An Ohio news outlet is leading a change of tradition in American reporting which their editor-in-chief calls the “right to be forgotten.” Long considered taboo to retract or erase old stories from newspaper archives, those that feature mug shots and report on residents charged with crimes can, in our search engine-powered world, continue to detract […] The post US Newspapers Are Deleting Old Crime Stories, Offering Subjects the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ appeared first on Good News Network.

Movies & TV Star Wars: Skeleton Crew Star Wars: Skeleton Crew Makes It Home in “We’re Gonna Be In So Much Trouble” You knew that lightsaber was coming back… By Emmet Asher-Perrin | Published on January 8, 2025 Image: Lucasfilm Comment 0 Share New Share Image: Lucasfilm So what’s a Great Barrier look like anyway? Recap Image: Lucasfilm The kids’ parents are working in the woods at night on their communications device to contact the kids. They are discovered by security droids and form a relay race to pass off the device to each other as each of them is stunned in turn. Once the device is passed to Fara, it is powered up and ready to be released, and she gets it to launch. On the new Onyx Cinder, the kids are playing, but Wim is depressed—he knows their adventure is coming to an end and they’ll be right back where they started. His friends insist that they’re still glad they had this experience and that everything will be fine. In the meantime, the pirates arrive at the coordinates of At Attin and discover a planet of toxic gas storms. Jod insists this is all a trick, so they send out a scout and promptly lose contact. As Jod is sent to the airlock, the new Onyx Cinder comes out of hyperspace, and Jod tells them this is how they’ll get to At Attin. The ship is caught in the pirates’ tractor beam, and the ramp to the ship lowers. Brutus tells the occupants to surrender and the kids use the cargo claw to grab him, using a voice-changing mechanism to tell the pirates to let them go or they’ll kill him. Jod does the job for them, shooting Brutus in the head, and telling the pirates that they obviously want to follow him. The crew agrees, and Jod tells them the ship is full of kids who can be easily subdued. The kids are taken hostage and the Onyx Cinder is under pirate control. Jod wants to find out why the Cinder can get through the storms to At Attin, and as his crew works to that end, the message from the kids’ parents makes it through the Barrier: They tell the children that they can’t reveal the location of At Attin to them directly, but that the children should be able to make it home if they find a Republic Emissary who knows the planet’s location. They weren’t supposed to find out about any of this until they graduated. Wim decides they need to take control of the ship and tries to attack, but is quickly stopped. However, SM-33 points out that, according to the pirate code, you can only captain one ship at a time. Jod claims the ship, but Fern calls “unclaimsies” and claims the ship for kids only. That’s good enough for SM-33, who has clearly been looking for a glitch in the rules, and he throws the pirates off the ship, knocking Jod out. The kids and 33 escape the pirate freighter and begin to fly through the Barrier, pursued by pirate fighters. They realize that the reason the Onyx Cinder can get through the Barrier is because the ship is from At Attin. They make it through to find their planet, getting put on an autopilot sequence for landing. Jod got back on the ship, however, and means to take over again. SM-33 goes to fight him and Jod decapitates him with the lightsaber he pilfered from Rennod’s treasure room.  Jod tries to contact his ship, but can’t get through the Barrier interference and makes the kids get on the ground and not say a word, calling them spoiled and weak. He tells them that if they out him to anyone on At Attin, he’ll kill them or their families. The kids’ parents are currently being told off by a security droid, when there’s an interruption: An Emissary is arriving for a shipment. KB’s moms get the light back on their bracelet and know the kids are aboard. The Cinder lands on At Attin and Jod introduces himself as the Republic Emissary, and is told that he must proceed directly to the Mint to begin offloading procedures. He and the kids are taken underground, and the safety droids refuse his request to contact his ship outside, saying he must speak to the Supervisor about the Barrier. They make it to the Vaults and Jod finds himself surrounded by Old Republic credits, more than anyone could ever imagine. He begins to laugh hysterically at the sight. The kids’ parents are brought down to the Vault and the children are reunited with their families… but Jod comes toward the group with his lightsaber. Commentary Image: Lucasfilm This was another short, sweet, fun episode, but we’ve gotta talk about how At Attin seems to work, now that we have some more information. So, when you live on At Attin, you don’t find out what the planet is for until you’re essentially grown enough to be thinking of entering this society and getting one of your (extremely limited) possible jobs. Which means that right as you’re becoming an adult, you learn that you have only a couple of options for lifelong purpose and employment forever, and that if you choose to have a family, your kids will be given the exact same (lack of) choices. Now, it’s possible that when the planet was in more consistent Republic contact, it was a bit easier to leave if that’s what you wanted. But leaving