West turning internet into ‘tool of control’ – Telegram founder
RT | October 10, 2025
Western surveillance and censorship is eroding digital freedom and is turning the internet into a “tool of control,” Telegram founder Pavel Durov has warned.
The Russian-born billionaire has long portrayed Telegram as an outpost for free speech and privacy, contrasting it with what he describes as authoritarian censorship efforts by Western governments.
“Our generation is running out of time to save the free Internet built for us by our fathers,” Durov said in a statement on Telegram on Friday, marking his 41st birthday.
“What was once the promise of the free exchange of information is being turned into the ultimate tool of control,” he added, noting that nations once considered free are adopting authoritarian digital practices. He cited measures such as digital IDs in the UK, compulsory online age verification in Australia, and the mass scanning of private messages in the EU.
Durov said people have been misled by the West into believing that their mission is to dismantle traditional values – privacy, sovereignty, free markets, and free speech – and by doing so, society has embarked on a path of “self-destruction.”
“A dark, dystopian world is approaching fast – while we’re asleep. Our generation risks going down in history as the last one that had freedoms – and allowed them to be taken away… We are running out of time,” he said.
Durov has long clashed with Western governments over Telegram’s policies, facing fines in Germany for not removing ‘illegal’ content and criticism in the US for allegedly enabling extremist groups.
Last year, he was arrested in Paris and charged with complicity in crimes linked to Telegram users, but was released on bail. He called the case politically motivated. He later accused French intelligence of pressuring him to censor conservative content during elections in Romania and Moldova, and condemned France for waging “a crusade” against free speech.
Durov has also warned that EU laws such as the Digital Services Act and the AI Act are paving the way for the centralized control of information.
Why are so many eager for war with Russia? /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | October 8, 2025
The discussion centers on Russia’s next moves in the Ukraine war and the West’s potential responses. Russia views NATO’s continual expansion and Western escalation as provocations it must eventually answer. Putin’s recent speech referencing “Novorossiya” (a broader region beyond Donbas) signals that Moscow’s ambitions may soon expand to include all historically Russian-speaking and industrial parts of southern and eastern Ukraine—essentially the Black Sea coast from Kharkiv to Odesa. The analysis suggests Russia’s likely to pursue this expansion after Ukraine’s army becomes too depleted to resist. Western promises of future NATO membership for Kyiv only make Russia more determined to seize strategic territory permanently.
UK universities spied on students for arms firms supplying Israel: Report
Press TV – October 8, 2025
Leaked emails have revealed that UK universities spied on students’ social media and chat groups at the request of arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.
According to internal correspondence obtained by The Guardian and Liberty Investigates, several universities assured these weapons manufacturers that they would keep watch over students’ online activity to detect and preempt potential protests.
Over the past two years, large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations have taken place across UK campuses, with students demanding an end to arms sales to the Israeli regime.
In one case, a university responding to a weapon manufacturer’s “security questionnaire” said it would conduct “active monitoring of social media” to detect any planned protests against Rolls-Royce during a careers fair.
Rolls-Royce, the UK’s second-largest arms manufacturer, directly supplies key components for Israeli military vehicles. Its German subsidiary, MTU, also produces engines used in Israel’s battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and warships.
Loughborough University told a recruitment firm running a “Rolls-Royce roadshow” that its security team was conducting “active monitoring of social media … to provide early intelligence about protests.”
Emails from Heriot-Watt University suggest that Raytheon UK requested the university to “monitor university chat groups” on its behalf before a careers fair — and the university agreed to “implement the measures you have suggested.”
Similarly, Glasgow and Cardiff universities faced pressure from major UK aerospace firms — BAE Systems and Leonardo — to track online activity before career events. Some events were later moved online after potential protests were identified.
The UK also supplies BAE-made components to a global pool of F-35 fighter jets that Israel can access.
The surveillance of students’ social media has sparked outrage among advocacy groups, who argue that universities should support peaceful protest, not criminalize it.
Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, called the universities’ actions “utterly shameful,” adding that “so many universities have spent time and resources surveilling students who are engaged in peaceful protest against genocide.”
Data compiled by Liberty Investigates shows that one in four UK universities — 37 out of 154 — launched disciplinary investigations into pro-Gaza student and staff activists between October 2023 and March 2025, affecting up to 200 people.
The United Kingdom maintains close political and military ties with Israel, including arms sales, intelligence sharing, and military partnerships.
British arms companies continue to provide key components for Israeli military vehicles, fighter jets, and naval vessels — a relationship that human rights groups say makes the UK complicit in the regime’s war crimes in Gaza.
