A Palantir Manifesto
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2026
Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s book, The Technological Republic, is a clarion call for Silicon Valley to abandon its consumer trinkets and rush headlong into the arms of the military-industrial complex. According to Karp, America’s future depends on wielding hard power through technology—arming soldiers, AI-weaponry, and mass surveillance systems—rather than on the “soft” influence demonstrated by free markets and liberty-first principles. The book claims that “the survival of the American experiment depends on the technological revitalization of the military-industrial complex” and urges the country’s engineering talent to focus on national defense. Karp and his co-author, Nicholas Zamiska, argue that tech bros should “grow up” and start killing America’s enemies before they kill us.
This techno-militarism dressed up as patriotic duty presumes that concentration of power in the state and its corporate allies (isn’t there a word for this?) is not only desirable, but morally required. In other words, The Technological Republic is far from a roadmap back to a prosperous America; it is a blueprint for a high-tech Leviathan. As reviewed in January by the Libertarian Institute’s own Laurie Calhoun, Karp’s willingness to aid the regime in its most notorious activities at home and abroad is not because “he is more ingenious or better informed than the competition, but only because he appears to be completely devoid of scruples.”
The Palantir X account posted a 22-point breakdown of the book’s themes, opening with the premise that the tech industry owes a “moral debt” to the country. American tech engineers are scolded for nurturing consumer-centric apps and free email services instead of focusing on what Karp sees as their true obligation: building the state’s war machine. Karp suggests that they should feel a “sense of purpose” in serving the defense industry, as if innovating weapons of war is akin to military service.
The book’s theme of military service doesn’t stop at the tech industry. “National service should be a universal duty,” Karp declares, arguing that America should “move away from an all-volunteer force.” It’s true that he suggests the reasoning is that the country will be less likely to go to war if everyone has skin in the game, but in practice the children of political and financial elite have never borne the same responsibility as the common man’s sons when a draft was required. Of course, it always bears repeating: conscription is slavery. Far from being fresh ideas, the same boogeymen tactics are employed in Karp’s argument as have always been to mobilize a nation. In this case, the external enemies are the “AI-enhanced posse of China, Russia, and Iran.”
Along the same vein, Palantir’s manifesto pledges “if a US Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software.” The excuse for responding to the Pentagon’s every whim is that we should remain “unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way.” But bloated federal budgets, especially the Pentagon’s, exist to justify their own largesse and demand more. In practice, The Technological Republic would turn a blind eye to decades of waste, fraud, and abuse in favor of committing American taxpayers to bankrolling endless defense contracts. It should not escape notice that Palantir’s own business is building the very military tools that they argue should be beyond public debate.
Throughout the book, Karp espouses a paternalistic tone: ordinary people are infantilized consumers who need guidance from a technocratic elite. He admonishes the tech industry, saying it should “build where the market has failed to act.” Beyond the praise for billionaire visionaries like Elon Musk, Karp implies that entrepreneurial success is possible despite, rather than a result of, a free market. As such, private industries deemed critical to the nation’s interest should be remade into the image of a national project. This position arrives at centralization as the panacea without a moment’s pause to question just how “free” the nation’s free market has truly been under the political and economic centralization that already exists. What’s more, as new industries become nationalized, how long will it be until we’re told, under the weight of centralized mismanagement, that they are “too big to fail?”
For those nursing fears of a digital and surveillance prison being constructed by the megalomaniacal tech bro, the company behind The Technological Republic offers little respite. To the contrary, Palantir is far from a neutral observer; it has built many of the systems it now glorifies, and its own track record is rife with abuses. The ACLU, for example, catalogs how Palantir software underpins ICE’s deportation force, combing through social and medical data to target immigrants. In 2025, Amnesty International warned that Palantir’s “ImmigrationOS” platform enables “constant mass monitoring, surveillance, and assessments of people… often for the purpose of targeting non-US citizens.” Even if one is in favor of the immigration policy on display during the Trump administration, it is the height of naivete to believe these tools will not someday be turned on Americans. As Senator Ron Wyden (R-OR) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently warned, Palantir is even helping the IRS build an unprecedented “mega-database” of citizen data—a “surveillance nightmare” that could break privacy laws and enable politically motivated spying. In other words, the tech Alex Karp champions being used against Americans has already passed from plausible future to chilling present.
Palantir’s support for aggressive state projects goes hand in hand with troubling secrecy and influence. In the United Kingdom, for instance, it enjoys a £330 million NHS contract despite strong privacy objections. Civil rights groups bemoan that British officials even hired consultancy megafirm KPMG using taxpayer money to “promote the adoption” of Palantir’s software in hospitals, only to refuse Freedom of Information requests about the deal. In the United States, Palantir’s tentacles reach into nearly every government agency, often on sole-source or highly confidential contracts. Public filings reveal a $795 million Pentagon award for Palantir AI work and deployments of its software at DHS, HHS, FDA, CDC and NIH. In short, Palantir leverages its political connections to win lucrative government deals—even while civil rights advocates raise alarms. This is hardly the modus operandi of a virtuous tech company whose only interest is the benevolent reshaping of America’s future. Put simply, Palantir’s business model is about power and profit at the expense of taxpayers and privacy.
For all of the bluster about defending “Western values,” Palantir’s recent political posturing reveals its true tribalism. The company took out a full-page ad in The New York Times proclaiming it “stands with Israel,” and has even held a board meeting in Tel Aviv. Critics have decried Palantir for its alleged complicity in war crimes, equipping the Israelis with surveillance and targeting tools it has used against Palestinians in Gaza amid accusations of apartheid and genocide. Whether one agrees with these charges or not, the fact remains that Palantir’s politics are unapologetically partisan. If Israel’s national interests and America’s national interests do not align, then how can Palantir be trusted to pursue the latter over the former?
Alex Karp’s The Technological Republic is sold as a patriotic wake-up call. But its prescriptions amount to the very opposite of a free society. They call for compulsory service, a merger of state and corporate power, and the surrender of individual choice to the dictates of a technocratic elite. Palantir’s vision—war as a software project and culture as a pet project of the powerful—would leave little room for individual rights or market freedom, two things the company already fails to consider in its diagnosis of the nation’s ills. In the end, this “manifesto” is a cautionary tale of ideology cloaked in technobabble. The rhetoric of defending the West and saving civilization may sound noble, but the methods are anything but. History is replete with the grim realities of sacrificing liberty for security and trusting leaders to provide what they claim the market cannot.
Palantir’s Technological Republic is a blueprint for digital tyranny
The surveillance company’s unapologetically dystopian vision for the future is just 1984 updated for the AI era
By Constantin von Hoffmeister | RT | April 22, 2026
Walking through the glass-and-steel corridors of the modern tech-security apparatus reveals that the telescreen is a tireless processor of our very souls.
Palantir Technologies’ vision of a “Technological Republic” arrives as a manual for the refinement of the boot, the one destined to remain on the human face, provided the boot remains equipped with the latest predictive sensors. In the spirit of a clear-eyed look at the clock striking thirteen, we must dissect the alliance between corporate algorithmic power and the Zionist state. This is a new Newspeak, where “defense” is a moral debt and “deterrence” is the silent humming of an algorithm deciding who shall disappear.
