UK Parliament Plans ISP Blocking and Age Verification Powers
By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | March 10, 2026
If you wanted a case study in how modern democracies widen state oversight step by step, Britain has offered a clear example. On March 9, two major surveillance-related bills advanced through Parliament, each pointing toward broader government authority, reduced personal privacy, and tighter limits on protest activity.
These measures advanced through procedural votes and technical amendments that sounded administrative, yet carry consequences for how millions of people use the internet and exercise civic rights.
The main legislative action unfolded in the House of Commons during debate on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Members of Parliament actually rejected amendments from the House of Lords that would have required age verification for VPNs and certain user-to-user services.
But don’t get too excited. Replacement amendments approved by MPs would grant significant new authority to the state. The powers allow the government to require internet service providers to block or restrict children’s access to specific online platforms, impose time-of-day limits on when services can be used, and mandate age verification across nearly any platform that enables users to post or share content.
The replacement amendments allow the UK government to make regulations that require specified “information society services” (a definition that applies to most online services) to implement age verification to prevent children from using the service.
This is as bad as it gets. The practical challenges are considerable and the privacy issues are even worse. Internet service providers supply connections to households rather than individuals. Enforcing child-specific restrictions would require identifying which devices belong to minors through ID verification and applying controls selectively, a level of precision that home broadband systems were never designed to provide.
Enforcement may therefore produce household-wide restrictions or increased pressure on platforms to verify the age of all users.
The amendments now return to the House of Lords. Approval there would send the bill to Royal Assent.
Blackmail and death threats, Zelensky embarrasses the EU, but there’s no condemnation
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 9, 2026
The money-laundering Kiev regime has gone from cutting off oil supply for EU member states to now issuing death threats to heads of state – and all that the regime’s patrons in Brussels can do is squirm with embarrassment.
The latest twist in the corrupt regime of Vladimir Zelensky is his death threat to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
That was then followed by the Hungarian authorities impounding an armed convoy transporting $100 million in cash and gold bullion from Austria over Hungary’s borders to Kiev – no doubt as part of the war mafia operating under Zelensky.
You couldn’t make this up. A comedian actor who used to dress up in high heels and played a soap-opera hero president is now ruling by decree as a dictator propped up by EU taxpayers, and only because of Brussels indulging in the largesse of their Russophobic obsessions. And now this fictive creation is threatening the assassination of elected leaders.
Zelensky didn’t mention Orbán by name, but in a press briefing last Thursday, he said that “the address of the person” (Orbán) who has blocked a proposed €90 billion loan from the EU to Ukraine was being given to “our military guys” who would “speak in their own language.”
The Hungarian prime minister denounced Zelensky’s words as a “threat to my life”. The country’s foreign ministry condemned the Ukrainian leader for “crossing all limits.”
Yet the European Union has not condemned Zelensky. A junior spokesman for the European Commission merely released a perfunctory statement, saying “that type of language is not acceptable… There must be no threats against EU member states.”
Where is a full-throated denunciation from European leaders like Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, or Kaja Kallas, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs?
Let’s get this straight. Ukraine’s nominal president tells a head of an EU state that his name is on a hit list, and the bloc’s highest officials say nothing about that. They leave it to some low-level press officer to make a bland statement about it “not being acceptable.”
This shows how deeply corrupted the EU leadership has become in the proxy war racket in Ukraine against Russia. Threats of assassination are being made and played down out of embarrassment, not because such threats are a grave violation of international law.
The background is even more damning. Hungary and Slovakia are being subjected to energy blackmail by the Ukrainian regime because the countries have refused to terminate buying their oil supplies from Russia, as demanded by Brussels and Zelensky.
On January 27, the oil supply to Hungary and Slovakia was cut off after the Kiev regime claimed that a Russian drone strike damaged the Drushba pipeline carrying the oil over Ukrainian territory from Russia. Budapest and Bratislava have accused the Kiev regime of “energy blackmail.”
A Russian air strike did not hit the pipeline. Why would Russia deprive its customers? It doesn’t make sense, and Moscow rejected the claim.
As always, the question is: Who gains?
The Kiev regime has unilaterally cut the supply as a way to pressure Hungary and Slovakia into lifting their opposition to the EU donating more loans and military aid to Ukraine.
Tellingly, Ukraine has delayed supposed “repairs” to the Drushba pipeline. Hungary and Slovakia are facing a critical shortage of oil supply, which is destabilizing their economies. Kiev is even refusing to allow independent inspectors to assess the alleged damage. It’s obvious this is a set-up. There’s probably not even any physical damage other than turning off the pumps.
Last month, Orbán’s government caused a major upset in the European Union when it vetoed a proposed €90 billion loan from Brussels to Ukraine. The loan is seen as a vital lifeline to prop up the Kiev regime and extend the war. Budapest’s refusal was partly in response to the “energy blackmail.”
The block on the money supply has put Kiev and its EU sponsors in a quandary. The regime will not be able to keep fighting the war against Russia without more purchases of military equipment from NATO. Just as important, the block on the loan by Hungary means an obstacle to the money racket that the West has been running under the Zelensky regime, whereby billions of taxpayer funds get laundered into profits for corporations with a hefty cut for the Kiev mafia.
