Search

🚆 Η Βουλγαρία επέλεξε τρένα, τα πήρε και ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΟΥΝ μέσα σε 2 χρόνια 🇬🇷 Η Ελλάδα 3,5 χρόνια μετά τη δήλωση Μητσοτάκη για νέα τρένα, ΤΙΠΟΤΑ. 🎪 Για την ακρίβεια, όχι ακριβώς «τίποτα». Είχαμε κάτι προεκλογικές φιέστες για κάτι τρένα που ήρθαν και δεν έχουν μεταφέρει ούτε έναν επιβάτη (εκτός από Νεοδημοκράτες με τους βιντεογράφους τους). 🔥 Και έτσι συνεχίζουν να κυκλοφορούν τα ίδια επικίνδυνα βαγόνια των Τεμπών που δεν έχουν ούτε πυρασφάλεια. ⏳ Θυμίζουμε το χρονικό αυτής της τραγικής κατάστασης. 📅 21/3/2023 Αμέσως μετά τα #Τεμπη, ο Μητσοτάκης προαναγγέλλει «Επαναδιαπραγμάτευση με τη Hellenic Train» και διακηρύσσει με μαχητικότητα ότι «Θα μας φέρνει τα καλύτερα τρένα της και όχι σαπάκια». ❓ 27/1/2025, 2 χρόνια μετά, σχεδόν, ρωτάμε τον εκπρόσωπο του Μητσοτάκη πότε θα έρθουν αυτά τα νέα τρένα και τι γίνεται με την επαναδιαπραγμάτευση; 🤷 Και ο εκπρόσωπος του Μητσοτάκη ΔΕΝ ΕΧΕΙ ΙΔΕΑ. 🚧 Ήταν τόσο σοβαρή η εξαγγελία και τόσο μάχιμη, που 2 χρόνια δεν είχαν κάνει ΤΙΠΟΤΑ (εκτός από μπαζώματα). 🔁 Ρωτάμε ξανά και ξανά αν έγινε επαναδιαπραγμάτευση ΝΑΙ ή ΟΧΙ και μας απαντάει άλλα ντ’ άλλων. 📢 Προφανώς πιέζονται απ’ τις διαδηλώσεις και τη δημόσια πίεση και, λίγο καιρό μετά, ανακοινώνουν επαναδιαπραγμάτευση, νέα τρένα, συναντήσεις κτλ. 🚄 Και υποτίθεται ότι το θέμα δρομολογείται και θα έχουμε άμεσα νέα τρένα. 🙃 Αμ δε. 📅 27/10/2025, 9 μήνες μετά, συμβαίνει το απίστευτο. Ο αρμόδιος Υπουργός, ο Κυρανάκης, δηλώνει (του ξεφεύγει) στον Χατζηνικολάου ότι δεν ξέρει πότε θα έρθουν τα νέα τρένα και ότι ρωτάει κάθε μέρα τους Ιταλούς, αλλά δεν του λένε. (Μακάρι να είχαμε άλλον έναν τέτοιο ευπατρίδη να θυσιάζει κάθε μέρα την αξιοπρέπειά του για την Ελλάδα μας…) 🤨 Ρωτάμε τον Μαρινάκη πότε θα έρθουν τα νέα τρένα και μας μαλώνει ότι δεν πρέπει να ρωτάμε τέτοια και ότι θα έπρεπε να ρωτήσουμε το αρμόδιο Υπουργείο (που btw, όταν του στέλνουμε ερωτήματα, δεν μας απαντάει). 🏛️ Δηλαδή ασχολείται όλη η Ελλάδα, ασχολούνται τα κόμματα στη Βουλή, ασχολούνται τα μεγαλύτερα ΜΜΕ, γίνεται η μεγαλύτερη διαδήλωση στην ιστορία της χώρας, αλλά το θέμα δεν είναι άξιο λόγου και ενημέρωσης στο κεντρικό μπρίφινγκ της κυβέρνησης, υποβαθμίζεται αυθαίρετα ως επιμέρους θέμα ενός Υπουργείου. ❗ Ρωτάμε το αυτονόητο: «Είπατε θα φέρετε νέα τρένα και σχεδόν 3 χρόνια μετά δεν έχετε ιδέα πότε θα έρθουν: Έχετε αποτύχει;» 🎯 Ο Μαρινάκης, αντί να απαντήσει, επιτίθεται ότι συμμετείχα προσωπικά στις κινητοποιήσεις για τα Τέμπη. 📰 Και νομίζω αυτή είναι η πιο χαρακτηριστική στιγμή του τι συμβαίνει 1,5 χρόνο στο μπρίφινγκ. Ρωτάμε για κάποιο θέμα δημοσίου συμφέροντος, που όποιον και αν ρωτήσεις, αριστερό ή δεξιό, δημοσιογράφο, πολιτικό, συγγενή θύματος, απλό πολίτη ή τον ίδιο τον Μητσοτάκη, θα σου πει ότι είναι σημαντικό να έρθουν νέα ασφαλή τρένα. 📊 Για ένα θέμα που αντικειμενικά υπάρχει καθυστέρηση. Με facts. Με δεδομένα. ☠️ Και ο Μαρινάκης, αντί να απαντήσει, επιτίθεται, προσπαθώντας να «δηλητηριάσει την πηγή», δηλαδή με την κλασική επικοινωνιακή τακτική που σημειώνεται στη βιβλιογραφία των Media ως Poisoning the Well. Με απαξίωση του δημοσιογράφου. ✊ Όσο για τη συμμετοχή στη μεγάλη διαδήλωση για τα Τέμπη, δηλώνω ένοχος. 🕯️ Ήμουν κι εγώ εκεί. Δίπλα στους συγγενείς των θυμάτων. ❤️ Και ήταν μεγάλη μου τιμή. 🇧🇬 Καλοτάξιδα τα νέα τρένα στη Βουλγαρία. 🍌 Άλλη μια μέρα στην ημιδιωτικοποιημένη μπανανία μας. Άλλη μια μέρα βλέπουμε, απλώς, τα άλλα τρένα να περνούν. #τρένα #Βουλγαρία #Ελλάδα

A study conducted by the organization Just Facts revealed that three out of four most popular AI chatbots were more likely to provide misleading information on issues attributed to the political left than the right, and that half of the sources they cited were unreliable. (translated)

lo de Luana es realmente lamentable, una jugadora que siempre supo desenvolverse en el juego y encabezaba en mi top 3 de favoritas, hoy se expone de la peor manera cuando tranquílamente podría haberse escondido y pasar desapercibida, aunque les duela la verdad a Luana siempre le molestó que Devi le de bola a Sol y Hanssen a Tini, just facts #GranHermano #GranHermano #Fútbol #Jugadoras

