Category Archives: Civil Liberties

Gagged in Spain

Posted on by
Reply

A Spanish army colonel named Pedro Baños has published a confidential list of media outlets that the socialist government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez intends to censor. Needless to say, Col. Baños’ revelation has caused an uproar in Spain.

Below is an excerpt from the introduction to Col. Baños’ video posted by RAIR Foundation:

Pedro Baños is a Spanish Army colonel and an expert in geopolitics, security, and defense. He has held various strategic positions in the military and is a respected author and commentator on international affairs.

The List of Media Outlets to be Censored

In a recent video, Baños disclosed the names of media outlets that are on the government’s censorship list:

1.   Distrito TV
2.   EDA TV (Estado del Ejército TV)
3.   El Toro TV
4.   La Gaceta de los Negocios
5.   Radio Intereconomía
6.   El Debate
7.   Periodista Digital
8.   Negocios TV
9.   The Objective
 

Baños stated that he received this information confidentially but felt it was his duty to make it public. “I needed to say it. They handed it to me very confidentially, but I owed it to you,” he said.

Context of the Censorship

The Spanish government, led by Pedro Sánchez, is targeting these media outlets as part of a broader effort to silence conservative voices and anyone who challenges the government’s agenda. Sánchez falsely claims to be combating ‘fake news’ in the media, using the term to dismiss any viewpoints other than his own. Thankfully, his troubling actions are widely seen as an attempt to crush opposition and control the narrative, allowing the government to act without scrutiny or dissent.

Many thanks to HeHa for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Iranian President Dead, but Islam’s Abuse of Women Very Much Alive

Posted on by
2

The following report by Clare Lopez was published earlier this month by Sharia TipSheet.

Women Under Sharia

Iranian President Dead, but Islam’s Abuse of Women Very Much Alive

by Clare M. Lopez

“Iranian Women Celebrate the Death of President Raisi ‘We Freely Dance and Celebrate on Your Dirty Grave’”, by Margaret Flavin at Gateway Pundit, May 20, 2024

  • Yet another indicator of how the young, especially female, generation of Iranians feels about their oppressive jihadist regime

“BBC Documentary ‘Nika’s Last Breath’ about 16-year-old Nika Shakarami’s last moments before being raped and murdered in Iran” by Dr. Rich Swier, May 1, 2024.

  • This is a BBC film about a young Iranian girl who was murdered by Iranian police after she’d been filmed burning her hijab during the “Women, Life, Freedom” protests that followed the September 2022 murder of another young girl, Mahsa Amini, for having allowed her hijab to slip enough to show some hair.

“A year ago, she drank battery acid to escape life under the Taliban. Today, she has a message for other Afghan girls” by Hilary Whiteman, Anna Coren, Abdul Basir Bina and Javed Iqbal, at CNN, June 30, 2024

  • Horrific story of an Afghan girl who despaired of life under Taliban sharia rule — but lived to tell her story

“The Sexual Assaults on October 7 Omitted From the White House Fact Sheet” by Hugh Fitzgerald at Front Page Magazine, July 10, 2024

  • The Biden White House issued a lengthy Fact Sheet that documented sexual assaults in ‘conflict zones’…but somehow neglected to include what HAMAS did on 7 October 2023

“Arifwala man kills divorced niece in the name of ‘honour’” at English.aaj.tv/news, July 8, 2024

  • He murdered her with an axe but motive beyond fact she was divorced is not spelled out, except that it was a so-called “honor killing” — which is generally condoned in Islamic sharia societies

“Nothing Compensates for the Stolen Years’: The Afghan Women Rebuilding Shattered Dreams in Iran” by Stefanie Glinski at The Guardian, July 4, 2024

Continue reading →

Our Democracy™: In Counting There is Strength

Posted on by
3

Electoral fraud is a venerable tradition in these United States, with a history going all the way back to the founding of the Republic.

With control of the public purse, representative government provided lucrative opportunities for both elected officials and the corporations that did business with them. Baroque levels of corruption became the norm, and public policy was devised to maximize profits for all involved while concealing the dirty deals behind a scrim of public rectitude.

Controlling the outcome of elections was essential for the smooth operation of the political machinery, in order to make sure that lucrative enterprises continued to generate lucre for everyone involved. The political cartoon below by Thomas Nast features William M. “Boss” Tweed, the head of Tammany Hall and the most powerful man in New York City in the late 1860s and early 1870s. Boss Tweed was able to guarantee results through an elaborate patronage network, lavish bribery, and his control of the ballot-counting process.

So how has the ballot-counting process evolved in the century and a half since the heyday of Boss Tweed?