This would explain the bizarre convoy of cash and gold bullion that Hungarian authorities busted and impounded last Thursday. Two armoured vehicles were apprehended carrying $80 million in cash and $20 million in gold bars on their way to Ukraine from Austria. Among those detained were former Ukrainian intelligence officials.
The physical transport of such large amounts of funds, rather than by electronic bank transfer, indicates that the funds were meant not to be traced. The finding exposes once again the illicit money laundering by Zelensky’s regime. This is not in the least bit surprising, given the repeated scandals of corruption and embezzlement in Kiev under Zelensky and his circle, who have acquired luxury portfolios of overseas properties over the last four years.
Hungary and Slovakia are the only EU members out of 27 nations that have shown any principles about stopping the proxy war in Ukraine and ending the racket of robbing European citizens and saddling future generations with astronomical debts.
For taking that stand, the Brussels leadership has turned a blind eye to the Kiev regime’s cutting off oil supplies and using energy blackmail. Now the regime has gone even further to issue death threats to a European head of state, and the Brussels elite has effectively said nothing.
What the EU’s proxy war sponsors seem more concerned about is that their overindulged, corrupt puppet in Kiev is a public relations embarrassment. The blatant criminality of terroristic blackmail and death threats betrays the complicity of the EU’s leadership.
Von der Leyen, Kajas and the Brussels elites are more worried that Zelensky’s mafia threats might rebound by galvanizing Hungarians to vote for Orbán’s party in parliamentary elections next month.
Their message is: you can launder millions, use blackmail and issue death threats. Just don’t make it obvious.
Indian journalist reveals severe Israeli censorship after escape from occupied territories
Press TV – March 7, 2026
An Indian journalist who was trapped in the occupied territories from February 28 to March 6 has revealed severe Israeli censorship amid the regime’s war of aggression against Iran.
Braj Mohan Singh of India’s Sandha News said he witnessed people dying in 100‑foot‑deep bunkers while Israeli officials withheld details.
Missiles “don’t differentiate between Indian or Israeli,” he said.
He contrasted press freedom in India with the restrictions in Israel, noting journalists cannot film bodies, visit hospitals, or receive accurate casualty numbers. Local accounts often reveal far higher losses than official reports, he added.
“When an incident takes place, we are not given the details of the location. The next day, when we visit the site, we are told, ‘There was only one casualty,’ but a local told us, ‘There were four houses, and everyone died,” which shows there was a major incident,’” he added.
Despite Israel’s touted advanced warning systems, Singh reported missiles arriving without sirens or prior alerts, highlighting technology failures and the unpredictability of drone and missile attacks.
He also mentioned reports of Iranian targeting of US embassies across West Asia and possible attempts in Tel Aviv, underscoring the heightened danger in the region.
The regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv started their unprovoked military assault on February 28, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and top Iranian military commanders.
Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the criminal aggression by launching barrages of missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases in regional countries.
Majority of Israelis Back War with Iran as Anti-War Minority Faces Stigmatization
teleSUR | March 7, 2026
Israelis who oppose the war with Iran face threats and stigmatization, according to testimonies collected by a Spanish news agency. However, they represent a small minority, as 93% of Jewish Israelis support the offensive, a new poll by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) shows.
“Opposing the war and war crimes in Israel is practically a punishable offense. Even leftists and pacifists consider this a ‘just war,’” Adam Eli, secretary of the Jewish-Arab leftist coalition Hadash in Tel Aviv said.
Among those few critics is 19-year-old activist Itamar Greenberg, known in Israel for refusing to serve in the military in 2024. That decision, he recounted, cost him six months in prison and ostracism at his university, where he still leads a student circle while studying law.
Nearly one year after walking out of prison, Greenberg found himself back in custody on Tuesday for attending an anti-war rally that barely mustered 20 people across a nation of 10 million.
“About 40 police officers charged at us, confiscated our signs, and beat us. I was arrested and stripped naked for a search,” Greenberg said. He is also the founder of Mesarvot, a network of Israeli youth refusing military service.
An anti-war demonstration scheduled for Saturday at Habima Square in Tel Aviv will test wartime restrictions that cap gatherings at 50 people.
Meanwhile, restrictions on the right to assembly have been applied loosely during recent Purim celebrations—a sort of Jewish carnival—while Israeli authorities continue to bar Palestinians from praying at Al Aqsa Mosque despite Ramadan, and have militarily sealed off much of the West Bank.
Security Researchers Warn Age Verification Laws Are Building a Global Surveillance System

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | March 3, 2026
Three hundred and seventy-one security and privacy academics from 29 countries signed an open letter this week calling on governments to halt age verification rollouts until the privacy and security implications are properly understood.
The letter arrives as lawmakers across the world race to ban children from social media, pushing platforms to implement age checks before anyone has settled on what those checks should actually look like.
The signatories are unambiguous. Deploying large-scale identity verification systems without a clear grasp of what they do to user security, autonomy, and freedom is, in their words, “dangerous and socially unacceptable.”
Among those signing: Ronald Rivest, Turing Award winner, and Bart Preneel, president of the International Association for Cryptologic Research. These voices represent the core of the global security research community.
What governments are building, the letter argues, is surveillance infrastructure masquerading as child protection. A real age verification system, the academics explain, would require “government-issued IDs with strong cryptographic protection for every single interaction with the service.”
