The BBC has pulled material from its Bitesize educational website, used by 1.7 million pupils a week, after it was caught rewarding kids for backing open borders and pushing Left-wing views on migration and Net Zero.
The post BBC Bitesize Pulls Left-Wing Material Pushing Extreme Views on Migration and Net Zero appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© Osamah Abdulrahman/Associated Press
By Glenn DIESEN
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university – no arguments are apparently required.
It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?
I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.
I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.
2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental “human rights organisation” that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.
3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they “debunk”?
My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.
My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.
My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.
Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.
Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com
Russia is ready to resume three-way talks with Ukraine and the US, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in an interview with Pavel Zarubin of state broadcaster VGTRK, published on 22 October. He said they should settle security for both countries after a final peace deal, not a brief pause.
Putin spoke a day after he hosted US envoy Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he would accept freezing the war along the front line. In May, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov named Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbas and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts as the only condition for peace. Any new round would start from that gap: Kyiv offers to stop where the armies stand, while Moscow’s last stated terms demanded more land.
Putin stated that Moscow and Washington had agreed Russia was ready to resume trilateral contacts. He added that he generally agreed with a US point that European security architecture should also be discussed.
On 21 October, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov stated that the sides had settled on mid-November, with Abu Dhabi as the likely venue.
In a 21 October Fox News interview, asked about a freeze leaving Ukraine 75% or more of its land, Zelenskyy answered: “Yes, right now, we have to freeze.”
Asked about the land Ukraine would give up, Putin replied that the occupied regions were not Ukraine’s but "historical Russia." He claimed their residents had voted for independence and then to join Russia, and called any talk of territorial losses inappropriate.
Putin linked Russia’s readiness to negotiate to Ukrainians being a people very close to Russians. He claimed the latest genetic studies show they are one people. Independent outlet Meduza noted it is unclear which studies he meant. Putin’s 12 July 2021 essay on the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians made the same case, which Ukraine’s national memory institute rebutted.
He closed that answer by asserting Russia would achieve all the goals of what the Kremlin calls its special military operation. He made a similar vow on 17 December 2025.
Sergei Kiriyenko, first deputy chief of staff of the Russian Presidential Administration, set the goals for the Ukraine strand of the operation, launched in early 2023 under the codename "Uganda." Alexander Kharichev, now head of the Kremlin's Directorate for Monitoring and Analysis of Social Processes, oversaw it, according to hacked correspondence published by The Insider on 21 October.
Doppelgänger disguises Russian narratives as local news through cloned media sites, fake accounts, paid ads, and fabricated videos. The FBI named Kiriyenko among its orchestrators in 2024, and its contractor, the Social Design Agency (SDA), run by Ilya Gambashidze, is still expanding, now targeting AI chatbots. The new files go inside the Ukraine campaign and show the operation reporting even exposed fakes to the Kremlin as achievements.
An internal briefing on narratives says the project ran its Telegram channels on the principles of agent work and psychological operations, the Russian version of the investigation shows. Early on, the team decided to disguise all its outlets as Ukrainian and to run its campaigns without direct Russian propaganda. Every channel carried Ukrainian news to look unconnected to Russia. Dropping pro-Ukrainian themes, the briefing warned, would eventually expose the client and wreck the whole plan.
Kiriyenko set four goals: discredit Ukraine's military and political leadership, split its elites, demoralize its army, and disorganize its population. The SDA prepared the project's pitch and carried out the work.
Political strategist Alexander Asafov proposed fakes of his own: in May 2023, that soldiers were bribing commanders to avoid the front, and in January 2024, that Ukraine was pulling air defenses back to Kyiv to protect the authorities.
After an Il-76 military transport crashed in Belgorod Oblast on 24 January 2024, Moscow claimed it had been carrying Ukrainian prisoners of war. Kharichev's subordinate Yevgeny Kazakov, chairing a meeting in his place, proposed sending a fake to the widows of Ukrainian soldiers: "They died for an expensive Il-76—the Russians have few of those." The idea was dropped.
The same meeting produced another fake, and three days later the team launched it: that recruitment centers had sent widows a can of stewed meat with a little flag as compensation. The same producers also oversaw letters falsely attributed to Deputy Defense Minister Nataliia Kalmykova, the Russian version says.
The SDA collected coverage of its work in a folder for the Kremlin. It filed the "Zelensky's yacht" story, which JD Vance, then a US senator and now US Vice President, echoed, together with its debunk. The report also included a TikTok campaign about former Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov's family that the BBC had already exposed.
