional forces use authoritarian and lawfare means to maintain control, or a new, highly unpredictable era of nationalist governance is about to begin across the continent.
Of course the irony, and hypocrisy, of the political establishment’s use of authoritarianism to push back what they consider (or at least want us to consider) the “barbarian authoritarianists” will not be lost on all.
Israeli forces demolish Jerusalem residential building as al-Rifa’iya school faces demolition in al-Khalil
Palestinian Information Center – July 8, 2026
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM – Israeli occupation forces demolished a residential building in Sur Baher, southeast of occupied Jerusalem, on Wednesday, while carrying out demolition operations west of al-Khalil.
The Wadi Hilweh Information Center said Israeli forces, accompanied by bulldozers, stormed Sur Baher and demolished a residential building made up of four apartments belonging to Fuad Awadallah.
In al-Khalil, Israeli forces raided the Al-Ras area in the town of Idhna to carry out demolition operations.
The demolitions came as Israeli authorities gave Al-Rifa’iya School near Yatta, south of al-Khalil, 14 days before implementing a demolition order after an Israeli court rejected the final appeal against the decision.
Local and official sources said the school, located south of Al-Deirat village east of Yatta and affiliated with Khallet Al-Maiya municipality, serves 150 students from first to seventh grade. It was established in 2016.
The sources said the demolition could be carried out at any time during the 14-day period.
They stressed that education would continue even if the school is demolished, whether on the rubble, in caves, in tents or in the open air, to ensure students continue receiving their education.
Ten schools in the area, serving around 1,000 students, face the threat of demolition or could receive demolition notices at any time, according to the sources.
Al-Rifa’iya School is part of the “challenge schools” supervised by the Palestinian Ministry of Education and supported by international institutions in Area C, which is under full Israeli military control.
Israeli authorities justify such demolitions by citing construction without permits, a policy rights groups say is nearly impossible for Palestinians to overcome because Israel almost entirely refuses to grant building permits in these areas, serving settlement expansion.
Rights advocates say the demolition of schools in Masafer Yatta and southern al-Khalil is part of a policy aimed at undermining the right to education and pushing Palestinians to leave their land by depriving them of basic living conditions, in what they describe as a policy of silent displacement.
Why is the Selective Service war gaming a ‘special skills’ draft?
A military mobilization exercise offers clues about who might be drafted for what sort of conflict
By Edward Hasbrouck | Responsible Statecraft | July 8, 2026
Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request show that the Selective Service recently gamed out what a military draft would look like in a future war. It would not resemble the one the nation lived through 55 years ago for the Vietnam War or the contingency plans in current standby Selective Service regulations. Instead, those with “special skills” would be conscripted first.
This is the opposite of what the Selective Service says in its promotional materials, that “if a draft is authorized, individuals are selected through a random lottery” from among all young men regardless of their occupation or current skills.
According to the January 2026 military mobilization exercise, the first wave of draftees could include “computer network technicians, electronics technicians, aerospace engineers, divers, welders, gas turbine engine mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, longshoremen, steel workers / pipefitters, radar / communications technicians, fiber optic technicians, mariners, aviation structural mechanics, cyber security specialists, robotics operators and technicians, air traffic controllers, logistics specialists, [and] linguists.”
A retired Army officer who spoke with RS suggested these kinds of skills indicate “the skill set required to expand (the) Navy, both manning ships and shore support, plus airfield operations.”
Officially, the Selective Service claims that a draft would be activated only in the event of a “national emergency.” This euphemistic language suggests a natural disaster or defense against invasion of the United States — what the chair of the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service (NCMNPS) posed as the “Red Dawn scenario”.
But the January exercise followed a much different course — an escalation to war, presumably with China over Taiwan, leading to full mobilization and then the draft.
In this scenario Washington intervenes militarily after Country A (China) blockades Country B (Taiwan) and the U.S. tries to break the blockade. The war escalates to “U.S. air attacks” on “Country A homeland.” A national emergency is declared and a draft is activated after full mobilization and retaliatory “kinetic strikes” by Country A on U.S. bases in Alaska and Hawaii. The first wave draft is declared shortly after. This scenario is very similar to the one envisioned recently in RS by Doug Bandow for how a U.S. attempt to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan might escalate.