That means every search query, every message to a friend, every news article read online would require identity confirmation. Nothing in offline life demands that. The parallel doesn’t exist.
Companies are already moving. OpenAI, Roblox, and Discord have all begun implementing age checks in anticipation of legal mandates.
The academics aren’t dismissing the underlying concern. “We share the concerns about the negative effects that exposure to harmful content online has on children,” the letter states. What they’re rejecting is the proposed solution, which turns every adult into a suspect who must prove their identity before accessing the open web.
The technical problems compound the political ones. Building and maintaining identity verification at a global scale is genuinely hard. Many service providers, faced with the friction and cost, would simply refuse to comply.
And the platforms that can deploy these systems at scale are a handful of large corporations, meaning age verification becomes another mechanism for centralizing internet infrastructure in the hands of the few companies already dominant enough to afford it.
There’s another risk the academics name directly: governments banning VPNs. Age checks are trivially circumvented with a VPN, and the predictable policy response is to ban them outright. VPNs are currently one of the few tools available to people living under authoritarian regimes trying to protect their communications and identities.
Banning VPNs to enforce age checks on teenagers would strip that protection from dissidents, journalists, and activists worldwide. The collateral damage would be severe and global.
The academics are asking for a pause until scientific consensus forms around “the benefits and harms that age-assurance technologies can bring, and on the technical feasibility.”
What’s unreasonable is building mass identity verification systems first and studying the consequences after.
UK Government Secretly Tracked 25 Million People as Potential EV Owners
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | March 2, 2026
The UK government spent two years tracking 25 million mobile devices to build a picture of who drives electric cars. Not suspects or criminals. Just ordinary people whose browsing history mentioned EVs often enough to flag them as worth following.
The Department for Transport paid telecoms company O2 £600,000 ($809,000) to run the operation. According to the Telegraph, O2 trawled through its customers’ web browsing histories and app records, flagging anyone who visited an EV-related site at least once a month across two or more months.
That pool extended beyond O2’s own customers to include people on Tesco Mobile, GiffGaff, and Virgin Mobile, networks that run on O2’s infrastructure and whose users had no idea their data was being packaged and sold to a government agency.
Once flagged as a “potential EV owner,” your physical movements were traced across the country. London, the North-West, and the East of England received particular attention.
The techniques are standard in serious organized crime investigations. The DfT applied them to people buying environmentally friendly cars.
Andy Palmer, former executive at Nissan and Aston Martin, put it plainly: “I’m told it’s anonymized and aggregated, and that may well satisfy legal thresholds. But legality and legitimacy are not the same thing.” He added: “If you erode public trust in how that data is gathered, you undermine the very transition you are trying to accelerate.”
The idea of “anonymized” data means very little.
The surveillance ran for two years before the DfT quietly admitted defeat in April 2024, conceding that “mobile data cannot directly be used to provide information around charging behaviour or travel time.”
The program ended not because anyone questioned whether mass tracking of innocent people was appropriate, but because the data turned out to be useless for its stated purpose.
Civil servants from the DfT and Treasury were simultaneously exploring new EV taxes to replace fuel duty revenue. The people being surveilled were doing exactly what government policy encouraged them to do.
Conservative MP Sir David Davis drew the obvious conclusion: “It’s an object lesson in why you can’t trust the state with unfettered access to people’s information, because they’ve obviously taken this information without people’s permission with the objective of disadvantaging them, either by tax or other policy matters. If they’ll do it on this, with people who are doing what the government wants in policy terms, namely, pursuing green policies, what on Earth will they do elsewhere?”
The EV surveillance program wasn’t a one-off. During the earlier days of the COVID saga, the government ran a parallel operation, this time tracking people who showed up to get vaccinated.
Researchers funded through the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviors used mobile phone location data covering one in ten British people, without their knowledge or consent, to analyze behavioral changes after vaccination.
From that pool, they selected over 4,200 vaccinated individuals and tracked their movements through call data records, analyzing how far they traveled on vaccination day and whether they went straight home afterward.
The government was monitoring where citizens went after receiving a government-administered medical intervention, and chose not to tell anyone.
Von der Leyen warns Hungary: We have ways of making you talk
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2026
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen arrived in Kiev this week empty-handed, and she was pissed. She had been planning to mark the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war on February 24 with a new €90 billion loan to prop up the corrupt Kiev regime.
At the last minute, Hungary announced that it was vetoing the “Ukraine Support Loan.” So, von der Leyen, the former German defense minister and arch Russophobe, had nothing to show the puppet regime. The big anniversary occasion was an embarrassing flop. Hungary was accused of “betraying” European solidarity.
Putting a brave face on the debacle, von der Leyen made a promise, with menacing tone, about delivering the €90 bn “one way or another.” She said: “Let me be clear, we have different options, and we will use them.”
Those options would seem to include inciting regime change in Budapest. Hungary is going to the polls on April 12 for parliamentary elections. It is no secret that the European Union leadership would dearly like to see incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán being turned out of office, and replaced by Péter Magyar, of the opposition Tisza party, who is more amenable to Brussels’ policy of supporting the Kiev regime in the proxy war against Russia.