There is widespread concern among elite opinion-makers that the current electoral process poses a threat to Our Democracy™. One of the most recent public figures to sound the alarm is Rob “Meathead” Reiner, according to Variety:

“It’s time to stop f***ing around,” Reiner wrote. “If the Convicted Felon wins, we lose our Democracy. Joe Biden has effectively served US with honor, decency, and dignity. It’s time for Joe Biden to step down.”

Whether Joe Biden steps down or not, it’s obviously important to elect the Democrat, whoever that might be. Our Democracy™ is in danger if voters are allowed to vote for the wrong candidate (in this case, Donald Trump). With so much at stake, we must do whatever it takes to ensure the election of the approved candidate.

In my previous posts I highlighted the role that propaganda and the suppression of dissent play in this process. But these alone are not sufficient to guarantee the desired outcome — hence the imperative to control the voting process itself.

This requires a multi-pronged approach. The traditional emptying of the cemeteries to produce votes on election day is still part of the effort. But the implementation of the widespread use of absentee ballots and “mail-in voting” — for which we can thank the Wuhan Coronavirus — created an opportunity for ballot fraud at an unprecedented level. The vote-counting process in major cities is controlled by Democrats, with vestigial or non-existent Republican supervision. The Democrat precinct workers — in most cases part of the African-American political machine — are able to ensure that a reliable supply of ballots marked for the correct candidate can be delivered as needed.

The methodology used to produce the necessary results is complex. To gain a better understanding, I highly recommend Conservative Tree House, where Sundance has done extensive research on the intricacies of the ballot-counting process. Here’s an excerpt from a recent post:

Continue reading →

Our Democracy™: Alternatives to the Ballot Box

Posted on by
8

I posted on Friday about the consternation expressed by bien-pensants all across the West about dangers to “our democracy”. If you pay attention to what the globalists who claim to represent our interests tell us, the survival of Our Democracy™ requires us to follow the directives of people and organizations that are collectively identified as “stakeholders”. Stakeholders include a fairly large cabal of organizations, political leaders, and representatives of various corporations, NGOs, and charitable foundations. It goes without saying that ordinary voters are not considered stakeholders.

“Stakeholders” is a buzzword that has emerged in the last couple of decades to describe the dirigistes who plan for the future of Our Democracy™. If we were referring to Russia, they would be called “oligarchs”, or further afield in the Third World, perhaps “warlords”. But since these estimable folks are here in the enlightened West, they are simply “stakeholders”.

And we know, of course, that they have our best interests at heart.

The problem is: those pesky voters don’t always understand what their best interests are. When confronted with the difficult issues posed by our advanced technological society, they often make the wrong decisions. That’s why they need the help of those stakeholders, who are better informed about the nuances of our high-tech 21st-century civilization.

On the other hand, it’s important to maintain the polite fiction that the ignorant voters are the ones making the decisions. They’re guaranteed a voice by the universal franchise that was so painstakingly won more than a century ago. It is their right and duty to decide the direction of their affairs via the ballot box.

So what is to be done?

The stakeholders have developed three major strategies for directing the hoi-polloi in their electoral choices.

1. Propaganda

Up until 2016 this was the principal method used to generate the desired result in any given election.

First of all, it’s crucial that the major media be brought under stakeholder control. In Europe and Canada the process is simplified by state ownership of all the major television and radio outlets. In the USA the situation is somewhat more complicated, since most media are ostensibly in private hands. Funnily enough, however, all the major outlets move in lockstep on the most important issues, reliably promoting the line pushed by the stakeholders. Even Fox News is controlled opposition — it is set up as the despised right-wing alternative, yet it never veers far from the acceptable center. And that center has been moving inexorably leftwards since the end of the Second World War.

Various agencies of the permanent administrative state can bring pressure to bear on media outlets to persuade them stick to the preferred narrative. The explosion of official media regulations over the past few decades has guaranteed that every media corporation is breaking multiple laws every day, whether it intends to or not. Selective prosecution is an effective tool to keep the MSM in line. Those who stay within the accepted boundaries are left unmolested, while any outfit that strays too far from the narrative risks being hauled into court and tied up for months or years for violating various FCC regulations. The federal government’s pockets are bottomless, and any media corporation that runs afoul of it will eventually be slapped with a big-time fine, and will have to pay its own legal expenses. So it’s much easier just to stick within well-understood limits.

That’s the stick. The feds can also deploy multiple carrots: subsidies, tax breaks, lucrative contracts, concessions granting exclusive coverage of major public events, etc.

I don’t know all the exact ins and outs of this control system. All I can say with certainty is that the results are obvious: we have compliant media that move in lockstep on every important issue. This was made abundantly clear during the COVID-19 “pandemic”, when all major print and broadcast media simultaneously got with the CDC/NIAID/WHO program and never veered from it. It was uncanny.