would mean that you might never really see your family again, since you can only enter the atmosphere on a special Republic ship designed for the planet. Essentially, if you’re a denizen of At Attin, you’re supposed to exist in service of the Mint and have children who exist in that same service and no one is really all that bothered by this? Because the planet does need these people to breed in order to have more workers for the Mint, right? That’s how you keep the system running. The brainwashing quotient on this population is so high that I’m forced to ask how it was achieved in the first place. Genuinely, I need someone to tell me how this system was put in place and when and who conceived it and why it was considered to be the best system at the time… I’m not saying I don’t like the concept—it’s horrific and screwy and I’m fascinated—but I don’t imagine the show is gonna get into that before end? Like, we might end on a dismantling of this world as it functions since there is no Old Republic anymore, but that doesn’t mean that anyone is going to address how this very upsetting place came to be and continued for so long uninterrupted. Having said that, Jod is really getting the chance to stretch his villain legs properly, and I’m enjoying it immensely. Killing Brutus was kind of a given—the guy was beyond useless and such a pushover—but the way he treats the kids in this episode is absolutely monstrous. He knows exactly what buttons to push after spending so much time with them, precisely what they’re all afraid of. He knows that Wim is the most sensitive and that Neel is the most frightened. He knows that Fern can’t stand not being able to do something. (The look on her face as she keeps quiet, the repressed rage, ugh. That one hit me right in the childhood.) And the fact that Jod uses the lightsaber, poisoning something that brought Wim so much comfort and joy… What a hideous piece of work he is. A shoutout to SM-33 who was clearly looking for any possible loophole out of his programming and took the opportunity with both brawling hands. At least we know he’s not permanently dead, and we’ll hopefully see him restored next week. We’ve got some fun Wizard of Oz-esque shenanigans at this point around the Supervisor and what is truly running the planet. Bets on who it’s going to be? Perhaps the biggest droid on At Attin? The planet’s a big computer? It’s Rennod himself? An Emperor clone? Jod’s former Jedi master? We’ll know soon enough… Spanners and Sabers Image: Lucasfilm It’s important to note that the mechanisms that create the Great Barrier are the same sort of implements used to carry out Operation: Cinder at the end of the Empire’s reign—this was an orbital bombardment initiative against key worlds with great resources that the Emperor put in place to be executed in the event of his death. Undoubtedly, a planet like At Attin would have been high on that list had anyone still known of its location. Sorry, but when did Jod get the ligthsaber back? Why was the pirate crew just keeping all his effects on the ship, wouldn’t they have left his stuff back at the port? Again, why is this planet the Mint? What are the dataries made of that’s so valuable and can’t be made elsewhere? I just need someone to make it make sense. Really wanna know if KB’s moms are both her bio parents—it’s always a possibility within sci-fi premises and I want that to be an easy thing in Star Wars for queer couples, should they want their own kids. Next week it’s the finale! Can’t wait to find the man/woman/being/droid being the curtain…[end-mark] The post <i>Star Wars: Skeleton Crew</i> Makes It Home in “We’re Gonna Be In So Much Trouble” appeared first on Reactor.

Books book review Grappling with Godhood: The Goddess of the River by Vaishnavi Patel A review of Vaishnavi Patel’s new retelling of the Mahabharata’s river goddess Ganga. By Liz Bourke | Published on January 8, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share Vaishnavi Patel is the bestselling author of Kaikeyi, a retelling of the Sanskrit epic Ramayana focused on Rama’s stepmother Kaikeyi. Goddess of the River is Patel’s second novel. Rather than the Ramayana, this one reworks the Mahabharata, the second of the Sanskrit epics. Goddess of the River focuses on Ganga, the goddess of the eponymous river (the river which in English is usually rendered “Ganges”), and on her son by a mortal husband. That mortal husband is Shantanu, king of the Kuru kingdom, with its capital at Hastinapor, progenitor of the family whose dynastic squabbles were to culminate in the great clash of armies that is the Mahabharata‘s centrepiece. When it comes to the history, mythology, and religions of the Indian subcontinent, I’m far less well read than I’d like. So I’m treating Goddess of the River solely as a novel on its own merits here, while remaining aware that it is in dialogue with an unfamiliar mythic tradition, and so its references to and any deviations from that mythic tradition are largely opaque to me. The novel begins and ends with Ganga. It begins with her descent to earth, where she is bound by Shiva in order that her great strength not destroy the world. It ends with her freedom, and her choice to turn that strength towards love and protection. At its heart, Goddess of the River seems to me to be a story about how motherhood can change people, as well as an argument about what constitutes appropriate and moral behaviour—but I get ahead of myself. In the beginning, Ganga is at best indifferent to humans, despising their destruction of the natural world around