Orbán’s government vetoed the €90 bn loan – 60 per cent of which is for military aid – because it accuses the Kiev regime of blocking vital oil supplies to Hungary. Slovakia has also joined Budapest in making the accusation. Both countries claim that Ukraine is using energy “blackmail” simply because they refuse to discontinue buying oil supplies from Russia, and because they are opposed to the ongoing war.
On January 27, Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia transiting Ukraine via the Drushba pipeline were suddenly stopped. The Kiev regime claims that the pipe was hit by a Russian drone.
However, Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has bluntly accused Ukraine of lying. He disputes that a Russian attack on the infrastructure even took place. It doesn’t make sense that Russia would harm its customers.
The suspicion is that the Ukrainian regime is using a purported Russian strike as a pretext to cut off the oil supply. The suspicion is deepened by the fact that the Kiev regime has refused requests by Hungary and Slovakia for their inspectors to assess the alleged technical damage. And neither is the EU leadership putting any pressure on Kiev to prove its claims of Russian sabotage.
Ukraine’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, who is mired in allegations of massive fraud, financial corruption, and racketeering, has for a long time been threatening to cut off Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. He accuses Budapest and Bratislava of supporting Russia’s war machine by buying its oil. Hungary and Slovakia say that it is their sovereign right to continue obtaining vital energy imports from Russia. The Soviet-era Drushba (“Friendship) pipeline has been supplying Europe since 1964.
The European Union has also been pressuring Hungary and Slovakia to terminate the purchase of Russian crude oil and get in line with the rest of Europe to source alternative, more expensive American energy exports.
Last year, Zelenksy delivered on his threats when the NATO-backed Kiev regime bombed sections of the Drushba pipeline in Russian territory. Those attacks temporarily disrupted supply to Hungary and Slovakia. At the time, the European Union leadership did not condemn the Ukrainian attacks. In other words, Von der Leyen and the Brussels administration were effectively siding with a non-EU member that was harming the interests of two member nations. That indifference was tantamount to greenlighting more sabotage attacks.
The Kiev regime has a record of using attacks on energy as a political weapon against Hungary and Slovakia. It is therefore logical that it has taken such practice to a new level by blocking infrastructure that it can easily control on its own territory. There is no need to bomb the Drushba pipeline in Russia, hundreds of kilometers away. The Kiev regime can handily turn off the pumps of the pipeline section running through its territory – and then blame Russia for “drone strikes”.
Hungary and Slovakia have both accused Zelensky of “slow-walking” the alleged repairs to the pipeline. Zelensky claims that the repairs can’t be carried out because Russia keeps attacking the repair crews.
The Kiev regime has a habit of lying. It has been claiming that Russia is shelling the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant under its control, when in reality it is the Kiev regime that has been carrying out the attacks, which Moscow has condemned as “nuclear blackmail”. Again, the European Union has indulged Kiev’s lies by ignoring the blatant evidence.
On the energy blackmail against Hungary and Slovakia, the knock-on effect has been a growing shortage of fuel and increasing prices for energy and transport.
Hungary’s European Affairs Minister Janos Boka has accused Ukraine and the European Union of deliberately disrupting oil supply to influence the upcoming election. He said: “Ukraine has clearly been reaching for the energy weapon for political reasons, interfering in the ongoing Hungarian elections… to create uncertainty and chaos, and thereby helping the [opposition, pro-EU] Tisza party to power.”
At a closed-door summit in Brussels this week for EU foreign ministers, it was notable that Ukraine’s top diplomat, Andrii Sybiha, was afforded the extraordinary privilege of being permitted to join the conference via video link. How is it that a non-EU member is allowed to participate in a private ministerial summit?
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó reportedly complained that EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, prevented him from grilling the Ukrainian on the specific damage to the Drushba pipeline. Szijjártó said that the “mumbling response” from the Ukrainian official and his abrupt disconnection from the summit demonstrated guilty responsibility.
What the whole saga illustrates is the dictatorship that has emerged in the European Union. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia are not allowed to have independent positions on their energy trade or their opposition to the war in Ukraine.
The Kiev regime is using the disruption of vital energy supply to EU members as a form of blackmail to coerce those members into handing over tens of billions of euros to prolong a bloody conflict, a conflict that could spiral into a nuclear world war. And the EU leadership is effectively supporting this terrorist tactic against its own members to enforce subordination.
When von der Leyen warns that “we have other options,” the inimical image conjured up is that of a Gestapo interrogator twirling pliers in hand.
The strategic defeat of Russia is paramount for the European Russophobic elites, even if it means gouging out the democratic rights of its own member states and endangering international peace.
EU manipulating polls in bid to oust Orban – German opposition leader
RT | February 27, 2026
The EU is desperately attempting to engineer “regime change” against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in next month’s parliamentary election, employing tactics such as poll manipulation and energy blackmail, German opposition leader Alice Weidel has claimed.
In a post on X on Wednesday, the co-chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party accused Brussels of using “their puppet,” Hungarian opposition leader Peter Magyar, in a bid to remove Orban.
“They want Orban gone, and they are willing to use any means to achieve it,” Weidel wrote, pointing to the ongoing “blockade of oil supplies” from Ukraine to Hungary through the Druzhba pipeline, and “manipulation of election polls.”
