“An Era of Shock Events” Is Coming, Says WEF

The world must brace for “an era of shock events,” according to the World Economic Forum.

In a new opinion piece posted on the Forum’s website, Professor Maha Hosain Aziz, of New York University, says that the coming decade will be “shaped by heightened global risk and unpredictable shock events.”

“Anything can happen in our post-pandemic era,” Aziz claims.

He goes on to list three potential “shock events” that could happen soon.

The first is the emergence of a “new global extremist group,” which the professor claims could use AI to create a new kind of terrorism.

“With the world distracted with multiple major wars and leadership in decline, this could be an opportunistic time for a new extremist group to make its mark—and maybe not face as many consequences. Perhaps, it will even leverage AI tools to kick off a new phase of terrorism.”

The next potential “shock event” is a deliberate “cyber pandemic.” Aziz points to the recent Crowdstrike outage, which crippled computer systems worldwide, as an example of the chaos and damage a large-scale cyberattack could cause. The outage cost Fortune 500 companies $5.4 billion alone.

“Imagine if a bad actor did this—on purpose and an even grander scale?”

Professor Aziz’s final prediction is that a small island nation could sink under the ocean due to climate change.

Keep reading

Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Arrested in France, Reportedly For Refusing to Censor Content

Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of the encrypted messaging app Telegram, was arrested this Saturday evening, according to French media.

The incident occurred at Le Bourget Airport just as Durov, accompanied by a bodyguard and a woman, disembarked from his private jet. Durov, who holds dual Franco-Russian citizenship and is 39 years old, had just arrived from Azerbaijan.

The arrest was executed by members of the GTA (Gendarmerie of Air Transport), acting on a French search warrant. This warrant, issued by the OFMIN of the national directorate of the French judicial police, was based on allegations that Telegram’s operational policies — specifically its lack of censorship and lack of cooperation with law enforcement’s censorship demands, along with features such as disposable phone numbers and cryptocurrency transactions — indirectly support illicit activities.

Following his arrest, Durov was notified by ONAF (National Anti-Fraud Office) investigators and placed in police custody. He was scheduled to appear before an investigating judge on Saturday evening with the potential for multiple charges to be brought against him on Sunday, including those related to terrorism, narcotics, conspiracy, fraud, money laundering, and more.

An investigator confidently told TF1/LCI, “Pavel Durov will end up in pre-trial detention, that’s for sure.” They added, “On his platform, he allowed countless crimes and crimes to be committed for which he does nothing to moderate or cooperate.”

The recent arrest of Pavel Durov is just the latest in a series of challenges facing Telegram, an encrypted messaging service known for its stringent privacy policies. In recent weeks, the platform has come under intensified scrutiny and attacks from various governments and regulatory bodies, alleging that its free speech policies facilitate illegal activities.

The core of the controversy surrounds Telegram’s encryption protocols and privacy features, which authorities claim obstruct criminal investigations and enable the spread of illicit content.

Telegram’s user base has surged, particularly in regions with contentious political climates, due to its promise of secure communication.

Keep reading

North Carolina Threatened To Prosecute Her for Taking a ‘Ballot Selfie.’ Now, She’s Suing.

There’s a pretty good chance you’ve taken a “ballot selfie”—a picture of or with your completed ballot. Around one in 10 Americans say they have, and pictures of filled-in ballots are common on social media during election season. However, taking a picture of your ballot is a crime in 14 states, leading to possible fines and jail time.

A North Carolina woman is challenging her state’s ban on ballot selfies, arguing that she has a First Amendment right to take a picture of her own ballot—and to post it online. 

“Ballot selfie bans turn innocent Americans into criminals for nothing more than showing their excitement about how they voted, or even just showing that they voted,” said Jeff Zeman, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the First Amendment group that filed the suit. “That’s core political speech protected by the First Amendment.”

According to the lawsuit, North Carolina resident Susan Hogarth took a photo this March with her completed primary ballot. She posted the photo to X, with the caption: “Laws against #ballotselfie are bullshit.”