The Insider concludes that the team has had more failures than successes. The US sanctioned Gambashidze and the SDA in March 2024, and the UK followed in October.
Every year we're fed the same scare story about Britain's Atlantic Puffins all about to disappear, with climate change inevitably blamed. But as so often, it's the reverse that's true, says Paul Homewood.
The post No, Britain’s Puffin’s Aren’t About to Disappear Due to “Climate Change” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© WANA, via Reuters
On the night of Sept. 12, Ukrainian drones attacked Taganrog. Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) reported hits on an FPV drone production facility, two drone storage sites, a Pantsir air defense system, and a radar.
Local authorities, as usual, listed something else: 16 commercial buildings, five cars, a football
Germany’s federal states are proposing that social media platforms reserve at least 20 percent of algorithmic recommendations for content from a pool of approved media outlets deemed important for opinion diversity, according to a draft under public consultation. The proposed measure is already being slammed as a state-mandated propaganda effort that would force German citizens to view content friendly to the ruling establishment parties.
The measure is part of the second stage of a planned Digital Media State Treaty developed by the Broadcasting Commission of the Federal States. Under the draft, public broadcasters such as ARD, ZDF and Deutschland Radio would automatically qualify for certain offerings.
Meanwhile, private outlets would generally need to apply and demonstrate that they meet criteria including news and political reporting, information and educational content, documentaries, local or regional coverage, original journalistic production, editorial staffing and accessibility standards. Approvals would be decided by the 14 state media authorities.
In other words, the state wants to control what people are seeing in their feeds.
As the Berliner Zeitung reports, the media law involves “media quotas with an advantage for ARD and ZDF,” which are two state broadcasters that already have a massive advantage over private competitors. Both outlets, which are notoriously in favor of mass migration and known for their anti-AfD bias, and which employ virtually all left-wing journalists, are already known for not playing on a level playing field.
Austrian remigration activist Martin Sellner, along with other right-leaning accounts, already are warning about the new plans.
— Martin Sellner (@MartinSellner_) October 22, 2026
Public broadcasters like ARD and ZDF would qualify automatically. Private outlets would need "State approval"
You cant make this up.
The rule would apply to algorithmic recommendations shown to users, such as in feeds or under videos on platforms including Instagram and X. Content drawn from the approved pool would still be selected according to the platforms’ algorithms and user interests. Officials have framed the quota as a way to protect journalistic content from being sidelined by engagement-driven material.
However, skepticism is obviously abundant.
“And who gets this golden seal of quality for preferential playback completely automatically? Of course, the public broadcasters. Private publishers, on the other hand, get to play the supplicants and politely apply for the status at the so-called “state-independent” media authorities. A rogue mind thinks evil of it,” wrote commentator Bernd Kaiser.
“If you want to exchange views on X in the future, the algorithm will soon forcibly serve you the curated explainer journalism from Tagesschau — right between your friends’ posts. They’re selling us this unprecedented market intervention as ‘Public Value,’ but it’s a blatant attempt to secure air superiority over online discourse,” he added.
Mündiger Bürger? Dass ich nicht lache! Weil ARD, ZDF und Co. trotz 8,5 Milliarden Euro Zwangsgebühren im Jahr immer öfter an den Interessen der Menschen vorbeisenden, greift der Staat jetzt zur digitalen Brechstange.
— Bernd Kaiser (@Bernd_Kaiser_BD) October 21, 2026
Die neueste Glanzidee der Länder:
Wenn das Publikum freiwillig wegläuft, zwingt man ihm die Inhalte eben per Gesetz auf.
Der geplante Digitale-Medien-Staatsvertrag sieht allen Ernstes eine 20-Prozent-Quote für Social Media vor.
Das heißt: Jeder fünfte Post in Ihrem Feed bei X oder Instagram soll künftig verpflichtend ein „vielfaltsfördernder“ Beitrag sein.
Und wer bekommt dieses goldene Gütesiegel für bevorzugte Ausspielung völlig automatisch?
Natürlich die Öffentlich-Rechtlichen.
Private Verlage dürfen hingegen als Bittsteller auftreten und sich bei den sogenannten „staatsfernen“ Medienanstalten brav um den Status bewerben.
Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt.