The media control system generally worked well up until 2016. One of the legacies of the Second World War was that people had developed an ingrained trust of their national governments, which were perceived as beneficial institutions. As long as that reservoir of good will was still sufficiently deep, people could be herded and “nudged” into the desired behavior patterns, and would vote for candidates that were considered acceptable. The cherished illusion of the ballot box in Our Democracy™ could thus be maintained without having to resort to obvious coercion and fraud.

During every election the democratic process ran its course. The stakeholders would guide the selection of the candidates, and voters would be allowed to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It didn’t matter which one they voted for — both were considered acceptable to the Powers That Be, otherwise the stakeholders wouldn’t have put them in place.

Relentless media propaganda would always demonize one of them as “far right”, however — otherwise the center couldn’t be pushed relentlessly to the left. Statistically speaking, the media barrage had its intended effect: on balance, voters opted for more state control, more socialist policies, and more destruction of traditional cultural practices. And the bright shiny progressive Utopia thus drew ever closer.

Unfortunately for the stakeholders, the usual process got derailed in 2016. Tweedledum and Tweedledee were supposed to be Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Hillary would have won easily, but it wouldn’t matter if the voters resisted the leftward ratchet and chose the “far right” Jeb instead — the latter was fully captured, and posed no threat to the system.

But Donald Trump upset the applecart. He was not under the stakeholders’ control, and it wasn’t supposed to be possible for him to win the nomination, let alone the general election. When he did, the system was threatened. A tremor ran through the foundations of Barad-dûr.

And Mr. Trump wasn’t the only threat: Brexit also caused the earth to shake under the rules-based order of the West. The ignorant, turbulent voters on both sides of the Atlantic had gone against their programming and made choices they weren’t supposed to make.

The stakeholders closed ranks after 2016 and pulled out all the stops to make sure that nothing similar could ever happen again. In the process they were forced to reveal themselves — they had to step out from behind the curtain and wield an iron fist with its velvet glove removed. It was a salutary moment: what had once been a vague outline in the shadows now stood out sharp and clear, red-eyed and fanged.

People became aware they had been manipulated. As a result, the customary propaganda began to lose its effectiveness. It was no longer so easy to fool the Lumpenproletariat. Different tools for control needed to be selected from the stakeholders’ toolbox, which brings us to…

Continue reading →

Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime. — Chapter 9

Posted on by
12

Below is the ninth chapter in the serialization of Paul Weston’s book Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime. Previously: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime.

by Paul Weston

Chapter 9: How It Started

This chapter is a little out of kilter. It should have been chapter one, but I wanted to expose the fraudulent reporting and engineering of purported Covid-19 deaths first. Once everyone understands this criminal fraud, every other fraud relating to Covid-19 falls into place.

We don’t know when plans were first hatched to engineer a viral pandemic in 2020. We do know about Event 201 in October 2019, though, which was hosted by Johns Hopkins University and organised by the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Event 201 centred around a hypothetical global outbreak of a lethal virus and the subsequent response by governments around the world. It laid the groundwork for lockdowns, masking, and social distancing. None of these tyrannical measures had been part of pandemic health policies before. All the centuries-old, tried-and-trusted viral pandemic response plans were torn up and discarded in favour of targeting the healthy, rather than quarantining the ill.

On the whole, people don’t want to be locked up at home for the best part of a year and instructed to behave as though they were a lethal danger to all living things. Therefore, they had to be conditioned to obey the New Normal rules and regulations related to Covid-19. In short, they had to be terrorised into compliance.

Enter Neil Ferguson, pandemic modeller extraordinaire of Imperial College London. Ferguson predicted Covid-19 could kill half-a-million people in Britain and two million in America. The international media shrieked these headlines to the world. The politicians gravely warned us we were facing apocalyptic events. The World Health Organisation declared a Global Pandemic. Governments declared national health emergencies. And so began the lockdowns. And so began tyranny.

Neil Ferguson had modelled pandemic scenarios before. In 2005 he predicted two hundred million people could die globally from Bird Flu. In reality, only three hundred people died.

In 2009 he predicted sixty-five thousand deaths in the UK from Swine Flu. Only a few hundred died. In 2002 he predicted up to fifty thousand deaths in the UK, resulting from eating beef infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy — otherwise known as Mad Cow Disease. In reality only one hundred and seventy people died.

In 2001 Ferguson’s Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease suggesting animals should be culled without evidence of infection. This led to the slaughter of more than six million perfectly healthy cattle, sheep and pigs.

Continue reading →

Saving Our Democracy

Posted on by
10

In the past few years the phrase “our democracy” has gained near-universal currency in the West. Politicians and media talking heads continually invoke “our democracy” when urging or discouraging action on this or that significant political initiative. Every crisis is a “threat to our democracy.” Any reformer with a conservative agenda is charged with “attempting to overthrow our democracy”. Major political leaders sound the alarm about the need to “save our democracy.”