Nadat 'tScheldt met één welgemikte satirische tweet het VRT-sloepje van leugentaffelaar (ander woord voor VRT-journalist) @JensFranssen tot zinken bracht, wist Jens Franssen van geen hout pijlen meer maken. Dus deed hij wat alleen zwakzinninge 'journalisten' doen die niet meer tegen de waarheid kunnen: 'tScheldt blokkeren. Flink zo Jens! Dit was de tweet naar aanleiding van het feit dat Jens Franssen de antwoordfunctie op zijn posts had afgezet terwijl hij iedereen die kritiek had op de VRT afzeikte: "Aan leugenlafbek @JensFranssen van leugenbolwerk VRT. Misschien mensen het recht geven te antwoorden op je posts als je ze rechtstreeks benadert? Of hoort dat niet bij de VRT-filosofie van discussie met open vizier? Liever schieten vanachter het muurtje om de eigen waarheid als enige waarheid te framen? Het is goed te weten dat Karrewiet wordt volgestoken met 'verbeterde beelden' (uitspraak van VRT-journalist) van 'opgevoerde jongeren' (uitspraak van VRT-factsjekster). Met andere woorden jullie zijn bewust realiteiten aan het framen om jonge mensen te misvormen in plaats van te vormen. Schande." #VRT #journalistiek #satire

Laborunfall als Ursprung von COVID-19 bestätigt – Kongressbericht und Regierungsposition im Überblick (https://t.co/3kgPYYX0zx leitet auf eine Internetseite des Weißen Hauses um) Dort lässt sicher folgender Bericht aus Dezember 2024 herunterladen: https://t.co/x4GGJuuCAm Der 520-seitige Abschlussbericht des Untersuchungsausschusses des US-Repräsentantenhauses zur Coronavirus-Pandemie vom 4. Dezember 2024 kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass SARS-CoV-2 durch einen Labor- oder forschungsbezogenen Unfall entstanden ist. Die US-Exekutive hat diese Einschätzung im Verlauf des Jahres 2025 zur offiziellen Position erhoben und daraus rechtliche Konsequenzen gezogen. Ich habe den Bericht erst jetzt gelesen und mir war nicht klar, wie deutlich sich die US Position bereits aufgrund des Berichts des Untersuchungsausschusses geändert hat. Eine Enquete - Kommission in Deutschland als parlamentarischer Selbstbeweihräucherungsakt zeigt auf, wie verkommen bereits das Regierungssystem ist, dass nicht der Aufklärung und Wahrheit dient, sondern den Tätern und ihrer Vertuschung. Das hält bis heute an. Nun zum Abschlussbericht - des Untersuchungsausschusses: Das Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic des Committee on Oversight and Accountability im US-Repräsentantenhaus legte am 4. Dezember 2024 unter dem Titel „After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward" seinen Abschlussbericht vor. Grundlage sind über 100 Untersuchungsschreiben, 38 protokollierte Vernehmungen und Depositionen, 25 Anhörungen sowie mehr als eine Million gesichtete Dokumentseiten aus dem Untersuchungszeitraum Februar 2023 bis Dezember 2024. Der Ausschussvorsitzende Brad R. Wenstrup, D.P.M., bezeichnet die Untersuchung im Vorwort als die bislang gründlichste Aufarbeitung der Pandemie. Die zentralen Feststellungen Ursprung des Virus. Der Ausschuss stellt fest, dass die Beweislage für die Laborthese spreche. Er stützt sich auf das Factsheet des US-Außenministeriums vom Januar 2021, die Bewertung des Office of the Director of National Intelligence vom Juni 2023 sowie auf die 2023 veröffentlichten Einschätzungen von FBI (mittlere Konfidenz) und Energieministerium (geringe Konfidenz). Forschungsfinanzierung. Die US-amerikanischen National Institutes of Health haben Gain-of-Function-Forschung am Wuhan Institute of Virology finanziert (Der Organisation EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. wirft der Bericht verspätete Berichterstattung, die unterlassene Meldung eines gefährlichen Experiments und Falschangaben gegenüber dem NIH vor. Vertuschung. Chinesische Regierungsstellen, Behörden innerhalb der US-Regierung und Teile der internationalen Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft haben versucht, Tatsachen zum Pandemieursprung zu verdecken. (Anmerkung von mir: ist bis heute in Deutschland der Fall. Alles wird hier dazu in Deutschland immer noch zensiert und von den ÖR - Medien totgeschwiegen) Mittelmissbrauch. Der Bericht beziffert die Betrugsschäden beim Paycheck Protection Program auf mindestens 64 Milliarden US-Dollar und bei den pandemiebedingten Arbeitslosenleistungen auf mehr als 191 Milliarden US-Dollar. Grundrechte. Der Ausschuss hält fest, dass die Verfassung in Krisenzeiten nicht suspendiert werden könne und dass Freiheitsbeschränkungen Misstrauen