As the year draws to a close, the guardians of climate orthodoxy have once again unleashed their ritualistic howls of indignation at the actions of the Trump administration. Last week’s op-ed in The Guardian, Bob Ward and Michael Mann—attack dogs of the alarmist establishment—likened the US government’s decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to tyranny, “paid for” by fossil fuel interests. Their op-ed opens with the astonishing claim that the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “would have understood and even appreciated” Trump’s actions.
They accuse President Trump of suppressing climate science, evoking the spectre of Lysenkoism, that infamous episode where ideology trumped empirical inquiry under Stalin’s regime. The irony is exquisite even if lost on its progenitors. Here are two figures who have spent their careers calling for the cancelling of dissenters, now projecting their own sins onto a political leader intent on liberating science from ideological captivity.
An Orwellian Malignancy
This latest salvo is no aberration but a symptom of a deeper malaise. The climate alarmist narrative, much like its twin in the COVID-19 hysteria, relies on a censorship complex that brands any deviation as “misinformation.” Ward, a fixture in the environmental NGO circuit, has long specialized in ad hominem attacks on respected academics like Richard Lindzen and Richard Tol, dismissing their peer-reviewed critiques as heresy. Mann, infamous for his “hockey stick” graph that conveniently erased historical climate variability to fabricate a crisis, has faced courtroom rebukes for his litigious zeal. In his defamation suits, judges have accused him and his legal team of misleading tactics, underscoring the fraudulence of his claims. Yet, in the pages of The Guardian—that reliable echo chamber for green ideologues—the pair inverts reality, portraying Trump’s defunding of activist institutions as censorship, when it is precisely the opposite.
Consider the economic and institutional realities underpinning this charade. NCAR, after over five decades, has devolved into a taxpayer-funded propaganda mill, churning out models that predict apocalyptic futures while ignoring the stubborn facts of atmospheric physics and human adaptation. The Trump administration’s move to shutter it aligns with a broader push to restore scientific integrity, as outlined in the president’s “Gold Standard Science“ executive order. This directive mandates transparency in federally funded research, ensuring that models and data are replicable and free from the biases that plague alarmist projections. Far from Stalinist suppression, this is a reclamation of science from the clutches of unelected bureaucrats and their NGO allies, who funnel billions into “climate education” grants that invariably promote one-sided advocacy. NOAA, for instance, routinely awarded multimillion-dollar sums to nonprofits peddling green dogma, all under the guise of environmental stewardship.
The parallels with the COVID-19 debacle are striking, revealing how the misinformation label serves as a blunt instrument for silencing debate across scientific domains. Just as climate skeptics are tarred as “deniers,” COVID dissenters were branded spreaders of falsehoods. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, a leading epidemiologist, recently highlighted this hubris in a post on X: the notion that a cabal of bureaucrats and activist scientists can infallibly discern truth from error on complex matters is not just arrogant—it’s delusional. Bhattacharya himself endured censorship orchestrated by Anthony Fauci who among others in the medical establishment pressured social media platforms to throttle views challenging lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Across the Atlantic, the European Union’s censorship regime under European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen exemplifies this technocratic overreach. The unelected Eurocrat boasts of safeguarding free speech against “harmful and illegal activities” online with its Digital Services Act. It aims to restrict media platforms which host “disinformation” and critical views on mass immigration, the Ukraine conflict, or the ruinous costs of the green agenda in Europe.
In a rant that would impress Orwell, Ms. Von der Leyen speaks about how “pre-bunking” is preferable to “de-bunking” alleged untruths and where alleged “misinformation” is a virus:
“…we need to build up societal immunity around information manipulation, because research has shown that pre-bunking is much more successful than debunking. Pre-bunking is basically the opposite of debunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus—instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold, that is debunking—it’s much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated.”
Where have we heard that vaccination/inoculation story before? Perhaps we should not digress into Ms. Von der Leyen’s missing SMS phone messages which sealed the EU’s deal for 1.8 billion doses of corona “vaccine” costing €35 billion negotiated with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
In New Zealand, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went further, declaring government sources the sole arbiters of COVID truth, effectively criminalizing legitimate critiques from sceptical doctors and scientists upholding their Hippocratic oath. This Orwellian stance—where state-approved narratives are sacrosanct—mirrors the climate arena, where questioning net-zero fantasies invites professional ruin.