her. Her protective urges centre on a group of playful divine beings, the eight Vasus. Unfortunately, this protective inclination leads her—and the eight Vasus, who have played a trick on a human settlement—to be cursed by a sage who carries some of Shiva’s power. The eight Vasus are cursed to be born as mortals, only to be released to their previous existence at the end of their mortal lives, and Ganga is cursed to be mortal until she has borne the Vasus as her children. At this point, naturally, King Shantanu shows up and demands that Ganga become his wife. The part of the narrative where Ganga must adjust to being mortal, living among mortals, prey to mortal frailties, and dealing with mortal concerns, is to me the most compelling and affecting portion of the entire novel. Ganga has no power now but her wits and her knowledge, and she fears that a mortal life will trap the Vasus and change them in ways that will make them unrecognisable to their former selves. She fears the suffering and destruction this could lead to, and so she resolves to kill each of her Vasu-children painlessly as soon after their birth as she can manage it. And she does, too, manage it, though not without being changed herself by the experience, and living with grief at each infanticide. (This is a mythic retelling, or I would have to take exception to the portrayal of drowning as a death without pain or distress.) But with her last son, Ganga is already turning back into a river goddess. The king interrupts her, taking her son—the incarnate eighth Vasu—out of the river’s reach to raise as his heir and train up to war, killing, and the destructive exercise of mortal power. For ten years, the restored river goddess Ganga loves and misses her son, named Devavrata by his father, meeting him only one night a month, until in the tenth year Shantanu tries to keep Devavrata away from her. He chooses to go away with Ganga instead, when she is able to offer him this option, until within a year or two the pull of duty and the familiarity of ten mortal years draws him back to Hastinapor, and away from Ganga. Buy the Book Vaishnavi Patel Goddess of the River Buy Book Vaishnavi Patel Goddess of the River Buy this book from: AmazonBarnes and NobleiBooksIndieBoundTarget From this point on, Ganga’s first-person perspective is interspersed with the viewpoint of a man called Bhishma, whose narrative timeline is initially many years later than Ganga’s “present” (though the timelines do converge). Over time, Ganga reconciles herself to the absence of her son and the concerns of a river goddess, though her time as a mortal and a mother has changed her: She is now more interested in, and more compassionate towards, mortal concerns, and keeps some of her attention always looking for news of her son. But she does not see him, and after a while, does not even hear his name. Shantanu has married another woman and had other sons, and those sons are his heirs now. Bhishma’s narrative concerns itself with dynastic politics and the competition between two opposing factions of cousins. He is an old man, though very hale, and these cousins are Shantanu’s descendants. The reader familiar with the Mahabharata will immediately recognise that Bhishma is the much older Devavrata, and that events are well on their way towards a cataclysmic clash of armies; the unfamiliar reader soon learns that Bhishma is now so-called because he swore an oath to stand aside from the succession and father no children, prioritising his father’s happiness and his stepmother’s wishes over his own. Had he not, he would be king, and the great rivalry of cousins perhaps averted. Did he yet break his oath, much slaughter might perhaps not happen. But he is sworn to the side that he believes less worthy of rulership, and he will not break his oath. This latter part of the novel—political, involving multiple players in extensive and destructive family dramas and jealousies—is less unified than the first, which kept its focus on Ganga and her journey as a goddess, a person, and a mother. To my mind it’s rather less interesting: The slide down into tragedy is inevitable, and the paradox of honour in which Bhishma finds himself is a theme that has been treated many times. Perhaps my opinion would be different if the (large) cast of other characters in Bhishma’s family drama came across as individuals rather than set dressing, but there is little time or space on the page for them to do so. (One of the perils of adapting an epic.) Yet Ganga’s ongoing journey to reconcile the vastness and the values of a goddess with the intimate and personal concerns of a mother for her family, and how the Ganga of after Devavrata is different from the one of before—still a goddess, but one more connected to human concerns—remains compelling. This is particularly true when she chooses to aid someone who has been harmed by her son, or when she comes to the edges of the battlefield in the terrible war that forms the Mahabharata’s culmination, and finds herself comforting other women’s sons. Patel is a vivid prose writer, straightforward yet fluidly evocative, and her style as well as her material reminds me of Natalie Haynes’s work. I expect she may find similar success: Goddess of the River is certainly a very readable novel, and one whose endnote makes clear than Patel is a thoughtful and well-read interpreter of the myths behind her work.[end-mark] Goddess of the River is published by Redhook. The post Grappling with Godhood: <i>The Goddess of the River</i> by Vaishnavi Patel appeared first on Reactor.