gegenüber dem Gesundheitswesen säten. Er bewertet die Sechs-Fuß-Abstandsregel als nicht quantitativ wissenschaftlich belegt, Maskenpflichten als wirkungsarm bis wirkungslos und langanhaltende Lockdowns als in der Gesamtbilanz schädlich. Impfstoffe. Operation Warp Speed wird ausdrücklich als Erfolg in dem Bericht gewürdigt, der Millionen Leben gerettet habe. (Anmerkung: dürfte nach dem aktuellen Stand der Wissenschaft nicht mehr zu halten sein). Kritisiert werden hingegen Impfpflichten, die Behandlung natürlicher Immunität und die Transparenz der Impfstoffsicherheitssysteme. Strafrechtliche Bezüge. Der Bericht enthält Feststellungen zu mutmaßlichen Falschaussagen gegenüber dem Kongress nach 18 U.S.C. § 1001 und § 1621 sowie zur mutmaßlichen Vernichtung von Bundesakten nach 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Andrew M. Cuomo 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Falschaussage gegenüber dem Kongress Gegenstand: Verneinung jeder Beteiligung an und Erinnerung an den „July 6 Report" Vernehmung vom 11.6.2024 Förmliche Verweisung an das DOJ am 30.10.2024 Zusätzlich, ohne Strafnorm: Verhalten „vereinbar mit" Zeugenbeeinflussung und Behinderung Dr. Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Falschaussage gegenüber dem Kongress 18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Meineid (öffentliche Anhörung vom 1.5.2024, unter Eid) Gegenstand: Widerspruch zwischen Aussagen und vorliegenden Dokumenten; konkrete Einzelaussagen im Bericht nicht benannt Umfeld: Verfälschung veröffentlichter E-Mails, unwahre Angabe zur FBI-Korrespondenz, bewusst reduzierte Dokumentenproduktion Keine DOJ-Verweisung im Bericht dokumentiert Dr. David M. Morens (NIAID) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Falschaussage gegenüber dem Kongress Vier Aussagen aus der Vernehmung vom 18.1.2024: FOIA-Umgehung, Löschung amtlicher Aufzeichnungen, Mitwirkung an Daszaks NIH-Schriftverkehr, weitere private E-Mail-Konten – jeweils verneint 18 U.S.C. § 2071 – Vernichtung von Bundesakten (eigenständige Feststellung, S. 474) § 1621 nur im Inhaltsverzeichnis, nicht in der Feststellung – Vernehmung erfolgte nicht unter Eid Keine DOJ-Verweisung im Bericht dokumentiert Dr. Anthony Fauci (ehem. Direktor NIAID) Gain-of-Function-Definition (S. 139): Aussage vor Senator Rand Paul, das NIH habe keine GoF-Forschung am WIV finanziert – gestützt auf eine „operative" Definition, die nicht der damals vom NIH verwendeten entsprach. Bewertung: habe die Öffentlichkeit in die Irre geführt („misled the public"), ausdrücklich keine Straftat. Lab-Leak als Verschwörungstheorie (S. 290): Podcast „Newt's World" vom 9.2.2020 – die Laborthese sei eine Verschwörungstheorie „without any scientific basis for it". Übertragbarkeit nach Impfung (S. 297): CBS „Face the Nation" vom 16.5.2021 – Geimpfte würden zur „Sackgasse" für das Virus; eine Übertragung nach Impfdurchbruch sei sehr unwahrscheinlich. Zusätzlich, ohne Aussagebezug: die Feststellung, er habe die Entstehung des „Proximal Origin"-Papiers veranlasst, um die Laborthese zu widerlegen (S. 5 ff.). EX-Präsident Joe Biden CNN Town Hall vom 21.7.2021 (S. 296): Wer geimpft sei, komme nicht ins Krankenhaus, nicht auf die Intensivstation und sterbe nicht. Der Bericht stützt sich auf einen Faktencheck von Associated Press vom 22.7.2021, wonach zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits rund 5.500 geimpfte Personen hospitalisiert oder verstorben waren. Ankündigung der Impfpflicht vom 9.9.2021 (S. 297): Man werde geimpfte Beschäftigte vor ungeimpften Kollegen schützen – nach Bewertung des Ausschusses eine implizite Behauptung, Impfung verhindere Weitergabe. Einordnung im Bericht: „false statements", die zur Verwirrung beigetragen und das Impfvertrauen gesenkt hätten. Dr. Rochelle Walensky (ehem. Direktorin CDC) Rachel Maddow Show vom 29.3.2021 (S. 297): CDC-Daten zeigten, dass Geimpfte das Virus nicht trügen, nicht erkrankten, und zwar nicht nur in Studien, sondern auch in realen Daten. Widerlegt durch die CDC-Pressestelle selbst am 1.4.2021 gegenüber der New York Times. Ihre Einlassung vor dem Ausschuss am 13.6.2023: sie habe „in Verallgemeinerungen" gesprochen. