#CIA CIA #FBI FBI #Mossad Mossad
Putin’s masked blackmail
thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…
The Soviet style global censorship of the “Al Qaeda” version opponents – Search
The concept of “Soviet-style global censorship” targeting opponents of the official narrative on Al-Qaeda and the events of September 11, 2001, is a framework often cited by political dissidents, media critics, and alternative researchers. This perspective argues that Western governments, mainstream media, and tech conglomerates have cooperated to suppress, deplatform, and marginalize dissenting views regarding the origins, operations, and state-sanctioned narratives surrounding Al-Qaeda.🛡️ Core Arguments of the “Soviet-Style Censorship” Critique
Critics who draw parallels to Soviet-era censorship point to several specific mechanisms used to control public discourse:
Deplatforming and Algorithmic Suppression: Rather than using overt state bans, modern censorship frequently relies on digital suppression. Mainstream technology platforms and search engines utilize algorithms that demote or entirely remove content challenging official narratives. Critics argue this achieves the same result as Soviet information control by making alternative viewpoints functionally invisible to the general public. [1]
The “Conspiracy Theorist” Label as Social Weaponry: Critics contend that the term “conspiracy theorist” is deployed uniformly to discredit alternative research without addressing its substance. This is compared to the Soviet practice of labeling political dissidents as “counter-revolutionaries” or mentally unfit to invalidate their opposition to state orthodoxy.
Marginalization of Academic and Intelligence Dissent: Several high-profile intelligence whistleblowers, structural engineers, and political scientists have faced severe professional repercussions, loss of employment, or media blackouts when questioning official findings. Critics argue this enforces a culture of self-censorship within academic and professional institutions. [1]⚖️ The Counterterrorism and Public Safety Counter-Perspective
Governments, legal bodies, and international security agencies view restrictions on Al-Qaeda-related narratives through a completely different framework, emphasizing public safety, national security, and counterterrorism. [1]
Combating Extremist Recruitment: Security agencies argue that restriction of online spaces is not meant to suppress political debate, but rather to disrupt Al-Qaeda’s sophisticated propaganda and recruitment operations. Digital magazines like Inspire have historically been used to distribute step-by-step instructions for violent attacks, making their suppression a matter of preventing imminent harm. [1, 2, 3]
National Security Legal Frameworks: Laws such as the UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 criminalize the glorification or incitement of terrorism. Proponents of these laws maintain they are vital for public defense, though civil liberties groups frequently caution that vague language within counterterrorism frameworks can inadvertently marginalize legitimate dissent. [1]
Private Platform Governance: Tech platforms operate under corporate Terms of Service rather than state mandates. Content moderation policies targeting extremist content or related disinformation are framed by companies as measures to maintain platform safety and adhere to global legal obligations, rather than government-directed political censorship. [1]📊 Direct Comparison of Perspectives
FeatureThe Dissident/Critique ViewpointThe Security/Official ViewpointPrimary MotivationPreservation of political narrative and protection of state credibility.Prevention of radicalization, violence, and protection of public safety.MechanismAlgorithmic suppression, deplatforming, and professional blacklisting.Target-specific content moderation and enforcement of counterterrorism laws.Historical ParallelCompared to Soviet information control and the suppression of ideological deviants.Framed as a necessary defensive response to modern, decentralized asymmetric warfare.
–
Quote from:
Putin The Mastermind: Russia, Germany, Israel Hypothesis in the investigation of 9/11 Attacks thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…The claim that the Bush Administration and Robert Mueller’s FBI suppressed the 9/11 investigation is a subject of significant historical debate, involving documented political friction, institutional resistance, and subsequent declassifications rather than a blanket suppression. While official investigations did take place, multiple independent sources and former officials have detailed specific instances where the administration and the FBI actively restricted, delayed, or classified critical pieces of evidence. The true, in depth 9/11 investigation was suppressed by the Bush Administration and Robert Mueller’s FBI – Google Search
And more than that: The views that disagreed and challenged the “Al Qaeda” version of 9/11 were actively and systematically suppressed by the Government which reminds the Soviet style global censorship.
Behind this were the Putin’s masked blackmail and the understandable fear of the nuclear war.