A provision in the NDAA for FY2022 required the Department of Defense conduct an exercise that would “include the processes of the Selective Service System in preparation for induction of personnel into the armed forces” by the end of FY2023. That exercise still hasn’t been conducted, but the SSS engaged in the above exercise in preparation for it. Multiple scenarios were considered in the SSS exercise, but only one was released in response to my FOIA request.
The lottery has long been considered central to the fairness of a draft. Many Americans would likely draw a line between a draft to mobilize against an unprovoked invasion of the United States and one to backfill military ranks in war started with China on behalf of another country 8,000 miles away.
All of this comes as the SSS is preparing to replace the failed system of self-registration with an automated system (also likely to fail) under which the SSS will try to identify and locate potential draftees by using existing databases from other Federal agencies.
Proposed regulations for “automatic” draft registration have been held up in review by the White House for more than three months, running down the clock for the SSS to complete the notice-and-comment administrative proceedings required before the change in the registration law takes effect on December 18, 2026.
I suspect the White House has realized that visible moves toward an unpopular draft in the middle of an unpopular war with Iran will fan the flames of opposition to its war policies. Meanwhile, the SSS has maintained radio silence since the “automatic” registration law was enacted, not issuing any statements or responding to any inquiries from journalists for more than six months.
Meanwhile, the idea for a “special skills” draft has been a controversial one ever since it was conceived of by the SSS in the early 1990s.
Aside from the SSS mandate to maintain readiness for the general draft, U.S. law mandates a parallel plan for a draft of “persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care occupation.” Proposed regulations for the Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS), to include men and women up to their 45th birthday in 57 occupational categories from dietitians and physical therapists to dental assistants and medical equipment repair specialists, were published in 1989. The SSS has maintained contingency plans ever since for activation of the HCPDS.
Congress has never seriously debated a special-skills draft other than for health care workers. But despite the lack of any Congressional authorization for planning and preparation for a broader special-skills draft, it has been under discussion by the Pentagon and the SSS for many years.
In 2004, a spokesperson for the SSS said that, “Talking to the manpower folks at the Department of Defense and others, what came up was that nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam. But they thought that if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft.”
Negative public reaction quickly prompted the Acting Director of the SSS to walk back the significance of this planning: “Today’s discussions about a broader special-skills draft are a practical outgrowth of normal contingency planning and are conceptual only.”
When the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (NCMNPS) was established in 2016, part of its mandate from Congress was to consider “the feasibility and advisability of modifying the military selective service process in order to obtain… individuals with skills (such as medical, dental, and nursing skills, language skills, cyber skills, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills) for which the Nation has a critical need, without regard to age or sex.”
The option of a special-skills draft modeled on the HCPDS was discussed but voted down by the NCMNPS. In closed-door meetings, one NCMNPS member noted that “it would be less politically feasible to set up a separate skills draft” than a draft that impacted all young men equally, and another opined that a special-skills draft would not be “fair and equitable.”
The continued prominence of a special-skills draft in SSS war games, despite the absence of a legal basis for it and its rejection by the NCMNPS, is indicative of the disconnect between what the SSS says and what it is doing, as well as between SSS fantasies and the real obstacles to a draft.
We all should be concerned about what sort of draft and what sort of war the SSS is preparing for. The time to consider whether we want a draft, and whether current contingency plans could feasibly be activated, is before the nation is committed to a war that would require a draft.
Yet there were no hearings or debate before Congress rubber-stamped the SSS proposal for “automatic” registration. Congress has never considered whether a special-skills draft would be feasible or fair. There’s been no audit of the accuracy or completeness of the SSS registration database since 1982.
Even supporters of a draft should be concerned about reliance on unworkable plans. It’s time for Congressional oversight hearings on whether the SSS is making realistic plans for national defense, or just trying to justify its continued existence in the face of proposals to abolish the agency.
Edward Hasbrouck is the editor and publisher of Resisters.info, the most comprehensive independent source of information about the draft and draft registration in the U.S. since 1980.
Canada Considered Suing Citizens Over “False and Misleading” Social Media Posts
A 35-page memo, most of it blacked out, and the part they left visible is the part that should worry you.
By Cindy Harper – Reclaim The Net – July 7, 2026
The Canadian government drew up a plan to take individual citizens to court over what they post online. That plan sat inside a 35-page internal memo from the Department of Industry, most of it blacked out before the public could see it.