Wenn Sie sich künftig auf X austauschen wollen, serviert Ihnen der Algorithmus bald zwangsweise den betreuten Erklärbär-Journalismus der Tagesschau – direkt zwischen den Beiträgen Ihrer Freunde.
Man verkauft uns diesen beispiellosen Markteingriff als „Public Value“, aber es ist der völlig unverhohlene Versuch, die Lufthoheit über den Diskurs im Netz zu sichern.
Wer exzellenten Journalismus macht, braucht keine algorithmische Rollator-Hilfe durch den Staat.
Wer aber Panik vor der eigenen Irrelevanz hat, flüchtet sich in Zwangsquoten.
Wir dürfen den Elfenbeinturm nicht mehr nur teuer bezahlen, wir sollen ab sofort auch bei jedem fünften Swipe in Demut daraus lesen.
#ÖRR #Meinungsfreiheit
The draft was released for public comment in late September 2026, with submissions accepted until Nov. 13. It builds on an existing “public value” system that already grants preferential placement to certain media apps in app stores and on smart-TV interfaces. Some private broadcasters, such as those already holding “public-value” status, would also be eligible for the pool.
The Berliner Zeitung, a private newspaper, noted that state-funded broadcasters could expand their visibility relative to private competitors that rely on advertising or subscriptions. Critics have also pointed out that the criteria emphasize structural and production features of outlets rather than the range of viewpoints in individual posts, and that there is limited evidence the specific 20 percent threshold would increase actual diversity of perspectives.
The Digital Media State Treaty is being prepared in two parts. The first, focused largely on implementing European Union rules including aspects of the AI Act, has already advanced. Part two remains a discussion draft and would require agreement by the governments and subsequent ratification by the parliaments of all 16 German states before it could take effect.
Media regulation in Germany is primarily a responsibility of the states under the country’s dual public-private broadcasting system.
The post Germany plans to force social media platforms to fill 20% of algorithmic recommendations with ‘state-approved’ content appeared first on Remix News.
The European Union claims that "the fundamental right to freedom of expression" only applies to journalists "acting in good faith," and that authorities do not have to give due process before freezing people's bank accounts, as these sanctions are "temporary and are not criminal in nature," according to a legal letter shared by a sanctioned journalist.
Last year, the European Union blacklisted 21 people for allegedly spreading Russian propaganda, banning them from doing business in Europe. One of them, Hüseyin Doğru, was falsely listed as a Turkish citizen living in Istanbul. In fact, Doğru is a German journalist in Berlin, making him the first European citizen on European soil to be sanctioned this way.
It was like being sentenced to "civil death," Doğru told American journalist Chris Hedges. He was banned from holding a job in Europe or having a European bank account, and authorities have restricted Doğru to a €506 ($567) per month allowance from his own money. "The sanctions are designed for people outside of Europe, so they don't really know how that should function with me, because I'm a European citizen and I'm living in Europe," Doğru told Hedges.
Last month, the civil libertarian Wau Holland Foundation hired lawyers to contest the sanctions against Doğru. And earlier this month, the Council of the European Union sent a response letter, which Doğru shared on social media, promising to escalate the case to the E.U. General Court. Although the council conceded to Doğru that he is not a Turkish citizen living in Turkey, it still insisted on the authority to punish him for his speech.
The council quoted a 2022 court case between the Russian news outlet RT and several European countries: "The protection of the right of the media and, more particularly, of journalists to impart information on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide 'reliable and precise' information in accordance with the ethics of journalism."
Doğru's lawyers insisted that he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. But the council responded that sanctions fall short of a criminal punishment, so any complaint about a "violation of the presumption of innocence is therefore unfounded." In other words, because he is not accused of a crime, Doğru has fewer rights than a criminal suspect.
"People need to understand sanctions are an extrajudicial measure. They're extrajudicial. There's no court. There is no hearing, no evidence, there is no sentence by the court, nothing," Doğru told Hedges. "When you're sanctioned, you are not informed….The day when I was sanctioned, me and my wife, my wife was pregnant back then, we went to the pharmacy to buy medicine for her, and her cards did not work."
The original blacklisting decision accuses Doğru of supporting "actions by the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability and security in the Union" by spreading "false information on politically controversial subjects with the intent of creating ethnic, political and religious discord amongst its predominantly German target audience."
Doğru and his wife, British journalist Lizzie Phelan, previously worked at the Russian-funded publication Redfish. A few months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he split off to create a new website called red.media, insisting to The Left Berlin that "we are not Russian. We are not Kremlin. red.media is not funded by Russia or any other state." In the same interview, Doğru called Russia an "imperialist" regime.