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus / WHO Antwortschreiben vom 15.6.2020 an das Oversight Committee (S. 179): mindestens eine falsche Angabe – die Wuhan Municipal Health Commission habe der WHO am 31.12.2019 eine Häufung von Lungenentzündungsfällen gemeldet. Dieselbe Darstellung auf der WHO-Website bis 29.6.2020 und in der Pressekonferenz vom 20.4.2020 („Der erste Bericht kam aus Wuhan, aus China selbst"). Am 30.6.2020 still korrigiert: tatsächlich habe das WHO-Länderbüro einen Medienbericht aufgegriffen. Bewertung: die WHO habe die KPCh vor Rechenschaft abgeschirmt. Chinesische Regierung / KPCh Systematische Untererfassung von Infektions- und Todeszahlen. Unterlassene Meldung des Ausbruchs an die WHO – vom Ausschuss als Verstoß gegen Art. 6 und 7 der Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften gewertet. Druck auf Ärzte, Erklärungen zu unterzeichnen, sie hätten „Falschaussagen" gemacht und „die öffentliche Ordnung erheblich gestört". Die Position der US-Regierung Die Feststellungen des Ausschusses sind im Jahr 2025 von der Exekutive aufgegriffen worden: April 2025 – Die Domain https://t.co/gvCltG1p2o leitet auf eine Seite des Weißen Hauses um, die einen laborbezogenen Vorfall im Zusammenhang mit Gain-of-Function-Forschung als wahrscheinlichsten Ursprung von COVID-19 bezeichnet. 5. Mai 2025 – Die Executive Order „Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research" beendet die Bundesfinanzierung gefährlicher Gain-of-Function-Forschung in Staaten ohne hinreichende Aufsicht. 18. Juli 2025 – Das Gesundheitsministerium und das Außenministerium erklären förmlich die Zurückweisung der 2024 beschlossenen Änderungen der Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften der WHO. Parallel läuft im Vollzug der Austritt der Vereinigten Staaten aus der Weltgesundheitsorganisation. Einordnung Der Abschlussbericht ist ein Dokument der Legislative, nicht der Regierung. Er wurde von der republikanischen Ausschussmehrheit des 118. Kongresses verantwortet; ein Minderheitsvotum ist nicht Bestandteil der veröffentlichten Fassung. Ausschussberichte sind rechtlich unverbindlich und entfalten keine Bindungswirkung für Gerichte oder Behörden. Die verbindliche Position der Vereinigten Staaten ergibt sich aus den genannten Rechtsakten der Exekutive, nicht aus dem Bericht selbst. Die Übernahme als Regierungsposition verleiht dem Bericht aber dennoch außerordentliche internationale Bedeutung. Ein Untersuchungsausschuss zu den Impfstoffen selbst, deren Entwicklung und Absegnung fehlt bis heute. Quellen Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, U.S. House of Representatives: After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward, Final Report, 4. Dezember 2024, 520 Seiten The White House: Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19, https://t.co/i7BD3VPegK, April 2025 Executive Order Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research, 5. Mai 2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services / U.S. Department of State, Joint Statement zur Zurückweisung der IHR-Änderungen, 18. Juli 2025 #COVID19 #LabLeak #PandemicResponse

My Name Is on a File On a case I was never summoned to, and a price I do not pay alone By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands | July 2026 In 2024, I learned that my name had been entered into a case. Case number 1282. Listed as a "defendant." I was never summoned, and no one called to tell me the exact charge. I found out the way anyone in my position finds out — from a colleague, from a quick search of my own name, from another journalist who called to ask: "Did you know your name is on file?" I do not want to overdramatise the story. No cinematic manhunt, no car tailing me down a European street. What happened is simpler and crueller than that: a state thousands of kilometres away opened a file bearing my name, without my knowledge, without any way for me to defend myself within it, without even anyone standing before me to answer. The charge is not based on any act I committed. The charge is that I wrote. An article, an opinion, a tweet — it makes no difference. What matters is that the words were read, and someone decided they were dangerous enough to become a case number. I. How Do You Know You Are Accused? This question seems like a technicality, but it is in fact the heart of the whole matter. I