Blacklock’s Reporter pried the document loose through an Access to Information request. Dated March 31 and titled “Misinformation And Disinformation Strategy,” it belongs to the department run by Minister Mélanie Joly, known as ISED. The memo weighs “legal action” against people who post what the government calls “false and misleading information” on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
What kind of legal action? The redactions hide that. What survives the black ink is the logic. “This strategy seeks to uphold the integrity of and public trust in government information,” the memo says. The department is appointing itself guardian of its own reputation, with lawsuits as one available tool.
Here is who would decide. ISED itself would judge whether a post is “factually incorrect, misleading or out of context.” The same department that dislikes a post gets to rule on whether the post is true. No court makes that call first and no independent reviewer checks the work. The government writes the definition of misinformation and then enforces it against the people it defines.
The memo describes any punishment as “proportionate and subject to senior level approval.” That language reassures no one. Proportion gets measured by the same officials pushing the complaint, and senior approval means a manager signs off, not a judge.
Officials already watch. Managers “already monitor the department’s official social media channels and media outlets on a daily basis for comments and recurring inaccuracies,” the memo says. The strategy would push that surveillance from reaction toward “prevention and early detection,” catching disfavored speech earlier in its life.
The chilling effect writes itself. A citizen who knows a federal department is reading posts, grading them for accuracy, and holding a lawsuit in reserve thinks twice before typing. The threat does the work a courtroom never has to.
The government’s own files admit the problem. Its research found Canadians feel capable of spotting fake news and do not want Ottawa “declaring what is true or not.” The memo concedes that answering misinformation can amplify it, and that going after individuals risks “further backlash.” The department understood the public would object and mapped the plan anyway.
Compare the tune from four years back. This same Liberal government declared that “the rights and freedoms that individuals have offline must also be protected online.” That promise reads differently next to a memo about suing people for their posts.
Ottawa has not explained how the monitoring runs, how often lawsuits were floated, or what a post must do to land on the department’s radar. The memo sets no threshold. It names no outside check. It leaves a federal department free to decide which citizens spoke falsely and what the price should be.
A government sure of its facts answers speech with more speech. This one drafted a plan to answer speech with lawyers.
UN expert blasts BBC over coverage of detained Gaza doctor
Al Mayadeen | July 7, 2026
The United Nations’ special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, has sharply denounced the BBC after the broadcaster aired Israeli regime claims against detained Palestinian paediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya without challenge.
Reacting to a Monday segment in which BBC News relayed Israeli allegations that Abu Safiya was held over “suspected involvement in Hamas activities,” Albanese called the coverage “scandalous”, pointing to 18 months of arbitrary detention without charge, evidence, or trial and to torture documented by his lawyer, with injuries visible on his body.
She accused the network of amplifying unsubstantiated Israeli accusations against a detained doctor rather than reporting on his condition, describing it as characteristic of BBC journalism “in the time of genocide.”
Karishma Patel, who resigned from the BBC last October over its Gaza coverage, echoed the criticism, saying the broadcaster must stop repeating Israeli claims without flagging the absence of supporting evidence given how precarious Abu Safiya’s life remains.
Edinburgh University’s Nicola Perugini went further, arguing that the segment presented the Israeli military’s framing that razing hospitals and abusing doctors is justified because medical facilities supposedly shielded fighters, without any pushback from the reporter reading it.
Abu Safiya’s deteriorating condition
Abu Safiya, former director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, has been detained since Israeli occupation forces stormed the facility on December 27, 2024, forcing it out of operation despite it being the last functioning hospital in northern Gaza at the time, a raid that came after his son Ibrahim was killed in a strike on the hospital grounds.
More than 555 days into his detention, rights groups confirm that his situation is critical. Amnesty International issued an urgent appeal on July 5, warning that his life is in grave danger and noting that he has been held in solitary confinement since June 3 and denied adequate care for chronic conditions.
Detention upheld despite no charges
“Israel’s” Supreme Court upheld his latest detention order on June 16, extending his imprisonment under the “unlawful combatant” designation until at least October.