The Trumpian Pushback
The EU’s Digital Services Act plans to coerce social media giants into suppressing content that challenges Brussels’ orthodoxies, leading to a chilling effect on open discourse throughout the world. Earlier in the month, the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s X $140 million for “failing to comply” with regulations. But it is now a Trumpian world which frustrates Eurocrats to no end. America’s commitment to First Amendment principles clashes with Europe’s slide into regulatory authoritarianism. The US house judiciary committee describes the digital regulations as censorship which is “largely one-sided, almost uniformly targeting political conservatives.”
The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shot back last week:
“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship. Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.”
The U.S. state department’s sanctions on NGO leaders and a former EU official involved in these efforts underscore the geopolitical rift. Under Secretary Sarah Rogers detailed the individuals and the reasons why they have been barred. On the US state ban list are Imran Ahmed (Centre for Countering Digital Hate), Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg (HateAid), Thierry Breton (former EU Commissioner) as well as Clare Melford (Global Disinformation Index).
Let’s go through each of these censors. Thierry Breton was a key architect of the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, as European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he issued a letter to threaten Elon Musk ahead of his live stream interview with candidate Trump who was campaigning for his second term. The hubris of an EU functionary to warn Mr. Musk that his platform could be charged for amplifying harmful content in the EU can only be described as bizarre.
Undersecretary Rogers accused the UK citizen ImranAhmed of collaborating “with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” in a social media post on December 23rd, writing that his organization published the “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report” that spurred a campaign to de-platform those questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines including the current Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. . “Leaked documents from CCDH show the organization listed ‘kill Musk’s Twitter,’ and ’trigger EU and UK regulatory action’ as priorities…The organization supports the UK’s Online Safety Act and EU’s Digital Services Act to expand censorship in Europe and around the world.” It is interesting and not coincidental that Imran Ahmed’s CCDH was founded by Morgan Sweeny, Kier Starmer’s chief adviser. Clare Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, another British NGO that vigorously pursues anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers
Anna Lena von Hodenberg is the leader and founder of Hate Aid, a German NGO founded after the 2017 German federal elections to counter conservative groups such as the AfD. Ms. Anna and her NGO is an official “trusted flagger” under the EU’s digital services act. Clare Melford. Ahmed is the CEO of The Center for Countering Digital Hate, and Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, both two entities extremely active in anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers,
Morally Bankruptcy of the Eurocrats
Von der Leyen’s pronouncements on “inoculated information” ring hollow amid Europe’s deindustrialization, where energy policies driven by climate ideology have shuttered factories, spiked power prices, and eroded competitiveness. Germany’s Energiewende, once hailed as a model, now stands as a cautionary tale of economic self-harm, with manufacturing output shares plummeting and GDP growth stagnating.
At the heart of this EU-led censorship complex lies a modern Lysenkoism, where ideology masquerades as science. Today’s climate Lysenkoists similarly dismiss empirical inconveniences: satellite data showing no acceleration in sea-level rise, historical records of globally warmer periods like the Medieval Warm Period, or the economic models demonstrating that net-zero targets would cost trillions while yielding negligible climate benefits. But Eurocrats will condemn as “misinformation” self-evident arguments that cheap, reliable energy is the bedrock of human welfare. Witness Asia’s ascent, where coal, oil and gas have fueled GDP growth rates averaging 7% over decades, slashing poverty from 60% to under 5% in regions like East Asia.
The institutional incentives behind climate alarmism are pernicious. Multilateral agencies like the IMF and World Bank, alongside green lobbies, perpetuate myths of “fossil fuel subsidies“ that distort markets, penalizing hydrocarbons while subsidizing intermittent renewables to the tune of $1.3 trillion annually globally. In Africa, the push for “renewable leapfrogging“ ignores the continent’s dire need for baseload power, condemning millions to energy poverty under the banner of climate justice. Western elites, insulated from the consequences, preach degrowth while developing nations in BRICS+ reject such masochism, opting for pragmatic energy mixes that prioritize growth over virtue-signaling.