If your New Year’s resolution was to discover more astute analysis of politics and current events, The Daily Signal has a treat for you. Victor Davis Hanson, the renowned American historian and political commentator, is joining The Daily Signal as a senior contributor. For years, our audience has loved his weekly syndicated column—and for good reason. But when an interview that Hanson did with our Tony Kinnett reached over 2.4 million views on YouTube last summer, we realized it was time for a new format—and we wanted one that respected our audience’s busy schedule. Starting today, we will feature concise, five-minute videos of Hanson—in his own words—throughout the week on The Daily Signal’s YouTube channel. His video commentaries will offer you a daily dose of his distinctive analysis on current events, politics, history, and culture. If you’re not already a Daily Signal subscriber, now would be a great time to follow this link to YouTube and click on the “Subscribe” button to receive notifications when we post new videos. You will join our nearly 370,000 subscribers to watch Hanson’s videos on YouTube. Or you can sign up for our email newsletters and have them delivered to your inbox each day. We’re excited to be partnering with Hanson and eager to share his insights with you. “Having Dr. Hanson join The Daily Signal is a dream come true,” said Rob Bluey, Daily Signal’s president and executive editor. “I first met and interviewed him five years ago in his native California after long admiring his work. His deep knowledge of history and intelligent analysis of current events helps put things into perspective. His videos will give our audience context to better understand history, America’s political realignment, and the big changes happening all around us.” Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson senior fellow in residence in classics and military history at the Hoover Institution and professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno. He is also the Wayne and Marcia Buske distinguished fellow in history at Hillsdale College. He has written or edited more than 25 books, including “The Case for Trump,” “The End of Everything,” and “The Dying Citizen.” His popular podcast, “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” features a mix of commentary and interviews. President Donald Trump appointed Hanson to serve on the 1776 Commission. President George W. Bush awarded him the National Humanities Medal in 2007 and appointed him to the American Battle Monuments Commission. He’s the recipient of numerous other awards and accolades. Prior to his distinguished career in academia, Hanson was an orchard and vineyard grower on his family’s farm in California. Learn more about him at his website, VictorHanson.com. “The Daily Signal has a long reputation for trustworthiness, accuracy, and intellectual honesty,” Hanson said of the partnership. “We’re starting the beginning of a beautiful relationship, and I look forward to every one of these ensuing broadcasts.” Hanson recently announced he’s working on three new books about Trump’s return to power, his own childhood on a California farm, and the Greek general and statesman Epaminondas of Thebes. Given his variety of interests—and expertise in history, politics, the military, and the classics—you’ll be treated to a smart take with each of Hanson’s videos. After all, it’s a natural fit for The Daily Signal and our loyal audience. We’re committed bringing you a unique perspective the legacy media sorely lacks, especially as our country welcomes new leadership in Washington and a break from business as usual. Here are a few of The Daily Signal’s previous interviews with Hanson. Victor Davis Hanson on Tim Walz’s Meltdown Victor Davis Hanson on ‘Anything That Didn’t Kill [Trump] Made Him Stronger’ Is the End Near? Victor Davis Hanson Ponders Threat of Annihilation Victor Davis Hanson on ‘The Case for Trump’ The post Renowned Historian Victor Davis Hanson Joins The Daily Signal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Since Donald Trump won reelection, the fiercest Trump-bashers in the press have raged against any sign of media titans softening their approaches before the second term begins. Visits to Mar-a-Lago? Outrageous! Donating to Trump’s inauguration? Unconscionable! Then Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced his Meta sites would be abandoning the censorship of “fact-checkers,” in place since 2015. NBC reporter Hallie Jackson stuck to fiction when she reported they would be abandoning the “independent nonpartisan fact checking they’ve had in place.”  Anyone claiming websites like PolitiFact are “independent” or “nonpartisan” should get the rating “Pants On Fire.” In the first nine months of 2024, PolitiFact was twice as likely to tag Republican officials as “Mostly False” or worse (82.2%) as they were for Democrat officials (41.3%). Put aside the percentages for the raw numbers, and there were 88 “false” tags for Republicans, 31 for Democrats–almost 3 to 1. PolitiFact veterans like Angie Drobnic Holan tried to claim they were not engaged in censorship (but merely flagged articles for suppression!) and that they observed a Meta code of principles “requiring nonpartisanship and transparency.” This boilerplate is not credible. Nevertheless, it is a little shocking to witness Zuckerberg proclaiming “the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.” That’s correct, but it’s not hard to imagine the lefties seeing Zuckerberg waving a white flag of surrender in the Trump Wars. Some unintentionally hilarious pundits said he went “full MAGA.” Hallie Jackson raised questions about the political timing, with the tech CEOs trying to “make inroads” with Trump. That’s fair, but she and the other liberals didn’t find anything suspicious about social media giants censoring content to “make inroads” with Joe Biden (like ignoring Hunter Biden’s laptop, followed by Jackson and others parroting the Biden line that it was “Russian disinformation”). They all ridiculously presume that they are so “fact-based” in their liberalism that cooperating with Democrats is eminently sensible and wholly noncontroversial. Zuckerberg shifted left to “moderate” content under Democratic pressure after Trump was first elected in 2016, with Democrats accusing his sites of allowing Russian meddlers to install Trump. In 2020, Zuckerberg flooded heavily Democratic areas with millions of dollars to turn out minority voters–“Zuckerbucks”–and that was a yawner to Democrat media outlets. Only now is “making inroads” to an incoming president suddenly scandalous.  