Weidel was responding to a recent survey by Hungarian pollster Median showing Magyar’s opposition Tisza Party with a 55% to 35% lead over Orban’s ruling Fidesz-KDNP alliance. Irish economist Philip Pilkington dismissed the figures as “really crazy polls,” comparing them to surveys in Georgia ahead of elections in 2024, which were followed by unrest.
Hungarian opposition pollsters have a track record of significant inaccuracies. In 2022, left-leaning polling firm Publicus was wide of the mark by 20 points, while Median itself underestimated Fidesz by 7 points in its final pre-election survey. Orban ultimately secured a 20-point victory.
Budapest and Brussels have been in an escalating standoff over Hungary’s continued opposition to EU policy on Ukraine and Russia. Budapest has repeatedly blocked or vetoed EU initiatives, including a recent €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Kiev and the bloc’s latest sanctions package against Moscow.
Orban has also vehemently opposed Ukraine joining the EU, arguing that Brussels’ support for Kiev draws the bloc closer to direct war with Russia and ignores Ukraine’s failure to meet requirements for candidates.
The Hungarian leader has described recent attempts to offer Kiev a form of ‘membership lite’ as “an open declaration of war against Hungary,” accusing Brussels of disregarding the will of the Hungarian people and being “determined to remove the Hungarian government by any means necessary.”
Orban has also accused Brussels of using “censorship, intervention, and manipulation” to undermine his government, framing the upcoming April 12 election as a choice between “war or peace.”
US university cancels Palestine conference citing sanctions concerns
Al Mayadeen | February 26, 2026
The University of Southern Maine has withdrawn permission to use a campus venue for a conference centered on Palestine, just days before it was scheduled to begin, triggering a dispute over sanctions law and First Amendment protections.
The event, titled “Consequence of Palestine,” had drawn more than 300 registrants and was organized by the Maine Coalition for Palestine, Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights, and the university’s department of criminology and sociology. It was expected to feature virtual remarks by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, who has been under US sanctions since last year.
University officials said the decision was based on federal sanctions law. Samantha Warren, chief external and governmental affairs officer for the University of Maine system, told The Guardian in an email that “hosting a conference that is being actively promoted as including a speaker sanctioned by the US government would put our public university in violation of federal law”. She said organizers should have obtained authorization from the Treasury Department before proceeding.
Sanctions regulations prohibit US entities from providing “any goods or services” to individuals designated under sanctions regimes. Violations can carry severe penalties, including heavy fines and potential prison time. However, legal scholars argue that the scope of what constitutes a “service” remains ambiguous.
Campus rights clash
In December, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) clarified in correspondence with the Middle East Studies Association that “no authorization” was required to include Albanese in an academic event, provided that she did not receive payment, reimbursement, or “training or assistance”. That clarification emerged after concerns were raised about the impact of sanctions on academic exchange.
Xiangnong Wang, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who had sought clarification from OFAC, said the cancellation reflects broader concerns about the chilling impact of sanctions on constitutionally protected speech. “It’s very concerning that sanctions continue to have such a broad deterrent effect on speech that is undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment,” he said.
Organizers said they were caught off guard by the abrupt cancellation. Abigail Fuller, a sociology professor involved in planning the conference, stressed the constitutional implications of the decision. “We’re a public university; the university system is subject to First Amendment laws,” she said. “We feel we have a very, very strong case that they are suppressing our free speech.”
According to organizers, they attempted to clarify that federal guidance did not require special permission to include Albanese. They even proposed removing her from the program in an effort to preserve the event. They were subsequently told there was insufficient time for administrators to evaluate the conference’s “risk”.
Speech under pressure
The dispute comes amid reports that Republican lawmakers had written to the system’s chancellor requesting “information on steps the university is taking to ensure the safety and well-being of its Jewish students”. Organizers believe such political pressure contributed to the reversal and said administrators had also expressed concern about possible federal funding consequences.
Albanese was sanctioned last July, with US authorities accusing her of “unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West”. She has previously rejected those allegations and criticized the move as politically motivated, describing the United States as “a country of contradictions, full of ideals and principles and still, plotting against democratic values”.
The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the university’s interpretation of sanctions law.
Despite losing access to their campus venue, conference organizers say they are seeking an alternative location and are exploring possible legal action. Fateh Azzam, a member of the Maine Coalition for Palestine, said canceling the conference outright was not an option.
“That would mean that they have effectively silenced an open and public debate on the issues,” he said. “This controversy will probably bring in more people.”
Project Artichoke: 70 Years Ago, CIA Discussed Hiding Mind-Control Drugs in Vaccines
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 24, 2026
In the 1950s, the CIA brainstormed ways to secretly perform mind control on humans — including concealing drugs in vaccines and widely consumed food products, a newly unearthed CIA document revealed. The Daily Mail first reported the story on Monday.
The seven-page document, “Special Research for Artichoke,” is dated April 23, 1952. It describes a series of ideas for how to develop chemicals designed to alter human behavior and thought.
The proposals contained in the document were part of the CIA’s top-secret Project Artichoke, which ran from 1951 to 1956, according to the Daily Mail.
The document, declassified in 1983, recently circulated on social media. However, it was not published in the CIA’s online reading room until last year.