The contradictions of the censors of “misinformation” are glaring: alarmists decry “misinformation” while propagating doomsday scenarios that fail to materialize—recall the 50 years of apocalyptic predictions. Europe’s precipitous industrial decline exposes the folly of subordinating energy policies to ideology. In the U.S., the virtue signalling ESG investment drive — pushed by BlackRock’s Larry Fink among others — which funnelled trillions into underperforming green assets, is unravelling as returns lag and lawsuits mount over fiduciary breaches.
A New Year’s Gift
Yet, there is cause for optimism in this twilight of technocratic hubris. President Trump’s re-election signals a pivot toward evidence-based policy, unshackling science from the misinformation inquisition. By defunding activist enclaves like NCAR and enforcing transparency via executive order, the administration paves the way for genuine inquiry. Imagine a world where debates on climate sensitivity, the role of solar cycles, or the costs of adaptation are conducted openly, without fear of cancellation.
As Jay Bhattarcharya reminds us, free speech and replication as the standard of truth are necessary conditions for science to flourish. We need rational argument and data, not the censorship of state-defined “misinformation”. The US state department censoring the censors is good news as the New Year beckons.
A version of this article was published in the Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/31/the-misinformation-boondoggle-how-the-eu-led-censorship-industrial-complex-shields-approved-narratives-from-scrutiny/
At the very real risk of expressing an extremely unpopular opinion here, I don’t that see banning people you don’t like the opinions of from entering your country is a realistic approach to reach these goals!
PNGing such activists is mostly symbolic, but what do you propose?
Yeah, what’s the punishment for European liars?
One could argue what the EU is doing is an act of war. Attempting to punish US citizens for actions taken in the US is presumptious at best, and should draw action from the US State Department.
Promotion and a raise, of course. At least, that’s how it works here; why should it be any different in Europe?
Not what is happening, if I have understood it correctly. They seem to be banning people who have initiated or played an important role in implementing political policies which are detrimental both to US commercial interests and to freedom of speech on US owned platforms.
Both the EU and the UK have slid into what is effectively censorship of the expression of opinion. The UK has gone furthest, and within the UK Scotland has gone furthest. In April of last year the Scottish Hate Crime Public Order Act came into effect. It creates an offence of stirring up hatred on protected characteristics, and applies to private conversations anywhere. Whether hatred is being stirred up appears to be in the mind of the accuser. As the Spectator put it:
The offence of ‘stirring up racial hatred’ will be extended to disability, religion, sexual orientation, age, transgender identity and ‘variations in sex characteristics’. Scotland’s ancient blasphemy law, last invoked in 1843, is abolished by the Act. But with the extension of ‘stirring up’, a modern blasphemy code is being put in its place.
The law doesn’t just apply to social media posts or newspaper articles. It covers anything said anywhere – even in your own home. Children will in theory be able to report their parents. Scots can inform on each other anonymously, through an expanded network of ‘third-party reporting centres’. The list of centres includes a striking number of university campuses, as well as a Glasgow sex shop and a North Berwick mushroom farm.
It will not be deemed abusive to engage ‘solely’ in ‘discussion or criticism’ about age or any of the other new entries on the list. It is expressly permitted to voice ‘antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult’ for religion, but – pointedly – not for the other categories on the list. So what if you ridicule police who refer to male rapists as women? That’s anyone’s guess.
Scotland is only a bit more extreme than the rest of the country. In the UK as a whole, there is an interaction between the various bits of legislation on this subject and the practice of institutions. Not only is there the criminalization of speech in the various hate crime legislation. There is also the police practice: routinely to investigate and summon people for interviews because there is an anonymous accusation of a Non-Crime Hate Incident, and the event is recorded. That is, you have said something perfectly legal, but you are being interviewed and get what amounts to a criminal record because someone didn’t like it. People are routinely dismissed from employment or positions for having said things that, again, are perfectly legal but deemed by the organization to be incompatible with our values.
The scale of this is quite striking. In 2025 more than 30 arrests a day were being made in the UK over offensive posts on social media and other online platforms. Since 2014, more than 130,000 visits from the police for social media posts.