The foundation of this digital fortress is built upon the claim of a “moral debt” that the engineering elite owes to the State. In George Orwell’s world of 1984, this represents the ultimate synthesis: the Party and the Corporation becoming indistinguishable. This “affirmative obligation” to participate in national defense is literalized in Palantir’s “strategic partnership” with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Finalized in early 2024 during a high-stakes visit by co-founders Peter Thiel and Alex Karp to Tel Aviv, this pact seeks to harness advanced data mining for “war-related missions.” The software engineers of Palo Alto have been drafted as the new Inner Party: high priests of a digital armory. Their corporate identity is so entwined with the Zionist project that Palantir held its first board meeting of 2024 in Israel, signaling that their “Technological Republic” transcends borders when it comes to the enforcement of state power.
We are told that the age of “soaring rhetoric” and atomic deterrence is fading, replaced by a “hard power” built entirely on software. Here is the transition from the clumsy violence of the truncheon to the invisible violence of the code. Reports from Gaza suggest that Palantir provides the underlying scaffolding for a system where human intuition is replaced by mathematical certainty. By synthesizing massive datasets – surveillance footage, intercepted communications, and biometric records – the software assists in the production of targeting databases that function as automated “kill lists.”
This creates a dangerous accountability gap, a form of “algorithmic plausible deniability.” When an AI-informed strike levels an apartment complex, the blame is diffused into a “black box.” The developer claims the software only “suggests,” the data scientist claims the inputs were “objective,” and the military commander claims the machine’s logic was “optimal.” Alex Karp recently boasted to shareholders, “We are in the business of building things that scare our enemies and, on occasion, kill them,” a chilling affirmation of the firm’s central role in the escalating hostilities against Iran. This admission exposes a brutal reality where algorithmic precision is celebrated as a technical triumph while it systematically masks the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding under the weight of AI-driven targeting.
Within the theater of Operation Epic Fury, Palantir’s software functions as the primary cognitive engine for the US and Israeli military, processing thousands of Iranian targets with a speed that defies traditional human oversight. By compressing the “kill chain” to mere minutes, the firm has transitioned from a mere vendor to a lead protagonist in a conflict where the unblinking eye of the machine determines the survival of entire populations. In this environment, Palantir’s “unflinching commitment” to those in harm’s way becomes a mandate to silence debate regarding the human cost of the occupation.
There is a cunning piece of managed perception Palantir uses to critique the “tyranny of apps,” suggesting that the small glass slabs in our pockets limit our “sense of the possible.” The proposed remedy is a shift from the trivial surveillance of the consumer “app” to the total surveillance of the “infrastructure.” It is the complaint that the telescreen is being used for games when it should be used for the Two Minutes Hate. While the public frets over screen time, Palantir’s infrastructure works behind the scenes to monitor “regressive” elements.
Amnesty International has documented how this “made-by-Palantir” technology poses a surveillance threat to protestors. It is the realization that a society is only “free” so long as its actions are “vital” to the State’s interests. The manifesto of the Technological Republic suggests that the “decadence” of the ruling class will be forgiven so long as they deliver security. This is the ancient bargain of the totalitarian: we will feed you and keep you safe from the current “Enemy,” provided you hand over the keys to your private life and the right to remain unobserved.
The architects of this system boast of an “extraordinarily long peace” made possible by American power and its allies. This is the ultimate slogan: War is Peace. To the billions living under the shadow of proxy wars and AI-driven policing, this “peace” looks remarkably like a spreadsheet of managed casualties. It is a peace of the graveyard, maintained by a “deterrence” built on software that purports to know a subject’s intent before they have even conceived a thought.
Palantir’s call to undo the “postwar neutering” of nations such as Germany and Japan signals a calculated desire to awaken the ghosts of the 20th century. While this vision of renewed strength might appear reasonable on the surface, it functions as a demand that these nations become proper military vassals for American interests. In Asia, this requires Japan to discard its pacifist history to become an American attack dog, compelling the nation to spend at least 2% of its GDP on defense and purchase vast quantities of American weaponry. By transforming Japanese territory into a permanent frontline launchpad against China and urging Germany to serve as a fortified shield against Russia, the “Technological Republic” seeks to manage the logistics of future conflicts through its own software. In this worldview, the atomic age is ending because we have found a more efficient way to threaten one another with extinction through algorithmic deterrence.
The rejection of “hollow pluralism” in favor of a civilizational ranking is not a deviation from history, but rather the latest iteration of a continuous imperial project. While Franz Boas attempted to introduce cultural relativism as a check on Western dominance, his efforts never achieved a true global consensus; instead, the underlying structure of Western imperialism simply evolved its justifications. Where the British Empire once spoke of the “White Man’s Burden” to civilize the “savage,” and the Cold War era spoke of “democratization” to modernize the “underdeveloped,” Palantir now speaks of “technological vitality” to vanquish the “regressive.” This civilizational supremacism is the bedrock of the partnership with the Israeli state, framing a brutal, decades-long occupation as a defense of “progressive values” and “Western civilization.” By reintroducing a hierarchy where “vital” cultures possess the moral authority to dominate “regressive” ones, Palantir provides the digital scaffolding for a new kind of algorithmic empire. It is a world where the software determines who is “civilized” and who is a “target,” ensuring that the legacy of imperialist expansion continues under the guise of technical necessity.
The manifesto poses a pointed, rhetorical question: “Inclusion into what?” The answer, built into the very structure of Palantir’s corporate philosophy, is a mandatory absorption into a singular, totalizing System: a digital panopticon where the Marine’s rifle and the citizen’s intimate data are managed by the same algorithmic entity. This system establishes a stark, neo-feudal class divide; it laments the “ruthless exposure” of the private lives of the elite, seeking to resurrect a protected “priesthood” of public servants who operate within a sanctuary of state-sanctioned forgiveness and anonymity. Meanwhile, the rest of mankind is subjected to the absolute “ruthless exposure” of their own data, stripped of the right to be unquantifiable. Under this regime, transparency is a weapon used downward to discipline the proles, while opacity is a shield used upward to protect the architects of the machine.
Palantir represents a new era of the military-industrial complex, one where data is the primary ammunition and ideology is the primary marketing tool. It seeks to upgrade the Republic into a fortress where the walls are made of code and the “long peace” is maintained by the stoic demeanor of the machine. The company frames its support for Israel as a defense of democratic survival, when in reality it is the chilling realization of high-tech surveillance used to enforce a permanent state of siege. As the international community begins to react – evidenced by the $24-million divestment by Norway’s Storebrand over concerns of “international law” violations – the core question of our age remains: Should the power to decide who is a “terrorist,” who is “regressive,” and who is a “target” to be outsourced to a private company with a political agenda? In the “Technological Republic,” the most rebellious act one can commit is to remain unquantifiable, to exist outside the data-mining net, and to insist that a human life is more than a data point in a war-related mission.
Constantin von Hoffmeister is a political and cultural commentator from Germany, author of the books ‘MULTIPOLARITY!’ and ‘Esoteric Trumpism’, and director of Multipolar Press.
Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars
Involuntary servitude is good for business
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026
In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journal praised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”
On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”
National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation.
Mass Murder by Artificial Intelligence
Project Maven is an AI-driven battlefield intelligence system designed by the corporation. The Defense Department, now known as the War Department, employed Maven in 2024 for “targeting support” in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Maven incorporates the AI model Claude, built by Anthropic.
More recently, in US airstrikes against Iran, “AI systems born from Project Maven have helped identify and prioritize thousands of targets, accelerating intelligence analysis and operational planning,” explains the Center for a New American Security, a military think tank founded by Michèle Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense with links to Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. She was the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy.