Just a week after the primary election, Hogarth received a letter from the North Carolina State Board of Elections threatening prosecution for her post, demanding that she take down the post or face legal action. As of the filing of the suit, Hogarth’s post had received less than 3,000 views—hardly a viral post. Hogarth has refused to take down the post and says that she will continue to take ballot selfies.

“Between March 2016 and March 2024, the State Board investigated at least 50 reports of voters photographing completed ballots from primary and general elections,” reads FIRE’s suit. “During election cycles from November 2018 through March 2024, officials from at least eight different North Carolina county boards sent reports of voters photographing completed ballots to the State Board.”

The lawsuit argues that these investigations—and the multiple North Carolina laws justifying them—obviously violate the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Rand Paul Asks Why TSA Is Using Terror Watch List To Spy On Americans “Based On Their Political Views”

GOP Senator Rand Paul has written to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) asking for answers as to why the agency appears to be using terrorist watch lists as a way of surveilling Americans according to their political opinions.

Paul addressed the letter to TSA Administrator David Pekoske, and cited recent revelations that former Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard as well as a woman married to a federal air marshal whistleblower have both been placed on the ‘Quiet Skies’ program watch list and subjected to enhanced surveillance.

Gabbard was seemingly added to the watch list after a Fox News interview during which she criticised the ‘deep state’, while the air marshal’s wife was added after attending Donald Trump’s speech on January 6th, despite not moving to the Capitol building after it.

“Taken together, these incidents seem to be part of a broader pattern in which TSA has repurposed Quiet Skies to surveil individuals based on their political activities, even when there is no evidence of wrongdoing,” Paul wrote.

The Senator further noted that the incidents “echo concerns highlighted in a previous report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which identified critical deficiencies in TSA’s management of the Quiet Skies program.” 

Keep reading

Royal College of Nursing is encouraging nurses to refuse to treat “racists”

Abandoning longstanding ethical principles, the Royal College of Nursing in the UK has issued new guidelines that justify refusal to treat or withdrawal of care in cases of discriminatory behaviour, including racism.

The Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority (“SRA”) is also following a totalitarian ideology.  Solicitor, Lois Bayliss, has been accused by the SRA of acting “against mainstream science” because she sent out “anti-vaccine” letters. The SRA claims to have a “body of evidence” against her anti-vaccine beliefs but refuses to allow her to bring in medical expert witness evidence to defend herself in her final hearing. How Orwellian is that, remarked Jonathan Engler who is a healthcare entrepreneur, qualified in medicine and law.

The first is The Royal College of Nursing (“RCN”), which says (of the recent protests):

These scenes around the country are nothing short of despicable racism – they have no place in our society. As an anti-racist organisation, the RCN will take a lead part in tackling this hatred.

So, they have issued new guidelines which state that “where there is discriminatory behaviour, including racism” a refusal to treat or the withdrawal of care may be justified.

The RCN announcement can be found HERE. The new guidance is HERE.

Aside from the concerns – expressed in THIS article – over a professional body essentially acting as a social justice organisation (as well as simply parroting the government position that anyone who expresses any concern whatsoever about unfettered immigration must automatically be a racist), this represents an egregious abandonment of longstanding ethical principles.

Who is to judge what is racist? And how? Are 95-year-olds who don’t keep up with the latest approved language and use outmoded words such as “coloured” to be refused treatment because they are “racist”? According to these guidelines that could well be justified.

What about a cheeky laddish comment by a male adolescent towards an attractive female nurse? Well, that’s misogyny, which is discriminatory – so no treatment?

It’s all very well responding, “Don’t be silly, nurses will exercise discretion,” but the whole point of sacrosanct ethical principles (and inalienable rights for that matter) is that they don’t depend on the prevailing circumstances, since the consideration of such leaves far too much room for post-hoc justification of – well anything, really – leaving patients frighteningly vulnerable to the ideological whims of their carers.

Keep reading

Gabbard Episode Shows the Surveillance State Strong and Stupid as Ever

The former Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is apparently the latest Biden critic to be targeted for federal surveillance and harassment. Gabbard, an outspoken opponent of America’s forever wars, is reportedly being stalked by Transportation Security Administration’s air marshals, part of the agency’s Quiet Skies covert operation targeting suspected threats to aviation.