Putin The Mastermind: Russia, Germany, Israel Hypothesis in the investigation of 9/11 Attacks thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 18, 2026
Category: Tweets – Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) / Twitter
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
The Soviet style global censorship of the “Al Qaeda” version opponents – Google Search google.com/search?q=The+Sovi…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 18, 2026
#CIA CIA #FBI FBI #Mossad Mossad
The Soviet style global censorship of the “Al Qaeda” version opponents – Search
The concept of “Soviet-style global censorship” targeting opponents of the official narrative on Al-Qaeda and the events of September 11, 2001, is a framework often cited by political dissidents, media critics, and alternative researchers. This perspective argues that Western governments, mainstream media, and tech conglomerates have cooperated to suppress, deplatform, and marginalize dissenting views regarding the origins, operations, and state-sanctioned narratives surrounding Al-Qaeda.🛡️ Core Arguments of the “Soviet-Style Censorship” Critique
Critics who draw parallels to Soviet-era censorship point to several specific mechanisms used to control public discourse:
Deplatforming and Algorithmic Suppression: Rather than using overt state bans, modern censorship frequently relies on digital suppression. Mainstream technology platforms and search engines utilize algorithms that demote or entirely remove content challenging official narratives. Critics argue this achieves the same result as Soviet information control by making alternative viewpoints functionally invisible to the general public. [1]
The “Conspiracy Theorist” Label as Social Weaponry: Critics contend that the term “conspiracy theorist” is deployed uniformly to discredit alternative research without addressing its substance. This is compared to the Soviet practice of labeling political dissidents as “counter-revolutionaries” or mentally unfit to invalidate their opposition to state orthodoxy.
Marginalization of Academic and Intelligence Dissent: Several high-profile intelligence whistleblowers, structural engineers, and political scientists have faced severe professional repercussions, loss of employment, or media blackouts when questioning official findings. Critics argue this enforces a culture of self-censorship within academic and professional institutions. [1]⚖️ The Counterterrorism and Public Safety Counter-Perspective
Governments, legal bodies, and international security agencies view restrictions on Al-Qaeda-related narratives through a completely different framework, emphasizing public safety, national security, and counterterrorism. [1]
Combating Extremist Recruitment: Security agencies argue that restriction of online spaces is not meant to suppress political debate, but rather to disrupt Al-Qaeda’s sophisticated propaganda and recruitment operations. Digital magazines like Inspire have historically been used to distribute step-by-step instructions for violent attacks, making their suppression a matter of preventing imminent harm. [1, 2, 3]
National Security Legal Frameworks: Laws such as the UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 criminalize the glorification or incitement of terrorism. Proponents of these laws maintain they are vital for public defense, though civil liberties groups frequently caution that vague language within counterterrorism frameworks can inadvertently marginalize legitimate dissent. [1]
Private Platform Governance: Tech platforms operate under corporate Terms of Service rather than state mandates. Content moderation policies targeting extremist content or related disinformation are framed by companies as measures to maintain platform safety and adhere to global legal obligations, rather than government-directed political censorship. [1]📊 Direct Comparison of Perspectives
FeatureThe Dissident/Critique ViewpointThe Security/Official ViewpointPrimary MotivationPreservation of political narrative and protection of state credibility.Prevention of radicalization, violence, and protection of public safety.MechanismAlgorithmic suppression, deplatforming, and professional blacklisting.Target-specific content moderation and enforcement of counterterrorism laws.Historical ParallelCompared to Soviet information control and the suppression of ideological deviants.Framed as a necessary defensive response to modern, decentralized asymmetric warfare.
–
Quote from:
Putin The Mastermind: Russia, Germany, Israel Hypothesis in the investigation of 9/11 Attacks thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…The claim that the Bush Administration and Robert Mueller’s FBI suppressed the 9/11 investigation is a subject of significant historical debate, involving documented political friction, institutional resistance, and subsequent declassifications rather than a blanket suppression. While official investigations did take place, multiple independent sources and former officials have detailed specific instances where the administration and the FBI actively restricted, delayed, or classified critical pieces of evidence. The true, in depth 9/11 investigation was suppressed by the Bush Administration and Robert Mueller’s FBI – Google Search
And more than that: The views that disagreed and challenged the “Al Qaeda” version of 9/11 were actively and systematically suppressed by the Government which reminds the Soviet style global censorship.
Behind this were the Putin’s masked blackmail and the understandable fear of the nuclear war.