But what does saving Our Democracy™ actually involve?

In Ukraine, to cite one example, democracy is saved by not holding elections. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s term expired a while back, but there will be no new elections until the war with Russia is over. Somehow the West managed to hold elections during World Wars One and Two, but the Ukrainians are incapable of doing something similar.

Democracy is also being saved in Ukraine by banning opposition political parties, closing down Russian Orthodox churches, and jailing Mr. Zelensky’s political opponents. Evidently democracy can only thrive in a one-party state where all dissenting points of view are suppressed.

But that’s Ukraine, which is not, strictly speaking, Western. What about the bastions of the Free World that lie further west and across the Atlantic pond?

Opposition to mass immigration is the most frequently cited “danger to democracy” in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States. Those who want to close the borders and stop illegal immigration are identified as “far right” and denounced as “populists”. But populists are political leaders who want to do what is popular, that is, what the people want. Why isn’t that seen as the very essence of democracy? What could be more democratic than the popular will?

Ah, but you don’t understand what real democracy is. Real democracy isn’t about what the people want, but what the people need. Which, unfortunately, they are too stupid and too ignorant to figure out on their own. They need the help of their betters — who are not “populists” — to determine what is best for themselves.

The esteemed worthies who make those decisions are loosely classified as “stakeholders”. The system which uses their inputs and preferences to guide public policy is referred to in WEF-speak as “stakeholder capitalism”. Under stakeholder capitalism, a group of loosely-affiliated policy wonks collectively makes the decisions about what people will produce and consume, where they may live, how they must travel, and what their attitudes must be towards various protected identity groups.

Who are the stakeholders?

Continue reading →

It’s Not OK to be German

Posted on by
4

Long-time readers will remember Björn Höcke, the popular leader for the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) in Thuringia. He has been featured here on multiple occasions going back almost ten years, including several videos of his speeches translated and subtitled by the tireless efforts of Rembrandt Clancy.

I don’t speak German, but even so, I found his speeches compelling. With his clear, lucid manner of speaking, his eloquence came through, with the help of the subtitles.

More recently, stories about Mr. Höcke’s travails have appeared here, most recently on May 22 and May 24. The AfD leader has run afoul of the Modern Multicultural German state, which is determined to destroy him by whatever means come to hand.

Björn Höcke is headed to court again, this time facing the possibility of going to prison. Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

Shortly before the state elections

“Everything for Germany”: New trial against Höcke begins

Starting today, Thuringia’s AfD leader Höcke has to appear in court again. Once again, the issue is “Everything for Germany,” although he only uttered the first two words. This time, he faces a prison sentence.

Halle/Saale

The Thuringian AfD state and parliamentary group leader Björn Höcke will have to answer again in a second trial before the Halle Regional Court starting today, Monday, for the slogan “Everything for Germany”. This slogan was once also used by the SA and is therefore banned. The same regional court had already sentenced the politician to a fine of €13,000 on May 14 for uttering it in 2021. [Isn’t it funny that “Allahu Akhbar” is NOT banned — after all, it’s the battle cry for incitement and each and every rape and murder by Muslims against non-Muslims.]

This time it is about an appearance in December of 2023. The public prosecutor’s office accuses Höcke of uttering the first two words of the slogan as a speaker at an AfD event in Gera, Thuringia. He then used gestures to encourage the audience to shout the word “Germany,” according to the public prosecutor’s office.

Höcke sees no criminal behaviour

The prosecutors are convinced that the AfD politician and the audience would have known that this was punishable by law. At that time, Höcke was already aware of investigations into his speech in Merseburg, for which he was convicted in May. The politician is accused of using symbols of unconstitutional terrorist organizations. [Are they telling me next that being born as a native German is a crime? If so, then the entire “German” government needs to be imprisoned, because they use the word “German”.]

Höcke denies that his behavior has any criminal relevance. The verdict is expected this Wednesday. If he is found guilty, the 52-year-old faces a prison sentence of up to three years or another fine, according to the Halle Regional Court. The state elections in Thuringia will take place in just over two months, on September 1. The AfD is clearly leading in the polls there.

The first verdict is not yet legally binding. Höcke’s defense team appealed. The politician had always stressed his innocence. He said he was unaware of the use of the slogan in the Third Reich. The regional court dismissed these doubts and convicted him. [Especially since this was the original slogan of the SPD — which are now in power — and was plagiarized by Ernst Roehm and the SA. Does that make sense?]

