VIDEO | "I received direct threats targeting me on my phone from the Mossad, from the Israelis, and they threatened to kill me. They were literally saying they would sever my head from my shoulders if I didn’t leave south Lebanon." In an interview recorded before her targeted killing, Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil, from the southern village of Baysariyyeh, reflects on the threats she received while covering Israeli aggression in south Lebanon for Al-Akhbar. "Before 23 September, I definitely didn’t take precautions and I didn’t pay attention to these threats, because I said if I’m going to do what they want, why would I let the Israeli enemy impose its own narrative on me? It brings journalists onto my land and promotes the narrative it wants, while preventing me from moving freely on my own land." Amal Khalil, along with her colleague Zeinab Faraj, was deliberately attacked and subsequently killed by Israel yesterday in the southern Lebanese village of Tayri. Zeinab Faraj was severely injured and, as per latest reports, remains in stable condition after undergoing emergency surgery.

🇮🇱🇨🇭 This Swiss commentator has balls of steel. While the Israeli bobsleigh team was racing, he kept reminding viewers of the war crimes the pilot has openly supported. Absolute legend!

Cari amici, vi do una notizia con la morte nel cuore: dopo quelle con Matteo Renzi, ho vinto nel secondo Appello anche la causa con suo padre Tiziano. Il quale dovrà restituirmi i 50mila euro (più interessi e spese legali, per un totale di circa 100mila euro) che ero stato costretto a versargli da due incredibili sentenze di primo e di secondo grado per una legittima critica politica a “Otto e mezzo”. Lì, nel 2017, avevo risposto così a una domanda di Lilli Gruber sull'inchiesta Consip che vedeva indagato il babbo dell'ex premier: “Se il padre del capo del governo si mette in affari o si interessa di affari che riguardano aziende controllate dal governo, magari a beneficio di imprenditori che finanziano o hanno finanziato il capo del governo, questo non so se sia un reato, ma è un gigantesco conflitto d’interessi”. Renzi senior, credendo che parlassi di lui e non di suo figlio, mi aveva denunciato per danni. Ma io non lo sapevo, perché la notifica non mi era mai arrivata (al posto della mia firma c'era uno scarabocchio fatto da chissà chi). Così nel 2018 ero stato processato in contumacia, senza potermi difendere, da un giudice civile di Firenze. Il quale avrebbe potuto e dovuto verificare da solo la veridicità di ciò che avevo detto (era un fatto notorio) e assolvermi per aver esercitato il diritto di cronaca e di critica. Invece non lo fece e mi condannò a pagare 50 mila euro, più le spese processuali. Lo scoprii da un articolo del Foglio e da un post di Matteo Renzi su Facebook: “Sono ovviamente contento per mio padre... Bisogna sopportare le ingiustizie, le falsità, le diffamazioni. Perché la verità prima o poi arriva. Il tempo è galantuomo. Ci sono dei giudici in Italia, bisogna solo saper aspettare. E verrà presto il tempo in cui la serietà tornerà di moda. Ci hanno rovesciato un mare di fango addosso. Nessun risarcimento ci ridarà ciò che abbiamo sofferto ma la verità è più forte delle menzogne. Adesso sono solo curioso di vedere come i tg daranno la notizia”. Poi mi diede del “diffamatore seriale” e del “vitalizio per me e la mia famiglia”, annunciando che coi miei soldi avrebbe pagato le rate del mutuo della sua nuova villa da oltre un milione di euro chiamandola “Villa Travaglio”, nonché la sua festa alla Leopolda per i 50 anni. Il mio avvocato Caterina Malavenda fece appello, per poterci difendere almeno lì. Ma anche la Corte d'Appello mi diede torto, perché avrei dovuto “invocare l’esimente del diritto di cronaca o critica e, conseguentemente, fornire la prova della veridicità del fatto narrato” in primo grado (dov'ero ignaro contumace). Per fortuna la Cassazione annullò quel doppio obbrobrio, bacchettando i giudici di primo e secondo grado: spettava a loro verificare se le mie parole “integrassero il legittimo esercizio del diritto o di cronaca”, “rilevabile d’ufficio a prescindere dalla specifica e tempestiva allegazione della parte e anche in Appello”. E rinviò il processo a un nuovo appello, che si è concluso l'altroieri con il rigetto totale delle pretese di Tiziano Renzi e la sua condanna a restituirmi ciò che gli ho versato (76.295 euro fra risarcimento e spese legali), più gli interessi e le spese legali della Cassazione e del secondo appello. In tutto, un conticino di circa 100 mila euro. Motivo: “Appare palese come l'obiettivo della critica – e che di critica si tratti è indiscutibile – fosse Matteo Renzi e non il padre (come peraltro incidentalmente rilevato anche dal Tribunale),... Certamente dunque il giornalista ben poteva esprimere la sua opinione, avente ad oggetto un personaggio pubblico (addirittura ex Presidente del Consiglio)... Egli, pur premettendo che non sapeva se il contegno dell'odierno attore (Tiziano Renzi, ndr) fosse o no penalmente illecito, criticava Matteo Renzi perché chi riveste certe posizioni cruciali nella vita politica del Paese deve prestare attenzione a che i contegni anche dei suoi familiari siano trasparenti e tali da escludere ogni conflitto d'interesse... E osserva che l'interessamento della magistratura a vicende connesse a Matteo Renzi non è dovuto a un'invasione di campo, ma a un'eccessiva disinvoltura da parte di questi e dei suoi familiari nella gestione degli affari”. Così “la libertà di manifestazione del pensiero diventa strumentale anche al controllo sul potere politico da parte dei cittadini e assume la funzione di contribuire in modo determinante alla formazione della pubblica opinione, in modo che ciascuno possa liberamente orientare le proprie scelte”. Conclusione: “Devono pertanto ritenersi sussistenti tutti i presupposti per l'applicabilità della... esimente del diritto di critica o di cronaca...: a) l'interesse sociale...; b) la verità del nucleo del fatto storico sottostante il giudizio...; c) la continenza, essendo i toni utilizzati misurati e proporzionati al contesto, scevri da ogni connotazione gratuitamente offensiva e umiliante, o volta ad attaccare l'uomo anziché il suo contegno. Dunque, conclusivamente, la domanda risarcitoria di Tiziano Renzi dev'essere respinta”. Non ho altro da aggiungere, se non che il danno l'ho subìto io da una lite temeraria durata ben otto anni; e che questa sentenza, firmata dalle giudici Carla Santese, Giulia Conte e Ada Raffaelli Mazzarelli, è una boccata di ossigeno per tutti i giornalisti e i cittadini che credono nella Giustizia. Il resto lo lascio a una fonte ben più autorevole di me, con qualche ritocco (soprattutto sulla punteggiatura): “Bisogna sopportare le ingiustizie, le falsità, le diffamazioni, perché la verità prima o poi arriva. Il tempo è galantuomo. Ci sono dei giudici in Italia: bisogna solo saper aspettare. E verrà presto il tempo in cui la serietà tornerà di moda. Mi hanno rovesciato un mare di fango addosso. Nessun risarcimento mi ridarà ciò che ho sofferto, ma la verità è più forte delle menzogne. Adesso sono solo curioso di vedere come i tg daranno la notizia”.