After TSA whistleblowers were quoted confirming the surveillance, Gabbard declared that placing her on the TSA Quiet Skies target list was “clearly an act of political retaliation. It’s no accident that I was placed on the Quiet Skies list the day after I did a prime-time interview warning the American people about… why Kamala Harris would be bad for our country if elected as President.” Gabbard lamented that, despite serving in the U.S. Army for 21 years, “now my government is surveilling me as a potential domestic terrorist.” She groused about “the stress of forever looking over my shoulder, wondering if and how I am being watched, what secret terror watch list I’m on, and having no transparency or due process.” As one Twitter wag quipped, “The only thing Tulsi Gabbard blew up was Kamala’s earlier presidential run. That’s why she’s on a list.” 

On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) sent a letter to TSA chief David Pekoske complaining that the Gabbard surveillance appeared to be “part of a broader pattern in which TSA has repurposed Quiet Skies to surveil individuals based on their political activities, even when there is no evidence of wrongdoing.” Paul requested that TSA speedily turn over “unredacted copies of all current guidelines, criteria, standard operating procedures, and related documents governing the selection of individuals for TSA-managed lists and programs, including the Quiet Skies program.” Paul himself had epic airport clashes with TSA officials in 2012, and the agency has been paying the price ever since. 

In response to an inquiry by journalist Matt Taibbi on the Gabbard controversy, TSA issued a formal statement refusing to confirm or deny the targeting of Gabbard: “TSA’s Quiet Skies program uses a risk-based approach to identify passengers and apply enhanced security measures on some domestic and outbound international flights. To safeguard sensitive national security measures, TSA does not confirm or deny whether any individual has matched to a risk-based rule… Simply matching to a risk-based rule does not constitute derogatory information about an individual.”

In fact, a primary purpose of Quiet Skies is to entitle federal agents to stockpile derogatory information on their targets. 

Keep reading

DOJ IG Finds FBI Systematically Mishandled Classified Info

Talk about irony: The FBI, which was willing to use deadly force over Donald Trump allegedly mishandling classified documents, has been systematically mishandling similar information for years, according to bombshell findings released Thursday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

The DOJ-IG said it discovered the FBI’s mishandling of classified information while auditing a contract related to how the bureau destroys electronics containing “sensitive-but-unclassified” information, as well as classified national security information.

According to Horowitz’s audit, the FBI labels computers that handle such information when it sends them to a facility to be destroyed. However, it does not label internal hard drives extracted from those computers. The FBI also doesn’t properly track thumb drives and disk drives containing information of varying classification levels, according to Horowitz.

Compounding the security risk is the fact that those unmarked internal hard drives, thumb drives and disk drives often end up in a physically unsecured warehouse.

Horowitz said that when his staff visited an FBI “Media Destruction Team” facility last October, they found “non-accountable” hard drives and other electronic storage devices sitting in an open pallet-sized box. Horowitz said he’s not disclosing details about the facility since it’s not secured.

A [property-turn-in] staff member told us that the pallet for the loose media was unsecured for extended periods, sometimes spanning days or even weeks because PTI would wrap the pallets and move them to the Facility shelves only when the box reached full capacity,” the Inspector General said.

During the same visit last October, Horowitz said his staff also found a container from January 2022 that identified its contents as “non-accountable.”

“Notably, the container’s shrink wrapping was torn, and boxes inside were visibly open and contained hard drives marked Secret,” he said.

Keep reading

Excess Deaths in Australia Correlated to Covid Vaccine Uptake — Study

A peer reviewed study has found a correlation between Covid vaccine administration and excess mortality in Australia. While correlation does not imply causation, it indicates a plausible causation that should be further researched, which it has previously and causation has been confirmed including in Australia.

“The study explores the relationship by Australia State between COVID Booster Vaccinations and excess deaths. There is evidence of a very strong correlation in ordinary least squares regression analysis. Cross-validation tests support the strength of the regression relationship. The results suggest that it would be worthwhile to explore these associations in greater depth as it is an important public health issue,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

A positive correlation between the shot and extra deaths has been discovered.