Maven was reportedly used to shorten the “kill chain” during Israel’s invasion of Gaza. “I am proud that we are supporting Israel in every way we can,” CEO Karp exclaimed. Following the Gaza al-Aqsa Flood in October, 2023, Palantir “provided Israel with multiple AI-powered data analytics tools for military and intelligence purposes,” notes the American Friends Service Committee. The corporation has a “strategic partnership” with Israel’s Ministry of Defense to assist the Zionist state and its “war effort” against Palestinian resistance to Israeli military occupation, an armed struggle recognized under international law.
“As the genocide in Gaza advances, attention is turning to the companies whose technologies may be facilitating Israel’s daily atrocities, with US-based Palantir Technologies among them,” reports the Business and Human Rights Center. “While the International Criminal Court (ICC) is stepping in to address genocide accusations, the tech barons who design and supply the tools of warfare remain largely unchallenged.”
Another Israeli AI-based targeting system, Lavender, ostensibly developed by the IDF’s Unit 8200, is said to be a Palantir project. Palantir rejected this assertion in a letter sent to Francesca Albanese, the sanctioned United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. In the letter, Palantir stressed it “stands in solidarity with Israel in response to the horrific attacks on 7 October, 2023. Our work in Israel long predates the 7 October attacks and is in line with our global commitment to U.S. allies and liberal democracies. We proudly support our partners in Israel across a multitude of mission sets, programs, and contexts.”
Israel utilized Palantir in its September 2024 attacks in Lebanon, employing exploding electronic pagers that resulted in numerous fatalities and injuries, writes AFSC’s Investigate. In addition to its collaboration with the Israeli military, Palantir also provides the Gaza Civil-Military Coordination Center with its services. This center is located at the US military compound in Kiryat Gat, which was established in October 2025 to implement the Trump administration’s plan for Gaza. Iran targeted Kiryat Gat in March, 2026.
Maven, incorporating Anthropic’s Claude, was used to target the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, in southern Iran, killing 180 people, mostly young girls. President Trump praised Palantir Technologies, saying the company “has proven to have great war-fighting capabilities and equipment. Just ask our enemies,” apparently including children.
“Creepy CEO” Advocates Involuntary Servitude in “Service to the West”
“Alex Karp, the creepy CEO of creepy defense contractor Palantir, just can’t stop talking about killing people,” Lucas Ropek writes for Gizmodo. “During a recent call with investors, the billionaire let it slip that he doesn’t mind a little bloodshed, just so long as the money keeps pouring in.”
“Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies and on occasion kill them,” Karp said, with a smile on his face. The CEO added that he was very proud of the work his firm is doing and that he felt it was good for America. “I’m very happy to have you along for the journey,” he said. “We are crushing it. We are dedicating our company to the service of the West, and the United States of America, and we’re super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about.”
For Karp, “service to the West” includes conscription, that is to say involuntary servitude and the possibility of a violent and horrific death for an untold number of men and women drafted to fight the forever wars envisioned by the billionaire elite, including those within the “libertarian” tech sector.
However, forcing an individual against his or her will to kill and possibly be killed for the sake of the state (or foreign states, such as Israel), and in accordance with a “social contract” that demands submission and obedience, is not libertarian. In the case of Palantir, it is more accurately described as “techno-fascism,” an alliance between Silicon Valley and the state. Contrary to libertarian principles advocating against government intervention, leading tech companies frequently advocate for regulations that favor established AI companies benefiting from government funding and contracts.
Palantir, named after the “seeing stones” from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, may be characterized as a “merchant of death,” a term prominent in the 1930s regarding WWI profiteering. Alex Karp may be compared to Basil Zaharoff, a Greek arms dealer and industrialist, one of the wealthiest men of his time. Unlike Zaharoff, Karp is not selling rifles or munitions, he is selling something far worse—the ability, through artificial intelligence, to murder thousands, if not millions of people with the speed and efficiency of computer technology.
REPORT: United States Now Global Outlier Ignoring Vaccine Injured as UK Inquiry Acknowledges Harms
By Jefferey Jaxen | April 17, 2026
Baroness Hallett is the Chair of the UK’s COVID-19 Inquiry – an independent public investigation established to examine the country’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
‘Module 4’ was just released today and it dealt primarily with those harmed by the rushed rollout of an experimental mRNA jab.
THE NEW INQUIRY ACKNOWLEDGED THE FOLLOWING:
“The current system of payment for those injured as a result of having a Covid-19 vaccine requires reform.”
“The Inquiry acknowledges the suffering of those for whom vaccines led to serious injury and death. It is imperative that a sufficiently supportive government scheme is in place to help the minority of people (and their loved ones) who suffer serious injury following vaccination.”
“The Inquiry recognises that some of the vaccine injured and bereaved sharing their experiences online felt stigmatised and ignored when their content was labelled as misinformation“
“The Inquiry was also told that, when the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, little was done to publicise the scheme and a significant number of those who had been injured or bereaved as a result of the vaccine were unaware of it.“
The inquiry’s overarching recommendation was the following:
“… reforming the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible, with an increase in the minimum payment awarded to those injured by a vaccine and a fairer system for determining payment.“
For many, these admissions are a welcomed surprise from slow-acting governments who have dragged their feet to recognize citizens harmed by products they mandated.
What wasn’t included in the UK inquiry was any mention of the violations of informed consent that occurred during the failed pandemic response. A particularly telling point especially in the UK where, in addition to the garden variety slights of lockdowns, forced vaccinations, blanket ‘do not resuscitate orders in care homes, the media openly boasted about the Army’s psychological warfare unit being deployed domestically on citizens.
The UK announcement now shamefully places the United States as the global outlier in recognizing and beginning the plan to develop better care and ultimate justice for the COVID-vaccine injured.
Most U.S. government officials and compliant corporate media outlets are still satisfied with calling the injured who question vaccines ‘anti-vaxxers’ and other divisive names to neutralize them and their rightful quest for help, the world is changing and America is beginning to look not as great on this vitally important subject.
The legal cancellation of the recent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) by a lawfare Massachusetts judge took away the opportunity for American COVID vaccine injured who were scheduled to testify at the federal meeting. Recognition was denied and shockingly, few politicians and media pundits cared.
For the first time in U.S. history, a dedicated ICD-10 diagnostic code specific to adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines is moving forward. React19 advanced the proposal at the March 17–18, 2026 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting, and it has now entered a 60-day public comment period ending May 15, 2026.
Why An ICD-10 Code Matters
The ICD-10 code proposal aims to address a critical gap: currently, no specific ICD-10-CM code exists for adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination. This has led to widespread miscoding, under-recognition, and difficulty in tracking, researching, and treating these conditions. The proposed code would give clinicians, researchers, and public health officials a clear way to document these cases.
In a separate effort to petition the appropriate U.S. agencies seeking proper care, React19 petitioned the Social Security Administration’s Compassionate Allowances program only to be greeted with the following writes The Defender :
Last year, React19 and Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo asked the CAL program to include the 10 conditions. The CAL program is designed to fast-track disability benefits for people with severe illnesses that clearly meet SSA criteria.
The program rejected all 10 requests within 48 hours.
In response, React19 filed a FOIA request seeking documents and data that could shed light on the decision-making process behind the rejections.
The ‘help’ the U.S. government does offer the COVID-vaccine injured is in the form of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
The latest numbers from that program have just been released. Shamefully, less than 1% of injury claims have been compensated.
Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
The bill that died with Trudeau’s election call is back, and so is the advisory panel that wrote it.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | April 18, 2026
Canada’s Liberal government is preparing to revive legislation that would hand the state new powers over what Canadians can say online, with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team signaling that a rebooted “online harms” law is coming.
A report submitted to the Senate social affairs committee confirms the direction.
The Department of Industry told senators that Ottawa is working toward a “future online safety regime” aimed at reducing online “harms,” a category the government itself gets to define. To shape the proposal, officials have brought back the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, the same body that helped design the previous censorship attempt.
“To advise on this proposal, the government has recently reconvened the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, whose members previously contributed to the development of online harms legislation, to engage on new and emerging issues related to online harms,” the department said.
“Any future legislative proposal would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and details will be made public at the appropriate time.”
One of the members back at the table is Bernie Farber of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. The advisory group helps shape what the government will treat as hateful, harmful, or dangerous.
That definition, once written into law, determines which posts get deleted, which accounts get silenced, and which Canadians face fines or house arrest for saying the wrong thing online.
Canadian Culture Minister Marc Miller telegraphed the timing this week, suggesting a new law targeting “online harms” is needed and likely coming soon. With the Liberals now holding a majority after three byelection wins and the defection of five MPs from the Conservatives and NDP, the procedural obstacles that killed previous attempts have largely disappeared. A social media ban for children is also on the table.
The last attempt, Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, was introduced under the familiar justification of protecting children from online exploitation.
The bill died when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election. Its actual reach went well beyond child safety. It targeted lawful internet content that authorities deemed “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group,” wording broad enough to sweep up political argument, satire, religious commentary, and journalism, depending on who was reading it. Breaking the rule carried fines of up to $70,000 or house arrest.
Before C-63 there was Bill C-36, a 2021 effort to amend the Criminal Code along similar lines. Neither bill made it through. Both kept returning in slightly different forms.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Canada’s leading constitutional freedom organization, has launched a national campaign urging the Carney government to abandon the project entirely.
The JCCF warned that the Online Harms Act would “dramatically expand government censorship powers, punish lawful expression online, and authorize preemptive restrictions on individual liberty.”
“In doing so, it would represent a fundamental departure from Canada’s long-standing commitment to freedom of expression and due process,” the organization said.
Preemptive restrictions, the legal mechanism the previous bill contained, mean punishing or silencing someone before they have said anything unlawful. Canadian courts have historically treated prior restraint as the most serious form of speech suppression. The revived framework appears to contemplate it as a feature.
The chilling effect is already setting in. Writers, commentators, and small publishers in Canada began adjusting what they posted during the C-63 debate, well before any law took effect. The threat alone was enough to quiet a portion of online political speech.
A reintroduced bill, backed by a majority government and an advisory panel stacked with people who see the internet as a venue that needs controlling, makes that quieting louder.
The Liberal government has said repeatedly that some version of Bill C-63 is coming back. What it has not said, in any substantive form, is who decides what counts as hate, what counts as harm, and what counts as the kind of speech a democracy is supposed to tolerate even when it finds it ugly. Those definitions will sit with the same government promising the law, and the same advisory group promising to help write it.
Trump taps military-grade flu pandemic architect to lead CDC amid simultaneous gain-of-function and vax development
Nominee authored US military pandemic influenza policy and directed surveillance, vaccination, and compliance systems.
By Jon Fleetwood | April 17, 2026
President Donald Trump has tapped Dr. Erica Schwartz—a military-trained architect of influenza pandemic surveillance, vaccination, and compliance systems—to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), elevating a systems-level influenza operator to the top of the nation’s public health apparatus.
The nomination comes as the Trump administration continues funding influenza gain-of-function research, advances influenza vaccine development under its “Gold Standard” framework, signs into law a multi-billion-dollar influenza pandemic preparedness omnibus directing federal funding toward outbreak response systems, and maintains coordination with the World Health Organization’s global influenza network despite formally withdrawing.
The U.S. government is advancing the influenza pathogen side, the vaccine response, and the deployment system—and now seeks to put a military-grade influenza pandemic architect in charge of the CDC.
Just as he did in 2018 with Dr. Robert Redfield—the career U.S. Army Colonel and virologist who led the CDC when COVID erupted—President Trump is once again installing a battle-tested military physician with deep expertise in influenza pandemic systems to head the agency.
The move raises questions about whether this level of consolidation leaves open the possibility that the same system could influence both the emergence of a pandemic and the response to it.
Dr. Schwartz also received a nod from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
See also:
EU spied on Orban for years – former Slovak minister
RT | April 16, 2026
The EU spy campaign that helped bring down Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is a lesson to anyone who defies Brussels, former Slovak Interior Minister Vladimir Palko has warned. “What they did to Orban yesterday, they can do to you tomorrow,” he told the outlet Marker on Monday.
Orban’s Fidesz party suffered a landslide defeat to Peter Magyar’s Tisza on Sunday, with Tisza outperforming even the most one-sided polls to win a 54% to 38% over Fidesz. Magyar’s party now holds 137 of 199 seats in parliament, giving the incoming PM power to rewrite the country’s constitution as he – and his allies in Brussels – see fit.
That the EU wanted this result was obvious. Orban had been a thorn in Brussels’ side for 16 years and was an insurmountable obstacle to the bloc’s plans to approve a €90 billion loan package for Ukraine. Throughout the election, evidence of interference by the EU, Ukraine, and opposition-friendly Hungarian media trickled out of Budapest. With the election over, the full extent of the EU’s intelligence campaign against Orban – and its implications for populists across Europe – is slowly becoming apparent.
“The defeat of Viktor Orban after 16 years of rule is not surprising at all,” Palko told Marker. “However, the tragedy is what happened in the election campaign.”
The EU spied on Orban for years
“Orban and his foreign minister were wiretapped by European intelligence for six years,” he continued. “Not Russian, not American. The secret service provided the content of phone calls to some journalists from several EU member states, and the members of the EU establishment used the content against Orban. This was an intervention into Hungarian elections.”
Palko, who served as deputy director of Slovakia’s SIS intelligence agency in the 1990s and interior minister between 2002 and 2006, confirmed information that had already surfaced in the runup to the election: namely that opposition journalist Szabolcs Panyi gave Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto’s contact details to an unnamed EU intelligence agency, that then wiretapped Szijjarto and leaked details of six years’ worth of his calls with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov back to Panyi and other pro-opposition reporters. Panyi’s outlet, Direkt36, derives 80% of its project costs from the EU.
EU spies also fed the Hungarian and international media stories of Russian “election fixers” attempting to swing the election for Orban, and of plots by Russian military intelligence agents to stage an assassination attempt on Orban for publicity. The claims were unfounded, but were seized upon by Magyar, who worked chants of “Russians, go home!” into his campaign rallies.
The EU in turn used these reports to justify the activation of its ‘Rapid Response System’ (RRS): a suite of online censorship tools that allowed Brussels’ “fact checkers” to remove supposed “disinformation” from social media platforms in the runup to the vote. In every election in which it has been activated, the RRS “almost exclusively targeted” right-wing and populist candidates like Orban, the US House Judiciary Committee found in an investigation last year.
“Only one thing is shown from the recorded phone calls: The Hungarians were friendly towards the Russians,” Palko noted. “But this already is a mortal sin for the EU establishment. This is the new European Union that is coming.”