As an example of corporate action, we have the case of Sandie Peggy, a nurse who objected to sharing changing and toilet facilities with a man identifying as a woman. To hold gender critical beliefs is protected in UK law, since the Forstater decision. But she was disciplined by her employer on some vague grounds to do with giving offence to the fellow. The court judgment which partly upheld her employer’s action turned out to consist in part of quotations from precedents which did not exist in the rulings cited. That in itself is indicative of a judicial atmosphere in which anything goes.
There are lots more such incidents, and probably many are happening which are not recorded and do not come to light. The best guide to this stuff is the Free Speech Union. I suggest working through its material.
https://freespeechunion.org/?v=7885444af42e
And look up the Forstater and Harry Miller cases in Grok or other AI.
Confronted with this approach being extended both in the UK and the EU to the platforms run by the US social media giants, the US Administration seems to have decided to respond in kind, and ban those it deems importantly accountable for what it considers to be free speech abuses and attempts to extend the approach beyond European national borders. Is it justified? Arguably yes, the UK and EU are in the throes of something that is really threatening to local democracy. Its an approach, accompanied by empowering legislation, that enables the state or indeed other actors to penalize almost any speech they object to.
There is really something deeply ironic about the main actors in this mess, on being called out and banned by the US, objecting to their banning on the grounds of free speech! The very free speech they are at pains to try to abolish in their own countries.
But no, they say, you don’t understand. We are just trying to ban hate and misinformation. Right… Now about your remarks on the climate crisis and heat pumps,,,,
Good comments, michel.
You always make good comments. 🙂
Way, way back in the ’70s, many dorms on the U. Mass. (Amherst) campus had bathrooms not segregated by sex. I didn’t even know it when I went into one and while sitting on the toilet, I heard several females entering the bathroom. It was rather annoying and I’ve been against this ever since- including a man who’s had a sex change going into women’s bathrooms. How are the women to know that someone who sort of looks like a man has had a sex change rather than just appears feminine? And if they have had the change, they still don’t belong there. Maybe there should be bathrooms just for them.
Unfortunately Australia is heading down the same sad path with the excuse of social cohesion
The Trump administration is stopping censors like CCDH not for their opinions but against their ability to censor people and to over ride the First Amendment rights. Tell me what is it that you don’t understand about this?
Great essay, Tilak, as usual. Thank you for your able efforts to thwart the Blob. And you’re right: our government can and should keep terrorists out, at a minimum. To the extent the EU has gone overboard commie/fascist, we should pressure all those countries with sanctions. History demonstrates that Europe engenders world wars with tyrannical madness. We need to pre-bunk those jackalopes before they start another one.
It is not about their speech but about their actions. Quite different things.
Exactly, let them enter then arrest them on international terrorism charges and ship them to Gitmo, then go after their co-conspirators financially. Use leftists’ tactics against them, and do it far more harshly.
Barring the entry of undesirables is this country’s right and duty. No more open door.
Your response conflates the denial of entry with expulsion from.
The simplest response is “they have the right top their opinion, they do not have the right demand I listen to it”. The big difference in those positions is the concept of sovereignty. Do you allow the street corner preacher into your home?
The EU campaign is very literally, and without the slightest exaggeration, a restoration of a Nazi era policy: “We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press.” Point 23 of the NAZI Party 25 Point Programme.
https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
The EU likes to warn us of the Far Right threat.
What it fails to mention is that the Far Right threat comes from the EU itself!
Dr Doshi is exactly right again it is indeed exquisitely ironic, Ursula von der Leyen’s talk of protecting democracy by censorship is pure Orwellian doublethink: the simultaneous acceptance of contrary opinions or beliefs.
As Elon Musk commented on Ms von der Leyen’s scolding: ‘If democracy is the foundation of freedom, surely your [von der Leyen’s] position as leader of the EU should be elected directly by the people?’
The EU Commission is intended to be the executive branch of the EU but apparently Ms von der Leyen thinks it is the legislature even though it is unelected and unaccountable to EU citizens.
EU subjects, as civil rights evade Brussels
notice.
Climate crisis, renewable paradise etc The BBC was in fine disinformation form this morning.
Old beliefs die slowly or not at all.