Free Speech After Charlie Kirk: an American Lesson for Pam Bondi, Donald Trump & Netanyahu
By Ilana Mercer | LewRockwell.com | October 4, 2025
Let us be clear about what freedom of speech à la America truly means:
The words people speak, chant, write and tweet; the beliefs they are known to hold, the flags they fly or burn, the symbolic, non-violent ceremonies and rituals they enact, the insignia, paraphernalia; the goose-stepping, Hitler salutes they muck around with—provided no physical aggression is involved (violence against animals included), all this counts as protected speech, licit in natural law.
So long as oddities and idiosyncrasies, whether performed alone or in groups, thoughts harbored privately or shared in public—so long as no violence accompanies such speech or behavior; so long as your mitts stop at the next man’s face (or at the next mutt’s fury face, Kristi Noem): SPEECH. It’s all speech. It should be free, unfettered and as wild and as wanton as can be.
At their worst, expressions of ostensible antisemitism, Naziism, racisms or other antipathies amount to thought crimes, nothing more, if expressed as a belief system severally or collectively, rather than in palpably violent actions. Whether your thoughts are spoken, chanted, written or preached; be they impolite or impolitic: they are, at worst, no more than thought crimes.
Thought crimes are nobody’s business in a free society. Thought crimes ought to be ferociously protected by a free people. By logical extension, any accusations of antisemitism, Naziism or other antipathies and racisms, are especially suspect when emitted as a meme from American institutionalized power structures.
One such obscenely wealthy and worthless power structure is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or Defamation League—a more apt moniker once suggested by Elon Musk, before he joined the ADL in severely censoring some speech on the X platform. The ADL is a meddlesome shakedown operation, in the mold of the Southern Poverty Law Center (“Smear Artists for the Total State,” wrote Tom DiLorenzo). It has taken it upon itself to decide who lives and who dies socially and financially on the basis of the unfortunate individual’s ideas, spoken and written.
In the American tradition, thoughts and words spoken or written that are politically impolite—again, racism; Naziism, antisemitism—retain protected status as speech beyond the adjudication of law-makers, bureaucrats, mediacrats, educrats and technocrats.
Sniffing out racists or anti-Semites is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting, libertarian-minded Americans, or any American, for that matter. Like creedal libertarians, Americans don’t, or should not, prosecute thought crimes or persecute thought “criminals.”
Ours should be The Skokie Standard of free speech and thinking (which I articulated in August 2022). What is The Skokie Standard of free speech? In 1978, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took a stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The Skokie Standard of free speech is one that champions unpopular expression, and vigorously defends all marginalized speakers and thinkers, rather than purveying and protecting state and corporate ideology du jour.
Let me repeat what the Skokie Standard of free speech stands for here: However which way they are grouped, the words people individually or collectively speak, chant, write and tweet; the beliefs they are known to hold, the flags they fly or stomp, the symbolic, non-violent ceremonies, rituals and protests they perform; the insignia, paraphernalia, the goose-stepping, Hitler salutes they dick around with—provided no physical aggression is involved, all that counts as protected speech.
Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, RIP, got it. On May 2, 2024, Kirk wrote the following: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi doesn’t get it. No wonder even Glenn Greenwald, once a practicing constitutional attorney—and a man of manners and decorum—regularly appends “dumb” and “lacking any grasp of constitutional law” to any mention of Bondi, who said this after Kirk’s murder:
The Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech… There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — [for that] in our society,” Bondi told a podcaster likewise cerebrally compromised.
If you thought the nation’s chief law enforcement officer had blurted out on an impulse such promises of unconstitutional hate-speech prosecutions; I’m sorry to say that Bondi only doubled down. In scant regard for the letter and spirit of American constitutional law, she advised employers, on September 15, of their “obligation to get rid of people who are saying horrible things.”
While “The First Amendment doesn’t stop private employers from choosing to fire people for speech; it can be illegal for the government to use its power to pressure a private company into firing a staff member.” In America, not even do celebrations of Kirk’s assassination count as threats of violence or incitement to violence. In fact, “government retribution for speech,” lambasted U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, “is directly forbidden by the First Amendment.”
For our libertarian purposes, moreover, speech should never be defended by deploying a contents-driven defense, such as that a book, an utterance or their author must be spared on account that the person is good and his words are not racist and are against bigotry.
The Argument from Freedom means arguing process, not content. Racism, (alleged) antisemitism or Naziism in targeted literature or in protests should always and everywhere be a peripheral issue. Or, preferably, no issue at all.
The Argument from Freedom means arguing not over the contents of publications like Mein Kampf or the merit of protests for Palestine, but for their publication and practice irrespective of their contents. Which is why I say freedom’s argument is an argument from process, not content.