A July 2 visit by his lawyer, Nasser Odeh, documented fresh bruising around his head, eyes, and neck, difficulty breathing, and episodes of lost consciousness; Abu Safiya reportedly told Odeh he believes prison authorities intend to kill him.
His son Elyas said in a video message that his father can barely speak and that his face has been disfigured.
Physicians for Human Rights Israel called it among the most disturbing testimonies it has received since the war began.
Abu Safiya is one of at least 737 Palestinian medical workers detained since October 2023, a period in which more than 1,722 health workers have been martyred and nearly all of Gaza’s hospitals damaged or destroyed.
A pattern of bias
The episode fits a broader record of scrutiny facing the BBC over its coverage of the genocide in Gaza. A Centre for Media Monitoring study reviewing over 35,000 pieces of BBC content found Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, with the word “massacre” applied 18 times more often to Israeli casualties and “murder” used 220 times for Israelis against a single instance for Palestinians.
More than 100 BBC staff signed a letter last year accusing the corporation of functioning as a government “mouthpiece”, citing insufficient scrutiny of Israeli statements and content they said resembled military public relations.
The broadcaster also shelved the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” after initially approving it, a decision critics called emblematic of editorial self-censorship under political pressure, part of what commentators have termed the BBC’s deepening credibility crisis over its Gaza coverage.
French MEP Rima Hassan says terrorism trial aims to silence her pro-Palestine advocacy
Press TV – July 7, 2026
Ahead of her trial on charges of “apology for terrorism,” French Member of the European Parliament Rima Hassan says French authorities have subjected her to sweeping surveillance measures and political pressure in an effort to silence her criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Hassan, a vocal pro-Palestinian lawmaker, appeared in court on Tuesday over the French offense of “apology for terrorism,” a legal provision that criminalises certain forms of expression deemed to support or glorify acts of terrorism.
“This is a political case,” Hassan said in an interview ahead of her court date. “It’s a way of putting the Palestinian cause on trial.”
Hassan added that the prosecution is part of a broader campaign targeting her for speaking out in support of Palestine.
The European Parliament member said she has faced intense judicial and political pressure in recent months.
She described disproportionate investigative measures, including the lifting of her parliamentary immunity, retroactive surveillance, and the dissemination of false information following her detention in April.
On April 2, Hassan was taken into police custody after posting on X a quote by Kozo Okamoto, a former member of the now-defunct Japanese Red Army.
The quote read: “As long as there is oppression, resistance will not only be a right, but a duty.”
Hassan said that while in police custody in April, she was subjected to particularly intrusive questioning about her identity, origins and religion, despite those issues having “no connection whatsoever to the alleged facts.”
“This way of proceeding is part of a political climate in which Palestinians, or people perceived as such, are too often regarded as suspects before they are regarded as citizens,” she said.
“This reflex, fuelled by Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism, constructs the dangerous figure of the ‘enemy within’,” she added.
In a press release issued ahead of the trial, Hassan’s team said the quote she shared on X was “referring to a principle that lies at the heart of international law: the right of peoples to resist colonization and the occupation of their territory by a foreign army.”
According to the statement, Hassan later deleted the post to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
The post was reported to the prosecutor’s office by far-right National Rally MP Matthias Renault, the French interior minister, the European Jewish Organisation (OJE), and the League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (Licra).
The prosecution was initiated by the public prosecutor’s office, which operates under the authority of the executive branch.
Hassan said the “judicial harassment” she has faced demonstrates “how far some are willing to go to silence voices that denounce the suffering of the Palestinian people.”
The trial marks the latest legal challenge brought against Hassan over her criticism of Israel’s occupation and its genocide in Gaza. Over the past two years, 16 legal proceedings have been initiated against her, 13 of which have already been dismissed without further action.
Cancel Culture has taken over European politics
Do we really want to outlaw the views of a third of the electorate?
Ashes of Pompeii | July 6, 2026
A few days ago, I wrote about the “banal nonentities” that form the political elite in Europe. Across Europe, these leaders of traditional establishment parties are deeply unpopular, most with approval ratings below 20%. Their policy platforms have demonstrably failed, leaving them destined to lose upcoming elections to supposedly “far right” parties. The great irony of this moment is that the policy platforms of these newly minted extremists would have been considered standard center right orthodoxy merely twenty years ago. Today, however, the media and the cultural elite have redrawn the boundaries of acceptable discourse, declaring these once mainstream views completely beyond the pale. Unable to defeat these parties at the ballot box through popular appeal, the establishment has turned to lawfare.
