Pelshval

Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Tag: freedom of the press

Holding our breath

27.08.2024 /

It is not easy to gauge the political temperature in my country these days. Not easy at all. Corporate news outlets persist in doing what they are paid to do, which is to keep us in the dark.

We were told, yes, that Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan had been sentenced to a good many years’ imprisonment, but we were not told that this was a US-orchestrated regime change operation. We were told that the PM Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh was forced to resign due to violent demonstrations. We were not told that this was another US-orchestrated regime change operation and that India is now squeezed between two US puppet states. The USA is protecting us, defending Democracy.

Democracy? Well yes, if you consider votes cast by a blindfolded electorate watertight evidence.

While Harris et al. are gushing all over our screens and newspapers – opening a paper is akin to eating a pound of cotton candy – some of us ask ourselves whether WWIII will start in the Middle East or in Europe. Harris is “tough”, though, and will make no concessions. Bring ’em on, she seems to say. The bipartisan magazine Responsible Statecraft is not impressed. Harris appears to share the Neocon view, writes Jack Hunter, that

diplomacy could prevent war, their primary goal, so better to avoid it. A tried and true method in preventing diplomacy is to accuse anyone who wants it of siding with America’s enemies.

In contrast, the magazine Foreign Affairs reassures its readers with the article “What Was the Biden Doctrine?”:

… it is clear that the past four years have witnessed remarkable achievements in foreign policy…the active pursuit of diplomacy… demonstrating a grasp of the traditional elements of statecraft…

How many Europeans read Foreign Affairs? How many Europeans read Responsible Statecraft? I have absolutely no idea. One thing is pretty sure though: Our own mainstream media is likely to parrot the former rather than the latter.

Last night I joined a few old friends for a drink down town. I know they still follow the mainstream news outlets, the news outlets they have been taught to trust as “objective”. For some mysterious reason, “objective” is seen to be synonymous with “neutral”, at least in this country. If the reporter claims to be – and convinces the reader that he or she is – “neutral”, i.e. neither left-wing nor right-wing, most Norwegians believe she will be more likely to “objectively” discern what is good (or correct) from what is bad (or disinformation), than if she is strongly opposed to mainstream policies.

You will have noticed that I did not provide any link to Foreign Affairs. I believe that the agenda of most Foreign Affairs contributors is continued US global supremacy at all costs, an agenda I strongly object to. So you are right to assume I am anything but “neutral”.

My friends knew that I have not been neutered (pun intended). They know I am angry. But I love my friends, so I have learnt to shut up, and since they love me, they allow me to keep my peace. We do not discuss foreign affairs. Period. As for domestic affairs, the so-called “objective” and “neutral” press is mostly interested in the Norwegian Royals’ domestic problems and my friends are as indifferent to the Royals as I am. So I wonder: What do my friends really make of the “news”, all told?

Last night, I informed them that Associated Press had reassured me that the cat Sam had been reunited with his mistress (name not given by AP) after 11 years’ painful separation. My friends raised ironical eyebrows and retorted that the Norwegian press, on the other hand, was currently devoting most of its attention to the circus of the upcoming US elections. I interpreted this as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Norwegian press.

And since most of us in this country are very distressed about the vicious extermination of all fellow human beings from Gaza, I thought it might be safe to comment that from the few surviving Palestinians’ perspective, at least, it did not matter who became president, since AIPAC gives generous “donations” to both candidates and will make sure that Netanyahu gets what he wants regardless. “No US president can ever refuse whatever the Israeli government asks for,” I declared and received blank stares in return.

What did those blank stares express? I don’t know, because I did not press the point.

I assume my interlocutors still firmly believe that Putin is a new “Hitler”. After all, that is what they’ve been told day after day, just as they’ve not been told about AIPAC and FARA.

On the other hand, many people have learnt to appreciate Aljazeera over the years as an addition to N.Y. Times. Many also know Palestinian refugees living here. Finally, a growing number believe that what has been going on in Gaza has surpassed, in sadism if not in scale, Holocaust itself. Finally, the USA has made no attempt to conceal that they have sent billions and billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and other military aid to Israel over the past year. Yes, team Biden says they want Israel to stop the mass killing of defenceless human beings, but words have decisively been contradicted by facts. And weapons and military support are definitive facts.