Freedom makes the case for an unfettered free market in ideas, good and bad. Freedom argues for politically impolite books to be published and read freely. It demands that all offensive literature be available to the free men and women who inhabit the free society. And not because of history; so that we don’t forget it or repeat it. Rather, freedom needs no justification. It is an end unto itself. You are deficient in American solidarity if you don’t stand up for non-violent protest and all speech.
Liberty is a simple thing. It’s the unassailable right to shout, flail your arms, and verbally provoke people in power, unmolested. Tyranny is when those small things can get you assaulted, incarcerated, injured, deported, even killed.
Ultimately banning books or proscribing speech and speakers as the kangaroo courts of Britain, Europe and Canada do legally, assumes a lack of choice and agency among ostensibly “free” human beings. It’s also predicated on the acceptance of a higher authority which decides for the rest of us which cultural products are fit for our consumption.
I thus put it to you, dear reader, left and right, that speech restrictions stateside in the form of the Antisemitism Awareness Act mirror the worst of British and western Europe’s anti-speech tribunals. Tabled by a Republican and a Democrat, S. 4127, which mercifully is still in committee, would embed state agitprop throughout American education. For posterity. Aside being in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Antisemitism Awareness Act would utterly enervate discourse in our country and criminalize vast tracts of speech as well as proscribe actions that are licit in constitutional and natural law.
Left, Right and libertarian; we can and must, then, join in unapologetically rejecting the very idea of policing, purging, persecuting or prosecuting people for holding and expressing politically unpopular ideas in action or in speech.
UK Preparing False-Flag Attack in Europe to Blame Russia for ‘Terrorist Plot’ – Russian Intel
Sputnik – 06.10.2025
London is enraged that the UK’s long-standing efforts to achieve a “strategic defeat” of Russia are failing and is preparing a new provocation, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Monday.
“The Press Bureau of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation reports that, according to information received by the SVR, London is furious that long-standing British efforts to achieve the ‘strategic defeat’ of Russia and turn it into a pariah state are failing. [UK Prime Minister Keir] Starmer’s cabinet and its intelligence agencies are preparing to respond to Russia’s successes in the Ukrainian theater of military operations with yet another vile provocation,” the SVR said in a statement.
London’s plan suggests that a group of Russians fighting on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces is to carry out an attack on a Ukrainian navy ship or a foreign civilian vessel in a European port, the SVR also said, adding that members of the group have already arrived in the UK for training.
“After the terrorists are ‘discovered,’ it is planned to be announced that they were acting on ‘Moscow’s orders.’ London is counting on the fact that the Russophobic European political elite will happily swallow the fake news about ‘malicious Kremlin agents’ to justify the need to further increase military aid to Ukraine and the militarization of ‘united Europe’ to combat ‘Russian aggression,'” the statement read.
The UK plans to supply the group with Chinese-made underwater equipment and present it as a “proof” of Beijing’s support for special military operation, the SVR added.
Iran declares Cairo deal with IAEA ‘defunct’
The Cradle | October 5, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed on 5 October that the Cairo deal signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month is no longer active or valid due to European ‘snapback’ sanctions on Tehran.
“Experience has shown that there is no solution to Iran’s nuclear issue other than a diplomatic and negotiated one,” Araghchi said.
“The three European countries thought they could achieve results through the snapback mechanism, but that tool was ineffective and only made diplomacy more complicated. Diplomacy will always continue, but the form and the parties involved in negotiations have now changed. Undoubtedly, the role of the European countries in the upcoming talks has diminished, and their diplomatic justification for participating has weakened,” he added.
“In recent months, our discussions have been focused solely on the nuclear issue, conducted either directly or indirectly with the American side. In these exchanges, our proposals were completely transparent. Had they been taken seriously … reaching a negotiated and diplomatic solution would not have been out of reach. Even now, if the [opposing] parties act in good faith and consider mutual interests, the continuation of negotiations is possible.”
“Nevertheless, the situation following the military attack and the activation of the snapback mechanism has changed, and the upcoming negotiations will certainly be different from before,” he went on to say, adding that both the US-Israeli attacks on Iran in June and the activation of the ‘snapback’ mechanism have complicated matters.
“After several rounds of talks, this agreement was reached in Cairo. However, the Cairo Agreement no longer suffices under the new circumstances, including the activation of the snapback mechanism, and new decisions will be made.”
“To prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and its goodwill, the Islamic Republic of Iran has exhausted all diplomatic avenues, pursued consultations and cooperation, and presented constructive and balanced proposals. There is now no excuse left for Western countries to prevent Iran from cooperation or dialogue. Iran’s positions are fully legitimate and reasonable, and it is ready to pursue any solution that leads to confidence-building.”