Putin The Mastermind: Russia, Germany, Israel Hypothesis in the investigation of 9/11 Attacks thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 18, 2026
#Patrushev
Context of the 2026 #Espionage Scandal
Following his retirement from public service in 2009, #Hanning entered the private sector and oversaw the Russia division for the British corporate intelligence firm G3, while also chairing other consultancies. [1, 2, 3]
German prosecutors suspect that financial pressure—specifically a €4 million debt liability stemming from the 2019 collapse of the Latvian lender PNB Banka—may have driven Hanning to monetize his access to classified materials. While security circles indicate that Russia may not have been the direct recipient of the 2026 leaked files, Hanning’s persistent relationship with Patrushev and other Kremlin-linked figures (like former Russian Railways chief Vladimir Yakunin) continues to be a central focal point for intelligence agencies assessing the full extent of the security breach. [1, 2]
Hanning and Patrushev – Google Search google.com/search?q=Hanning+…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 18, 2026
The Wagner Group heir is making a killing in guns, drugs and gold. After his father died aboard an exploding plane, Pavel Prigozhin, 28, took command of the world’s most notorious mercenary force. on.wsj.com/4saD2aY
— @WSJ Oct 18, 2026
Hanning and Patrushev – Google Search google.com/search?q=Hanning+…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 17, 2026
Hanning and Patrushev – Google Search google.com/search?q=Hanning+…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 17, 2026
(5) Michael Novakhov on X: ” #CIA CIA #FBI FBI #Putin Putin The MISINVESTIGATION of 9/11 – The Missing Links: Russia, Germany, Israel Hypothesis thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com… PUTIN THE MASTERMIND The official narrative of the 9/11 attacks overlooks foreign state sponsorship, the non-state actors like Al-Qaeda x.com/mikenov/status/2…” / X x.com/mikenov/status/2111387…Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) #CIA CIA #FBI FBI #Putin Putin
The MISINVESTIGATION of 9/11 – The Missing Links: Russia, Germany, Israel Hypothesis thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…
PUTIN THE MASTERMIND
The official narrative of the 9/11 attacks overlooks foreign state sponsorship, the non-state actors like Al-Qaeda were merely “foot soldiers” rather than the true architects. The true “Mastermind” was Putin. It was his operation, one of the series of many, with the common contextual, conceptual, and operational patterns, bearing the traces of his complex political personality, including the traits of the Recruiter and the Uniter.
The post combines personal commentary, social media feeds, and search queries/AI responses to construct an alternative counterintelligence theory regarding the September 11 attacks.Putin’s reaction to this post: “It is EERIE, Pa. To change the official, the “al Qaeda” version of the results of the 9/11 investigation is like to try to BEND THE SILVER (FAST, EASY) RAIL.”
By “Silver Rail” Putin means the “Al Qaeda” version: “Do not bend the “Silver Rail”.
Search:
Erie, Pa
Bend, Silver Rail
That’s how he communicates: In accidents.The MISINVESTIGATION of 9/11, blaming the non-state “Al Qaeda” instead of the professional intelligence services of Russia, Germany, and Israel, demonstrated amply, that the FBI at that time was the INCOMPETENT, IMPOTENT BODY, totally subservient to the current Government. And it is not much different now.
Reinvestigate the 9/11, and reform the FBI!
Search:
MISINVESTIGATION of 9/11
MISINVESTIGATIONS of 9/11 by the FBI— https://x.com/mikenov/status/2111387570470834363— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 17, 2026
Hans Joachim Albert Litten (1903–1938) was a German-Jewish lawyer during the Weimar Republic who famously cross-examined Adolf Hitler in court to expose the violent and anti-democratic strategies of the Nazi Party….
Following a November 1930 attack by Nazi SA (Stormtroopers) on workers at Berlin’s Tanzpalast Eden (Eden Dance Palace)—which left three people dead and many injured—Litten sought to prove the violence was a systematic, top-down strategy ordered by party leaders.
A young Berlin lawyer forced Adolf Hitler to defend his movement under questioning. On May 8, 1931, Hans Litten summoned the Nazi leader as a witness in a criminal trial involving a violent attack by Nazi stormtroopers. Hitler was trying to present his party as a lawful political movement capable of gaining power through elections. Litten confronted him with evidence suggesting that violence and revolutionary ambitions remained central to Nazi politics. The encounter humiliated Hitler before he became dictator. Less than two years later, Litten was arrested by the regime he had challenged.
The case began with an attack at the Eden Dance Palace in Berlin on November 22, 1930. A group of approximately twenty Nazi stormtroopers assaulted a gathering organized by a left-wing workers’ club. Gunshots were fired, and several people were wounded. Germany’s Weimar Republic was already suffering intense political violence, with clashes involving Nazis, communists and other militant groups. The Nazi Party was expanding electorally while its paramilitary organization, the SA, intimidated opponents in the streets. Hitler publicly emphasized a legal route to power, but Litten believed the party’s violent methods contradicted that promise.