received no official letter. No lawyer knocked on my door carrying documents. No one from an embassy or consulate called to inform me. The knowledge itself arrived by accident — a passing search, or a message from a friend asking: "Where did you see your name?" This small detail reveals something far larger than a mere administrative oversight. When you are not formally notified that you are accused, you do not even have a clear starting point from which to act. You do not know exactly when the file was opened. You do not know who decided to include your name. You do not know whether a hearing was held, a decision was made, or even whether an investigation took place at all. You simply discover, one day, that you have become "accused" within a legal system that never gave you the chance to know its rules. This ambiguity is not a flaw in the procedure; it is the procedure itself. A case opened without a clear announcement, with no trial date set, performs its full function even while suspended indefinitely. It does not need a conviction to frighten; it is enough that it simply exists. II. The Charge That Needs No Crime In conventional legal systems, a case begins with an act: theft, assault, fraud — something material that can be proven or disproven. But my case, like many others, began with a word. I stole nothing. I assaulted no one. I incited no violence, called for no chaos. I wrote an opinion. I analysed a policy. I criticised a decision. That is the entirety of it. And yet this simple act — writing — became the basis for a legal file bearing a number and classified under a security heading. The paradox is that this kind of charge requires no fixed standard. What counts as "dangerous" today may not be tomorrow, and vice versa. There is no published list of forbidden words, no clear criterion distinguishing incitement from opinion. This deliberate ambiguity — or perhaps unintentional, but effective regardless — leaves every writer living in a state of permanent unease: will this sentence be the one that opens a file bearing my name? III. The Real Danger Is Not to Me Many ask me: "Can they reach you in the Netherlands?" The honest answer: no, not directly. I am here, in a country governed by the rule of law, physically protected by Dutch police, and no one can arrest me on the basis of a case in another country absent a valid extradition treaty and supporting facts. This is not my first concern. My real concern is that this case does not target me alone. It targets those around me. My family in Egypt. People walking down the street, opening their front door, with no connection to politics whatsoever — and suddenly someone is asking about them because I wrote a word from here. This is not a threat spoken aloud. No one calls to say: "If you continue, we will do such-and-such." The message arrives without anyone saying it — through the kind of questions asked of my family, through their timing, through the silence that meets me when I try to learn the details. Sometimes it is a "routine" phone call from some office, asking about my place of residence, my activities, or people I am in contact with. None of it is an explicit threat, but the timing alone is enough to deliver the message. This is precisely the mechanism by which this kind of pursuit operates: it does not need to touch me physically to affect me. It is enough to make me know that the people I love are exposed to harm because of what I write. IV. I Am Not an Exception It would be easy for an article like this to turn into a personal complaint, and I am careful that it should not. Case 1282 is not an isolated incident, and if I stay silent about it I become complicit — unintentionally — in concealing a pattern that genuinely exists. There are others like me — far more than me — whose names sit in similar files, some of whom have no platform to speak from as I do. Journalists, activists, even ordinary people who never practised journalism but shared a post or left a comment. Case 1282 is not an exception; it is a method of operation. Someone writes from abroad, someone else decides they are "dangerous," and the matter shifts from opinion to legal file, without a real trial, without even a clear official announcement that a charge exists at all. More