“Some of the suggestions are controversial,” the document states. The proposals included administering drugs in secret as part of a “long-range approach to subjects.”
According to the document:
“This study should include chemicals or drugs that can effectively be concealed in common items such as food, water, coca cola, beer, liquor, cigarettes, etc.
“This type of drug should also be capable of use in standard medical treatments such as vaccinations, shots, etc.”
CIA experimented on humans as part of Project Artichoke
The document also included a special field of research for “bacteria, plant cultures, fungi, poisons of various types, etc.,” that are “capable of producing illnesses which in turn would produce high fevers, delirium, etc.”
This included “species of the mushroom” that “produce a certain type of intoxication and mental derangement.”
Also among the proposals was a suggestion to research “diet” or “dietary deficiencies” on prisoners and on people undergoing interrogation, including using “specially canned foods having elements removed.”
The document included proposals for both short-term and long-term use on humans. Drugs deemed most suitable for long-term use would be designed to produce an “agitating effect (producing anxiety, nervousness, tension, etc.) or a depressing effect (creating a feeling of despondency, hopelessness, lethargy, etc.).”
According to The Daily Mail, the CIA experimented on humans as part of Project Artichoke. The experiments often involved “vulnerable subjects, including prisoners, military personnel and psychiatric patients.” The experiments were usually performed “without informed consent.”
According to Ben Tapper, a Nebraska chiropractor who was included in the “Disinformation Dozen” list in 2021 for questioning vaccine safety, the document exposes “a disturbing reality that government agencies have historically explored ways to manipulate human behavior through chemical and biological means, including concepts involving food and medical interventions.”
“This is not speculation or conspiracy, and it should deeply concern every American who values bodily autonomy and informed consent,” Tapper said.
Precursor to the CIA’s MK-Ultra mind control experiments?
The Daily Mail cited CIA documents suggesting that U.S. intelligence agencies were concerned that enemy nations had developed their own mind and behavioral control techniques. This led the agency to prioritize the development of its own methods.
Project Artichoke “served as a precursor” to the MK-Ultra program, which the CIA launched in 1953. That program “broadened mind-altering experiments on a larger scale,” the Daily Mail reported.
Many of the documents related to this type of experimentation were destroyed in 1973, “leaving the full extent of the research and how far it progressed unknown.”
Naomi Wolf, Ph.D., CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” told The Defender that the documents further confirm a long history of intelligence agency research targeting human thought and behavior.
“Sadly, it’s long been established that our intelligence agencies, and those of our enemies, have sought to alter human consciousness and behavior, often without the subjects’ consent. The existence of MK-Ultra, the clandestine project into which Project Artichoke evolved, is well documented,” Wolf said.
John Leake, vice president of the McCullough Foundation and author of the forthcoming book, “Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessions,” said, “Researchers have long suspected that the Church Committee’s revelation of the CIA’s notorious MK-Ultra mind control experiments, mostly using LSD, had the effect of obscuring the agency’s much larger Project Artichoke.”
Leake cited evidence suggesting that a 1951 mass poisoning in Pont-Saint-Esprit, France, in which 250 residents experienced severe hallucinations and seven people died, was a Project Artichoke experiment. The outbreak was officially attributed to contaminated bread from a local bakery.
Leake said the 1952 document is “consistent with the suspicion that the CIA was seeking to discover mind control methods for even large populations.”
In 2024, a Reuters investigation revealed that the CIA operated a secret propaganda campaign involving vaccines in the Philippines. The campaign attacked what the agency perceived as China’s “growing influence” in the country by targeting the Chinese-made Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine through the use of phony online accounts spreading “anti-vax” messaging.
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda,” said the Project Artichoke revelations “make it clear that the CIA has posed an enormous threat to U.S. citizens, in addition to the horrors it unleashes on non-U.S. target governments and populations.”
Project Artichoke wanted to enlist help from Army’s Chemical Warfare Service
The 1952 Project Artichoke document also included a recommendation to involve the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service in the project’s efforts, citing its experience with “exhaustive studies along these lines.”
This proposal bears a resemblance to recent suggestions that COVID-19 — and the response to the pandemic — were coordinated at high levels of government, military and intelligence agencies.
Last year, former pharmaceutical research and development executive Sasha Latypova and retired science writer Debbie Lerman released the “Covid Dossier,” presenting evidence of the “military/intelligence coordination of the Covid biodefense response in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy.”
According to Latypova and Lerman, “Covid was not a public health event” but “a global operation, coordinated through public-private intelligence and military alliances and invoking laws designed for CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) weapons attacks.”
Leake said “it is far from clear” that the Church Committee hearings of 1975 “put a complete end to CIA covert programs.” He cited the possible laboratory development of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an example.
“The laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2 with gain-of-function techniques developed at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and the U.S. military’s involvement in developing and distributing of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, should … be regarded as possible outgrowths or even continuations of Project Artichoke,” Leake said.
Experts question similarities between Project Artichoke, COVID vaccines
In a Substack post today, epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher drew a potential connection between Project Artichoke and the development of COVID-19 vaccines. Hulscher cited recent peer-reviewed studies that identified the vaccines’ adverse impact on neurological health and “surging rates of cognitive decline.”