But in September 2024, a Biden administration "fact sheet" on Russian propaganda offhandedly mentioned red.media, citing a hit piece on Doğru by the German newspaper Tagesspiegel. Doğru told Hedges that the U.S. fact sheet created a circular logic in German media: "They said red.media is Russian because [U.S. Secretary of State Antony] Blinken said so. But what they never said is that Blinken is referring to your articles where you never say it like that. You say there is a suspicion, it might be so."
Doğru shut down red.media in May 2025 due to the bad press. The European Union sanctioned him a few weeks later. Doğru's lawyer, Alexander Górski, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine earlier this year that the European Union didn't "even attempt to make an evidentiary case" about any ongoing connection to Russia.
The blacklisting decision also claimed that, during a pro-Palestinian student protest at Humboldt University in Berlin, red.media "coordinated with the occupiers to disseminate images of their vandalism—which included the use of Hamas symbols." Doğru told Hedges that these accusations are an attack on journalists' freedom to do their jobs.
The European Union does not have the same protections for the freedom of the press as the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this year, the Curia of the European Union ruled that simply reposting clips from Russian media could be a violation of European sanctions, even if no money changes hands, something that is explicitly exempted from U.S. sanctions under the Berman Amendment.
Still, U.S. authorities have tried to push the limits of international sanctions to censor speech. The Biden administration told an American nonprofit that "the provision of a platform for [the sanctioned individuals] to speak" was illegal, backing down after the nonprofit sued.
And the Trump administration sanctioned Italian academic Francesca Albanese for her "lawfare" calling for the prosecution of Israeli leaders and a boycott of Israeli industries. In addition to freezing her bank accounts, the sanctions forced Columbia University researchers to cut off their relationship with Albanese, and Georgetown University to close her email account.
In the same statement accusing red.stream of being a Russian front, the Biden administration announced sanctions on two Russian news agencies. "We encourage dissent, open debate, and free discourse. But we will not stand for attempts by state actors to carry out covert activities with the goal of hijacking that discourse," the statement insisted. "The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior."
The post The European Union Wants To Punish People for Their Speech—Without Even a Trial appeared first on Reason Magazine.
La parola «bambini» era stata dipinta in grandi lettere bianche sul piazzale del teatro di Mariupol. Il 16 marzo 2022, durante l’assedio russo alla città, un’esplosione sventrò l’edificio dove centinaia di civili si erano rifugiati. L’inchiesta dell’Associated Press, “20 Days in Mariupol”, ha contato circa seicento morti. Quattro anni dopo, sul palco del teatro ricostruito e ancora sotto il controllo russo, un documentario prova a capovolgere la storia: non sarebbe stata Mosca a colpire, ma l’esercito ucraino.
Il film si intitola “Witnesses” e lo ha girato Vittorio Nicola Rangeloni, giornalista italiano che da anni alza il volume della propaganda del Cremlino. Intervista persone che accusano il battaglione Azov impegnato nella difesa della città, altri sostengono che gli ucraini avevano nascosto esplosivi sotto il palco e li hanno fatti detonare per attribuire la strage ai russi. «Questo è stato un attacco premeditato compiuto da soldati ucraini», dice Rangeloni, definendolo una provocazione destinata a screditare Mosca. Ma non c’è uno straccio di prova in grado di sostenere l’accusa.
D’altronde, le indagini indipendenti raccontano altro. Amnesty International ha concluso che il teatro fu probabilmente distrutto da due bombe da circa cinquecento chili sganciate da aerei russi. Secondo l’Associated Press, nessuno dei presenti ha detto di aver visto militari ucraini nell’edificio. Anche Gareth Collett, ex responsabile britannico degli artificieri militari, ha giudicato i danni compatibili con una grossa munizione sganciata dall’aviazione russa.
In “Witnesses” una strage documentata si trasforma in un episodio fuori dalla logica, in cui si ribalta il rapporto tra aggressore e vittima. Il New York Times dice che il documentario ha già superato le seicentomila visualizzazioni. Il teatro, demolito alla fine del 2022 e poi ricostruito, è stato riaperto nel dicembre 2025. Per Mosca è il simbolo della rinascita dei territori occupati: sul palco restaurato, la propaganda mette in scena anche la propria versione del passato.