It was also shocking to hear Zuckerberg announce he would “get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse. What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas.” Censors often use the Orwellian buzzword “inclusion” to exclude conservative views that are critical of transgender advocates or illegal-immigration boosters. So now, Team Zuckerberg will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” You’re allowed to state that wanting to cut off your own genitals might be mentally ill. The left incessantly insisted that Trump would impose autocracy if elected again. But to conservatives, this feels like the end of Big Tech autocracy. The Republican half of America will have more leeway to say things that the Democrat half cannot abide–like COVID probably came from a lab in Wuhan, and Tony Fauci loves himself too much. Opposing mass importation wasn’t racist, and illegal immigrants are lawbreakers. Mark Zuckerberg tore down the wall of censorship. You can tell who favors censorship by noticing who is upset. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Fall of the Censorship Wall at Facebook appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. This content is available exclusively to supporters of Reclaim The Net Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers and individual liberty online. Subscribe Already a supporter? Login If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post A Collective Meltdown From the Truth Police appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. At a time when public trust already teeters on a knife’s edge, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has decided that what we really need is a lecture on “misinformation.” Yes, the same Starmer who spent years navigating political quagmires with the dexterity of a politician reading polling data, and someone accused of lying to the public in the manifesto that got him elected, now fancies himself the arbiter of “truth” and “decency.” And what better way to assert moral authority than by weaponizing one of Britain’s darkest scandals—the rape gang crises—and reframing criticism of government failures as the “poison of the far-Right”? Criticism: The New Extremism During his January 6 press conference, Starmer ditched accountability in favor of a moral crusade against critics. He accused them of peddling “lies,” “misinformation,” and—brace yourself—aligning with the “far-right.” “We’ve seen this playbook many times,” Starmer said, oozing conviction. But the public has seen his playbook too. If you express concern about how successive governments ignored victims, allowed systemic failures to fester, and dragged their feet on justice, you’re basically a neo-Nazi. Starmer’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand here is stunning—turning widespread outrage into something inherently sinister. By lumping legitimate grievances in with the ravings of extremists, he effectively tars everyone with the same brush. Victims and their advocates? Extremists. Grassroots activists demanding reforms? Extremists. It’s a brilliant move if your goal is to shut down meaningful conversation while appearing noble. Blaming Musk: A Modern-Day Scapegoat But Starmer wasn’t done. Enter the obligatory bogeyman of modern discourse: Elon Musk. When the X owner criticized MP Jess Phillips for refusing to support a public inquiry into the grooming gang scandals, Starmer leaped at the opportunity to accuse him of endangering her safety. Musk, Starmer implied, had crossed some vague and undefinable “dangerous threshold” by calling out a politician’s inaction. There’s no denying threats against MPs are a serious matter, especially in today’s climate, but let’s not pretend Musk was personally drafting hate mail. Criticism of public officials, even harsh criticism, isn’t equivalent to endorsing violence. Yet, Starmer’s play here is clear: frame dissent as inherently harmful and wrap it in the protective cloak of “safety.” It’s a chillingly effective tactic that sets the stage for conflating free speech with hate speech—a distinction that seems increasingly inconvenient for those in power. The New Gatekeepers of “Decency” Starmer’s framing of these issues points to a larger, more insidious trend: the slow, deliberate erosion of public discourse under the guise of safeguarding “truth” and “decency.” Dissenting voices are no longer just misguided or even wrong—they’re now dangerous, toxic, and unworthy of a platform. What makes this particularly egregious is the context. The grooming gang scandals are a grotesque example of institutional failure. Victims were ignored for years as authorities feared accusations of racism, prioritizing optics over justice. What Starmer presents as a defense of democracy is, in fact, a calculated effort to consolidate narrative control. If criticism can be dismissed as “far-Right poison,” then any dissenting voice—no matter how valid—can be silenced without debate. Sliding Toward Silence Starmer’s approach represents the classic slippery slope of censorship. First, the extremists are silenced (fair enough, many argue). Then, the vaguely problematic voices are muted. Finally, anyone who veers too far from the approved script is deemed an enemy of “truth.” This isn’t only about online discourse or high-profile figures like Musk. It’s about ordinary people—victims, activists, and concerned citizens—who now risk being labeled as agitators simply for demanding accountability. The Real Threat: Manufactured Consensus Starmer’s insistence on equating criticism with extremism creates a vacuum where only the government’s narrative is allowed to thrive. And when the only voices left are the ones singing praises of the status quo, we’re no longer talking about democracy; we’re talking about a PR campaign with parliamentary decorum. James Cleverly, former Home Secretary, didn’t mince words when he weighed in on the fiasco, summing up what many in Britain are quietly, or not-so-quietly, thinking. “Accusing those who disagree with him, or who seek legitimate answers about repeated