Perchè sono la relatrice Onu sul territorio Palestinese occupato. Non mi "spendo". Mi dedico con rigore al mandato Onu conferitomi, e che svolgo GRATUITAMENTE, così come fa la mia collega, Mai Sato, relatrice Onu sull'Iran. La buona notizia è che l'alfabetismo funzionale si cura.

🇺🇸 ELON JUST CALLED THE EU'S BLUFF - OPEN SOURCING X'S ALGORITHM IN 6 DAYS @ElonMusk is making X's entire recommendation algorithm public January 17th. Every line of code showing what posts you see and why. Then updating it every 4 weeks with developer notes. This is a direct response to France classifying X as an "organized gang," the same legal designation they use for drug cartels and mafia, so they could wiretap employee phones and demand algorithm access. The EU wants control over what people see online. They fined X $140 million last month, launched probes into "algorithm abuse," and demanded researchers get data access. France wants "experts" to analyze X's code to "uncover the truth" about the platform. Elon's response: "You want the algorithm? Here's the algorithm. Everyone gets it." This is 4D chess. EU regulators wanted private access to modify and control. Instead they're getting public disclosure they can't manipulate. Every competing platform, every researcher, every government on Earth gets the same code at the same time. You can't secretly pressure someone to censor when the censorship mechanism is open source. My prediction: EU loses its mind, threatens more fines. Elon doesn't care. Other platforms forced to follow or look like they're hiding something. If that's not a classic Elon, what is? Source: ZeroHedge, Epoch Times