Rangeloni è nato a Lecco nel 1991, da padre italiano e madre ucraina russofona – come in molti casi per le persone nate durante l’occupazione sovietica dell’Ucraina. Nel 2014 si trovava a Kyjiv durante le proteste di Euromaidan, che ha descritto come «un colpo di Stato sostenuto dall’Occidente» (ma non si capisce per quale ragione). L’anno successivo è andato nei territori di Donetsk e Luhansk controllati dalle milizie filorusse. Da allora si è presentato come reporter indipendente, raccontando il conflitto quasi esclusivamente dalla prospettiva russa: un assist al Cremlino dietro l’altro.
Nel 2016 ha fondato LNR Today-Italia, un’agenzia informativa legata alle autorità separatiste che dichiarava di voler combattere una «guerra dell’informazione» contro il governo e l’esercito ucraini. Ha stretto rapporti con le amministrazioni autoproclamate del Donbas – non riconosciute da nessuno a livello internazionale, se non Russia e Corea del Nord – e ha ottenuto la cittadinanza russa. Nel 2023 ha girato “Vopreki”, un documentario realizzato seguendo la brigata paramilitare filorussa Pyatnashka, associata a episodi di tortura di civili ucraini e prigionieri di guerra. Per lui l’invasione su vasta scala dell’Ucraina iniziata nel 2022 è una «guerra di liberazione».
Reporters Without Borders (Rsf) lo descrive come un propagandista che imita il giornalismo per diffondere la linea del Cremlino. L’organizzazione internazionale riferisce che dal 2019 è oggetto di un’indagine della magistratura ucraina per partecipazione a gruppi armati illegali: un’accusa, non una condanna. Mentre il Telegraph aggiunge che Rangeloni ha parlato dell’apertura di un procedimento italiano dopo una denuncia dell’ambasciata ucraina, senza fornire ulteriori dettagli.
La sua traiettoria non si è fermata in Ucraina. Nel 2024 è passato a Ouagadougou, capitale del Burkina Faso, per lavorare con African Initiative, agenzia di propaganda russa fondata a Mosca nel 2023 e finanziata da Viktor Lukovenko, già attivo nella rete di propaganda che era legata a Evgenij Prigožin (ex leader del gruppo Wagner). Ha seguito manifestazioni antiamericane e intervistato il ministro della Difesa burkinabè, mentre altri giornalisti venivano repressi o espulsi. Per Jeanne Cavelier, responsabile di Rsf per l’Europa orientale e l’Asia centrale, il suo lavoro serve a giustificare la guerra russa in Ucraina e a promuovere Mosca nel Sahel.
Il metodo è sempre lo stesso, cambia solo lo scenario: usa la parvenza di metodi e strumenti del giornalismo per propagandare una narrazione politica, con testimonianze selezionate per confermare una tesi già decisa.
Quando è stato contattato dai giornalisti del New York Times, Rangeloni ha difeso il documentario così: «Ho guardato negli occhi le persone che erano lì quel giorno. Non ho motivo di non credere a queste persone». Ma in questo modo la fiducia personale nei testimoni prende il posto di verifiche indipendenti e prove materiali, rendendo le stesse dichiarazioni dei testimoni poco credibili).
La parte peggiore di questa storia è che mentre il teatro viene usato per riscrivere una strage brutale, la vita quotidiana a Mariupol parla di una ricostruzione assai meno trionfale. Un articolo del Kyiv Independent spiega che in città persistono gravi carenze idriche, l’inesistente raccolta dei rifiuti, la carenza di risorse e personale per qualunque altro servizio essenziale. L’assenza di medici, ad esempio, rende impossibile far funzionare i centri diagnostici appena costruiti. Petro Andriushchenko, ex consigliere del sindaco di Mariupol e responsabile del Center for the Study of the Occupation, ha detto al Kyiv Independent: «Hanno costruito diversi enormi centri diagnostici a Mariupol, e ne stanno costruendo altri, ma sono lì, vuoti. Non c’è nessuno che ci lavori». Andriushchenko denuncia il collasso del sistema sanitario e la mancanza di personale disposto a trasferirsi in una città vicina al fronte.
È lo stesso Andriushchenko che, parlando al Telegraph di “Witnesses”, ha avvertito che Mosca prepara gli argomenti che qualcuno potrebbe usare domani per giustificare o attenuare l’aggressione russa. A Mariupol oggi convivono una città reale, segnata dalla distruzione e dall’occupazione, e una città di finzione, quella della narrazione del Cremlino, trasformata nel simbolo di una liberazione che cancella le responsabilità di chi l’ha bombardata.