There’s a doctor, and an actuary, and a member of the UK Cabinet Office I know from my tennis club – and they still believe carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming and that Net Zero is necessary and useful.
They also believe the covid lockdown was not only necessary but should have been stricter.
It seems even intelligent people won’t admit they were wrong despite presenting them with data.
Those are not intelligent people.
Intelligent perhaps – but not wise.
No, not intelligent. Going to college doesn’t make anyone intelligent.
A thermometer is also graduated in degrees!
The following YT is related and helps explain why the MSM is not reporting the uprising against the IRGC in Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zhFm9pg8w
Iranian Woman Exposes Why The Media Won’t Cover This
I just saw on the news that President Trump has said if the Mad Mullahs of Iran start shooting their citizens, Trump will come to their rescue!
Finally! A U.S. president tries to help the Iranian people! Trump is encouraging them to revolt. It’s time for regime change in Iran.
George W. Bush had Iran surrounded by about 500,000 U.S. troops during the war in Iraq. He was in a much better position to put pressure on the Mad Mullah regime. All he had to do was signal the resistance in Iran that he had their back and the Mad Mullahs would have been overthrown way back then. But he chose not to use his power. Think of all the misery that would have been prevented had George W. Bush acted.
I’m not sure what Trump means when he says he is coming to the rescue of the Iranian people, and I guess we’ll see. I assume he has a plan.
Maybe just the moral support of the President of the United States will be enough for the Iranian people to overthrow their slave masters.
Let us hope. The Iranian people deserve better.
The first thing that should be done is protect the home front. Too many young men of fighting age have got inside the ‘gates’. It was not necessary to invade any enemy but it was absolutely possible to protect the West from the inside from poisonous ideologies that are intent on bringing down our civilisation.
If the Iranians want regime change, then they should do it themselves. We are not the World Police. War is not the answer to anything.
“War is not the answer to anything.”
Unfortunately and sadly that is not exactly true.
Was is the answer to protecting yourself from entities that believe was is the answer to their agenda.
I am convinced, were I to take measure of this and mull it over properly, there would be other exceptions.
Social media is the next opioid scandal. The next cigarettes. It’s a slow motion public health disaster.
Social media is widely enjoyed, prevalent across most of society and yet harmful to the users and antisocial – bad for society as a whole.
Social media companies are vaguely aware of this. At least, they are afraid it might be true. So is everybody else.
So they are campaigning vigorously to avoid any challenge to their product. But they are losing. The suspected harm is too great.
China ceased control and took the harm under the wing of the Communist Party (not a nice bunch of people).
Australia has already ignored the social media companies.
The EU will ignore them, also.
Eventually, even the USA will catch up.
He said on social media…
Another great article by Dr Doshi.
The EU is a NAZI project:
The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’
You’re not doing your arguments any favors by putting “vaccine” in scare quotes. The MRNA vaccines were effective, by the narrow definition required by FDA for effectiveness. Fewer people in the initial trials who were vaccinated got sick than the placebo arm. What it didn’t do was prevent contagiousness from asymptomatic or very mild infection. That’s because the MRNA vaccine produced only one designed antibody, while natural infection or the J&J vaccine, which used the entire spike protein and better mimicked natural infection, produced a broader range of antibodies that stayed effective longer. Disclosure: I live in NJ and volunteered for the J&J study. Got Covid in mid-2022, symptoms no worse than a mild cold, but my personal R0 was 5 — all four family members and a friend I chatted with for 15 minutes. Didn’t realize I had it and didn’t think to test for several days. So none of them kept you from passing it on without knowing it, but the vaccines did save lives by largely keeping people from winding up in the hospital or dying. But they’re not like the measles vaccine, which really does prevent transmission. And yes, I understand the risk was higher than for many other vaccines, and the risk/benefit was probably upside down for people under about 40, but I’m in my 70s and it was a no-brainer for me. The Great Barrington Declaration was spot on, with Sweden as the practical example.
You get that shit injected in you, keep it away from children, women and everyone else you want to poison, scumbag.