Continue reading →

Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime. — Chapter 6

Posted on by
5

Below is the sixth chapter in the serialization of Paul Weston’s book Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime. Previously: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime.

by Paul Weston

Chapter 6: Manipulating the Death Rate Data

If you have studiously ploughed through all the facts and figures so far, you must be wondering how on earth Western governments got away with the colossal fraud entailed in persuading us that Covid-19 deaths were enormously high throughout 2020. Ditto, that we were all equally threatened with death if we disobeyed the various ludicrous and tyrannical edicts crashing down upon us from the political, media, scientific and medical establishments.

What they did was actually very simple. Beautifully simple, in fact. They just applied the label of “Covid-19 death” to perfectly natural and normal deaths of the old and the ill, along with the deaths by terminally unfortunate accident of the young and the healthy.

Before PCR Testing became the norm, doctors were advised — without the actual necessity of looking at the recently departed — to label the death as a Covid-19 death if the deceased had shown any symptoms of Covid-19 such as breathlessness, fever, cough, cold etc. Needless to say, most old and ill people who die exhibit many of those symptoms.

After the PCR Testing regime became the norm, all deaths were labelled as Covid-19 if the deceased had tested PCR Positive. This included those who were dying from cancer, heart disease, stage-4 kidney disease etc. Mr X actually died of cancer, but Covid-19 was the label attributed to his death, simply because he had tested PCR positive two months earlier.

Even worse, a perfectly healthy twenty-one-year-old who died in a motorcycle accident was labelled a Covid-19 death if he had tested PCR positive three months previously. The government took some stick over this obviously fraudulent manipulation of mortality data, and decided to become less fraudulently insane by stating the PCR Positive Test must have taken place within twenty-eight days of the death.

This lessened the distortion to a degree, but nonetheless a fit and healthy twenty-five-year-old who died in a para-gliding accident was still labelled a Covid-19 death if he had tested positive at any point over the twenty-eight days between PCR test and para-glider plummet. All of this was criminally fraudulent, obviously, but it laid the groundwork for even more criminal insanity with regard to the future vaccines.

I don’t want to get into the whole vaccine issue in this article, but bear the following in mind: Fit and healthy thirty-year-old Mr Y was injected with the mRNA vaccine on Jan 1st, 2022. A few days later he felt a bit iffy and toddled along for a PCR test on January 5th which returned a positive result. On January 10th, 2022, poor old Mr Y suffered a heart attack whilst cycling and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The cause of death was listed as Covid-19. His family protested and said he had been feeling perfectly OK up to the date of the mRNA vaccine injection. Could the vaccine be responsible for his death, they asked the doctor. Of course not, she scoffed. Mr Y was technically unvaccinated, you see.

Continue reading →

Debunking the Prebunkers

Posted on by
1

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has been grappling with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for more than twelve years. Below is her report from this year’s supplementary meeting in Vienna.

First, the videos of her interventions. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for uploading these videos.

Intervention Day 1:

Intervention Day 2:

Debunking the Prebunkers

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is to this day the only international organization permitting the input of civil society in its meetings in the human dimension (human rights) realm, which are organized by ODIHR (pronounced “oh dear”), Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The main conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, takes place in early fall in Warsaw, while the three supplementary meetings take place in Vienna. The second OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting, which addresses a topic chosen by the current Maltese chairmanship — pardon me, in 2024, it’s “chairpersonship” — focused on the urgent need for media literacy to foster democracy.

In original OSCE lingo:

The second Supplementary Human Dimension meeting will focus on […] the interlinkages between media literacy and democracy. It will provide a forum to explore challenges and opportunities in today’s online information environment and their impact on democratic participation, discussing the role of media freedom and information literacy in promoting active citizenry and social resilience, especially in an important election year like 2024.

Session I explored the role the media plays in strengthening social resilience amidst technological advances. The annotated agenda noted the need for the “fostering of data-based journalism that provides a counterbalance to misinformation […]. New fact-checking initiatives have been established with the aim to provide well-researched facts instead of false information.” One of the so-called introducers to the session was a young woman from Correctiv, yes, the “fact-checkers” that broke the sensational story of an innocuous meeting of like-minded people to discuss the future of Germany, a meeting that was likely infiltrated, either in person or with listening devices or both. Correctiv reiterated the urgent (!) need for fact-checkers, especially in light of the right-wing actions “we are currently witnessing.” Another introducer discussed “good” and “bad” info, as well as the “challenges” associated with this type of information.