L'articolo Il propagandista italiano che riscrive la strage di Mariupol proviene da Linkiesta.it.
The BBC has been accused of using its Bitesize website to push open borders, Net Zero and woke ideology on children as young as 11, teaching them that more immigration is great and anyone who disagrees is likely a bigot.
The post BBC Bitesize Accused of ‘Brainwashing’ Schoolchildren with Left-Wing Views on Migration and Net Zero appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Climate change is making your home uninsurable! That's the headline, but look behind it and you find a press release by a PR outfit touting some very dubious claims about floods and finance, says Tilak Doshi.
The post No, Climate Change is Not Making Your Home “Uninsurable” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Macron, com 15% de aprovação, prepara guerra com Rússia e dissolve associação Egalité et Réconciliation de Alain Soral por “extremismo político”.
Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.
Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su
Macron é, hoje, muito possivelmente, o presidente mais impopular do planeta, contando com apenas 15% de aprovação, segundo uma enquete Ipsos BVA-Cesi. Sob seu comando, a França se depara com a estagnação econômica (crescimento de 0,6% em 2025) e com o endividamento (120% do PIB). Sob Macron, a França viu também a desindustrialização acelerada do país, com as indústrias correspondendo a apenas 9% do PIB, menor patamar da União Europeia, e não surpreendentemente, o poder de compra despencou, com metade dos franceses dizendo que sua renda dá apenas para o essencial e apenas 70% dos cidadãos em idade ativa ocupando um posto de trabalho, atualmente.
Como se isso já não fosse o bastante, em aproximadamente 10 anos de governo Macron, aproximadamente 4 milhões de imigrantes entraram no país (muitos dos quais não trabalham, mas recebem benefícios sociais); quantia que torna impossível a absorção econômica bem como a assimilação etnocultural dos recém-chegados. Naturalmente, ao descontrole imigratório estão vinculadas taxas de criminalidade, favelização de centros urbanos e aumento das tensões sociais. Muitos franceses étnicos sentem-se demograficamente substituídos em sua terra natal, e não por acaso, tudo indica que Marine Le Pen ganhará (finalmente) as eleições presidenciais francesas em 2027.
Não sabemos quais seriam os resultados de uma presidência Le Pen e é razoável ser cético a respeito, mas claramente o atual curso da França é perigosíssimo, inclusive em sua política externa.
Gradualmente, nos últimos 2 anos, começaram a aparecer inúmeros sinais de que Macron estaria preparando o país para uma guerra com a Rússia. O governo francês criou um serviço militar voluntário e aprovou a expansão das forças armadas permanentes a 275 mil homens, bem como um aumento orçamentário para a defesa. O general Fabien Mandon, do Estado-Maior, afirmou em 2025 que a França deveria se preparar para um conflito de alta intensidade com a Rússia no prazo de três a quatro anos, e agora em setembro de 2026 Macron declarou que a França “poderia” se tornar alvo de drones explosivos. Constantemente, também, se ouve discursos sobre a necessidade de transformar a economia francesa numa “economia de guerra”.
Por isso, talvez seja surpreendente para muitos (mas não para nós) que em meio a tudo isso que tem acontecido no país, o governo Macron ainda encontre tempo para a implementação de um aparato de censura e repressão de níveis totalitários.
Sua nova vítima é a associação Egalité et Réconciliation (Igualdade e Reconciliação), criada pelo sociólogo e escritor Alain Soral. A associação se identifica como “nacionalista de esquerda” e tem como principal slogan “esquerda do trabalho, direita dos valores”, apelando a uma superação da falsa dicotomia entre esquerda e direita e, ainda mais importantemente, por uma reconciliação nacional entre todos os setores sociais; em anos recentes, ela esteve envolvida nas manifestações dos Coletes Amarelos, em algumas atividades ligadas ao partido Reagrupamento Nacional (apesar de, simultaneamente, manter uma postura de “crítica construtiva” contra certas tendências sionistas e liberais presentes no partido) e à militância pró-Palestina.
Ocorre que, no dia 9 de outubro, o Ministro do Interior do governo de Macron, Laurent Nuñez, anunciou a abertura de um procedimento de dissolução contra a associação Egalité et Réconciliation, sob a acusação de “extremismo político”. A sua equipe jurídica recebeu um prazo de 1 semana para se defender, e a decisão a respeito deve ocorrer, ainda, em outubro.