The snapback sanctions took effect on 28 September. Washington welcomed the European decision.
Iran had previously warned that activating the sanctions would jeopardize the Cairo deal, reached on 9 September after Tehran resumed cooperation with the IAEA following a brief suspension as a result of the war.
Negotiations to prevent the return of the sanctions failed after the UN Security Council (UNSC) rejected a draft resolution to permanently lift sanctions against Iran. Russia, China, Pakistan, and Algeria voted to prevent the reintroduction of sanctions, while nine Security Council members voted against sanctions relief. Two countries abstained.
Tehran has recalled its envoys from Germany, France, and Italy.
The EU has continued to hold Iran to the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and its policy of maximum pressure against Iran.
Tehran is insisting on its right to maintain peaceful uranium enrichment.
Nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington have been halted since the US-backed Israeli war against Iran started on 13 June.
The US was aware that Israel was set to attack while continuing to pretend it was negotiating with Iran. In late June, Washington joined the war with a bunker-buster attack on Iranian nuclear sites.
Israel has publicly threatened to restart the war against Iran. Tehran has vowed to respond more harshly to any new attack.
The Met police chief proves he’s as dishonest and racist as the force he leads
By Jonathan Cook | October 4, 2025
Sir Mark Rowley claims he is worried about rising ‘community tensions’. But the only tensions he cares about are those belonging to an imaginary community he has created of a Jewish hive mind
Once again, the BBC laps up outright disinformation from Sir Mark Rowley, police commissioner of the institutionally racist and corrupt Met. Watch this short clip from the BBC News at Ten last night:
1. Rowley demands supporters of Palestine Action cancel or delay their protest today, after the Manchester synagogue attack, because the timing appears “antisemitic”.
How to untangle this nonsense?
a) The only possible way to interpret Rowley’s argument is that he believes every British Jew identifies and supports Israel’s mass slaughter of children in Gaza and therefore, out of respect for their grief at the Manchester attack, we ought not to protest against the slaughter in Gaza. That undoubtedly makes Rowley the antisemitic one.
b) Even were his deeply antisemitic idea true – that British Jews are an unthinking herd of genocidal monsters – Rowley assumes that we ought to be okay with this: we should just keep quiet about Israel murdering 100 or so Palestinians every day in Gaza, and starving and ethnically cleansing the rest of the population, because it would supposedly offend Britain’s Jewish community to do otherwise.
c) Rowley wants the protesters to take a time-out of a few weeks, even while Israel refuses to take any time-out on murdering Palestinians. Nor is the British government taking a time-out in arming Israel and providing it with intelligence to carry out the genocide. Rowley is suggesting we should simply quieten down for the next few weeks, even as 100 Palestinians are killed each day, before heading back to the streets. He thereby sends an unequivocal message that Palestinian life is worthless – and he does it while claiming we are the racist ones.
2. Rowley claims he wants this weekend’s protests stopped because of the danger they will raise “community tensions, which is my concern”.
And yet from everything he says, the only community’s “tensions” he appears to care about are those of an imaginary one he has created of a Jewish hive mind.
What about the tensions of Palestinian communities, of wider Muslim and Arab communities, of human communities, of those parts of the Jewish community opposed to Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, produced by watching children being torn to shreds by bombs Britain is helping to supply to Israel, by seeing world citizens – including British citizens – being abducted in international waters by Israel as they try to break Israel’s illegal starvation-siege of Gaza?
Does Rowley care about these communities and their tensions, tensions that will only heighten if they are denied their long-established democratic rights to go out on to the streets to protest – rights that have already been aggressively whittled away by successive British governments?
3. Rowley says he finds it “bewildering” why more than 1,000 people would want to get arrested for “supporting a terrorist organisation” – and berates them for taking up police resources at a time when those resources are needed elsewhere.
And yet, Rowley knows there is nothing “bewildering” about their protests. These thousands of British citizens, and millions behind them who are less courageous, are prepared to risk jail, and damage their careers and their futures, with a “terrorism” conviction. They are prepared to do so because they believe the proscription of Palestine Action – the first such proscription in British history for a direct-action group following in the tradition of the Suffragettes – is an assault on our fundamental right to protest, and to protest against the criminality of our own institutions, in this case institutions actively supporting a genocide in Gaza.
If Rowley does not believe he has the resources to arrest the 1,000-plus people who will be sitting quietly in Parliament Square today holding placards opposing the genocide, then he can simply let them be. The sky will not fall in. No one will get hurt. There will be no threat to either public or national security.