È bene che anche o cittadini richiedano il referendum. Bastano 500.000 firme. firmereferendum.giustizia.it…

EU’s “Democracy Shield”: The Ministry of Truth No One Voted For On November 12th, Brussels pulled down a curtain. A digital Iron Curtain, not aimed at Moscow, not at Beijing, but at its own citizens. This “Democracy Shield” isn’t protection. It’s containment. And for the first time in its history, the EU has admitted publicly, though not intentionally, that the human mind has become its greatest security threat. The Shield is the culmination of years of quiet groundwork laid by Brussels technocrats like Thierry Breton, Vera Jourova, and Ursula von der Leyen, the same trio who have spent half a decade insisting that “disinformation” is more dangerous than poverty, war, or the political class itself. And now, under the Digital Services Act, they’ve constructed a continent-wide speech‑policing architecture that reaches into every feed, every platform, every conversation. At its centre is the newly created European Centre for Democratic Resilience, a name so sterile it almost conceals its purpose: real-time surveillance and neutralization of “emerging narratives.” This is the institutionalization of narrative pre-crime. Not what you said, but what you might say. Not what is false, but what is unapproved. The Shield’s legal weapon is the DSA’s “crisis protocol,” which allows Brussels to demand takedowns, suppression, or mandatory labeling of information across the EU during an “information incident.” The term is deliberately vague, limitless by design. A protest? An election? A leak? A whistleblower? A banker’s scandal? A foreign policy embarrassment? Everything can be an incident when truth becomes a liability. The "fact-checking network", branded as “independent,” is no such thing. It’s EU-financed and EU-controlled, a narrative sanitation corps deployed in all official languages to flatten complexity, enforce the Atlantic line, and quarantine any analysis that threatens to puncture the illusion of unity. If you question the Ukraine war’s logic, you are flagged. If you expose the blowback of sanctions, you are flagged. If you speak of multipolarity without sneering, you are flagged. If you mention sovereignty without apology, you are flagged. Not because what you said is false. But because your conclusion escapes their architecture of consent. This is Orwell without the drama. No boot on your face. No telescreen. Just the algorithm. The shadowban. The invisible wall between your words and the world. The EU has created what Orwell could never have imagined. A censorship regime so quiet you don’t hear it, so seamless you don’t see it, and so digital you don’t know it’s happening until the room goes silent. This isn’t the 20th century’s fear of mass surveillance.This is the 21st century’s nightmare, curated reality. A world where you are allowed to speak, but only into a void. Brussels calls this “resilience.” But resilience against what? Against Russian trolls? No. Against public consciousness. The Shield is a structure built to contain the rising awareness that Europe’s crises — deindustrialization, energy collapse, militarization, inflation, political decay — are not accidents. They are authored. And the authors would prefer you discuss anything else. This is why the Shield was inevitable. A system secure in its legitimacy does not need a digital clergy to interpret reality on its behalf. A sovereign political order does not need to silence its own citizens to maintain order. A healthy democracy does not treat debate as a threat. Because it is not healthy. It is not sovereign. And it is no longer confident that it can win a free argument. These are not guardians of democracy. They are custodians of perception. The EU didn’t build a shield against enemies. It built a digital Iron Curtain against awakening. A firewall against memory and dissent. Soft totalitarianism with a smile, the most dangerous kind. And like every totalitarian project, it will collapse the moment people stop pretending to believe it.

You can’t watch this video and not hate Israel. Israeli soldiers EXECUTE two young Palestinian men at point-blank range AFTER they surrendered near in the northern occupied West Bank. This apartheid must end. Boycott and shun everything to do with it.

𝐂𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐳𝐚 𝐢𝐥 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨? In un periodo buio per i giornali, la nostra informazione è una luce da tenere accesa. Fino al 9 dicembre, abbonati al Fatto Quotidiano digitale a soli 𝟗𝟗,𝟗𝟗€ (𝐚𝐧𝐳𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞́ 𝟏𝟖𝟗,𝟗𝟗€) Abbiamo bisogno di voi e di più abbonati digitali. Scopri l’offerta 👉 ilfat.to/partner122025

The Study They Tried to BURY: Covid Shots Cause MASSIVE Spike in Cancer w/ Dr. Makis x.com/i/broadcasts/1eaJbjmOk…

Italian journalist Gabriele Nunziati was fired after asking EU officials whether Israel should pay to rebuild Gaza. Euronews’ Vincenzo Genovese asked the European Commission both for its comment on the dismissal and repeated the question that led to Nunziati’s firing.