For the past decade or two, Anglo academic and intellectual spheres have been suffocated by the relentless machinery of cancel culture. What began as a tool for social enforcement in universities and media has now metastasized, erupting into the mainstream political arena of continental Europe. This phenomenon represents a profound shift in how political power is maintained. Where elections were once won through the clash of policies and the appeal of personalities, the modern political landscape is defined by institutional exclusion. Context, truth, logic, and tradition have been rendered entirely irrelevant, replaced by a singular and overriding imperative that one must belong to the approved in club.
And please, the point is not if the ideas of Farage or AfD are wrong. I might not agree with much of their platform. The problem is the courts should not be where electoral politics are decided. But the European political mainstream, irrelevant whether (supposedly) left or right, has failed miserably and are desperate.
This weaponization of the legal system is now the primary mechanism of political cancel culture in Europe. In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party which is poised to potentially win upcoming elections, is under intense investigation. He is accused of failing to declare financial support from his longtime assistant George Cottrell, including staff, security, and housing, before becoming a Member of Parliament. Furthermore, Farage faces scrutiny over an alleged undeclared gift of five million pounds from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harbourn, threatening him with sanctions and disqualification. Reform UK maintains that no rules were violated, but the investigation itself serves the purpose of clouding their campaign.
Similar tactics are being deployed across the continent with alarming coordination. In France, the leading opposition candidates Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella are under relentless legal attack. Le Pen has already been disqualified from the elections due to a criminal case, while Bardella faces his own fraud investigation. Even mainstream rivals are not safe, as Dominique de Villepin and Édouard Philippe have become targets of the financial prosecutor for alleged historical offenses. This prosecutor reports to the Ministry of Justice, headed by Gérald Darmanin of President Emmanuel Macron’s party. What a coincidence, as this legal machinery conveniently protects Gabriel Attal, the virtual successor to Macron, by eliminating his prominent rivals.
In Germany, the state is actively trying to prevent the Alternative for Germany party from participating in elections. They are attempting to deprive the party of funding, and the domestic intelligence service has prepared a report labelling them anticonstitutional. At the European level, investigators are conducting coordinated searches and raids across multiple countries against right wing groups in the European Parliament, accusing them of large scale financial fraud and the theft of EU subsidies.
Does anyone doubt whether all of the parties use similar financial schemes? Of course not. And this without even going into the case of VdL and Pfizer…
The net is cast even wider in the Baltic states, where legal cases are routinely launched against opposition figures who attempt to gain votes from the large Russian diaspora. Lithuanian politician Antanas Kandrotas, along with Latvian Stability party leader Alexei Roslikov and his colleague Igor Yudin, have all been targeted by authorities. In every instance, the legal mechanism is utilized not to uphold justice, but to neutralize political threats.
This erosion of democratic norms is further evidenced by the outright cancelling of presidential elections in Romania and the glaring irregularities witnessed in Moldova. When the ballot box cannot be controlled, the information space is heavily policed. There is increasing and aggressive censorship on social media platforms, which are now acting as willing deputies for state control. Just this week, the European Union has criminalized the sharing of RT content. This draconian measure applies regardless of whether the shared content is true or false, and it completely ignores the intent of the user. Even if a citizen shares a link simply to cite it as an example of propaganda, they are still committing a criminal offense. The state is no longer just controlling the narrative through positive reinforcement of its own views, but through the active criminalization of alternative information.
When we bring the story of academic cancel culture together with these political prosecutions and media blackouts, a clear and disturbing picture emerges. The underlying philosophy is identical. In the intellectual world, cancel culture dictates that context, objective truth, logical argument, and historical tradition do not matter if the speaker holds the wrong ideological views. The only thing that matters is moral and ideological conformity to the prevailing orthodoxy. This exact same logic has now captured the European state. The establishment knows it can no longer win the argument on the merits of policy. Instead, they rely on the administrative and legal apparatus to silence the opposition. The allegations of financial impropriety or anticonstitutionalism are merely the new vocabulary of cancellation. The goal is to delegitimize the opposition and bar them from the democratic process entirely.