The true danger – the danger that Rowley and the government of Sir Keir Starmer really worry about – is that ever more people are beginning to understand that we are ruled by a gang of authoritarian, genocide-assisting criminals.
Starmer government ‘not doing anything’ to help UK citizens kidnapped in international waters
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the ACC Liverpool Convention Centre in Liverpool, UK, on September 29, 2025. [Raşid Necati Aslım – Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | October 4, 2025
The families of the British citizens kidnapped by Israel in international waters this week as they sought to take humanitarian aid to Gaza as part of the Sumud Flotilla have drawn a blank in trying to get government assistance for their release. The Starmer government is “not doing anything” to help, it is alleged.
“Despite official statements claiming that families are being kept informed,” said Samir Asli, “it has now been more than 48 hours and we have still not received any substantial updates from the UK Foreign Office.” Asli’s wife is well-known journalist and activist Yvonne Ridley, a frequent contributor here at Middle East Monitor.
Yvonne was aboard the Omar Al Mokhtar, a humanitarian vessel participating in the peaceful mission to challenge the illegal blockade of Gaza and deliver symbolic aid to a population facing starvation, explained her husband. “On or around 2 October, the boat was intercepted by Israeli forces approximately 70 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza, in international waters, where Israel has no jurisdiction.”
Legal experts have confirmed that such an action constitutes a violation of international law. Indeed, former UK ambassador Craig Murray, who is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has pointed out on social media that the flotilla was intercepted well beyond Israel’s 12-mile territorial waters.
“Moreover,” said Murray, “the Israeli maritime blockade has been in place for 17 years and is an intrinsic part of the long-term occupation found illegal in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion. It is, therefore, not a short-term measure in time of armed conflict as specified in the San Remo manual.” In any event, he added, the San Remo rules explicitly state that humanitarian supplies may not be blockaded. “The UN Commission of Inquiry has already determined that Israel is committing genocide, and the blockade is plainly a part of the machinery of such genocide. As such, the Israeli attack on the flotilla is plainly illegal.”
And yet, according to Samir Asli, a Foreign Office official told him that Yvonne’s actions were “illegal”. He obviously disputes this line. “This official’s job is to keep families informed and supported, not to judge Yvonne’s humanitarian work. Yvonne has always acted from a place of conscience, compassion and international law.”
The only response to their request for help from the family’s local Conservative MP, John Lamont, was a short message suggesting that the government might argue that, “Yvonne was travelling against current UK advice.”
At a time when a number of British citizens have been kidnapped in international waters, local MPs need to demand answers and action, not offer excuses, insisted Asli. “Yvonne and the other humanitarians on the flotilla were on a mission of conscience — to help starving children — and deserve the full support of their government.”
Such an inadequate response from the UK government appears to ignore the fact that, as Craig Murray noted, “On the High Seas, the law applying on each ship is the law of its flag state. An attack by a state military warship on a vessel on the High Seas is an attack on the flag state of the vessel attacked.” In other words, Israel has basically attacked the sovereignty of the states under whose flags the vessels were sailing. “Acts of illegal possession of vessels or abduction of crew on the High Seas should be pursued by each flag state as crimes within their domestic jurisdiction, not only in international law. As such, the Metropolitan Police and Director of Public Prosecutions have an obligation to investigate and act over the abduction of persons from UK-flagged vessels on the High Seas.”
The families of Yvonne Ridley and other British citizens being held unlawfully by Israel are calling upon friends, colleagues and supporters to contact their local MPs to insist that the Starmer government fulfils its responsibilities under British and international law to ensure the swift and safe return of their loved ones.
UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025
The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.
But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”
The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”
A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.
A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.
According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.
As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.
However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.
Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.
“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.
The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.
According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.
Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.
Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.
Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”
Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.
According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.
Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’
The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.
According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.
Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.
Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.
However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.
“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”
Bruner told The Defender :
“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.
“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”
Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”
Hinchliffe said:
“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”
Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.
The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.
According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”
Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.
“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”
Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’
London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.
“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.
“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”
Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.
According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:
“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”
Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.
U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.
Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.
“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”
The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.
Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy
In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.
According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.
Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.
Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”
“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.
In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.
In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.
According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.
In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.
The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”
Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.
The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.
“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.
Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?
Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.
In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.
Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”
Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.
Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.
“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Recognise a state and prevent it from existing?
By José Goulão | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 2, 2025
And suddenly, the overwhelming majority of countries in the so-called Collective West decided to recognise the State of Palestine. Among them were some of the most loyal allies of the Zionist regime and accomplices to its atrocities, such as France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and even, despite its negligible specific weight, the government of the Portuguese Republic. We know that consistency is not the strong point of the Montenegro clique: recognition was declared just a few weeks after the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paulo Rangel, went to bless the crimes of the Israeli regime, precisely at one of the most intense stages of human and physical devastation in the Gaza Strip.
