Whether the belief is right or wrong was not the issue decided; it was ruled that it is coherent to describe as racist an ideology promoting a state for only one race of people in a territory containing a large number of people of a different race, and where the ideology involves migration of the first group with imperial-power support to dislodge an indigenous population, it can coherently be described as colonial and imperialistic.

That’s just logic.

I mean, from a historical perspective the logic makes sense.

Zionism was Christian colonialism first, and the Christians effectively still run it: CUFI claims a membership larger than any American Jewish organization, and congressional support tracks the megachurches. Jews simply fell into a Christian operating structure built and maintained to eliminate the Jews.

Brightman was in 1609, Finch was arrested for it in 1621, Shaftesbury was lobbying Palmerston in 1839, Keith coined “a land without a people” in 1843, Hechler in 1884, Blackstone’s memorial to Harrison in 1891.

That’s all long before Herzl wrote a word. A Jewish restorationist line ran parallel, Alkalai in the 1840s, Kalischer’s Derishat Zion in 1862, Hess’s Rome and Jerusalem that same year, Pinsker’s Auto-Emancipation in 1882, and it stayed marginal because state power was always only allowed to be Christian.

The evangelicals converted states, delivering the Jerusalem consulate, the Balfour Declaration, and the embassy move that American Jews polled against. Rabbinic authority at Zionism’s founding rejected it almost unanimously, and the Jews who later embraced the state inherited a Christian architecture, the way converts inherit the church they had no hand in building. Christian states converted Jews to Zionism by closing every other door, where sermons had failed: Evian in 1938 produced no refuge, quotas ran through the genocide, and survivors were funneled toward the destination that feeds Christian prophecy.

Think about the Christian scripture that writes the ending: Church raptured out, Zechariah 13:8 executed, two thirds of the gathered Jews dead and the remnant converted, an extermination they fund and fuel as inevitable and good because the ingathering is the trigger for their own escape.

The Jewish religious mainstream refused the project at its founding, from the Pittsburgh Platform’s explicit renunciation of return to the Orthodox rejection of Herzl’s secular tract, and reversed itself only after Christian-armed states enforced it as survival (“go home or die” isn’t a choice when there’s no “home”).

If Zionism is anyone’s faith, it belongs to the militant evangelicals who built and armed it and who still preach an ending they fund: themselves raptured out first, then Zechariah 13:8 on the gathered, two thirds killed, the remnant absorbed by conversion. Their script requires ingathering as a trigger with their own absence from the horrific result.

The convert-or-die campaign survived intact into the present. It gained a state as the gathering mechanism, and its authors wrote an ending with themselves benefiting and the Jews gone.

Whew.

Long story short, whether you believe it is right or wrong, the record is clear that Zionism is Colonialism.

Atlanta has more surveillance cameras per capita than any city in America. That’s a corporate artifact, like saying the city with coke headquarters has been known for more America First tokens per capita.

Flock Safety’s headquarters means DeFlock’s crowdsourced map shows over 5,000 Flock cameras in the metro area. The police department has about 1,800 sworn officers. The city’s integrated camera network grew eightfold since 2021, from 3,300 cameras to 28,626.

Flock claims one license plate reader per sworn officer correlates with a 9.1 percent increase in clearance rates. That means Atlanta has nearly three per officer.

The Atlanta Community Press Collective pulled APD’s submissions to the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. Homicide clearance was 53.4 percent in 2021 and 48.0 percent in 2025, showing a worse rate. Rape stayed at 37.7 percent. Robbery stayed at 25 percent. Burglary moved from 10.7 to 11.6 percent. Flat across eight major crime categories, despite cameras.

The cameras waste a lot of time and money, add invasive risks that reduce safety, yet solve nothing extra.

They cost tens of millions of dollars a year. Every car, every plate, every trip is logged into a database searched by nearly 2,000 agencies, including for immigration raids.

What is this, Igloo White again? Or more to the point, do we learn nothing from history?

$180K Grant in 1966: Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) for New York Surveillance

Atlanta lost its privacy for a crime-solving machine that solves no additional crime.