Hulscher wrote:
“Disturbingly, since 2021, over 70% of humanity received a neurotoxic agent masquerading as a ‘vaccine.’ The same goals outlined in the CIA document (vaccines/drugs capable of covertly inducing anxiety, depression, and lethargy) are now being observed in COVID-19 vaccinated populations. …
“… If the CIA was secretly discussing covert methods to alter human behavior in the 1950s, it would be no surprise if similar classified projects emerged in the decades that followed.”
A 2024 paper published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry investigated psychiatric adverse events among over 2 million people in South Korea. The study found that “COVID-19 vaccination increased the risks of depression, anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, and sleep disorders while reducing the risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.”
A 2025 study published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science found “alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.”
This included increases in schizophrenia, depression, cognitive decline, delusions, violent behavior, suicidal thoughts and homicidal ideation.
“The fact that mRNA vaccines were designed to cross the blood-brain barrier and inflame the brain — or at least, they were known to do so, during their manufacture and distribution — should give us pause in light of this news,” Wolf said.
Wolf said the latest revelations, “while shocking, provide all the more reason for us to be critical of opaque, coercive or untested vaccination programs, additives in food and water, and toxic or opaque geoengineering programs.”
Tapper said the revelations reinforce “the urgent need to protect individual liberty, medical freedom, and ethical boundaries in science and public health.”
“The lesson here is simple: vigilance is necessary when governments claim authority over the human body and mind,” Tapper said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
German leader of EU’s largest faction sounds the alarm of possibility of right-wing forces coming to power in France, Poland
Manfred Weber, a vocal critic of any EU state that pushes back against a more powerful Brussels, has openly embraced Orbán’s opponent in Budapest
Remix News | February 23, 2026
German politician Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), spoke on ZDF about a common European army, saying, among other things, that the European Union must “draw conclusions from its own experiences, including in military matters.”
Weber spoke about the danger to the EU establishment posed by the presidential elections in France and the parliamentary elections in Poland, both to be held in 2027. Weber is concerned that there is a high probability of victory for forces that do not support the continuation of the EU’s centralization; forces that instead advocate for a Europe of sovereign nations. He said that EU must have the strength necessary, even by way of a common military, to presumably counter such possible outcomes.
Specifically mentioning Poland’s Law & Justice (PiS) leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, and France’s National Rally (RN) leader, Jordan Bardella, he said: “I hope that we now have the strength… to create a Europe that cannot be destroyed and that will weather the storms of the world order together… Now we need the same approach on the military front. We must prepare for scenarios in which Bardella becomes president of France and Kaczyński returns to power in Poland.”
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has repeatedly asserted that the European People’s Party (EPP) is an ardent supporter of the war in Ukraine against Russia, a war Orbán has maintained Hungary will not be drawn into. Notably, Orbán’s Fidesz party used to belong to the EPP grouping before parting ways to found the Patriots for Europe faction, with members committed to EU member states that want to preserve their sovereignty and traditional, conservative values. Now, Weber has been a strong promoter of the opposition leader, Péter Magyar, ahead of Budapest’s April parliamentary election.
During his interview, Weber was vocal about his concerns that the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) may come to power in Germany. “During a visit to the Greek parliament, someone asked me, ‘What would happen if Germany built the largest land army, and at the same time the AfD had 25-30 percent?’” he told the station.
What is Zionism? And what is anti-Zionism?
By David Miller | Tracking Power | January 25, 2026
I am asked to give definitional answers to this question quite often. So, here, for the record are the key extracts from my witness statement written in August 2023 (some weeks before the launch of Al Aqsa Flood by the Palestinian Resistance ion 7 October of that year.
Glancing over the statement at this distance I am struck by how long and detailed it is – 97 pages – and how, even then I was naive about malevolence of Zionism. If you look below you will see that I refer to Zionism as being inherently genocidal. This was not a popular view then, but it has certainly been more than amply borne out by the events since.
I should note that it was on the basis of my statement and my testimony under cross examination that the Tribunal determined that my anti-Zionist views were worthy of respect in a democratic society which is the legal test for philosophical beliefs to be protected under the Equality Act 2010. The definition of Zionism I have used is thus of greater import than just my own views and beliefs it has been accepted by the court as satisfying the five key elements of the so-called ‘Grainger’ test of which being worthy of respect is the fifth.
For a belief to be protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act, it must:
- Be genuinely held: It cannot be a fictitious or insincere claim.
- Be a belief, not an opinion: It must be more than a viewpoint based on the “present state of information available”.
- Relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior: It must concern significant matters rather than trivial or minor ones.
- Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance: The belief must be intelligible and internally consistent.
- Be worthy of respect in a democratic society: This has three components
a. The belief must not be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism. It does not have to be a popular or mainstream belief; even beliefs that are shocking or offensive to others may still be worthy of respect. The belief must be consistent with the principles of a pluralist society.
b. Not incompatible with human dignity: It must not dehumanize or degrade others.
c. Not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others: The belief must not seek to destroy the basic freedoms and rights of other individuals.