Any reader will naturally wonder what has now led so many important countries, the guardians of “our civilisation”, to adopt a stance that they could, and should, have taken years ago. Was it the blatant and dramatic exposure of the decades-old genocide of the Palestinian people, which is ravaging the Gaza Strip and which the hypocrisy of fine words and the most beautiful intentions can no longer hide? Perhaps a little, although we should not attach too much importance to this response because shame is not something that abounds in Western governments.
Another reason, this one with a much more important political and strategic significance, is the certainty of all those making the declarations that their decision, apart from being couched in plenty of half-truths, has no practical effect on the real recognition of Palestinian rights and on the murderous conduct of the State of Israel. On the same days that the declarations of recognition were made, the Zionist Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, assured with complete conviction that there would never be a Palestinian state. This was a challenge to the attitudes of Western countries, which they received with the most devout silence.
And now?
The most relevant situation, and also the one that raises the most doubts about the genuineness of Western governments’ intentions regarding the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, is based on a simple question: What now?
Yes, what could these declarations of recognition of the State of Palestine change in the current situation, controlled by the fascist impulses of the Israeli government and the US administration, this time under Trump’s baton – as it could be, with the same effects, under Biden’s orders?
At first glance, they will change nothing. Colonial and expansionist arbitrariness continues unabated in East Jerusalem and from north to south in the West Bank, while the human and physical levelling of Gaza continues unhindered, except for the guerrilla pockets of Hamas.
Western governments have recognised an abstract state with no effective powers over what should be its territory, disappearing every day in the face of the genocidal advances of hordes of settlers imported from all over the planet. Are Western governments doing anything concrete to force Israel to stop colonisation? Are they stopping sending weapons to Israel? Are they considering imposing sanctions capable of suffocating a state run by a criminal clique that is incapable of living on its own?
So far, there is no indication that any of the Western powers are willing to take these steps, which are essential if any qualitative changes in the balance of power throughout Palestine are to lead to negotiations capable of defining the paths for establishing and applying international law in the region. This would imply that, at least in this case, Western leaders would have to put aside their bureaucratic adherence to the ‘rules-based international order’ defined in Washington. The truth is that no government seems willing to take this risk, which, in practice and under these conditions, reveals that recognising or not recognising the State of Palestine will amount to the same thing, that is, more of the same.
Recognise, yes, but…
Western governments have been careful (which opens the door to backtracking) not to recognise the State of Palestine unconditionally, thus continuing to put the strict application of the principles established by international law on hold. Endowed with authority and power granted by five centuries of colonial violence, which allowed them to invent an entity such as the State of Israel, Western governments have attached a series of conditions to the decision. Taken literally, these translate into recognition without recognition because they effectively limit the Palestinian people’s decision-making powers on matters that concern them and on which only they have the right to deliberate.
In a manoeuvre that transfigures much of what is positive about recognition, Western governments are attempting to breathe new life into Mahmoud Abbas’s moribund Palestinian Authority, confined to Ramallah, by giving it powers that it will be unable to exercise. They also demand its absolute surrender to Israel – a demand that is unnecessary in the situation that has been dragging on throughout this century – and they attribute sole responsibility for terrorism in Palestine to Hamas, while ignoring Israeli terror – disguised as ‘security’ and ‘right to exist’. As always, this double standard vitiates the very declarations of recognition from the outset.
The condition that demonstrates how hypocritical and, for now, useless the declarations of recognition are, however, relates to the demand for the disarmament not only of Hamas but of all structures of the Palestinian Resistance. Such demands leave the entire Palestinian people even more helpless and at the mercy of the criminal free will of the Zionist regime, which can thus pursue its genocidal goal, free from any hindrance, while remaining exempt from accountability before international bodies. In the practical consequences of the measures imposed by Western governments in exchange for the recognition of the State of Palestine, the Zionist state would find the best of all worlds and the full realisation of all its objectives.
The shadow of collaborationism
The most recent developments in the recognition process help to dispel some uncertainties about the interests that lie behind the decision, which are not favourable to the Palestinian people.
It was clear from the outset that the recognition of Palestinian independence by Western governments was not, it bears repeating, unconditional. Most of the speeches on the subject clearly overvalued the Palestinian Authority, which is inactive in practice and, more seriously, entirely conditioned by Israel’s demands. The “shared” management of much of the West Bank between the Ramallah government and the Zionist occupation forces means, in fact, that the former has been placed at the service of the latter’s interests. This is often confirmed by the actions of the Palestinian police forces in repressive actions against the Palestinian population itself.