In my first intervention I focused on the question of who decides what is good or bad information, who decides what a “false narrative” is, and whether “challenges” aren’t just “contradictory views” that are not pleasing to the Powers That Be. In addition, I asked how we, the citizenry, can form an opinion if we cannot access information or an alternate view if media outlets such as Russia Today are banned in the European Union. Furthermore, I addressed the Representative of the Freedom of the Media, who in her speech spoke about the necessity of protecting freedom of speech. I said: “However, the concern is more that the media reports something that goes against the prevailing narrative and that is immediately subjected to labeling, such as conspiracy theory or misinformation.” I quoted Elle Purnell, assistant editor at The Federalist: “Misinformation is the perversion of information; information doesn’t have a moral component.” I then turned to Correctiv: “It is the perfect example of government outsourcing censorship efforts to evade finger-pointing and accusations of censorship. How do I know that Correctiv is doing the dirty work of the German government? Because in the presentation, there was a reference to Correctiv sponsors, one of whom is the German ministry of culture.” I also told Correctiv that it is not the job of so-called “fact-checkers” to decide whether the opinions and assessments of other journalists, or anyone else, are correct.

For the entire intervention, click here.

Having skipped Session II, which “provide[d] a focused discussion on the role of media literacy in the context of elections” due to meetings, I returned to Session III, which “explore[d] the nexus between media freedom and media literacy and their positive contribution to wider democratic processes and security.”

So, now it’s all about “media literacy” and “prebunking”. The former term sounds familiar, but the latter is wholly novel in my world. In an age of rampant “information disorder”[1] with its fill-in-the-blank (mis/dis/mal) information,[2] the antidote is not seeking the truth by allowing more speech and more ideas, but to prebunk before we debunk. And, of course, more than ever, we need media pluralism, according to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. How there is media pluralism in the OSCE region when alternative media such as Russia Today are banned, she and others did not elaborate on.

The introducers noted that media literacy is a crucial skill in the 21st century as it enables democracy and security and urged the rebuilding of trust in the media. Thus, definitions are now called for:

Media Freedom Literacy: “The knowledge and skills that enable citizens to appreciate the democratic functions of the media, both online and offline. This includes understanding the significance of a pluralistic, well-functioning media landscape serving the public interest, along with the ability to critically evaluate and ethically produce media content.” (OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media)

Prebunking: “The approach to educate people preventively (sic!) about the mechanisms of disinformation is called Prebunking. While debunking involves correcting specific false reports after they have spread, prebunking has a preventive effect. This provides an opportunity to proactively combat misinformation before it spreads. By providing information and analytical tools, resilience to misleading content is strengthened. (Prebunking — protection against disinformation (klicksafe.de) [3])

Perhaps I am ignorant and/or naive, but prebunking to my simple mind appears to be another word for pre-censorship, that is, censoring an idea or a thought before it even has a chance in the marketplace of ideas. How does that square with the OSCE’s noble idea of “promoting and fostering freedom of expression”? I argue that it doesn’t, and this is surely intentional.

Continue reading →

We Have a New Dutch Cabinet

Posted on by
4

Most of the membership of the new Dutch cabinet has now been announced (or leaked). Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan has the report.

We have a new Dutch cabinet

by H. Numan

Ladies and gentlemen, with regret I can inform you we have a new Dutch cabinet. It’ll be the cabinet Beria 1. Proof Geert Wilders is not the leader he portrays himself to be. Almost. But not quite. He lost on just about every major point against the combo Omtzigt — Yeşilgöz. Pieter Omtzigt did the dirty work, in the background supported by Dilan Yeşilgöz.

Omtzigt behaved like an unruly toddler. He whined. He cried. He stamped his feet. He walked out. But he got his way:

  • No party leaders will take part in the cabinet
  • All candidate PMs proposed by Wilders were rejected

That’s pretty big. It is customary in Dutch politics that the largest party supplies the Prime Minister, and that person is almost always the leader of the party. In other words: Wilders. To make it more palatable, Omtzigt and Yeşilgöz agreed no party leaders would join the cabinet. Even so, Wilders caved in where he should have shown his mettle.

During the negotiations, Wilders presented several candidates who were all rejected and humiliated. Let’s be honest. EVERY politician has something to hide. Maybe not a lot, but all do. Even Wilders and Trump. You can admire them, as I do. As long as you realize you don’t get to that position without stepping on a few toes and making a some mistakes. What Omtzigt did was find some dirt and give it to the media to do the rest. Every candidate from Wilders was taken to the cleaners.

Both Omtzigt and Yeşilgöz told Wilders — in private, of course — no matter who you nominate, we will block him. Even if you dig up William the Silent himself, we’ll reject him. You accept our candidate, or there won’t be a cabinet.

Wilders eventually caved in. The new prime minister will be Dick Schoof. This guy is currently without a party, which makes him acceptable according to the rules set by Omtzigt and Yeşilgöz. However, his previous positions were head of the AIVD and NCTV. In other words, Omtzigt and Yeşilgöz got their man in the number one spot. The AIVD stands for Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst, that is our FBI. NCTV stands for Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid, our Homeland Security. In other words, Lavrenty Beria himself. He is a career civil servant, known for dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

We have no idea how this cabinet will work, but I’m not too optimistic about it. At this moment last minute adjustments are being made. A PVV candidate (who else?) was just rejected over his security clearance. That means someone else must be found, approved, and vetted. I won’t bother you with their names. You don’t know them. All of them are second-tier, anyway.