So do my friends believe that the USA is not complicit in the ongoing genocide? And if we insist on using the Hitler-analogy, who is then the modern-day Hitler?

We are being kept in the dark. Yet even in the dark, a person might see the red-hot metal of distant burning tanks and smell the distant human flesh. Even in the dark, we can hear sirens.

Inquisition

05.01.2023 /

So what if I were wrong. What if there was no US-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014? What if the Ukraine war is not a proxy war waged by the USA against Russia? Does that mean that such suspicions, such suggestions, such ideas should be banned from all mainstream and social media on the grounds that they are the product of Russian propaganda, i.e. that they are ideas spawned by the “enemy”?

Almost all my compatriots believe that Putin is “evil”, and that this entire war has to do with his personal megalomanic ideas regarding a land of innocent farmers minding their own business. It’s not that my compatriots are stupid: I put to you that the mainstream media can be compared to the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition. Even Jews and Moslems converted, what else could they do?

There are undoubtedly very many innocent farmers in the ravaged land of Ukraine. Quite many of them, however – true, a minority – speak Russian, think and feel Russian. That part of the story has basically been forgotten by mainstream media.

Now the interesting thing about the Spanish inquisition is not that people were burnt at the stake, but that the Inquisition lasted much longer in Spain than elsewhere, until 1834, in fact. The last person to be executed on charges of heresy in Spain, was a Caetano Ripoli in 1826 – he was a teacher inspired by Enlightenment ideas. Nowadays, we all bow to those ideas, those of the Enlightenment. But the powerful Spanish clergy and the nobility – neither the one nor the other paid any taxes at the time, and between them they bled their peasants to the bone – would have none of such ideas, naturally.

All of Europe executed heretics, by the way, also Protestant nations. In Protestant Norway, for instance, more than 300 people (mostly women) were found guilty of witchcraft and executed. These people were considered the Devil’s tools, so the wealth of extant court records of the trials, which by the way are extremely detailed, make no secret of the use of torture. Torture was deemed a perfectly reasonable tool, not only to combat the Devil, but also to salvage the women’s souls: Only if they confessed would they stand a chance of not burning in Hell till Kingdom come.

I add for the record that between 1400 and 1782, some 40,000–60,000 were killed, mostly in Europe, on charges of witchcraft. (Source: Wikipedia as at 2023.01.04)

So my point is not that the Spanish Inquisition executed large numbers of people, on the contrary, but that it was so tremendously efficient. Basically a network of courts, it held the entire population in thrall for nearly five centuries; people feared God, feared each other, feared being denounced or accused by their neighbours, feared life itself.

The Inquisition’s crusade was against freedom of information, freedom of thought. In short, it aimed to arrest the exchange of ideas. Its success was undeniable, in that it basically halted all progress.

Many countries practised censorship. The Spanish Crown did not need to. With the gold and silver from their colonies, Royalty, the Church and the nobility built extravagant palaces to which they invited foreign artists, but look at the paintings of the great Golden Age Spanish painters (e.g. Murillo, Zurbaran, Ribera and El Greco. Apart from Velasquez and, later, Goya, they painted mainly “the Virgin”, Christ, Cupids, Angels, saints and clouds.

So what did Inquisition censorship do for Spain?

Spain was a total flop, economically, politically and socially, until very recently. That is censorship for you.

With God on its side, to quote Bob Dylan, the Inquisition throttled growth. Whereas England, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, even Poland, prospered, Spain did not. People were terrified of offending God even after the Inquisition; in fact, way into the 1970s. In a fabulously fertile country, most people lived in abject poverty.

So what if I’m wrong. What if there was no US-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014? What if the Ukraine war is not a proxy war waged by the USA against Russia? Let them – those who deny what some of us maintain are facts – counter those facts with other observable facts. Let us calmly and coolly analyse what happened.

Instead, the US Inquisition ( cf. for instance the Twitter Files) has cancelled us, not only in the US but in all of NATO, suppressing freedom of information and even throttling freedom of thought – since without information no real freedom of thought.

Much good that will do us all.

Deafening silence

31.12.2022 /

The USA has just given its citizens a great big Christmas gift – that of another 44 billion USD for the defence of Ukraine (bringing the total so far to approx 100 billion USD). US citizens must be thrilled. Russia will be spanked by Patriot missiles – aye, Russia will be spanked, period, and that must be a great comfort to families who could not afford a Christmas tree this year either.