failures of child protection, as ‘far-Right’ is deeply insulting and counterproductive,” Cleverly said, in a rare moment of plain speaking from a political figure. As Cleverly pointed out, branding dissent as extremism doesn’t bridge divisions; it widens them, pouring accelerant on an already polarized public square. Maggie Oliver, the whistleblower who exposed the Rochdale scandal, spoke for many when she called Starmer’s remarks “insulting in the extreme.” Oliver, who resigned from Greater Manchester Police in protest over their inaction, knows better than most how hard it is to get the system to listen. To see campaigners lumped in with extremists, she argued, “sets a terrifying precedent.” The “Misinformation” Blueprint: Starmer’s New Censorship Arsenal If Prime Minister Starmer’s handling of criticism over the UK’s rape gang scandal feels less like leadership and more like a prelude to mass censorship, that’s because it likely is. With the newly minted Online Safety Act and provisions under the National Security Act 2023, Starmer’s buzzword-heavy rhetoric about “misinformation” starts looking less like clumsy damage control and more like the calculated groundwork for a chilling clampdown on dissent. For years, “misinformation” has been a convenient scapegoat for governments worldwide to suppress inconvenient truths. Now, in the UK, the term threatens to become a legal cudgel, ready to pummel any narrative that strays too far from the government-approved script. Weaponizing the Online Safety Act Starmer doesn’t need to introduce sweeping new legislation to suppress dissent—his government already has a powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Online Safety Act, sold to the public as a safeguard against harm, contains provisions that are broad enough to suppress not only malicious lies but also legitimate criticism under the guise of protecting the public. Here’s how it could play out: 1. Section 179: False Communications Offense This is where Starmer’s “misinformation” rhetoric gets teeth. Section 179 criminalizes knowingly false communications intended to cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.” The wording here is as vague as it is dangerous. What qualifies as “non-trivial psychological harm”? If the government decides that criticisms of its handling of the grooming gang scandal cause emotional distress to MPs—or, conveniently, to the public—it could label them as harmful misinformation. Imagine this: a social media user accuses Starmer’s government of ignoring systemic abuse in grooming gang cases. Even if the criticism is grounded in fact, the government could argue that the way it’s framed constitutes psychological harm. Once flagged, tech platforms—obligated under the Online Safety Act to prevent such offenses—could preemptively remove posts or ban users entirely. The chilling effect is immediate. Knowing the penalties—up to 51 weeks in prison and unlimited fines—citizens may think twice before questioning the government on sensitive issues. And that’s the goal: silence through fear. 2. Schedule 7, Section 37: Foreign Interference The National Security Act 2023 adds another weapon to Starmer’s arsenal: the foreign interference clause. This provision criminalizes any “misrepresentation” on behalf of a foreign power, even if the information shared is true. While the law ostensibly targets foreign espionage, its scope is alarmingly wide. Starmer could use this to neutralize high-profile international critics like Elon Musk. If Musk’s tweets about UK safeguarding policies are deemed to influence British political discourse, Starmer’s government could accuse him of “foreign interference.” The penalties? Up to 14 years in prison for violators and mandatory platform censorship of related content. Any UK citizen amplifying criticism that the government ties to a foreign agenda—whether real or imagined—could face scrutiny under this Orwellian provision. 3. Section 152: Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation Perhaps the most insidious element of the Online Safety Act is the creation of a disinformation advisory committee under Ofcom. This unelected body will have the power to define what counts as “misinformation,” aligning platforms’ moderation policies with government narratives. Given Starmer’s framing of dissent as extremist “poison,” it’s easy to imagine how this committee could become a government lapdog. If dissenting views about rape gang scandals—or any politically sensitive issue—are labeled misinformation, platforms would have little choice but to silence those voices. 4. Section 165: Media Literacy Ofcom’s mandate to promote media literacy sounds harmless enough, but in practice, it’s a PR goldmine for governments looking to control narratives. Imagine a state-backed campaign equating criticism of the grooming gang scandal to conspiracy theories, painting dissenters as dangerous purveyors of hate. This would prime the public to distrust any view that deviates from the official line, effectively preempting free debate. Starmer’s Record: A Preview of What’s to Come Starmer’s embrace of censorship isn’t theoretical—it’s historical. When riots broke out in the summer of 2023, his government oversaw the arrest of individuals for inflammatory social media posts. While some cases involved genuine incitement, others targeted people simply expressing anger at systemic failures or “misinformation.” The precedent was clear: if your post made the government uncomfortable, you were a target. Fast forward to today, and Starmer’s buzzword-laden rhetoric—“misinformation,” “extremism,” “poison”—looks suspiciously like a blueprint for round two. His invocation of these terms isn’t casual; it’s calculated. Each one is a trigger for the machinery of censorship already baked into British law. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Keir Starmer’s Censorship Playbook appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