A positive correlation describes how when one factor increases or decreases (Covid vaccination) the other factor (excess mortality) moves in the same direction. While correlation does not verify a direct cause-effect relationship between the first and second factor (causation), it does indicate a causal factor may be at play.

Booster doses have the biggest effect on death rates it appears.

Keep reading

“It’s Not OK Any More”: UK Free Speech Crack-Down Targets “Extremist Ideologies”

The crackdown on free speech continues in the United Kingdom as officials use recent rioting to justify a roundup of citizens who they view as “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.”

The government is ramping up arrests of those with “extremist ideologies” in the latest wave of arrests. 

The crackdown includes those accused of misogynist views.

In my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how difficult it is to get a free people to give up freedoms. They have to be afraid, very afraid.

For that reason, governments tend to attack free speech during periods of public anger or fear.

That pattern is playing out, yet again, in the United Kingdom.

The recent anti-immigration riots have given officials a renewed opportunity to use anti-free speech laws to target those with opposing views.

For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers.

Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. 

Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.”

Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” 

A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room.

Keep reading

Albuquerque’s Police Chief Says Cops Have a 5th Amendment Right To Leave Their Body Cameras Off

Albuquerque, New Mexico, Police Chief Harold Medina operated his department-issued pickup truck “in an unsafe manner” on February 17, when he ran a red light and broadsided a car, severely injuring the driver. So concludes a recent report from internal investigators who looked into that shocking incident.

Duh, you might say if you have seen surveillance camera footage of the crash, which shows Medina crossing Central Avenue, a busy, four-lane street, against the light. He crosses the westbound lanes through a gap between two cars, forcing one of the drivers to brake abruptly, before barreling across the eastbound lanes, where he rams into the side of a gold 1966 Mustang driven by 55-year-old Todd Perchert.

Although Medina’s recklessness seems obvious, the Albuquerque Police Department’s Fleet Crash Review Board (CRB) earlier this year concluded that the crash was “non-preventable.” How so? Medina, who was on his way to a Saturday press conference with his wife when he took a detour to have a look at a homeless encampment, said he ran the light to escape an altercation between two homeless men that had escalated into gunfire at the intersection of Central and Alvarado Drive.

While “the initial decision to enter the intersection is not in question,” Lt. James Ortiz says in the Internal Affairs report, “the facts and circumstances do not relieve department personnel of driving safely to ensure no additional harm is done to personnel or to citizens.” Medina, Ortiz says, clearly failed to do that: “By definition, driving into a crosswalk, darting between two vehicles driving on a busy street, and crossing through an intersection with vehicles traveling eastbound were unsafe driving practices.” In this case, he notes, those unsafe practices “resulted in a vehicle collision with serious physical injuries to the victim, including a broken collarbone and shoulder blade, 8 broken ribs (reconstructed with titanium plates after surgery), collapsed lung, lacerations to left ear and head, multiple gashes to his face, a seven-hour surgery, and hospitalization requiring epidural painkiller and a chest tube for nearly a week.”

Ortiz not only disagrees with the CRB’s conclusion about Medina’s crash; he says the board never should have reviewed the incident to begin with, since its mission is limited to accidents “not resulting in a fatality or serious injury.” Ortiz says Commander Benito Martinez, who chairs the CRB, violated department policy when he decided the board should pass judgment on Medina’s accident.

Martinez acknowledged that department policy “prohibited the CRB from hearing serious injury crashes” and that “allowing such a case to be heard would be a policy violation.” Why did he allow it anyway? “He explained that his reasoning for permitting the Chief’s crash to be reviewed by the CRB was based on his belief that someone wanted the crash to be heard,” Ortiz writes. “Cmdr. Martinez clarified that he believed someone from Internal Affairs wanted the case to be heard by the CRB to ensure full transparency. However, he did not consult with anyone in Internal Affairs to verify the accuracy of this assumption.”

Both the CRB’s decision to review the crash and its implicit exoneration of Medina are hard to fathom. But Medina’s explanations for the third policy violation identified by Ortiz—the chief’s failure to activate his body camera after the crash—are even weirder.

Keep reading