Ultimately, this trajectory should be deeply troubling, even for those who do not agree with some or even all of the policies of these right wing parties. By utilizing lawfare, election cancellations, and information blackouts, the establishment is effectively outlawing the views of up to forty percent of the population. Outlawing ideas does not make them disappear. These people and their underlying grievances will not simply go away because a court has ruled against them or a media conglomerate has banned their preferred platforms. When a significant portion of the electorate is told that their voices are invalid and their political representatives are criminals, the social contract begins to fracture. Some will inevitably start to look for where to go outside the current political system entirely, seeking alternative structures that the current elites can no longer control.
I think we have been down that road before and none of us should want a return visit.
Uh oh. Canada’s in trouble!
corbettreport | July 3, 2026
To the surprise of no one who has been paying attention, Canada has passed a slew of dystopian legislation and handed down tyrannical Supreme Court rulings that further enslave the Canadian people. But even if you have been paying attention, you might not know the true extent of these new developments. Today James talks to independent Canadian journalist Dan Dicks about these latest moves and what they mean for Canadians and for people around the world.
SHOW NOTES AND COMMENTS: https://corbettreport.com/dan-dicks-o…
“Crimson Thread” apartheid project threatens family already displaced in north Jordan Valley
International Solidarity Movement | July 5, 2026
A family – displaced from Khirbet Samra in July 2025 after years of constant harassment by occupation forces and violent settler Uri Cohen – moved to Atouf, where they purchased a plot of land, determined to defy the occupation’s efforts to destroy their livelihood.
Having to leave their home of more than 20 years was both deeply traumatic and hugely expensive. The 40 dunams in Atouf cost half a million shekels (about 160,000 USD) and transportation costs for all their livestock and belongings were high. Atouf is a primarily agricultural area and there is little grazing land; the family is therefore forced to feed their animals grain and hay. They have also had to spend 150,000 shekels (50,000 USD) on building pens spacious enough to protect their sheep from the heat. The costs of maintaining their flock of 800 sheep have proved unsustainable, and the family has had no choice but to sell 300 of them.
In early December 2025, less than six months after their arrival in Atouf, the family received a demolition order: their property is situated on the path of “Crimson Thread”, a Zionist project that entails the construction of a 22 km long military road with an apartheid fence and a 20m wide “buffer zone” running along eitherside. Stretching from Ein Shibli to Tayasir, the barrier will cut through — and off from one another — the communities of Atouf, Tammoun and Yarza.
On the occupation’s plans, the road cuts almost exactly through the middle of the family property; 36 dunums have already been confiscated, and in January 2026 demolition orders were issued for the remaining 4 dunums, which include the family’s house and the sheep pens.
The family, together with other families and the Tubas municipality appealed the demolition orders, submitting the landowners’ deeds, and the barrier project was temporarily suspended. But then, on June 7, the Israeli court ruled that in 5 of the 7 areas impacted by the project the excavation work could continue (the two sections in which the suspension order still applies are those in the vicinity of Khirbet Yarza). Building demolitions (32 across five sections, 9 of which are residential structures) are still under discussion in court.
Since June 13, the family have had to endure the constant presence of soldiers and bulldozers on their property. The military have installed caravans and tents and dug a trench between the 36 confiscated dunums and the family’s home and pens. Now, the bulldozers are at work preparing for the construction of the barrier; the digging has destroyed the pipes that transport water to the family’s crops and livestock. When a family member went to get water from a well that is situated on the family’s land he was accused by the occupation forces of stealing water.
The family, together with the whole community of Atouf and all the Palestinian villages threatened by “Crimson Thread” are calling for international media and institutional attention in order to expose the brutality of this project which is intended to bisect the Jordan Valley, further isolating Palestinian communities from one another and dramatically worsening their conditions of life.
“during the day they carry out cutting, bulldozing, and destruction works, while at night they fire burning illumination flares over the area. These are dropped near the livestock shelters, creating constant fear, as we worry they might fall onto animal fodder or plastic greenhouses and set everything on fire.” – a family member
How Germany blew the EU’s chance for information freedom
By Rachel Marsden | RT | July 5, 2026
It’s not every day that an EU member state has the opportunity to push back in favor of freedom. At least not without elections. But a German court did have that chance – and promptly blew it on behalf of European citizens everywhere.