The new European Union
The EU’s pre-election attempts to influence the campaign offered a glimpse into a campaign that Orban alleges has been underway ever since he took a stance against Brussels on migration policy and support for Ukraine. However, Europe’s few populist leaders have largely stayed silent on the issue.
The Hungarian election ultimately came down to kitchen-table economic issues. Roads, healthcare, public safety, and public transport were the leading issues among voters in all 19 of Hungary’s counties, and the electorate chose Magyar’s promises of cash injections for underfunded public services over Orban’s geopolitics-heavy platform. Magyar will depend on the EU to fund his economic plan to the tune of €20 billion, and as such will be easily leveraged by Brussels, giving further incentive for the bloc to back his campaign.
Yet the role of EU intelligence in the result has been ignored, even by Orban’s ideological allies on the continent. This, Palko reckons, is a mistake. “All those who were not bothered by it should be warned,” he said. “What they did to Orban yesterday, they can do to you tomorrow.”
As RT reported, the EU has rolled out its same censorship playbook in Bulgaria, where elections this weekend pit a veteran center-rightist against a populist, Euroskeptic challenger on the left. Robert Fico in Slovakia, a left-wing populist and vocal opponent of the EU’s Ukraine project, will likely face the same treatment when he seeks another term in office next year.
Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 15, 2026
With its April 20 deadline for congressional renewal looming, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is back in the spotlight. The provision, first adopted in 2008 as a part of the FISA Amendments Act as an update to the original 1978 Act, allows U.S. intelligence agencies to target “non-US persons located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information” as a response to perceived technology gaps exposed in the years after 9/11. It achieves this by compelling American telecom companies to collect intelligence on foreign targets and turning over data to federal officials.
Many aspects of Section 702 are concerning to civil libertarians. The provision includes a “backdoor search” loophole that allows agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation to search the database for communications belonging to U.S. citizens without a warrant. On the topic of warrants, individual warrants for each target are not required by Section 702. Instead, the government gets annual approval via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to conduct broad spying operations with little to no oversight, with no requirement that the government proves to the court that a specific target is even suspected of being an agent of a foreign power.
Recently, President Donald Trump asked Republicans to unify to extend the program with no changes in oversight or accountability. Trump posted on Truth Social, “When used properly, FISA is an effective tool to keep Americans safe. For these reasons, I have called for a clean 18-month extension.” The adjective “clean” is not politically neutral: it implies that attempts to reform the program are partisan clutter, and that re-evaluating the practical or constitutional application of such a tool is a waste of time.
But this isn’t the position shared by those who have been wrongly targeted by the intelligence community, including President Trump himself. In May 2020, Trump urged Republicans to vote “NO” on FISA, explicitly tying the law to fears of abuse, including against his own re-election campaign. Four years later, he told lawmakers to “KILL FISA,” claiming it had been “illegally used” against him and that officials had “spied on my campaign.” On Monday, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) wrote to National Security Agency Director Joshua Rudd to address “deeply troubling abuses of power” by NSA analysts, alleging the agency has used Section 702 to search the private communications of individuals ranging from dating apps to rental agreements. In his latest departure with the administration, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said, “I vote with GOP 91% of the time, but that’s about to go to 90%. I won’t vote to let feds spy on you without a warrant. FISA 702 allows the government to search for your information in vast databases compiled with targeting foreigners.”
That charge of “vast databases” of Americans’ private data is precisely the overreach that Edward Snowden blew the whistle on in 2013 when he revealed that the NSA was using its authority to collect telephone records in bulk. But the Fourth Amendment’s logic does not dissolve in the presence of large databases. According to the Supreme Court, a search that intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy requires a warrant supported by probate cause. In Carpenter v. United States, SCOTUS held that the government’s acquisition of historical cell-site location information was a Fourth Amendment search, emphasizing how modern technology can transform ordinary records into comprehensive tracking. Intelligence gathering at such a sheer scale, while politically attractive to those who crave power, is constitutionally dubious for all the ways it could be used to target individuals, even if the initial data collection is impersonal.
The secrecy and structure of the reviewing court compound the problem. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz described FISA proceedings as “ex parte,” with only the government appearing, which deprives the process of “adversarial testing.” In ordinary constitutional practice, laws that burden speech, association, and privacy are tested by said adversarial litigation to force factual development, limiting principles, and public reasoning. This leaves the FISC’s decisions and operations shrouded in secrecy. Annual statistics help to explain why civil liberty advocates criticize the FISC as a compliance venue rather than a constitutional barrier. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports that in 2024 the FISC granted or modified the overwhelming majority of items before it, with no applications denied in full. In 2025, it only denied four applications in full while continuing to grant or modify most of the remainder. While these numbers do not necessarily prove bad faith by the judges involved, they do underscore the institutional asymmetry: a secret court hearing only one party (the state) is predisposed to side with it without due courtesy to the target of the government’s ire.
A surveillance state that cannot be meaningfully challenged in court is not merely powerful, it is structurally insulated. In another SCOTUS ruling, Clapper v. Amnesty International, the court ruled that the plaintiffs, including lawyers, journalists, and human-rights advocates, lacked the standing to challenge FISA Section 702 because they could not prove their alleged injuries. In other words, since potential government surveillance of their activities is done in secret, they can’t be sure that such surveillance took place, even if possible or even likely. The practical result is a legal regime in which the people most likely to become targets of the surveillance state are told, in effect, that they must wait until the government admits to its own wrongdoing, if it ever does. Such doctrine rewards opacity, discourages accountability, and converts constitutional limits into after-the-fact internal policy debates. A free society does not need to prove it is being watched before it can object to the creation of institutions engineered to snoop first and justify later.
Another perspective to judge such unconstitutional surveillance is the imposed cost, even when not aimed at a particular citizen. In Clapper, the plaintiffs described costly precautions taken to protect confidential communications, precautions the Court treated as self-inflicted for standing purposes. Yet those precautions are better understood as the rational price of uncertainty: when citizens cannot know whether their interactions with foreign sources, clients, colleagues, or family are subject to state capture, prudence demands self-censorship, detours, and silence. This burden falls especially hard on professions that depend on confidentiality, such as investigative journalists, advocacy groups, and legal counsel. The effect is fewer inquiries, fewer candid conversations, and fewer whistleblowers that might be identified by an algorithm or an analyst. As a result, the same surveillance state that should be met with a multitude of challenges from civil rights advocates chills its opposition into less resistance.
Americans should oppose Section 702 because it builds a durable exception to the Fourth Amendment. It vests immense surveillance discretion in the executive branch and invites political abuse, as the president knows from personal experience. It conscripts private companies as unwilling deputies to the intelligence community and treats the public like criminals-in-waiting. Predictably, citizens trim speech and associations when they suspect the state can catalog their correspondence. “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” has never been an acceptable argument for the curtailment of privacy. A free people should not live by such a gross exception to liberty.
Villains of Judea: Charles Bronfman
A deep dive into how Charles Bronfman and his family shaped a century of shadow politics
José Niño Unfiltered | April 14, 2026
The Jeffrey Epstein files continue to spill their secrets. With each new document release, each newly unsealed court record, the spotlight inches closer to a network of Jewish billionaires who operated in the shadows long before the convicted sex trafficker became a household name. The names in Epstein’s black book read like a roster of Jewish power. But behind those individual names lies something even more intriguing, a structure, an architecture of influence that Epstein exploited with devastating effectiveness.