O próprio Alain Soral é uma figura de elevado espírito inconformista, razão pela qual já foi vítima de incontáveis perseguições judiciais – dezenas de fato – majoritariamente por “delitos de opinião”, ou seja, por comentários críticos contra pessoas específicas ou “minorias protegidas”. Em condenações, Soral já acumulou milhões de euros a serem pagos em indenização para ONGs globalistas diversas, soma obviamente impagável, bem como já foi encarcerado algumas vezes, também pelos mesmos motivos. A perseguição judicial foi tão intensa que Soral teve que se exilar de sua pátria, primeiro na Suíça e depois na Rússia.
Agora, para além das justificativas oficiais, por qual motivo o Estado francês baniria uma organização relativamente pequena e de poucos recursos financeiros?
É possível analisar o “ângulo” da presença de Alain Soral na Rússia, em mais de um sentido. Primeiro, porque ao estar na Rússia Soral finalmente tornou-se imune à constante perseguição judicial e às ameaças de prisão que ele sofria na França, ao mesmo tempo em que seguia tomando parte ativa no debate político e cultural francês, mesmo à distância. Nisso, ele era capaz de exercer e expandir a sua influência, “sob a proteção dos russos”, o que certamente alimenta as típicas paranoias atuais da elite francesa sobre uma “guerra informacional” russa.
Existe, porém, também um aspecto interno. Recentemente, Alain Soral voltou a ser bastante comentado pela mídia francesa por dois motivos. Um é o “caso Bardella”, o qual diz respeito à descoberta de supostos escritos “politicamente incorretos” de Jordan Bardella, presidente do partido Reagrupamento Nacional, e à informação de que em sua juventude a principal influência intelectual de Bardella era Alain Soral. O segundo é uma pesquisa de opinião indicando que 15% dos homens franceses com menos de 35 anos de idade se identificam com as ideias de Soral.
Isso às vésperas das eleições presidenciais representa um risco significativo para Macron e para o establishment francês. Ainda que, aparentemente, não haja chance de vitória para qualquer candidato contra Le Pen, não podemos duvidar da possibilidade de manipulação do processo eleitoral, tal como aconteceu na Romênia.
Esse silenciamento é ainda mais preocupante pelo fato de que Soral e o E&R serem praticamente os únicos personagens socialmente e culturalmente relevantes na França hoje que defendem a reconciliação nacional e que evitam a incitação do tensionamento interno, promovido pelos elementos mais islamofóbicos do RN e pela própria liderança do LFI de Mélenchon com seu “exército” de antifas e imigrantes.
Ask a chatbot why something happened in the war, and the answer may be written by Russia. Russia is poisoning AI chatbots with millions of fake articles so they repeat Kremlin narratives as fact, a cognitive weapon with strategic impact, Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces commander Robert “Madiar” Brovdi warns on Telegram.
Russia has waged a cognitive war against Ukraine for years, and it intensified sharply with the full-scale invasion. This war goes beyond fake news and disinformation: it aims to shape the deeply ingrained beliefs that drive people’s attitudes, decisions and behavior, and its newest weapon is artificial intelligence.
Brovdi calls it a cognitive operation with strategic impact, one his forces studied among the technological risks of 2027. People increasingly ask a chatbot “why did X happen?” and take the instant answer, he explains, without asking where it comes from.
“Artificial intelligence does not know the truth. It retells the internet, literally,” Brovdi claims.
Brovdi lays out a chain that turns a single lie into something a machine will repeat as fact:
The attack runs on volume. Russia floods the web through the “Pravda” network, close to 200 sites in dozens of languages posting 4 to 6 million near-identical articles a year, Brovdi claims, written for machines, not people.
It works, by his account. Of the ten most popular chatbots studied, about a third of the time they reproduce Russian fakes, he noted, and four of ten in a 2024 test affirmed that Azov fighters had burned an effigy of Trump, a fabrication, and cited sources for it.
Brovdi is blunt about the balance. Ukraine is losing this fight to Russia’s troll farms, he concedes, even as a layer of homegrown trolls has sprung up too.
His closing advice was aimed at readers.
“Critical thinking should not be delegated. Not even to the smartest machine. Switch on your own judgment and always check the source and the information,” Brovdi states.
Login