For two decades, the CIA secretly conducted experiments on mind control and psychological manipulation. Launched in 1953, the highly controversial program continued until 1973 and involved the use of mind-altering substances, extreme procedures, and invasive techniques to control and manipulate individuals—often without their knowledge or consent. When the program’s details were revealed by The New York Times in the 1970s, the CIA faced widespread condemnation for abusing its power and violating basic human rights. Now, 50 years later, the National Security Archive has released an extensive collection of documents and files related to MKULTRA and several other similar CIA programs. “Under code names that included MKULTRA, BLUEBIRD, and ARTICHOKE, the CIA conducted terrifying experiments using drugs, hypnosis, isolation, sensory deprivation, and other extreme techniques on human subjects, often US citizens, who frequently had no idea what was being done to them or that they were part of a CIA test,” the archive stated. The newly released materials shed light on numerous disturbing practices, including the establishment of CIA “interrogation teams” that used “the polygraph, drugs, and hypnotism” to brainwash individuals. Other documents detail experiments where federal prisoners were given extremely high doses of mind-altering substances to observe their effects. “It is a story about secrecy—perhaps the most infamous cover-up in the Agency’s history,” the archive wrote. “It is also a history marked by near-total impunity at the institutional and individual levels for countless abuses committed across decades—not during interrogations of enemy agents or in wartime situations, but during ordinary medical treatments, inside prison hospitals, addiction clinics, and juvenile detention facilities, and in many cases led by top figures in the field of the behavioral sciences.” The full set of documents is now available for public viewing on the National Security Archive’s website. The post Declassified MKULTRA Files Reveal CIA Mind Control Experiments appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Within hours of President-elect Donald Trump stating Monday, "I am hearing that the people of Greenland are 'MAGA,'" Donald Trump Jr. and Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk touched down in Nuuk, the capital of the autonomous Danish territory. In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Kirk told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck about the perception-changing experience that he and Donald Trump Jr. had in Greenland, then made an argument for why the island's purchase "would exponentially benefit the United States of America." "I think the deal could be brokered," concluded Kirk. "Only President Trump could do it." Trump appears unwilling to prioritize the sensitivities of foreign nationals over the security and prosperity of the United States. 'The United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.' Since his landslide victory in November, Trump has, for instance, pressured Canada to remedy its trade deficit with the U.S., increase military spending, and reinforce its southern border — all while joking about transforming the northern nation into the 51st state. Already, Trump has secured concessions and promises from Ottawa. Similarly unwilling to tolerate guff from Panama, Trump has made clear that his White House would never permit the southern nation's American-made canal to "fall into the wrong hands," meaning the Chinese communist regime, which presently controls ports at both ends of the canal. Greenland appears to be yet another geographic preoccupation for the president-elect, who has repeatedly suggested that the 836,330 square-mile island — home to fewer than 60,000 people, a wealth of underutilized natural resources, and the northernmost installation of the U.S military — is an important piece of real estate, especially where American national security is concerned. When announcing former U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Ken Howery as his pick for ambassador to Denmark on Dec. 22, Trump, who discussed the possibility of acquiring Greenland during his first term, made his continued interest known, stating, "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." Beck noted that Trump's remarks about Canada could be characterized as a mix of trolling and negotiation but that his interest in raising the red, white, and blue over Greenland is genuine and reflects a "president looking to the future." After spending time this week with Donald Trump Jr. and the people of Greenland, Kirk appeared convinced that the island was a worthy investment even of the trillion-dollar figure Beck floated. — (@) "What does it have to offer? First of all, striking beauty," Kirk told Beck. "I mean, you would love it. ... The pictures don't do it justice. I'm talking about untouched, serene beauty. That's number one. Number two: incredible natural resources that the current Danish government who controls Greenland does not allow locals to exploit or use or take advantage of. I'm talking about resources we might not even be aware of." 'We might have lots of nonstop flights from New York and Chicago to Nuuk.' A U.S. Geological Survey estimate indicated there could be 17.5 billion undiscovered barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off the island. Kirk's third justification for buying Greenland was its rare earth minerals, many of which are regarded as critical to American security and the economy, although he also emphasized the island's geostrategic value. Scott Stephenson, a professor of policy analysis at Pardee RAND Graduate School, highlighted in 2019 that control over the island might be worthwhile because of its "central location between the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, along several shipping routes that are becoming increasingly accessible as sea ice melts, as well as [the] numerous transcontinental flight paths that rely on Greenlandic airspace." "Control of Greenland could also make sense strategically for the United States in light of Russia's Arctic military buildup and China's recent attempts to purchase a naval base and build airports on the island," continued Stephenson. "Taking over responsibility for Greenland's foreign affairs from Denmark would grant veto power to the United States in security matters, enabling the United States to counter the spread of Chinese influence on the island." "I think this is the best investment America could make in my lifetime," said Beck. Suggesting that there was both an interest among the locals in joining America and a hostility toward Denmark, Kirk stressed that acquiring Greenland is "totally possible, especially with President Trump coming in. This would be such a net benefit for the United States for national security reasons. The Arctic is becoming an increasing hot center with China and Russia." "One day, we might have lots of nonstop flights from New York and Chicago to Nuuk," said Kirk. "I would love to welcome Greenland into the United States of America." Blaze News previously reported that a year after U.S. Secretary of State William Seward suggested the annexation of the island was "worthy of serious consideration," the U.S. came close to picking up Greenland and Iceland from Denmark for under $6 million in gold. Citing previously classified documents, the Associated Press reported in 1991 that the Truman administration volunteered in 1946 to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold. At the time, the late Sen. Owen Brewster (R-Maine) called the move a "military necessity." 