This situation suits Western governments because it means that the ‘autonomous’ authorities are willing to collaborate in ways that run counter to the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people, which have never been recognised by Western states.
At the same time, the West attributes sole representation of the Palestinians to the decrepit Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, who is in fact perpetuated in power despite being completely hamstrung by Israel and the United States. It should be remembered, as it is a fact, that his accession to the presidency was achieved through a soft coup organised in 1994 by the United States, Israel and Western powers, as a result of which the historic leader of the Resistance, Yasser Arafat, was removed from the main positions of power (to which he had been elected) and assassinated a few months later.
It should also be remembered that Mahmoud Abbas, very recently described as ‘pragmatic’ by a pro-Israeli publication such as the weekly newspaper Expresso, was received at the White House, from where Arafat had been banned, shortly after taking office as president of the so-called ‘Autonomy’ in 1994.
These circumstances help to better understand the Western constraints that accompanied the recognition of independence. And they lead to the elementary conclusion that there will be no representative entity that reflects the will of the Palestinian people without the holding of free, open and democratic general elections under the control of international bodies supervised by the UN. This process cannot involve the intervention of Israel and the United States of America, which is by definition biased and self-serving.
Another demand common to Western governments is that the Resistance (wrongly and maliciously equated with Hamas) should ‘renounce’ terrorism, that is, armed struggle, while, it should be repeated, sparing Israeli terrorism. This ‘renunciation’ must be accompanied by the disarmament of the Resistance, which means the total surrender of the Palestinian people to the discretionary and genocidal power of Israel. From this perspective, the recognition of Palestine becomes a poisoned gift.
Abbas’ recent speech to the UN General Assembly, delivered via the internet because, this time, the Trump administration illegally refused to grant the Palestinian president a visa to travel to New York, confirmed the existence of dangerous collaboration with Israeli and Western colonial interests.
Mahmoud Abbas, as Palestinian president, promised that ‘Hamas will never be the government’. But how can the most prominent Palestinian leader, whose party was defeated in the last general elections held in the occupied territories, promise that the most voted political force (according to the last poll, held more than 15 years ago) will not be able to govern the state? By manipulating the election results? By adopting a single-party regime or a personal dictatorship? By preventing a party with significant popular support, Hamas or any other, from being a legitimate and necessary part of a majority government? Let us remember that Abbas and his Western and Arab allies prevented Hamas from governing after it won an absolute majority in free elections; and that, despite multiple negotiations and supposed draft agreements, they always sabotaged the creation of ‘national unity governments’ that would have brought Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem under the same ‘autonomous government’. ‘One of our strategic objectives is to maintain the separation between Gaza and the West Bank,’ Netanyahu confessed to his Likud party’s parliamentary group.
None of these paths implied in the content of the recognition statements correspond to the ‘democratic values’ proclaimed by the Western world, which seems willing to impose, through its latest decision, an authoritarian and undemocratic ‘solution’ centred on Abbas.
In his speech, the Palestinian president stated that he does not want Palestine to be ‘an armed state’. What does this idea mean, which is incompatible with the existence of a full state as established in international law? Would the defence and security of Palestine be handed over to Israel? Would the Palestinian people no longer have anyone to defend them, whether it be the armed resistance or the state apparatus?
In his time, shortly before being assassinated by Zionism in 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Isaac Rabin admitted that the maximum status he would grant to a Palestinian entity at the end of the ‘peace process’ would be ‘less than a state’. Have Mahmoud Abbas and the Western leaders who manipulate him revived this idea? Will Palestine ‘less than a state’ be the future state of Palestine as understood? There will be no better way, then, already considered as the ‘final solution’ to the problem, for the continuation of genocide and the creation of Greater Israel – throughout Palestine, as a first step.
The fundamental question, however, remains: what will come after the recognition of independence, given that Israel occupies almost the entire territory where this state would be created? What will Western countries do to give substance to their decision? It should be remembered that international law requires the creation of an ‘independent and viable’ Palestinian state. In prosaic terms, a state like any other. However, this is not what is being planned, with the collaboration of the incompetent Palestinian Authority. Israel’s dizzying policy of creating settlements is gradually eating away at the territory that is essential for the creation of a viable state. Taking a clear-headed view, the Portuguese head of state admitted that one day there will be no territory left to establish a state. This is a reality that I began denouncing many years ago, because it is obvious and Israel makes no secret of it. Despite recognising these circumstances, the Western world is doing nothing concrete to stop the colonisation and make the state it claims to recognise viable.