Continue reading →

When Killing is Not Killing

Posted on by
2

It’s been obvious for a long time that it’s open season on the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany). Party members are violently attacked on the street, the party is excluded from numerous political events, and supporters lose their jobs or experience other restrictions in their day-to-day lives.

And now it’s official: the call to kill AfD members is not unlawful, because “kill” doesn’t really mean kill when used in this context.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

Jurisprudence

“Kill AfD members” is not a criminal offense, according to the court

Criticism, but no threat: Carrying banners with the slogan “Kill AfD members” is apparently not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, there have been several attempts to follow the slogan in recent weeks.

Aachen

The Aachen public prosecutor’s office has closed the investigation into the use of the slogan “Kill AfD members”. Members of Antifa displayed a banner with this slogan during a demonstration in January. This does not constitute criminal behavior, said the public prosecutor’s office, according to a report by RTL.

Since the statement ends with a period and not an exclamation mark, the inscription should be understood as an accusation against the party. According to conventional jurisprudence, when statements are open to a variety of interpretations, the most favourable version should be accepted. Accordingly, the poster accuses the party that its policies are killing people. [How much ideological mental gymnastics did this take for this “judge” to come to this ruling? It must has have twisted his or her brain into a Gordian knot.]

However, a spokesman for the public prosecutor’s office stressed that no general conclusions could be drawn from the verdict. Only the specific individual case would be decided.

Violent attacks on AfD politicians occur again and again Among others, Berlin MP Gunnar Lindemann filed a criminal complaint in January over the banner. He considered the banner a “public call for murder,” the politician wrote on Twitter at the time. [Which it is. And as everyone can see is a call they try to heed.]

In recent weeks, there have been several attacks on AfD politicians. The candidate Heinrich Koch was attacked with a knife and had to be taken to hospital with cuts. Two of the party’s city councilors were recently attacked in a café in Karlsruhe. Around ten masked men, some armed with objects, injured the politicians Oliver Schnell and Paul Schmidt.

In Dresden, the state parliament member Hans-Jürgen Zickler was attacked at a campaign stand shortly before the European elections. The 47-year-old attacker was subsequently arrested by the police. [And turned lose around the corner, perhaps?]

Afterword from the translator:

Continue reading →

Why is Nationalism Good in the Middle East, But Evil in Europe?

Posted on by
5

A version of this essay was previously published in Norwegian at the website Document.

Why is Nationalism Good in the Middle East, But Evil in Europe?

by Fjordman

What exactly is a right-wing extremist? Robert Fico, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, was nearly assassinated by a left-wing activist on May 15, 2024. Fico later indicated that the attempted murder was a result of “political hatred.” He criticized hostile media, especially outlets co-owned by companies linked to the billionaire George Soros, as well as foreign-funded NGOs and the opposition. Robert Fico is a Social Democrat in economic terms, and was a member of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, but he is critical of mass immigration.[1]

Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands was homosexual and had a left-wing background. He was murdered by a left-wing environmental activist on May 6, 2002. The mass media had whipped up hatred against Fortuyn after he criticized Islam and immigration.

It seems that any European, regardless of economic and social agenda, who opposes mass immigration to their country is automatically branded a “right-wing extremist.”

The most basic instinct of all living creatures, right down to bacteria, amoebas and other single-celled organisms, is self-preservation: You want to continue existing. Are Europeans now worth less than amoebas, since we are labeled as extremists if we want to continue our existence?

Why are Europeans evil, racist extremists just for wanting to preserve their own nation and culture? And how long will Europeans put up with being treated like this?

People in large countries such as Pakistan, India, China, Egypt or Ethiopia can assume that their countries will still be reasonably intact in the next century. China may have a low birth rate now, but Chinese people are not being displaced in their own cities.

Unless the whole world is ravaged by an extremely deadly disease, or the Earth is hit by a large asteroid that wipes out human civilization, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians and Ethiopians can be fairly certain that their nations will still exist in a hundred years.

Can the same be said of the English, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, French, Greeks, Swedes or Dutch? It is no longer certain that European civilization will exist in a recognizable form in the next century.

Mass immigration from other continents is so huge that vulnerable European nations risk being dissolved completely. Some of the most dynamic and inventive peoples in world history could disappear from history forever. This threat is now very real.

Which is more extreme: Replacing the population of an entire continent, or resisting this?

Continue reading →

Women Against Sharia

Posted on by
1

Below is a campaign video put out by the Spanish anti-immigration party Vox. It features various women who are taking a stand against the creeping Islamization of Spain, which has disparate impact on the freedoms that Western women enjoy.