A new think tank paper is out with a shocking, shocking I tell you, revelation that there is disinformation afoot. Mincemeat! I say old chaps, this ruse is a Haversack!

Now, before I get too snarky about this paper being disconnected from reality, I have to admit they did prove a small thing: if you ask a chatbot leading questions about made-up stories, it plays along about one time in six, and the junk sites may turn up in its citations.

That’s a finding.

I can work with that.

However, then these authors took a running leap off a cliff without a rope to claim Russia deliberately rigged websites so AI models would belch out the lies.

I mean, duh. The whole web history has been astroturfing and sock puppets, and Russian history has been militarized disinformation for over a century (copying the Americans and British), so put that all together and what do you expect? But that’s the exact problem here. Our expectations aren’t a substitution for science.

Their test can’t tell their explanation apart from a boring one: models remembered the junk from training. They never checked which it really is, so reading the paper is very disappointing.

The one in six math also is familiar. NewsGuard in May 2025 tested Australian election falsehoods with its innocent, leading and malign prompt styles and also got 16.6 percent. A different country and different topic hit that same number, which suggests the test design may be at fault.

Even more troubling is the fact that their website “evidence” of bad intentions is simply what a standard WordPress plugin does on its own. Let me explain. This report says the max-snippet:-1 directive is a strong signal of deliberate targeting.

Well, it is also found in the page source of the think tank’s own release page, and on the Euronews article that launched the report. Anyone can view the source and check. Are they not aware of their own site undermining their main claim?

And every one of the questions used came from the research team itself? Is that any different from what the authors are accusing the Russians of doing? Is this paper now not evidence of British information dissemination? The researchers typed the questions, and then just reported the answers as a public threat without proper checks. I’m not sure why.

The necessary checks are easy, and yet they skipped them. As a matter of fact, they already were published by someone else. Four researchers at Manchester and Bern (Maxim Alyukov, Mykola Makhortykh, Alexandr Voronovici and Maryna Sydorova) tested the earlier NewsGuard claim in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review last October. Their echo rate was 5 percent instead of 33. Junk citations appeared in 8 percent of answers, usually with warnings attached, and almost entirely when a prompt matched stories that appeared solely on the junk network.

They concluded the cause was data voids: models pull from junk when better coverage is thin. They also noted NewsGuard published no prompt set and counted cautious answers as failures.

Their own analysis in Al Jazeera has perhaps said it best: a study built to find disinformation has found it. Swiss reporters at NZZ got NewsGuard to confirm that its prompts were written so the chatbot only had to agree with the falsehood in the question, and NewsGuard declined to release the full prompt list. The same researchers also made the point that Margarita Simonyan cites Western research as proof that RT works, rather than citing actual proof that RT works.

So this paper says to me the think tank started out to prove a hypothesis “Russia did this” and then wrote everything down as proof. Tests that could have disproved it don’t appear to have been tried. And that means they launched an unproven conclusion.

Far worse, they are gifting the Russians a huge boost. Why? These horrible spammers’ whole existence is convincing the world their junk works. A British report saying “the junk works” is just an ad for the junk sellers.

This report was funded by whom exactly?

Will Perrin, co-architect of the Online Safety Act’s duty of care. He is funding the paper that argues platform regulation should now extend to LLMs.

Will Perrin alert!

1. He managed the 2001 Communications White Paper that created Ofcom.
2. His duty of care model, by his own account, underpins the UK approach to regulating online services.
3. He chaired the campaign coalition that lobbied the Act into law.
4. He advises the network implementing it.

He built the regulator, then he wrote its doctrine, then he ran its lobby, and now he pays for the synthetic laundering, a paper with unproven claims about Russian disinformation, to push state censorship.

Oh, and the report he funded calls for “black-lists”, in 2026. Racist language, on top of it all, in a report complaining about “bad” information spread! Such fools. The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre retired that term in 2020, and the Home Office has followed. I’ll tell you who needs a block list.

Will Perrin!

Fool me once…