Back in 2022 when the Ukraine war was ramping up, the European Commission made an executive order banning Russian media broadcasting in the EU. Meaning that you couldn’t – and still can’t – access RT from within the EU, either on TV or on the web, without a VPN.
So some folks running a website in Saarbrucken, Germany, near the French border, started including some RT videos in their live feed. They reportedly did this exactly four times, back in 2023. Whoop-dee-do, right?
Wrong. This is the EUSSR we’re talking about, remember?
For this, the accused ended up facing criminal prosecution in Germany for promoting some EU-sanctioned RT Germany content. But it turns out that even the German court in Saarbrucken considering this case had doubts as to whether these guys and their website actually fit the definition of an “operator” under the EU sanction’s language that “prohibits any operator from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating or otherwise contributing to broadcast, any” Russian media content. So the German court referred the question to the European Court of Justice tasked with interpreting and clarifying EU regulations and laws.
Wrong question, guys. Why didn’t you start with asking the ECJ whether the regulation itself, made unilaterally by the EU’s unelected and unaccountable executive branch, is even valid at all under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Article 11 protecting freedom of expression? The fact that the question wasn’t put to the European court by the German one has spawned a judgment that’s stunning in its failure to interpret the application of any free speech restrictions narrowly enough to avoid the disproportionate limiting of free expression.
The German court missed the forest for the trees and got down into the weeds and all hung up on the comparatively minor issue of whether the website could be considered an “operator” without being a commercial entity. Which the European court then used as a prelude to launch a sweeping McCarthyist “reds under the bed”-style tirade.
“The term ‘disinformation’ is a translation of the Russian word ‘дезинформация’ (dezinformatsiya), coined in the early 1920s by the Soviet intelligence services. Joseph Stalin is credited as being the originator of that term, deliberately making it sound French in order to make it seem Western in origin and thereby enhance its credibility,” wrote the EU court, self-identifying as a history professor. How about if I take that as an open invitation to self-identify as a judge in my capacity as a final-year law student?
The ECJ ultimately ruled that commercialism is irrelevant when the website solicits donations, and had raised over €60,000 within a period of a year. It basically said, look, any commercial nature of the platform risks being a false dichotomy, because who’s to say that the sanctioned entities themselves wouldn’t be paying these independent outlets through donations to promote their banned content: ”Even though, for the purposes of classification as an ‘operator’, no economic activity or income generation is necessary, the context of an appeal for donations enabling such sums to be collected warrants some comment. The fact that some websites are financed by donations rather than by a registered commercial activity justifies increased vigilance as to their possible use as a tool for propaganda purposes, in particular in the case of State-sponsored disinformation campaigns,” the European court ruled. “That lack of clarity makes it more difficult to identify financial flows and, therefore, the actors likely to influence editorial policy or content. It thus creates an environment conducive to interference by external interests, including by third countries, which may intervene directly or indirectly in the production or broadcasting of content.”
Isn’t it the prosecution’s job to present actual evidence and proof of influence through the powerful state-backed legal instruments at its disposal? Shouldn’t the ECJ’s definition of “operator,” if it leans so heavily on the risk of foreign corruption, therefore hinge on whether actual collusion has first been established beyond any reasonable doubt? The ECJ sounds shockingly blasé here about the basic burden of proof for criminal conviction.
This court case had been stayed, or suspended, in Germany pending the ruling by this European Court of Justice. But now it’s free to convict these guys of promoting banned Russian content, under the pretext that just maybe they’re not-so-independent media that schemed on the down-low to distribute Russian media content – something that a lot of people have been doing all over social media of their own volition.
Ultimately, what the buzz around this case effectively does is put a chilling effect on that sharing, and it also risks making people self-censor out of fear of being dragged into court for a judicial proctology exam and having their lives potentially ruined in the press over accusations of Russian collusion. What if these guys (and others) just happen to agree with some of the views expressed on banned Russian media? Who’s going to protect their honestly-held views from establishment authoritarianism?
Hang on, here’s a volunteer for the task.
“Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of democracy. And the EU protects what matters, including the right to receive independent, reliable information. The European Media Freedom Act helps keep journalists and sources safe, strengthens editorial independence and protects media organizations from undue interference or legal intimidation. Today, on World Press Freedom Day, we reaffirm our duty to support and protect journalists so they can do their work free from pressure, intimidation, or harm,” says unelected European Commission President and de facto Queen Ursula von der Leyen.