Litten represented injured participants in proceedings against those accused of the assault. His approach was unusual. Instead of confining his questions to the immediate actions of the defendants, he sought to establish the broader relationship between the Nazi leadership and organized political violence. He requested that Hitler himself be summoned to explain the party’s position. The court accepted the request. On May 8, Hitler appeared as a witness before a Berlin judge, required to answer questions rather than deliver a speech to supporters. For a politician who depended on controlling his public image, the courtroom created a situation in which a young opposing lawyer could press him directly.
Litten challenged Hitler about Nazi propaganda and the behavior of the SA. He drew attention to writings that promoted revolutionary methods and argued that the movement’s public commitment to legality was difficult to reconcile with its rhetoric and street violence. Hitler insisted that the Nazi Party intended to obtain power through lawful means and distanced himself from statements suggesting otherwise. The questioning was combative, and contemporary accounts describe Hitler becoming visibly agitated. Litten did not obtain a confession that Hitler personally ordered the Eden attack. The significance of the examination was that he made the party leader answer publicly for the contradiction between Nazi claims of legality and the actions associated with his movement.
The hearing damaged Hitler’s preferred presentation of his party and placed Litten in a dangerous position. Other lawyers were challenging Nazi violence, but Litten had confronted the movement’s leader personally at a moment when Nazi political power was growing. He continued working on cases involving political extremism and defending people targeted by the far right. The trial did not stop the Nazi Party’s rise. Hitler became chancellor on January 30, 1933, and his government rapidly dismantled constitutional protections. The Reichstag fire in February provided a pretext for mass arrests of political opponents.
— @archeohistories Oct 17, 2026
Mikhail Gorbachev freed the famous dissident Andrei Sakharov
(a Nobel Peace Prize-winning nuclear physicist and human rights champion, had been confined to the closed city of Gorky since 1980 for criticizing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) from internal exile in December 1986. In a historic move that signaled his new policy of glasnost (openness), Gorbachev personally telephoned Sakharov to tell him that he and his wife, Yelena Bonner, were free to return to Moscow. Shortly after releasing Sakharov, Gorbachev expanded his political reforms by freeing hundreds of other high-profile dissidents and “refuseniks”….A telephone appeared in a dissident’s apartment after years of enforced isolation. On December 15, 1986, Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Yelena Bonner, received an unexpected visit from technicians accompanied by a KGB officer. They installed a telephone in the couple’s apartment in the closed city of Gorky, where Sakharov had been held in internal exile since 1980. The following afternoon, the telephone rang. At the other end was Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, informing Sakharov that he and his wife would be allowed to return to Moscow.
Sakharov was internationally famous for his scientific work on Soviet nuclear weapons and his increasingly public defense of human rights. He had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975, an honor Soviet authorities prevented him from collecting in person. His criticism of political repression and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan brought him into direct conflict with the government. In January 1980, he was sent without trial to Gorky, a city closed to most foreigners. Isolation there made contact with Western diplomats and journalists difficult. The KGB closely monitored his movements and communications, while his public dissent continued to infuriate the authorities.
Exile did not silence him. Sakharov protested restrictions on himself and Bonner and undertook hunger strikes over matters involving their family and personal freedom. His treatment included forced hospitalization and other coercive measures. Bonner became central to his ability to communicate with the outside world, carrying information and defending their rights despite intense pressure. The authorities periodically restricted correspondence, visits and telephone access. By the mid-1980s, Sakharov had become a prominent symbol of the broader Soviet problem of prisoners of conscience: people punished not for ordinary violent crimes but for expressing political or moral opposition to the state.
Gorbachev’s rise to power in March 1985 gradually altered the political landscape. He pursued reforms intended to address economic stagnation and improve Soviet governance while also seeking better relations with Western countries. The continued confinement of a Nobel laureate was an international embarrassment and a test of the sincerity of the new leadership’s promises. Sakharov had written to Gorbachev urging the release of political prisoners. In December 1986, the death of dissident Anatoly Marchenko following a prolonged hunger strike added urgency to the issue. It was in this atmosphere that the Soviet leadership decided to end Sakharov’s exile.
The details of the telephone call are unusually well documented. In his later account, Sakharov recalled the technicians arriving on December 15 and installing the telephone under security supervision. On December 16, the anticipated call came at approximately three in the afternoon. Gorbachev personally told him he could return to Moscow and resume his scientific work. Sakharov responded by raising the fate of other political prisoners, refusing to treat his own release as a complete solution. The conversation therefore went beyond an announcement of personal freedom. It also exposed the continuing disagreement between the dissident and the Soviet leadership over human rights.
— @archeohistories Oct 17, 2026