At the center of that architecture stands a mysterious organization that most Americans have never heard of. It was founded in 1991 by two men, one of whom would become Epstein’s most consequential patron, granting him sweeping power of attorney over his billion-dollar fortune. The other was a Canadian-American billionaire whose family name once adorned the world’s largest liquor company and whose philanthropic fingerprints can be found on nearly every major Jewish institution in North America.
His name is Charles Bronfman.
The Bronfman Empire
Charles Rosner Bronfman was born on June 27, 1931, into a Jewish family in Montreal, the youngest of four children born to Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation Limited and later the Seagram Company. The Bronfman family’s origins trace to Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, from which they fled from ethnic tensions in 1889 to settle in the Canadian prairies.
Samuel Bronfman, known simply as “Mr. Sam,” built the Seagram empire partly through the shrewd exploitation of American Prohibition-era demand for Canadian whiskey. A 1927 Canadian inquiry found the family had gone years without paying income taxes. A brother-in-law was murdered at a family liquor warehouse in 1922. In 1934, Samuel and his brothers were charged with evading duties on over $5 million, though the case collapsed when investigators could not obtain the family’s account books. From these controversial origins, the family built what would become the world’s largest distilling firm.
Charles grew up as the self-described quiet one. In his 2017 memoir Distilled: A Memoir of Family, Seagram, Baseball, and Philanthropy, he described himself as less dominated by ego than his brother Edgar. He was educated at elite anglophone institutions before attending McGill University. His family kept a kosher home and provided the children with Jewish religious schooling. He began his philanthropic activity at the age of 17.
In 1951, his father gave him a 33% ownership stake in Cemp Investments, a holding company for him and his three siblings that controlled the family’s corporate empire. After Samuel Bronfman’s death in 1971, Charles and Edgar inherited and co-chaired the Seagram Company Ltd., which at its peak was one of the largest spirits companies in the world.
The family’s fortunes were severely damaged in the late 1990s when Edgar Bronfman Jr., Charles’s nephew, led a disastrous pivot into entertainment, culminating in the 2000 sale of Seagram to the French media conglomerate Vivendi. Charles had strongly opposed this move, calling it “a disaster, it is a disaster, it will be a disaster” and “a family tragedy.” The family’s paper losses on the deal exceeded $3 billion as Vivendi’s stock plummeted.
The Founding of the Mega Group
In 1991, Charles Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret, co-founded what they called the “Study Group.” The innocuous name concealed something far more significant. This was an invitation-only club of approximately 20 of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish businesspeople in America, a number that would eventually swell to nearly 50 by 2001.
The group became publicly known as the Mega Group after a Wall Street Journal investigative report in May 1998, headlined “Titans of Industry Join Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy,” pulled back the curtain on its existence. Annual dues reportedly ran approximately $30,000. Members met twice a year for two-day seminars on philanthropy and Jewish identity. But the guest list alone suggested this was no ordinary study circle.
Members included Les Wexner, Charles Bronfman, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Max Fisher, Michael Steinhardt, Leonard Abramson, Harvey Meyerhoff, Laurence Tisch, Charles Schusterman, Lester Crown, Ronald Lauder, Marvin Lender, and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg. These were men who controlled billions in personal wealth and sat on the boards of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America.
Bronfman’s 1998 Wall Street Journal comment, “From the beginning, we didn’t want to be seen as a threat to anybody… We don’t want to be seen as the Sanhedrin,” functioned as a classic tactical admission. By explicitly citing the ancient Jewish governing body as the image he sought to avoid, he inadvertently confirmed that such a structure of Jewish influence was indeed the functional reality he managed.
Yet critics and investigative journalists described the Mega Group as something far more consequential than a philanthropic book club. It was an informal political machine, a network through which billions in charitable funds could be directed to shape U.S. policy on Israel. Executive Intelligence Review and other outlets reported that the group had contacts with Israeli intelligence and served as a base for influence operations in the United States.
The Wexner Affair
The connection between the Mega Group and Jeffrey Epstein runs directly through Leslie Wexner, Charles Bronfman’s partner in founding the organization. Wexner was Epstein’s most consequential patron. He granted Epstein power of attorney over his personal finances in July 1991, giving Epstein, in Wexner’s own words, “wide latitude to act on my behalf” — effectively making Epstein his personal money manager for years. Epstein exploited Wexner’s network to establish relationships with influential political, business, and philanthropic figures across the globe.
Epstein also used his status as a purported model scout for Wexner’s Victoria’s Secret brand to lure young women into his sex trafficking enterprise. Because Bronfman co-founded the Mega Group with Wexner, and owing to how the group’s membership overlapped extensively with Epstein’s social and financial network, Bronfman’s name appears regularly in analyses of the Epstein web. The connection has raised uncomfortable questions about what the members of this secretive group knew, when they knew it, and what they chose not to see.
A more direct Bronfman family connection runs through Edgar Bronfman Jr., Charles’s nephew, whose name and contact details appear in Epstein’s notorious “little black book,” the private directory of contacts that became public through court disclosures. Edgar Bronfman Sr., Charles’s older brother, is identified in some accounts as one of Epstein’s clients during his years at Bear Stearns in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Epstein advised wealthy clients on tax mitigation strategies.
Epstein victim Maria Farmer has publicly connected Epstein’s network to the Mega Group and to Leslie Wexner specifically. In a phone interview with journalist Whitney Webb, Farmer described the group as connected through Wexner, whom she called “the head of the snake.”
Perhaps most striking is an observation made by Jeffrey Solomon, the longtime president of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. In a 2019 interview with Inside Philanthropy, Solomon noted that “successful people don’t want to be the ones who have to deal with uncomfortable situations” and drew an explicit parallel between his own role at ACBP and Epstein’s role with Wexner — both served as the person who absorbs uncomfortable decisions so the principal does not have to. “It was very much part of our job to say no so that they don’t have to,” Solomon told Inside Philanthropy.
The Philanthropic Empire
Charles Bronfman extended his influence far beyond business into the institutional architecture of global Jewry. In December 1986, he founded the CRB Foundation, whose twin founding principles were “to enhance Canadianism” and to promote “unity of the Jewish people whose soul is in Jerusalem.” The CRB Foundation was the cornerstone of what became the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. Over its 30-year life, ACBP distributed more than $340 million to approximately 1,820 grantees.
The signature achievement of Bronfman’s philanthropic career is Taglit-Birthright Israel, which he co-founded in 1999 alongside Michael Steinhardt, another Mega Group member, in partnership with the Israeli government. The program offers free 10-day educational trips to Israel for young Jewish adults, explicitly designed to strengthen their Jewish identity and connection to the Jewish state. Since its founding, it has sent more than 900,000 young Jews to Israel, making it the world’s largest educational tourism organization.
From 1999 to 2001, Bronfman served as the first chairman of the United Jewish Communities, the merged organization comprising the United Jewish Appeal, the Council of Jewish Federations, and United Israel Appeal. According to Executive Intelligence Review, when his term expired, he was succeeded by a son of Laurence Tisch, another Mega Group charter member.
The philanthropic initiatives born from the Mega Group are substantial. The Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education, Birthright Israel, and the renewal of Hillel International all emerged from the group’s deliberations. In 2003, the Mega Group hired Republican political consultant Frank Luntz to help members mobilize public support for Israel.