Europe is also spending a great deal – actually, I don’t know how much my country is spending on the destruction of Ukraine, because no news outlet is taking the trouble to inform us. What I do know is that Europe no longer receives gas from Russia, and that Europeans are therefore freezing. I am freezing, too, as I write. So we are also being spanked.

Yet, the silence is deafening, and I am reminded of a film title “The silence of the lambs”. We are the lambs, and nobody even dares mutter imprecations against NATO. Yet, does anybody really believe that NATO is defending human rights, Democracy and freedom of information?

Speaking of freedom of information, I visit a number of mainstream news outlets every day. RTVE.es NRK.no, El Pais, New York Times, le Monde, RUV.is, Klassekampen, Guardian… They all seem to be synchronised! Would you believe it? They all say the same thing. Let me tell you – and I’ve been a news junkie for years – it’s scary! It’s terrifying!

For years, too, Glenn Greenwald has been going on about dwindling freedom of speech in the USA, and as things turned out, he has had every reason to harp on the topic. What is less known to us in Europe – we have no Glenn Greenald here – is that we are almost certainly subject to the same regime. The synchronisation of mainstream European news outlets suggests that news to us is carefully filtered and censored. In my country, for instance, we have a whole and growing series of services (that the general public rarely hears about) designed to protect our national security. No doubt they do – protect our national security – but what else do they do, I wonder.

I don’t know, I only suspect. What I can see, however, is that mainstream media here have not discussed the so-called “Twitter Files”. They have merely portrayed Elon Musk’s dismissal of employees as the bizarre acts of a deranged man.

I do not often say “look to the USA”, but in the country with the world’s highest prison population, some brave investigative journalists are still holding the fort. Glenn Greenwald recently referred to TikTok as an example of government censorship:

Rather than ban TikTok from the U.S., the U.S. Security State is now doing exactly that which China does to U.S. tech companies: namely, requiring that, as a condition to maintaining access to the American market, TikTok must now censor content that undermines what these agencies view as American national security interests.

…

These moves by the U.S. Security State to commandeer censorship decisions on TikTok, accompanied by the hovering threat to ban TikTok entirely from the U.S., appear to be having the desired effect already. …

What TikTok did in response to US demands was to remove a Glenn Greenwald video clip, an

… indisputably true and rather benign review of how media outlets, including The Guardian, had previously depicted Zelensky as surrounded by corruption and hidden wealth. To be sure, the excerpt was critical of Zelensky, but there is absolutely nothing even factually contestable, let alone untrue, given that the whole point of the clip is to show how the media had spoken of Ukraine and Zelensky prior to the invasion as opposed to the fundamentally different tone that now drives their coverage.

Since not all of you have access to the quoted article, I shall quote a source that you will have access to: the Consortium News “compendium of evidence”, regarding events in Ukraine in 2014.

Consortium News is being “reviewed” by NewsGuard, a U.S. government-linked organization that is trying to enforce a narrative on Ukraine while seeking to discredit dissenting views. The organization …. calls “false” essential facts about Ukraine that have been suppressed in mainstream media: 1) that there was a U.S.-backed coup in 2014 and 2) that neo-Nazism is a significant force in Ukraine. Reporting crucial information left out of corporate media is Consortium News‘ essential mission.

But NewsGuard considers these facts to be “myths” and is demanding Consortium News “correct” these “errors.”

To make a long story very short, there are two lessons to be learnt from the two quoted articles.

1) the USA is determined to suppress information about its role in the war in Ukraine. One of the methods used is explained by CN. Another method is explained by Glenn Greenwald’s article quoted above.

2) The USA no longer even bothers to conceal the fact that the press is being monitored and heavily censored.

So heavily censored is the press and social media that even the obvious – the fact that the USA is waging a proxy war on Russia – is never mentioned otherwise than as an example of Russian propaganda.

You might agree with a well-informed friend of mine who maintains that in the battle between “good” and “evil” forces, even censorship is legit. I put to you, though, as I put to him, that Manichean Never-never-land stories are extremely dangerous, because they cloud our judgement, undermine our ability to assess our governments and basically paralyse the Democratic process. He responded: “But surely, wouldn’t you rather live in the US than in Russia or China.” I told him that I would prefer to live where I live, but given the choice between the USA and Russia, I would prefer Russia; I would never be rich enough to afford a decent health insurance in the USA.