Here are some key excerpts from my statement including, first of all, a declaration of my anti-racism and then a very short and neutral definition of Zionism, and why I oppose it, which I have italicised. (The statement was in the form of numbered paragraphs which I reproduce here)
_________________________________________________________________
PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS
7. I believe it self-evident that racism, imperialism and colonialism are offensive to human dignity and that each of those interconnected phenomena should be opposed. Human beings are all equal and are of equal value. The arrogance and supremacism of racism and racist systems and practices – which assert that it is acceptable for one group of people to dominate others on racial or ethnic lines – can in my view never be tolerated.
8. I believe that Zionism, an ideology that asserts that a state for Jewish people ought to be established and maintained in the territory that formerly comprised the British Mandate of Palestine, is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial. I consider Zionism to be offensive to human dignity on that basis, and I therefore oppose it.
9. These beliefs, and the work (academic and political) which I have done in consequence of them, are at the heart of the case before the Tribunal. It is because I believe the things I do about Zionism, and because I have been prepared to say them out loud and without apology, that I have lost my job. It is therefore important that I explain in some detail why I believe the things that I do about Zionism, and to be more precise as to what Zionism is, and what I believe about it.
…
24. By the late 1990s, my beliefs in relation to Zionism were fully formed. I have at all times since that date believed Zionism to be a settler-colonial and ethno-nationalist movement that seeks to assert Jewish hegemony and political control over the land of historic Palestine.
…
31. I believe Zionism to be a form of racism because it necessarily calls for the displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews in favour of Jews, and it is therefore ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion. This is not just a matter of historic observation: my belief concerns the nature of Zionism itself. Nor is it of only historic interest. Zionism remains, today, a colonial project which necessitates the oppression of the Palestinian population that remain within the territory that formerly comprised the mandate of Palestine (that is, modern-day Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip).
32. Crucially, Zionism requires not only the oppression of Palestinians, but also coercion of non-Palestinians who oppose the racist practices of the State of Israel. Zionism has implications that go beyond the territory of Palestine. A central facet of my research has been the identification of a transnational Zionist movement as a key supporting element of the continued ethnic cleansing in Palestine. This movement, and its allied constellation of organisations, seeks to pressure, censor and suppress critics of Israel, which is evident in my case and many others.
33. For example, Israel’s Law of Return, which was passed by the Knesset in 1950, allows Jews from outside of Israel, who have no material or ancestral ties to historic Palestine, to migrate to the State of Israel, at the expense of indigenous Palestinians who were expelled from their homes in the war of 1948 (or since) who are not permitted to return (and whose return was, in fact, prohibited by law in 1952). All of this flows directly from the logic of Zionism.
…
36. Anti-Zionism stands as the antithesis of the racist Zionist movement, calling for an end to the practises of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against the Palestinian people, and calling for the liberation and decolonisation of Palestine. As someone who is fervently opposed to racism and colonialism, it is only natural for me to believe in anti-Zionism. Indeed, it is my strong belief in the repudiation of the racist values that Zionism exists to promote that make anti-Zionism an irrevocable part of my personal worldview, identity, and belief system.
…
39. … Zionism is, as I have described, a belief that a Jewish ethno-state should be established in historic Palestine: a land that has at all times since Zionism’s inception had a very substantial non-Jewish population (indeed, when Israel was created in 1948, the non-Jewish population of Palestine was the overwhelming majority of historic Palestine). Zionism is inherently and necessarily racist for that reason, and it is inherently and necessarily settler-colonial in its nature. The racist and colonial logic that sits at the very heart of Zionism necessitates the racist practices that have had, and continue to have, severe consequences for indigenous Palestinians, beginning with the forced expulsion of the majority of the Palestinian population from their homeland in 1948.
40. The idea of a non-racist Zionism is, however, hypothetical: it is outside the realm of actual history and at odds with existing Zionist ideology. Herzl said openly in The Jewish State that the state he wished to conceive was for European colonists and must be created somewhere that is comfortable for their sensibilities rather than a wild expanse of land. He suggested that were a patch of suitable land to be found, for example, “natives” might be put to work draining swamps and killing snakes on behalf of these European colonists with promises of future employment in a land to which they would later be deported.
41. What is at the heart of my anti-Zionist beliefs is an objection to – at least since the coming into prominence of Theodor Herzl’s views – Zionism as an inherently racist movement because of its ideological and practical commitment to settler-colonialism. This necessitates racist practices that have had, and continue to have, severe consequences for indigenous Palestinians.
…
47. There is nothing racist or “anti-Semitic” about anti-Zionism, and the Israeli-state-directed efforts to vilify anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Jewish hatred should be rejected. It is precisely because Zionism – on its own terms, as expressed through its chief ideologues and leaders – is a racist and settler-colonial movement, that so much effort is invested in defending Zionism and even rebranding it as so-called “Jewish self-determination”.
48. To be an anti-Zionist is, in my view, a moral and political duty as an anti-racist, and it has no relation to the “denial” of anyone’s “rights” or “self-determination”. On the other hand, it is Zionism that denies indigenous Palestinians their right to self-determination, among many other of their human rights.
___________________________________________________________________
I await the judgement in the appeal to my victory at the Employment Tribunal. The University of Bristol appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and there was a hearing in mid-November last year.
Here is the statement on it from my law firm Rahman Lowe. The judgement is supposed to appear within three months. However, the Judge, Lord Fairley, who is the President of the EAT, said that while he hoped to have the judgement ready within three months, he could not guarantee it. So, we wait.