In early 2001, Mega Group members Leonard Abramson, Edgar Bronfman Sr., and Michael Steinhardt launched “Emet,” Hebrew for “truth,” described by its founders as a pro-Israel think tank aimed at improving Israeli public relations in North America. The $7 million initiative — with an additional $1 million pledged from Israel’s Foreign Ministry — drew scrutiny both from Israeli diplomats who felt American Jews were encroaching on their turf and from commentators who questioned whether it would promote a hard-line approach to the peace process.
The Scandals
Bronfman’s career has not been without direct controversy. The most serious and well-documented centers on illegal campaign financing in Israel. In the 1999 Israeli election, Bronfman, along with Jonathan Kolber, the CEO of Koor Industries, allegedly channeled funds through an Israeli non-profit organization called ROVAD to support the campaign of Labor candidate Ehud Barak. A special investigation by Israel’s Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations found that ROVAD was used as a financial pipeline for Barak’s election campaign rather than fulfilling its stated social purpose.
In September 2001, Israeli police opened a formal investigation against Bronfman and Kolber under the Party Financing Law and Non-Profit Organizations Law. Barak’s One Israel party was ultimately fined more than $3 million after the revelation that large amounts of foreign money had been funneled through nonprofits.
This was not an isolated incident. ABC News reported that as early as the 1988 Israeli election, Bronfman had given $1.6 million to Shimon Peres’s campaign, donations that were legal at the time but contributed to the policy environment that eventually led Israel to reform its campaign finance laws to ban foreign contributions to Israeli parties.
Bronfman’s chairmanship of Koor Industries, one of Israel’s largest investment holding companies, ended in significant financial loss. His approximately $500 million investment lost around 70% of its value as the company’s aggressive tech pivot was devastated by the global tech bust. In 1989, Bronfman also joined British press magnate Robert Maxwell in a joint bid to buy a controlling stake in The Jerusalem Post from Koor, which was selling its shares. Maxwell, who would later be widely reported as having ties to Israeli intelligence, described the venture with Bronfman as aimed at “developing The Jerusalem Post and expanding its influence among world Jewry.”
In 2017, the Paradise Papers implicated Stephen Bronfman, Charles’s son and chief Liberal Party fundraiser for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Documents showed that Stephen’s investment firm Claridge had close business ties to a Cayman Islands trust linked to the Kolber family, raising questions about unpaid taxes. Stephen Bronfman denied any impropriety, stating he and his family “have always conducted themselves in accordance with the highest legal and ethical standards.”
The extended Bronfman family faced its own scandal when Charles’s nieces Clare and Sara Bronfman, daughters of his brother Edgar Sr., became deeply enmeshed in NXIVM. Founded in 1998 by Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman, NXIVM operated as an ostensible self-improvement organization that prosecutors proved was in reality a criminal enterprise involving sex trafficking, racketeering, and a secret society in which women were branded with Raniere’s initials. Clare spent more than $100 million funding the organization and was sentenced to six years and nine months in federal prison in September 2020 for conspiracy to conceal illegal immigrants and fraudulent use of identification.
The Last Known Meeting
The Mega Group held what is believed to be its last documented meeting on May 3 and 4, 2001, at Edgar Bronfman’s Manhattan mansion. The group operated entirely behind closed doors and received minimal mainstream press attention until its connection to Wexner, and through Wexner to Jeffrey Epstein, brought renewed scrutiny beginning in 2019.
Investigative journalist Whitney Webb and others have reported that Epstein’s connections to suspected Mossad asset Robert Maxwell, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the Mega Group network have raised persistent questions about whether Epstein was working for Israeli intelligence. These questions remain unanswered, and the full truth may never be known.
What is known is that Charles Bronfman, now in his 90s with an estimated net worth of $2.5 billion, remains one of the most consequential figures in the institutional architecture of global Jewry.
In the final accounting, Charles Bronfman is not merely a man of wealth, but a pillar of a shadow-governance structure that has rendered the traditional legislative bodies obsolete. Our elected officials have been reduced to mere stage actors, reciting lines written by an unelected inner circle of organized Jewish interests that treat sovereign nations like proprietary assets. As the Epstein files continue to strip away the veneer of legitimacy from the elite, we are forced to confront an undeniable reality: the levers of state have been seized by a cohesive Jewish network whose loyalties reside solely within their tribe. Recognizing this hostile architecture is the prerequisite for the struggle ahead—a definitive political confrontation, Gentile versus Jew, that is the only path to reclaiming our country.
The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 14, 2026
The role of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. is so notorious that it has practically become contemporary folklore. Some European authors also emphasize the great influence that the Zionist lobby enjoys, primarily in France, and secondarily in the United Kingdom and Germany. Nowadays, there is also increasing talk of its influence over Argentina, especially in the context of the Andinia Plan.
But Brazil is almost always left out of this equation. To some extent, it is as if the image of a tropical “paradise” in perfect balance between Catholic faith and Dionysian spirit does not quite align with Zionist manipulations. But this perception is misleading.
In the past, we have commented on the overwhelming neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil. Today, they make up approximately 30% of the Brazilian population, and with their theological specificities, they bring with them an obsession with the State of Israel. Moreover, there are plenty of theses claiming that neo-Pentecostal penetration in Latin America was a successful operation orchestrated by the CIA to subvert hegemonic Catholic spirituality and pave the way for Zionism.
In parallel, however, the Brazilian Jewish community itself has gradually built a modestly influential lobby, well-connected in politics, the media, and the judiciary, though far less aggressive than the Zionist lobby in other countries.
The test to verify, however, the degree of Zionist influence in Brazil and how much neo-Pentecostal expansion will serve to guarantee Zionist designs is unfolding now.
After the Gaza War, in which the State of Israel clearly attempted to carry out a Palestinian genocide, Israel’s reputation was completely shattered. All the credit accumulated because of the Holocaust was entirely exhausted by the scenes of mass extermination of innocent women and children. The lies and hypocrisy were so great that many people even began to question more easily whether Israel might have been behind 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.
In recent years, Israel’s influence schemes became famous, including paying virtual activists to make pro-Israel comments in online discussions. This has been given the name “Hasbara.” It is nothing other than propaganda.
We could say, therefore, that Gaza made decades of “Hasbara” disappear.
Naturally, however, Israel could not give up such an important asset. As much as Israel seems to disdain international opinion, this opinion plays an important role in pressuring governments to maintain friendly relations with Israel despite its atrocities.
Hence, it was predictable since the Gaza ceasefire that Israel would seek to react; but since it is impossible to regain the goodwill of world public opinion, the Zionist lobby would simply set out to try to censor anti-Zionist opinions, without worrying about winning over that public opinion.
Recently, we came across something that proves this.
At the end of March 2026, a bill (PL 1424/26) was introduced in Brazil aimed at criminalizing antisemitism. Antisemitism is already a crime in Brazil, as a form of racism, but it is not defined, so the interpretation of what constitutes antisemitism is left to the judge.
The bill in question, however, aims to define antisemitism according to the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Among the various conduct categorized as antisemitism, the IHRA includes, nonetheless, advocating for the end of the State of Israel as a specifically Jewish state. In other words, even advocating for the transformation of the State of Israel into a free, open Palestinian state where Jews can live is considered antisemitism.
This bill is authored by Tábata Amaral, a federal deputy for the PSB, and it received a total of 44 signatures upon its introduction, from federal deputies belonging to the governing Workers’ Party (PT), the Bolsonarist opposition PL, and various centrist parties.
But where did this bill come from, and who is behind it?