So on this last day of this last horrible year, from freezing Europe on its way into a serious recession, I wish you luck in navigating through a miasma of NATO, corporate, and government falsehoods during the coming year.

… and the information war continues

08.05.2021 /

The lesson should have been learnt a long time ago, back in 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed that the United States helps itself to just about any information it wants, about anybody. I won’t go into details about his assertions, as they are very beautifully explained and substantiated in his book Permanent Record.

US surveillance programmes also cover European and goodness knows what other countries, including mine, the purpose allegedly being national security, just as the invasion of Iraq was for national security reasons. In practical terms that means that if somebody reveals anything that embarrasses the powers that be, that person must be hunted to the ground and destroyed, to wit, the shameful case vs Julian Assange (see Deutsche Welle), and that vs Snowden himself who has had to apply for citizenship in Russia, of all places, so as not to suffer Assange’s deplorable fate. I’m sure Putin must be laughing.

Now the US is definitely not the only country that destroys those who would cast aspersions on its greatness and best-ness and Democratic-ness. On the Press Freedom Index, the US now ranks as no. 44, which isn’t so bad, really, only marginally behind South Korea, though considerably worse than the UK which ranks at no. 33.

Nonetheless, I guess no whistle-blower in his sane mind would turn to US American bona fide media outlets — not that I’m suggesting that Snowden was insane. As a matter of fact, he didn’t turn to the US American press but to Glenn Greenwald; speaking of whom, I urge you to read his latest article on substack.

At any rate, today, the New York Times has a very dry article, way below the main headings on its website, the sub-heading of which is directly misleading: “Federal prosecutors sought phone records for three Washington Post journalists as part of an investigation into the publication of classified information in 2017.” The main heading which, I repeat, was way below the rest of the news, is actually more accurate: “Justice Dept. Seized Washington Post’s Phone Records“. The key word here is seized. I don’t know about you, but I almost overlooked the heading. Justice departments are always seizing something or other, it’s their job. (The highlights are mine.)

The point is: The authorities not only sought but obtained all they wanted in order to uncover certain journalists’ whistle-blowing source. This was, admittedly, onTrump’s watch, but is the US Justice Dept. the President’s lapdog? The NYT fleetingly mentions, en passant, “a case where prosecutors secretly seized years’ worth of a New York Times reporter’s phone and email records. That case signaled a continuation of the aggressive prosecutions of leaks under the Obama administration.” The NY Times refrains from going into details here; after all, the present incumbent of the presidency is on Obama’s side, as it were. The NY Times knows who butters its bread, let’s face it.

Nevertheless, the USA’s position 44 on the Press Feeedom Index is vastly better than that of the United Arab Emirates, at 131. You don’t get much worse than that, do you?

Or what? Well, yes, you do: India at no. 142 – repeat – one hundred and forty two – is the world’s largest so-called Democracy. The country’s president, Narendra Modi, is a pretty nasty piece of work, if you ask me. I leave you to a few sources in chronological order (all regarding India).

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) claims to be a-political. Already in 2018, the organisation noted red lights for the Indian press: Troll armies in PM Modi’s “pay”

In February this year RSF reports: Raids on critic al outlets in India.

In April the New York Times started looking at the matter.: NYT: India’s press not so free and NYT: Covid – Critical posts taken down

Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post, which discusses how the media discusses big topics, has been following India for a while, for instance here: Al Jazeera: Navigating bad Covid stats

Finally, a wonderful Indian author writes about Covid in India: Arundathi Roy: Covid in India

And the lesson? The one I referred in my first paragraph? It is very simple: Encrypt, encrypt, encrypt.

The rat is out of the hole

28.06.2017 /

You may have heard – and then again, you may not have – that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt have issued an ultimatum against Qatar, the 13 so-called “demands” the country must meet within ten days, “or else”.

If Qatar meets the demands, it will have ceased to be a state: It will merely be a vassal of Saudi Arabia, since what is demanded is in reality that the country surrenders its sovereignty.