“Profanity is the last refuge of the ignorant, the insensitive, and the illiterate.” [Wendell B. Harris Jr.; or maybe someone earlier]
I am over being nice to leftarded morons. Yea, I am insensitive, glad you pointed that out. Now, be sure to get your clot shot booster.
R0, pronounced “R naught,” is a key metric in epidemiology that indicates the average number of secondary infections generated by one infected individual in a fully susceptible population.
No brainer is right…
A charge of disinformation is entitled to public due process.
How/why is the post incorrect?
I cannot tell if WUWT still shadow bans my GHE denial.
Well, your worthless comment got posted, Slick. Do you even know what “shadow banning” means?
Censorship, the failure story of 2026.
Government efforts to suppress “disinformation” by defending official narratives directly contradict the core principles of science, which thrives on skepticism, open debate, and falsification rather than authority-driven enforcement. Science advances through rigorous questioning of established views, empirical testing, and tolerance for contrary evidence, whereas official narratives signal an end to truth-seeking.
No one ever expects the Climate Inquisition!.
When you own the media it’s easy to set the narrative and censor opposition. Just like owning the courts, the judge makes the final decision.
The EU is a textbook example of globalist subjugation of nation states. The pathetic sheep there who have willingly accepted authoritarian chains disgust me. Leftist idiots in America are still goose stepping to censorship because their ridiculous beliefs can’t survive critical examination.
Well to be fair to Europeans they’ve been gaslighted by their elite overlords and it wasn’t so long ago Americans were too with the jester puppet and Trump is a counter-revolution in that respect. EU elites are on the nose with their electorates now for not controlling their borders so a proxy war with Ukraine against the Russians was a handy distraction and there was a notable internet propaganda war by them supporting freedom for noble Ukrainians. No doubt a useful distraction but Russia had legitimate interests in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and dangling NATO membership and joining the EU would clearly breech the Minsk agreement and provoke Putin and Co to make a stand.
For some time we were bombarded with how well the Ukrainians were doing against a dragooned Russian military that was falling apart but it was all nonsense as Ukrainian soldiers have been slaughtered in multiples of Russian casualties. The Russian military now controls the skies over Ukraine with drones and missiles with impunity and has surrounded and trapped the last of Ukraines serious fighting brigades with surrender or die ultimatums. Ukraine is effectively finished and defenceless now with Zelensky having to take what he can get on Russia’s surrender terms.
There’s no EU cavalry coming because they’re all broke and they’ve exhausted what weapons and ammunition they could afford to make and in any case there’s no Ukrainian manpower left to use it. So the Ukraine diversion has failed for European elites and now they have to walk back all the propaganda and explain their adventurism domestically as you can suddenly sense here-
Corruption allegations in Zelensky’s circle raise questions among Ukraine’s allies
So long Zelensky and Co as it’s every piggery and the farm animals for themselves now.
How censorship protects the official narrative from scrutiny:This Nazism, fascism, Marxism, theocracy 101, well documented throughout history. How come anyone, with the least bit of education, needs to be told this? As far as being an apologist for “censorship”: Why would you willingly allow known fanatics, whose beliefs have destroyed other countries, to come into your country just because you do not censor debate? I.e., Nazis and Marxists are probably not going to contribute to the enhancement of a capitalist society. Muslims, in general, do not support full freedom from their dogma in countries where they dominate, and they tend to destroy freedom in non-Muslim countries once they have sufficient numbers to disrupt with relative impunity.
Very nice Tilak. The only thing worse than crappy government is international crappy government. The US needs to distance itself from the EU and the UN both of them cause far more trouble and far less benefit than they are worth. They sound like good ideas but they are less than worthless in reality.
How about a national “do not disinform list”? That worked so well for spam calls on cell phones that I’ve never received a call for IRS audits, free solar panels, car warranty.extensions, unsecured loans, unsolicited financial management advice, political advertisement… I mean, if a simple law can be that effective, just imagine what an anti-disinformation office could achieve.
The EU campaign is very literally, and without the slightest exaggeration, a restoration of a Nazi era policy: “We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press.” Point 23 of the NAZI Party 25 Point Programme.
https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
The EU likes to warn us of the Far Right threat.
What it fails to mention is that the Far Right threat comes from the EU itself!
Nazis were far left.