Quali prove possiede la direttrice dell'ufficio stampa RAI per negare i crimini Israeliani a Gaza contraddicendo l'enormità di prove raccolte dall'ONU, Amnesty International, Forensic Architecture e dozzine di altri esperti? La propaganda progenocidio va indagata e punita.

In Switzerland we, the citizens, are voting on this topic. This is the path taken by UK Prime Minister...

🚨🌎🇬🇧 “Today I’m announcing I’m making a Free of Charge Digital ID - Mandatory” “Let me Spell that out - you will not be able to……” “It’s as simple as that” Wow - Took a year for Keir Starmer to turn into a fully blown Fascist Communist Dictator and he doesn’t even care ‼️

AOC called Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric ignorant, while making an ignorant statement. She also misrepresented what Charlie said about the Civil Rights Act. We can’t keep doing this - it’s putting people in danger.

😲

Personalmente non voterò in futuro alcun partito che nel voto di sfiducia al Parlamento europeo di questa settimana si astenga o esprima addirittura voto favorevole alla peggiore presidenza della Commissione Europea della storia.

The Deficit Myth was published on this day 5 years ago. stephaniekelton.substack.com…

Interview with the DOGE team

"I’ve seen a lot of criticism of RFK Jr. since his autism speech yesterday. So I decided to do something radical… I watched the full speech. (I know — crazy concept: go to the source and form your own opinion instead of blindly repeating media narratives and social media memes.) And what I found didn’t exactly match the headlines. So in this post, I want to address the five biggest criticisms I’ve seen and share my take. But first — let me say this: Whatever you think of his policies, one thing seems clear to me after listening to RFK Jr. speak: he genuinely seems to care about the children and families affected by autism. You can disagree with his conclusions, but to paint him as evil or malicious is unfair... and, frankly, dishonest. ⸻ Criticism #1: “He called autism an ’epidemic.’” Yes, he did ... to highlight the steep rise in diagnoses. (CDC data shows 1 in 31 kids today.) The term "epidemic" does not always imply something contagious. I find it unlikely that those criticizing his use of the word "epidemic" showed the same level of outrage when it was used to describe the obesity epidemic or the fentanyl epidemic. ⸻ Criticism #2: “He said autistic kids will never have jobs, never pay taxes, never go on dates.” This is wildly misleading and out of context. Just moments before making that statement, he referred specifically to the 25% of cases classified as severe (children who are nonverbal, not toilet trained, and unable to care for themselves). Clearly, within this context, his remarks were not about all autistic children. Anyone claiming otherwise is either unaware of this context or deliberately misrepresenting his words. ⸻ Criticism #3: “He rejected the science — autism is genetic, not caused by toxins.” This claim misrepresents his stance. He didn’t dismiss the role of genetics; rather, he stated that while genes might create a vulnerability, they alone cannot explain an epidemic. This perspective is far from fringe. Even the CDC acknowledges that environmental factors may play a role. His argument isn’t anti-science; it’s a reasonable call for a more balanced exploration of potential causes. ⸻ Criticism #4: “He’s pushing anti-vax conspiracy theories again!” This one is just false. Not once during his 27-minute speech did he mention vaccines. Instead, he discussed toxins such as mold, pesticides, and additives. But the media (who appear to hate him for past positions) decided to resurrect the vaccine angle even though he didn’t bring it up. This is yet another example of a targeted smear campaign by individuals more invested in promoting narratives than seeking the truth. ⸻ Criticism #5: “His words were emotionally harmful to autistic people and their families.” I guess this one depends on your perspective. Yes, his language was intense, but maybe what’s also harmful is ignoring the existence of the most severe forms of autism. RFK Jr. is amplifying the voices of parents whose children face extreme challenges, such as self-injurious behaviors, inability to speak, constant supervision needs, and requiring round-the-clock care. These families are real, and their struggles are profound. For once, someone on a national platform is recognizing their pain and saying, “We see you, and we are committed to understanding why this is happening.” ⸻ I’m not saying RFK Jr. is perfect. His words could’ve been clearer. His policy ideas are certainly open to scrutiny. But let’s stop pretending he dehumanized autistic people or rejected science. He’s asking tough questions. He’s challenging the status quo. And instead of outrage, maybe we should welcome the conversation. Watch the speech. Check the CDC data. And let’s focus on facts instead of clickbait." -Written by Tyson Zahner