dangerously, this pattern is not confined to Egyptians alone, nor to any single country. It is a recurring tactic used by several regimes seeking to pursue voices beyond their borders without bearing the burden of actual proof or a transparent legal process. The open, unannounced file serves the same purpose everywhere: it frightens without convicting, and keeps the writer in a permanent state of tension without ever offering him the chance to defend himself. V. What Has Actually Changed in Me I will not say this made me stronger. The phrase is worn out, usually deployed to prettify a painful experience, and I refuse to do that. What actually happened is simpler and more honest: I began writing more slowly. Not less candidly — I still say what I believe, still criticise what deserves criticism. But I have become more aware that every sentence I write from here may carry a price I am not the only one paying. This awareness slows the writing, not because I am censoring myself out of fear for my own safety, but because I am thinking about who might pay the price on my behalf. And this is precisely the point of such a case, whether intended or a by-product of a broader mechanism. Actual arrest is not required for censorship to function. No summons is required, no trial, not even a clear charge. It is enough to know your name is written on a piece of paper somewhere, to make you think twice before writing the next time. VI. Why I Continue Regardless A reader might ask: if the price is this clear, why keep writing? Would silence not be safer, for you and for your family? The answer is not as heroic as it might sound, but it is honest: because silence does not solve the problem, it postpones and expands it. If I stopped, and others like me stopped, the mechanism that produced Case 1282 would keep operating with no voice to expose it. Files would keep opening, names would keep being entered, families would keep being questioned, with no one outside the circle of direct victims ever knowing this was happening at all. Writing about this experience, for all its risks, is the only way I have to make this pattern visible. When an article like this is published, the file no longer remains a secret between a government body and an isolated writer; it becomes part of a public record that other journalists, human rights organisations, and even international institutions can follow and document. Conclusion: A Price Not Paid Once I am still writing. More slowly than before, but still writing. And Case 1282 remains open, suspended, with no set date for a hearing or a verdict, exactly as it began. This very ambiguity is the message. An authority that opens a file and never closes it, never tries its subject, never even clearly states what the charge is — is not pursuing justice. It is pursuing something else entirely: that everyone who thinks of writing knows the price is possible, even if not certain. And that everyone who has already written carries that price with them wherever they go, however far they travel from the source of the case. This is the true price of a single word: not one arrest at one moment, but a continuous state of uncertainty that lives with you every time you open a blank page to write. Adham Hasanin is an Egyptian journalist and political writer based in the Netherlands.

To 2006-07 η ΑΕΚ αποκτά 2 χαφ. Τον Φινλανδό Χετεμάι και τον Ούγγρο Τόζερ,λίγο μετά μπαίνει στους ομίλους του Τσάμπιονς Λιγκ. 20 χρόνια μετά η ΑΕΚ αποκτά 2 χαφ. Τον Φινλανδό Καϊρίνεν και τον Ούγγρο Βιτάλις και περιμένει να εκπληρωθεί η παράδοση. #AEKFC facts. https://t.co/S8XHC7bSXm #AEKFC #ChampionsLeague #Football

In our conversations today with minister José Albares @jmalbares discussed our shared objective to protect EU borders, an objective we share in the MFF negotiations as well. He shared the current facts on the irregular migration situation in Ceuta. It is worrying and serious and #EUBorders #MigrationCrisis #Ceuta #ES

2/15 Modern politics is increasingly about managing perceptions rather than confronting facts. Social media, algorithms and political communication have become incredibly powerful. But reality always has the final word. #ModernPolitics #SocialMedia #PerceptionVsReality #Nospecificcountriesarementionedinthetweet.