It all started with an economic and diplomatic blockade launched in the wake of the US emperor’s visit to Saudi Arabia, and since the Saudis evidently feel confident about US support, goodness knows where it will end. For that very same reason – i.e. US support – nobody even mentions this issue around here. In Europe you don’t talk back to the US! Not in this country, not in any European country, least of all in the UK.

Now I was brought up with the BBC. I feel warmth and gratitude to the BBC. I know the names of many of their foreign correspondents. I download BBC podcasts and listen to them. But let us not delude ourselves: BBC is a British broadcasting company, and Britain is very cosy with the USA. As for the USA, well, need I remind you …? No, I won’t remind you, because that would require not a website but many tomes of modern history. However, take a look at Reporters without borders. If you click the map you will see that the USA ranks no higher than 43 out of 180 states as far as freedom of the press is concerned.

My country is also uncomfortably cosy with the USA, if not quite as cosy as the UK, but certainly cosy enough for its national broadcasting company to refrain from ever quoting Al Jazeera. Yet, I suspect that all good foreign correspondents – be they from my country or from the BBC – consult Al Jazeera more than almost any other outlet, at least about Middle East issues. Why? Because Al Jazeera is good, very good! And they are not bound by the US Patriot Act.

One of the 13 “demands” is that Qatar close down Al Jazeera. Now I don’t know whether you watch Al Jazeera, but what I do know is that whether you do or don’t, the news outlet will have considerable impact on what is revealed to you about world affairs. If it were not for Al Jazeera, the US and the UK could tell their side of the story, and nobody would know the difference.

I wish to quote another Guardian article of today (also quoted, by the way, by Al Jazeera):  Asked whether the closure of al-Jazeera was a reasonable demand, the UAE envoy said:

We do not claim to have press freedom. We do not promote the idea of press freedom. What we talk about is responsibility in speech.

I ask you, could any quote be clearer?

As far as watchdogs go …

09.11.2015 /

So, am I being watched? I mean, am I subject to more scrutiny on the part of western intelligence agencies than the average man and woman? Are you, who are reading me, being watched?

Because we are all being watched, remember? Not only by the NSA, which appears to have assumed extra-judicial powers and which, incidentally, collaborates with any number of states.

In case you don’t remember, allow me to remind you of the EU Data Retention Directive, the formal purpose of which is to make it harder for criminals to escape. No matter who that criminal is, no matter how anonymous, the Data Retention Directive will make it very hard for him or her to hide in Europe for any length of time.

If the sole purpose of the Directive were to bring heinous criminals to justice, I would be all for it! I very much want the big bad guys brought to justice. In fact I am all for the directive in principle, but I am worried about certain nefarious side-effects. One of them being that we do not all always agree about who the really, really big, bad guys are. Not so very long ago, for instance, homosexuals were considered very bad. I mean really “bad”!

I for my part am of the opinion that one really bad guy is Benjamin Netanyahu and that another is George Bush. Were it not for them, I doubt there would have been a 9/11 (Netanyahu was not the PM at the time, but he had been).

Bush and Netanyahu do not bear all the blame for Israel’s expansionism, to be sure, but a big chunk of it, and thus for much of the ghastly global consequences of Israel’s crimes against humanity. (IS terrorism is just the first pixel of the rather dim picture.) Will Bush and Netanyahu ever be brought to justice?

So much for bad guys. As for the good ones, Edward Snowden tops my list. Without research and its shared results, humanity would never have got this far, obstructed as it has been from time immemorial by power mongers. Snowden has uncovered a weapon that was and still is being used to throttle investigative journalism, on which we so desperately depend for the defence and development of the common good. The US authorities, on the other hand, would do practically anything to get hold of him and put him away for ever, as they have with Brian Manley, who has more or less given his life to help us understand the gravity of the crimes against humanity committed by Bush in his war on Iraq.

I believe, and I hotly maintain, that in most normal circumstances you have to be a crook in order to reach the highest echelons of power, not only in the USA. I used to think Obama was an exception, but now I merely think that even crooks can have a few decent items on their agenda. Certainly, even crooks can love their children or their dogs. To get to the top, you have to be able to cross lines that no decent person can even imagine crossing. In other words, if you get to the top, look at yourself in the mirror and ask: “Where did I go wrong?” If you get to the top, make arrangements at once to bribe a biographer into painting a flattering portrait of you. If you are lucky, investigative journalists won’t discover the bribe, and the flattering portrait will confuse posterity for ever.