Oh, great. So the same people who censor speech are also its self-appointed defenders. Like an arsonist who goes running around setting fires but also works as a firefighter as their day job.
What’s clear from all this is that EU regulation may look precise on paper, but enforcement isn’t so straightforward. When even member state courts require an official interpretation, then how is the average person supposed to avoid running afoul of the law? The result ends up being less about what’s actually banned and more about what merely feels safe to touch. Not exactly the kind of vibe that one tends to aim for in a democracy.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
UK and Israel criticized for persecuting anti-genocide advocates
Protesters rally in London in support of Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah
Press TV – July 4, 2026
Protesters gathered outside the General Medical Council’s headquarters in London to slam the council’s attempt to silence those speaking out about the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Protesters describe the surgeon as one of the world’s leading war doctors and argue that the regulator’s actions amount to an attempt to silence those who speak publicly about the realities of war,
So we are demonstrating in front of the GMC, because the GMC has decided to appeal against the rulings of two of its own tribunals, so that the High Court would allow it to try me for a third time, in order to get the right political result that it wants.
The GMC is conducting a political campaign against, not just myself, but every doctor who’s spoken up against the genocide, in order to silence us, in the service of the genocidal project. – Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah, British-Palestinian Surgeon
Doctors, campaigners, and members of the public traveled to attend the demonstration, asserting that the proceedings are about more than one individual, warning that they could have a chilling effect on healthcare professionals speaking about humanitarian crises.
Actually, there probably were a group of lawyers set up by the Israelis again to pursue highly charged politicized campaigns against professionals and workers in this country who stand against genocide.
So, really, it’s the action of how the British government and the Israelis who are trying to persecute and outlaw speech in support of Palestine in the heartland of Britain.
Actually, from, we know where our government, you know, the British government, the Labour government, and the Tory government before it have been complicit in genocide from bases like RAF Akrotiri, where Keir Starmer went and complimented the troops.
They run the genocide, they send the planes over Gaza, they stream that information live to the Israelis as they’re committing that genocide.
So our government is complicit, and what they’re doing with their complaints is they’re making it illegal for us to oppose it. – Ranjeet Brar, NHS Surgeon
Speakers at the rally urged the GMC to withdraw the appeal; assisting medical professionals should not face professional consequences for raising concerns over civilian suffering in conflict zones.
There’s a clear example here with Dr. Ghassan, where UK law is for Israel, that it is essentially standing up for the rights of a foreign entity, have been pressuring patients, pressuring people to make complaints against Dr. Abu-Sittah, and this is just one example of many other institutions, medical institutions like the Royal Colleges, and even the journals, the medical journals that we publish in, where they’ve been pressured from UK pro-Israel lobby groups to censor and to shut down any form of pro-Palestine activism.
So, I think we’re seeing this now very clearly with Dr. Ghassan, but the reality is it’s much more widespread than any of us think. – Dr Omar Abdel-Mannan, British-Egyptian Pediatric Neurologist
Organizers say they will continue campaigning until the proceedings against Dr. Abu-Sittah come to an end, maintaining that doctors must be free to speak about humanitarian consequences of war without fear or professional repercussions.
Supporters gathered outside the General Medical Council in London to stand behind British Palestinian surgeon Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah, accusing the regulators of attempting to silence one of the world’s most prominent war doctors.
Demonstrators say the case is not simply about one medic, but the right of healthcare professionals to speak out on the atrocities of Gaza without professional retaliation.
Featured Video
AIDS Inc. by Gary Null (2007)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Merck Virologists Admitted to Falsely Certifying Vaccine Efficacy
- Mandatory Folic Acid for every man, woman & child
- Pro-Palestine protesters arrested outside UK’s ruling Labour Conference in Liverpool
- Mauritius denies landing permit to flight from Israel, forcing cancellation: Tour operator
- Israeli finance minister calls for genocidal war on West Bank, annexation of south Lebanon
- 12 Things Your Psychiatrist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- From Unipolar Universalism to Multipolar Civilizational Distinctiveness
- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Israel forces Gazans to live in constant peril – Daily Update
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