'I was blown away at the worldwide movement that MAGA has created.' When asked whether the Danes would be interested this time around, Kirk said, "It's the art of the deal, right? So just kind of thinking out loud here, number one, how much of say do Danes actually have? We pay for all their military defense, basically, through NATO. We're the ones that are keeping, you know, Putin at bay. We're the ones that continue to fund all of these military bases throughout Europe. So maybe it's time that we flex a little bit of that muscle and use some of that leverage of all of these blank checks that we've been writing all throughout Europe." Donald Trump Jr. and Kirk apparently decided to go on the trip after the president-elect pushed Greenland back into the news. According to Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., a big outdoorsman, said, '"Why don't I just go do a trip to Greenland and just kind of go get to know the culture and get to see what's ... going on there?' And one thing led to another, and I was invited." The TPUSA founder indicated that they took "Trump Force One in the middle of the night" and flew to Nuuk, where Kirk was "blown away at the worldwide movement that MAGA has created." "We were met by hundreds of people — people in MAGA hats on the streets of Nuuk, people that love America, that want to be part of America," said Kirk. "I was blown away at the worldwide movement that MAGA has created." Some Greenlanders apparently told Kirk and Trump Jr. that Copenhagen discounts their concerns and mistreats them. However, Americans take them seriously and prize the land they love. "Isn't that the American story? We don't care about where you're from. We care about your potential," Kirk told Beck. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A pro-life supporter of President-elect Donald Trump has just won a Virginia state Senate seat in a night of special elections that brought no surprises.On Tuesday, just a few weeks after Election Day 2024, voters in parts of Virginia headed to the polls once again to participate in three special elections. The results were then quickly tabulated, and Republican Luther Cifers easily coasted to victory in the race for the 10th Senate District, defeating Democrat Jack Trammell 58.55% to 41.32%."We did it!" Cifers posted to Facebook late Tuesday night. "Thanks to all of those who supported this campaign and to those that voted for me. For those that didn't, I'm going to be working for you too and look forward to earning your confidence. I'm so excited to have the opportunity to serve the 10th District and this great Commonwealth!"Cifers, a 50-year-old political rookie with a background in business, campaigned on many traditional conservative issues, including low taxes and protecting the Second Amendment. He also describes himself on his campaign website as "pro-life." "Life begins at conception," the website said. "No exceptions."'I want to thank God for the inspiration and strength He has given me these past months and for my entire life.'His website further demonstrates support for Trump, calling Trump's win in November a tremendous "relief."David Richards, a political science professor at the University of Lynchburg, indicated to the Virginia Mercury that Cifers' support for Trump likely gave him a boost at the ballot box."Cifers was running in a very strong Republican district and was well liked," Richards said. "He also checked off the Trump-supporter box, which certainly did not hurt him and probably helped him get the margin he did."Cifers replaces John McGuire, who recently vacated the seat after a successful bid for Congress. McGuire, in turn, replaces Rep. Bob Good after defeating him in the Republican primary in June.In a statement to Blaze News, Cifers said:My fellow citizens have spoken, and I am honored and humbled to be the next state senator from Virginia's 10th Senate District. A lot of people believed in me and decided to trust me with this responsibility. I will do everything in my power to ensure that their trust is well placed.I want to thank God for the inspiration and strength He has given me these past months and for my entire life. A very special thanks to my beautiful wife, Anastasiia, who is my true love and best friend and whose loyalty and support never cease to amaze me. And thanks so much to my campaign team and volunteers. Citizens of the 10th district, I pledge to do everything I can to honor my commitments to you. I promise to be a uniter and a fighter and to do everything I can to help restore your trust, power, and authority.The 10th Virginia Senate District — a large district that lies roughly in the area between Lynchburg, Charlottesville, and Richmond — is considered a Republican stronghold, so Cifers' victory is no surprise.Neither were the respective victories of two Democrats in D.C.-area districts in Northern Virginia, the bluest region of the commonwealth, in the special elections Tuesday night.Kannan Srinivasan, a strong abortion advocate, defeated Republican Tumay Harding 61.25% to 38.62% in the race for the 32nd Senate District.Srinivasan's win means he must vacate his seat representing the 26th District of the Virginia House of Delegates, a seat he held for less than a year. Democrat JJ Singh won the special-election race to replace Srinivasan, besting Republican Ram Venkatachalam 61.49% to 38.33%.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!