Many thanks to HeHa for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Michael Stürzenberger: Enemy of the State

Posted on by
2

The above photo of Michael Stürzenberger was screen-capped from an interview he gave Junge Freiheit from his hospital bed. The man you see there is considered by the German state to be a danger to the country’s constitution.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

Mannheim assassination attempt

That is why the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is monitoring Stürzenberger

Because he is calling for a ban on political Islam and for Afghan immigrants to be screened, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is keeping an eye on the stabbed Stürzenberger. Further unpleasant truths make him an enemy of the state.

Munich

The Bavarian State Government’s “Bavarian Information Center against Extremism” explains on its website why the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is monitoring Michael Stürzenberger, an Islam-critic who was almost stabbed to death in Mannheim. The Afghan perpetrator murdered a police officer.

According to the statement, there are “actual indications that Stürzenberger and the Bavarian BPE regional association are pursuing anti-Islamic efforts that are relevant to the protection of the constitution and are aimed at abolishing religious freedom for Muslims.” “BPE” refers to the citizens’ association Pax Europa [Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa], for which Stürzenberger warns against political Islam.

But what exactly does the Office for the Protection of the Constitution accuse Stürzenberger of? The state-run “Bavarian Information Center against Extremism” has compiled several quotes that are supposed to prove the 59-year-old’s hostility to the constitution. [These bureaucrats will stretch anything to justify their own existence, even if it is to the detriment of all.]

Screening of Afghan migrants “violates human dignity” [Wow, and my wife had to go through a rigorous screening when we thought some twelve years ago to move to Germany from South Africa.]

First of all, there is this statement: “Every Muslim who comes to Germany from Afghanistan as a supposed ‘refugee’ must first be carefully examined for his or her attitude towards Islam.” This demand, the authority claims, would “violate human dignity” and is likely to “treat Muslims as ‘second-class citizens’ and exclude them.” [Does that statement mean that Afghans will get German citizenship by default? Because that’s exactly what this sounds like to me.]

Because Stürzenberger said that supporters of political Islam were pursuing the goal of “transforming Germany into an Islamic country in which Sharia law prevails,” he was spreading a “conspiracy theory approach,” according to the secret service. The critic believes that Islamists are working “at all levels in society and politics to help spread and gain increasing influence from their ideology, which is aimed at seizing secular power.” [Well, they’ve been saying this from the word “Mohammed,” and that our so called “intelligence services” do not believe what they have been saying for the last 1400+ years, while having successfully implemented this vile ideology in many countries around the globe in various ways, shows clearly that the word “intelligence” is to them not what it means to most of us. It’s definitely ABSENT when it comes to Islam and its aims for world domination.]

Stürzenberger: “Islam is not only religion, but also politics”

The state also sees evidence of Stürzenberger’s “anti-Islamic efforts relevant to the protection of the constitution” because he wrote on PI News: “Islam is a total and totalitarian system. It is a political religion with a claim to superiority and power. Allah is the supreme legislator and his laws are contained in the Koran and thus in the Sharia. And in the Koran, Allah calls for tolerance and peace on the one hand, and on the other hand he promises paradise to those who fight against the infidels with violence. Islamic terrorism is based on this.” [It’s the absolute truth, it’s been written clearly in the Koran and the Hadith. Just because the “intelligence” service cannot read doesn’t make it into a LIE, now, does it?]

Stürzenberger’s statement that the terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympic team in 1972, in which 17 people died, was the first attack by political Islam also makes him a case for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The accusation is that he “reinterpreted” the crime. The information office does not write what religious-ideological background the terrorist attack actually had or what it might have had instead. [And we’re supposed to believe this? Are they serious? Well, they’re the ones that are definitely giving the German people the Long Kiss Good Night here.]

Banning political Islam is subversive

In addition, Stürzenberger demands that the judiciary also include the component of “political Islam” in its decisions. While right-wing extremist views have long been aggravating factors in criminal prosecutions, Bavaria accuses the attack victim of violating “the rule of law” with this request. [There’s no “rule of law” when it comes to Islam by the looks of it. That statement made it absolutely clear.]

The Bavarian extremism experts also base their assessment of Stürzenberger on the fact that he describes the ban on “political Islam” as the “greatest social task of the 21st century” in order to “eliminate it from life here in Europe”. [And Stürzi is right; after all, millions of our ancestors perished while fighting to keep Islam OUT, and these people throw those sacrifices back into their faces for their own sick suicidal ideology. Not only Islam needs to be pushed out, but also everyone that makes apologies for Islam and helps them to infiltrate and conquer our societies. These people are TRAITORS.]

Afterword from the translator:

Continue reading →