Once again, the West’s main objective has been to create propaganda and delaying tactics and, with them, to try to neutralise the increasingly strong, active and genuine solidarity of Western peoples with the Palestinian people. This solidarity cannot be allowed to wane; it must be strengthened, because if we rely on the promises and decisions of our governments, the Palestinian people will continue to be the biggest victims. And we cannot allow that to happen.
Ex-UK defense minister calls for Crimea to be made ‘uninhabitable’
RT | September 30, 2025
Kiev’s Western backers must help make Crimea “not inhabitable,” former UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace has said.
Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum on Tuesday, Wallace argued that Russia views the Black Sea peninsula as a “Holy Mount,” and that Ukraine should strike where it can inflict the greatest damage.
“We have to help Ukraine have the long-range capabilities to make Crimea unviable. We need to choke the life out of Crimea,” Wallace said.
“If it is not inhabitable or not possible for it to function… I think, if we do that, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will suddenly realize he’s got something to lose.”
He suggested that Kiev should prioritize attacks on the Kerch Strait Bridge, which connects Crimea with Russia’s Krasnodar Region. Ukrainian forces struck the bridge in October 2022 and July 2023, temporarily halting traffic.
Wallace, who served as defense secretary from 2019 to 2023, previously urged Ukraine to mobilize more of its population to fight Russia.
Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia shortly after the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Since then, Ukraine has imposed an economic blockade, cutting electricity and water supplies to the region. Home to around 2.5 million people, the peninsula also hosts Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.
The Kremlin has described the UK as “one of the leaders of this pro-war camp” due to its military aid to Kiev and calls for tighter sanctions on Russia.
THE ATTACK ON GEORGE AND GAYATRI GALLOWAY
PARTY STATEMENT ON CENSORSHIP AND INTIMIDATION
Workers Party of Britain | September 28, 2025
Our party believes in freedom of speech and defends the Rights won by our parents, grandparents and previous generations that allow us to speak our minds and challenge those in power. British people are proud of their freedoms.
In recent years these freedoms have been eroded. It has gone too far.
Our Party Leader George Galloway and Deputy Chair of our Members Council Gayatri Galloway were yesterday detained and denied legal services whilst held at Gatwick airport.
Neither under arrest nor allowed to leave, the Workers Party was prevented from providing legal support as officers seized personal items.
In recent months our One State Palestine (https://t.me/OneStatePalestine) and No 2 NATO (https://t.me/no2nato) campaigns have both been banned from X and suppressed on other platforms. In recent years our meetings have been cancelled, even at so-called free speech venues like Conway Hall.
During election campaigning our members have been physically assaulted, suffered hit and run attacks and abuse. All of this is documented in the press and known to the police.
We are not unique. From the Right and Left individuals and organisations of all types face censorship and intimidation. The only people left alone are the extreme liberals who seek to police everything, even the English language.
No matter what they do, the ruling elite cannot stop the forward march of history. Russia has won in Ukraine, China has won the technology race, Israel is exposed as a genocidal outpost of the old colonial world.
Britain needs to replace those who seek to censor and intimidate us. We need working class leaders who can chart a new peaceful path of development.
If you agree, you should join,
👍 https://www.workerspartygb.org/join
📱 Subscribe here https://t.me/workerspartybritain
Featured Video
Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co… loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust…
Aletho News- American Academy of Pediatrics Hit With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud
- Mom Tells Trump: Dumping Sewage Sludge on Farmland Won’t Make America Healthy Again
- NIAID Funds Gain-of-Function Study Engineering Novel Influenza Viruses
- Villains of Judea: Philip Esformes and the Largest Healthcare Fraud in American History
- US sanctions Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad over alleged Hamas links
- You reap what you sow: Ukraine’s blackout is Zelensky’s failure
- Ukraine Blackouts Caused by Zelensky’s Terrorist Attacks on Russia
- Orban Hits Out at EU Green Light for $1.5 Trillion Ukraine Aid
- World has had enough of confused clowns: Araghchi to Zelensky
- Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report
- If Americans Knew
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- UNRWA Heads Tell Ha’aretz: ‘We Don’t Radicalize Palestinians – Their Lived Existence Does’
- Plans Call for “New Rafah” Built in Israel’s Image — Without Palestinians
- Posing as priest, reporter is spat at many times, highlighting anti-Christian sentiment in Israel
- Leaked Documents: “Planned Community” in Rafah Would Force Palestinians Into Israeli Panopticon
- ‘Permits of Humiliation’: How Israel Strangles Christian Education in Jerusalem
- “The world sees death, destruction and injustice – and they see dollar signs” – Not a ceasefire Day 105
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- Brutal Beatings, Arson, and Impunity: A Palestinian Plant Nursery Becomes a Target for Settler Pogroms
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
Aletho News 