Berlin must get the truth. Europe must stay united. The attack in Berlin has shocked Europe. Reports that an Iranian citizen has been detained in connection with the investigation are extremely serious, but the facts must be established through a full and transparent https://t.co/lQhKO16pXy #Berlin #EuropeUnited #Iran #DE #EU #IR

That UCD alleged rape has highlighted the absolute death of so much Irish journalism. There were endless obvious issues and questions to be asked. But given the topic, they were avoided as almost all outlets were desperate to jump on and push a cause regardless of the facts. #UCDRape #IrishJournalism #MediaAccountability #IE

Scandal. If the reported facts are accurate, millions of dollars in public money were spent on lobbying in Washington to promote the secession of Republika Srpska and to seek the lifting of sanctions on Milorad Dodik. Taxpayers deserve investment in jobs, infrastructure, https://t.co/wTGzyrxMHV #Scandal #RepublikaSrpska #MiloradDodik #BA #US

| JULY 2026 | The Guard State How the largest Arab nation became a security contractor at the gates of its own people By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands In June 2025, hundreds of activists from forty countries landed at Cairo airport. Doctors from France, lawyers from Australia, students from the United States, pensioners from the Netherlands. They carried no weapons and no banned slogans; they carried backpacks, walking shoes, and a single intention: to march from Arish to the Rafah crossing — entirely on Egyptian soil — to demand that food be allowed through to a people starving behind the gate. Not one of them reached Rafah. More than two hundred were detained before the march could begin. Around five hundred foreign nationals were deported from airports, hotels, and checkpoints. Passports were confiscated, activists were pulled out of downtown Cairo cafés, and the Global March to Gaza was cancelled on 16 June without taking its first step. And the world watched. This was no secret operation in a dark basement; it happened in the open, documented by the deportees’ own phone cameras, carried by every international news agency. The world watched an Arab state arrest Europeans, Americans, and Africans for wanting to walk towards Palestine. A state guarding the gate of a siege — from the side that was supposed to be the side of rescue. Hold that image, because it is the key to everything that follows. This was not an aberration in Egyptian policy, nor an isolated security decision. It is the function — the complete function around which the Egyptian state has been redefined over the past decade, and which it is time to call by its proper name: the Guard State. I. The Name — What Do We Mean by the Guard State? Political economy has long described states that live off the rent of their location rather than the production of their people. But what has crystallised in Egypt over the past decade goes beyond traditional geographic rent — the Suez Canal, say — into something far graver: the conversion of sovereignty itself into a commodity for hire. The Guard State does not sell its location; it sells its function. It collects its wages not for what it produces, but for what it prevents: it prevents the refugee from reaching Europe, the activist from reaching Gaza, its own people from reaching politics, and the resistance’s weapons from reaching their destination. Four gates, guarded by a single machine, whose wages are paid in loans, deposits, and perpetually renewed rescue packages. This is not a rhetorical metaphor; it is an economic structure with numbers attached. When the Egyptian economy collapsed in 2024, it was rescued not by productive reform but by a single deal whose subject was location: Ras el-Hekma — thirty-five billion dollars for a stretch of coastline. And whenever negotiations with the IMF stall, the tranches are unlocked by explicit European pressure whose subject is migration: nine billion euros from the European Union in the 2024 “Strategic Partnership,” whose own documents place “migration management” at its core. Europe does not pay Egypt to prosper. It pays Egypt to guard. Thus the model is complete: income in exchange for prevention, external legitimacy in exchange for guarding, and international silence about domestic tyranny in exchange for keeping the gates controlled. To see how the model works on the ground, consider the bloodiest gate of all: the gate of Gaza. II. The Gaza Gate — The Guard Who Is Himself Searched The first paradox must be nailed down with facts: Egypt is not a sovereign guard of its own crossing; it is a searched guard. Egyptian relief trucks — ninety-two thousand food parcels in a single convoy this month — are subject to Israeli inspection before entering the Strip: from Egyptian soil, through a crossing that bears an Egyptian name. The state that guards the gate does not hold its key. It owns the threshold, but not the door. Then the October 2025 truce added a new layer to the function. Under the fifteen-point roadmap sponsored by the international envoy together with the “guarantor states” — Egypt foremost among them — Cairo is to train the civilian police force that will replace Hamas in administering the Strip, under the slogan of “one authority, one law, one weapon.” Let us call things by their names: the state that could not — or would not — deliver a loaf of bread without Israeli permission is now qualifying to graduate the security apparatus that will oversee the disarming of the resistance. From guarding the siege to administering what comes after the siege — a promotion within the same project. And meanwhile, what is happening behind the guarded gate? Since the truce, more than one thousand one hundred Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire — the latest, just two days ago, a ten-year-old boy named Motaz Abu Shaar, carried to his grave in Khan Younis by his mother, Warda. A United Nations commission of inquiry has concluded that Israel is “deliberately targeting children in an ongoing genocide.” This is what the guarantors’ official language calls a “ceasefire.” What meaning is left in the word “guarantor”? A guarantor that the gate stays firmly shut — however high the dead pile up behind it. III. The Mediterranean Gate — The Guard Europe Pays For The second gate faces north. Since 2016, Cairo has boasted — through its officials at every European forum — that “not a single irregular migration boat has departed from Egyptian shores.” This is very nearly true. But the forbidden question is: at what political price has this “efficiency” become an instrument of mutual