Starting with the purported author of the bill, Deputy Tabata Amaral — known for promoting every globalist agenda in Brazil — belongs to that category of “prodigy students” who are awarded scholarships to Western universities, in her case Harvard. Her stay there was funded mainly by the Lemann Foundation, created by Swiss-Brazilian billionaire Jorge Paulo Lemann.
Lemann, one of the richest men in Brazil, is a friend of George Soros and recently hired the Rothschild Bank to represent him before his creditors in the bankruptcy case of “Americanas,” a company he owns. But unlike Soros, who has a different focus, Lemann in his “philanthropic” activities has the more specific goal of renewing the Brazilian political class. Deputy Tabata Amaral is an example of what Lemann intends.
Furthermore, in the last elections, Amaral’s campaigns received funding from various figures in the Brazilian financial market — such as bankers Armínio Fraga and Cândido Bracher — and from the Zionist lobby — such as speculators Marcos Lederman and Luís Stuhlberger. Lederman, Stuhlberger, and Bracher, along with other oligarchs who fund Tabata Amaral’s electoral campaigns, such as Nizan Guanaes and Elie Horn, are figures who frequently appear at events and initiatives promoted by CONIB (the Israeli Confederation of Brazil), the Brazil-Israel Institute, and FIERJ (the Jewish Federation of Rio de Janeiro), important institutions of the Brazilian Zionist lobby.
And as for the bill itself, who convinced Tabata Amaral to promote it?
According to exclusive information from sources in Brasília, the bill was drafted within the NGO Stand With Us Brazil, a Zionist institution with extensive and notorious links to the Mossad, chaired by André Lajst, with Argentine Bruno Bimbi as its strategy and policy manager. Bimbi is said to have been the main architect of the bill and went door to door in Congress to pressure parliamentarians into putting their signatures on it.
Bimbi is a notorious activist for LGBT causes and was one of the main organizers of the pressure campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina and Brazil. Now, however, his focus is more on Zionist activism.
To show that this is a broad-spectrum coordinated initiative, aimed at involving the right, left, and center simultaneously with this bill, the Lula government itself, through its Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship, will hold an event on “antisemitism” this April, coordinated by Clara Ant.
The event will put on its agenda the definition of antisemitism, relying precisely on the same International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that defines criticism of the State of Israel as a possible expression of antisemitism. Among the speakers at the event will also be the presidents of the aforementioned CONIB, Claudio and Fernando Lottenberg.
And who is Clara Ant, the event coordinator? Born in Bolivia but raised in Israel, she has been Lula’s right-hand woman since the 1970s and was one of the founders of the CUT, the main trade union institution of the Workers’ Party. Ant is also a constant presence at CONIB events.
Another link between the PT and the Zionist lobby is Senator Jaques Wagner, who in his youth was an activist in the Labor Zionist movement Habonim Dror, where he received his intellectual formation. Both as governor and as senator, Wagner — who was one of those who signed in support of Tabata Amaral’s bill — worked specifically to bring Brazil and Israel closer, especially in the areas of security and intelligence, even serving as rapporteur for an agreement that ceded confidential Brazilian intelligence information to the Mossad.
It does not seem likely that, at the present moment, given all the controversy the case has generated, this bill will be approved in Brazil. Nevertheless, the case serves to exemplify the tentacular and multifaceted character of the Zionist lobby’s activities in Brazil.
EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
RT | April 13, 2026
Compulsory military service could be reinstated in the EU, Andre Denk, the head of the European Defense Agency (EDA), has said, citing a lack of volunteers.
Several EU countries have reintroduced the draft since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, citing the perceived ‘Russian threat’.
President Vladimir Putin has dismissed claims that Russia harbors aggressive intentions against its Western neighbors.
In an interview with Spain’s El Pais published on Monday, Denk said, “we have a human resources problem, and one of the ways to solve it will be through mandatory military service” – adding that his home country of Germany will likely go down this path eventually.
Denk also urged EU nations to invest more in domestic arms production, with a particular focus on drones and anti-drone systems.
Last year, Finland announced plans to raise the upper age limit for rank-and-file military reservists by 15 years, from 50 to 65, starting in 2026.
The country, which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) land border with Russia, abandoned its long-standing policy of military neutrality and joined NATO in April 2023.
Around the same time, Lithuania unveiled an expanded conscription plan that would run year-round from 2026 on. It reinstated compulsory military service in 2015 after a seven-year suspension.
In neighboring Latvia, Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated last September that his party, the Progressives, would seek mandatory military service not only for men, but also for women, starting from 2028.
Several months earlier, Denmark announced that it would begin drafting women this year.
In Germany, a new law that took effect on January 1 and introduces a voluntary model has sparked protests, with critics warning that it could open the door to reinstating conscription, which was suspended in 2011.
France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
Featured Video
Prof Marandi Warns: Blockade stays Until Israel Withdraws!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Villains of Judea
Samuel Zemurray
The ruthless businessman who financed coups in Central America and shaped Israeli statehood
José Niño Unfiltered | May 7, 2026
Leftist commentators consistently push a shallow and economically reductive narrative that frames American foreign policy as the sole domain of greedy White capitalists while choosing to ignore the obvious Jewish power structure directing these events. When the veneer of this supposed corporate imperialism is stripped away, it becomes clear that the United States has often served as a vehicle for the specific goals of organized Jewry. The life of Samuel Zemurray stands as prime evidence of this hidden mechanism.
Few figures in American business history wielded power as ruthlessly or as secretly as Zemurray. Born Schmiel Zmurri on January 18, 1877, to a poor Jewish family in Imperial Russia, this teenage immigrant would rise from peddling rotting bananas off railroad cars in Alabama to become the controlling force behind the United Fruit Company, the most powerful agricultural corporation on earth. Along the way he overthrew governments, bribed presidents, hired mercenaries, and played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in the creation of the State of Israel. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran blasts US ceasefire violations, says Washington trapped in ‘self-created quagmire’
- Villains of Judea: Samuel Zemurray
- Billionaires and Officials Are Just Blatantly Ignoring the Will of the People Now
- Prof Marandi Warns: Blockade stays Until Israel Withdraws!
- Iranian forces strike US vessels in swift retaliation for tanker attack: Top military commander
- Israeli ‘double tap’ strike hits paramedics in south Lebanon hours after renewed bombing of Beirut
- Occupation Bulldozes Farmland, Uproots Vineyards
- ‘Israel’ kills Azzam al-Hayya, son of Hamas chief Khalil al-Hayya
- What has Guterres supported in Gaza?
- UAE received $80m in EU farming subsidies as calls grow for sanctions over Sudan genocide
- If Americans Knew
- Israel earmarks $270M for Israeli-only roads (that’s apartheid) – Daily Update
- Two Supreme Court Justices were secret agents who helped Israel cover up its attack on the USS Liberty
- Bari Weiss ‘Meddles’ With ‘CBS Sunday Morning’ Story on Palestine
- Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech
- The horrors in Gaza continue: Here are the facts
- Israeli General Is Running a Sophisticated, Sociological Engine of Violence
- Israel has stolen $4.8 billion from Palestinians
- The pro-Israel political consensus is collapsing in both parties
- Prominent Christian Zionist Group Is Lobbying U.S. Lawmakers on Israel—Without Revealing It’s Funded by Israel
- “Most Moral Army” caught desecrating another Christian statue, as famine looms in Gaza – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 