With such views I very much doubt I would be granted a visa to the USA, if I applied. Obviously the authorities to which I applied would have had to examine more than my passport and my empty criminal record (to which they officially have no access, by the way) to know that I abhor US foreign (or for that matter domestic) policy. And they would be sure to know.

I actually don’t think that I am the target of particular attention on the part of my own country’s anti-terrorist intelligence efforts. It’s not as though I were the Huffington Post. But I put to you that anybody in any country, in the EU or elsewhere, who is considered a potential political threat by the powers that be (political and corporate) could risk being subjected to extraordinary scrutiny simply because advanced tools of mass surveillance are in place. And where they are in place, they can be abused, as Snowden has so forcefully demonstrated.

Now if you believe that in your country they would never abuse those tools for political purposes, I congratulate you: State your views without fear, and with a little luck, you will not be made to suffer. But if you distrust your national authorities, you might consider shutting up.

That is what many critical journalists do. They have learnt to shut up. Journalists need to consider their future, their careers, their families, etc. They need to earn incomes like the rest of us.

No need to refer to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. In fact, no need to look further than to Spain, where an authoritarian and mendacious PM has been holding forth for some years now. He has nothing to offer the voters except strident references to Spanish glory. And since I actually read Spanish papers – at least I did – I have found that even El Pais has lost its spark. Its journalists now devote their literary verve on accounts about bickering and intrigues within opposition parties.

There is nothing glorious about Spain, these days. The country is as riddled by corruption as a Swiss cheese. We know about this, because the press revealed it. One by one, many of the ruling party’s crown princes have been dragged before the courts – not sentenced, it is true, because the courts are partial – but exposed to the public. (Nor have they been acquitted. The cases are merely protracted for years and years, frozen.) Even the King’s sister faces very serious charges (yes, of putting public money in her darling husband’s pocket).

The New York Times (and apparently also Amnesty International) have been rather heavy-handed in their  criticism of Spain recently. Apparently, the Spanish press is being straight-jacketed not only because of the structural challenges facing newspapers everywhere, but also because the PM now has the power to rein in freedom of the press. Whether due to restructuring or for political reasons, 11,000 journalists have lost their jobs in Spain in recent years. Those who are still hanging on are not likely to stick our their necks.

NYT about curtailment of freedom of the press in Spain

or

NYT about so-called “gag-law” in Spain

When mainstream newspapers have lost their bite, when they no longer do their job – i.e. to tell the public what the public needs to know in order to make informed decisions, for instance that Mr Rajoy, Mr Netanyahu and Mr Bush are crooks – others will have to pick up the banner and continue the race. Those others could be bands of laid-off journalists who form small subscriber-based internet “newspapers”. Or they could be well-informed citizens who maintain their own open websites.

Whoever they are, we need them. And because we need them, we must protect them. We must adamantly oppose surveillance of our private correspondence (including who we correspond with) orally or in writing. The contents of our correspondence must not be stored anywhere, except by court order and when there are “reasonable grounds” to suspect that we have committed a crime punishable by a long custodial sentence. Obviously, we must also be on the alert against “gag laws” (cf. NYT in the second link) that turn expression of certain views in certain places into punishable offences.

Equally important is the protection of you, the reader.  Make no mistake. The websites you visit, the books you read, even the pornography you secretly enjoy – it is all your private business and should remain so. Google and Apple do not agree, but you might consider leaving Google and Apple.

It is sickening to hear members of the public exclaim, “why should I oppose the prohibition to film the activities of the police during demonstrations? I never take part in demonstrations, and I certainly have no interest in filming the police.” Maybe you have never taken part in a demonstration, Mister / Lady, but believe me: had you been a Spaniard living in Spain these past years, you might very well have done so. In Spain, I have seen grey-haired demonstrators wearing kid gloves, Italian shoes or mink.

What happened in Spain could happen in your country, too. In fact, as we speak, country after country in Europe is reeling under the burden of a tsunami of refugees. The ramifications of this mass movement of desperate people may be well-near devastating. I have known for years, and warned, that this would happen, so I am not surprised. What I don’t know is what happens now.

There will be trouble. There will be demonstrations and anti-demonstrations. But freedom of the press must not – NOT – be curtailed in any – I repeat – ANY – way.

© 2024 Pelshval

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