blackmail? Europe — which condemns Egypt’s human rights record in its parliamentary resolutions — is the same Europe that signed the nine-billion-euro partnership, and the same Europe that stays silent about sixty thousand political prisoners because the alternative, in its calculations, is boats that never stop. And Cairo understands the game and has mastered it: whenever human rights pressure intensifies, the official discourse turns up the volume on “Egypt hosts millions of refugees” and “the last line of defence.” The result is a perfect structure of mutual blackmail: Europe buys its conscience’s silence, the regime sells its location, and the people — Egyptian and refugee alike — are the commodity in the transaction. The democracies that lecture on values are financing the guard who keeps the victims from knocking on their doors. This is not passing hypocrisy; it is a structural partnership in the Guard State model — one that makes Brussels and Berlin shareholders in everything this state produces, from domestic repression to external siege. IV. The Interior Gate — Guarding the People Against Politics But the most dangerous gate is not on any border; it is inside. The Guard State cannot perform its external function unless it first guards an internal gate: the people’s gate to politics. The function requires a people that does not ask: why are we guarding the siege of our brothers? Why are our trucks searched on our own soil? Why are guests deported for coming to walk in peace? To guarantee the question is never asked, the largest silencing machine in the country’s history was built: sixty thousand prisoners of opinion, a press ranked 166th out of 180 worldwide, and a state security case number waiting for anyone who writes. I write these lines from experience, not from reading reports. When I continued writing from my Dutch exile, the machine reached me across continents: accounts shut down by coordinated mass-reporting campaigns, documented threats, a family harassed inside Egypt as leverage — and my name entered into Case 1282 of 2024, not for any act I committed, but for opinions written from free European soil. This is not a personal complaint; it is a job description: the Guard State guards even beyond its borders, because the free word — wherever it is written — threatens the entire contract of guardianship. The logic is perfectly self-consistent: a regime that sells “stability” abroad cannot tolerate a voice revealing that the stability on offer is the stillness of graveyards. This is why the arrest of the foreign activists in June 2025 was inevitable, not incidental: a peaceful march reaching Rafah would have revealed, before the world’s cameras, that the gate opens when it is wanted open — and that the one keeping it shut is a partner, not a mediator. V. What Has Egypt Lost? — The Guard’s Bill An apologist might argue: what is the harm? A state monetising its location as Norway monetises its oil. The answer lies in the essential difference: Norway sells a resource; Egypt leases its will. And the difference between the two is the difference between trade and bondage. Let us tally what Egypt has paid for this model, in bare facts. It lost its water sovereignty: the Renaissance Dam was completed and filled without the state — owner of “the largest defence headquarters in the world” — daring anything beyond statements of concern; for the guard does not make trouble for the international order that employs him. It lost its regional standing: in the Iran–America war halted just weeks ago, Cairo was neither party nor mediator nor even consultant — Pakistan brokered the deal, while Egypt absorbed the economic shrapnel of Hormuz’s closure like a bystander caught in a battle whose parties it does not know. It lost its place in the conscience of its nation: the state that liberated its land in 1973 and led the Arab world for a century has become, in the eyes of the Arab street from the Atlantic to the Gulf, the gatekeeper of the siege. This loss, specifically, no loan or deposit can repay — because it is the only capital that cannot be printed. And it lost — here is the crux — the very national security in whose name the guarding is justified. The model proved its fragility at the moment of testing: when Israel feared an Iranian response last year, it cut off Egypt’s gas by unilateral decision within hours. The guard who believed himself a partner discovered he was merely a hireling whose wages stop the moment danger arrives. VI. The Alternative Is Not a Slogan — It Is the Recovery of the Original Function I will not close with an essay on “the solution lies in Arab unity”; worn-out words kill more surely than silence. The alternative is specific, and it begins with redefining the function. The state is not a guard; the state is the agent of its people’s will. Every foreign policy not derived from that will is — by definition — functional servitude, however it is wrapped in the language of wisdom and moderation. And the Egyptian will is known and needs no referendum: no people in this region accepts that its country serve as warden of the siege of Gaza, or as Europe’s border post. Practically, the recovery begins with three measurable steps. Open the Rafah crossing fully and sovereignly, by purely Egyptian decision — that alone would overturn the equation of the siege. Break the negotiating bondage by linking any cooperation on migration to concrete European positions on Palestine, not statements of concern. And open the interior gate — release the prisoners and lift the hand from the written word — because a state that fears an article will never dare face an occupier. I know the current regime will do none of this; guarding is its founding contract and its financial artery. But this article is not written for the regime. It is written for memory, and for the generation that will inherit the gates — so that it knows that what is presented to it today as “the fate of geography” is no fate at all. It is an employment contract, signed by a regime without a mandate from its people. And contracts, however long they run, end when one of their parties does. And the world — I return to where I began — is a witness that requires no further proof. It watched the deportees at Cairo airport; it watched the searched trucks; it watched Warda Abu Shaar carry her son to his grave behind a firmly guarded gate. The question is no longer: what is happening? The only question left is: who dares to name it? This article is a naming. Adham Hasanin is an Egyptian journalist and political writer based in the Netherlands, covering Arab and European political affairs.