Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen Defend Expanded Speech Controls

The Munich Security Conference just became a defense session for Europe’s most ambitious censorship regime

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | February 16, 2026

Emmanuel Macron stood before the Munich Security Conference last week and offered a blueprint for what European governments should be allowed to delete from the internet. The French president wants mandatory identity verification for social media users, one account per person, algorithm transparency on the government’s terms, and the legal authority to block platforms that refuse to comply.

“We have to be sure there is one single person with one account,” Macron said. “If this is an AI system, if this is bot or organized by big organization, it should be just forbidden.”

The statement describes a system where every social media user would have their identity verified by platforms and tied to a single permitted account. Anonymous speech, pseudonymous commentary, and the ability to maintain separate personal and professional presences online would effectively end for anyone using platforms that serve the European market.

Macron suggested this as a way to protect democracy. The mechanism would give governments a powerful tool to identify, track, and silence any user whose speech they find objectionable.

France is moving to ban social media access for anyone under 15, a policy that requires verifying every user. Macron defended this by characterizing free expression online as a form of brainwashing.

“Free speech would mean I will give the mind, brand the heart of my teenagers to algorithm of big guys,” he said. “I’m not totally sure I share the values, or Chinese algorithm without any control. We are crazy.”

The argument runs as follows: letting young people encounter ideas online without government permission is insanity. The solution requires every user to prove their age to access platforms where public discussion happens.

Macron suggested that speech illegal in newspapers should remain illegal when moved online. “How is that the craziest and most harmful narratives can go unchecked in our digital space, where they will fall under the law if published in print?”

The question assumes “harmful narratives” is a category the government should define. It also assumes the government should have the power to prevent people from encountering ideas it has labeled crazy.

Macron invoked the Digital Services Act as the foundation for expanded censorship across Europe. “This is a very important regulation because for the first time we created the framework to regulate this platform.”

The DSA gives EU regulators the authority to demand content removal from platforms. Macron called for going further: using the law to “excuse those who clearly decide not to respect our rules and our regulation” and to “block all those [who allow] interferences in our systems.”

He offered a familiar list of speech categories he wants suppressed: “racist speech, hateful speech, anti-Semitic speech.” These terms have no fixed legal definition that applies uniformly across EU member states. Who is racist, what constitutes hatred, which criticism of which policies counts as anti-Semitism: these determinations would be made by regulators and platforms operating under government pressure.

Macron described limits on speech as somehow inherent to democracy itself: “When you have free speech, you have respect, you have rules, and the limit of my freedom is the beginning of your freedom.”

This formulation treats speech as equivalent to physical coercion. Your words are framed as a boundary violation against others simply by existing. The speech that most requires protection is speech that offends, that challenges consensus, that the powerful would prefer to suppress. Macron’s framework offers no protection for any of it.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who opened the conference, echoed the European position that speech protections should end where government-defined values begin.

“A divide has opened up between Europe and the United States,” Merz said. “And Vice President JD Vance said this very openly here at the Munich Security Conference a year ago, and he was right. The battle of cultures of MAGA in the US is not ours. Freedom of speech here ends where the words spoken are directed against human dignity and our basic law.”

“Human dignity” is the phrase German law uses to justify prosecuting speech. The Constitutional Court has interpreted it to cover insults, Holocaust denial, and an expanding category of expression that authorities determine undermines respect for persons or groups. It is the legal mechanism under which German police have raided homes over social media posts and prosecuted people for memes.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen joined the censorship chorus with a declaration of territorial authority over online expression.

“I want to be very clear: our digital sovereignty is our digital sovereignty,” she said, adding the EU “will not flinch where this is concerned.”

Von der Leyen described European speech regulation as under attack from the United States, “which has wielded the threats of tariffs on partners to secure preferential access and has decried the EU’s digital rules as an assault on free speech.”

The EU’s digital rules are an assault on free speech. The DSA empowers bureaucrats to demand platforms remove content, under threat of massive fines.

The EU has opened formal proceedings against X for its policies. European regulators have forced platforms to suppress content that would be legally protected in the United States.

Von der Leyen framed resistance to this regime as a threat to Europe’s “democratic foundation.” She claimed Europe has “a long tradition in freedom of speech” while defending a legal structure designed to ensure certain speech never reaches European audiences.

“The European way of life – our democratic foundation and the trust of our citizens – is being challenged in new ways,” she said. “On everything from territories to tariffs or tech regulations.”

The phrasing groups speech regulation with tariffs and territorial disputes. All three are matters where Europe will defend its sovereignty. What Europeans are permitted to say, read, and share online is treated as equivalent to where national borders fall.

The leaders who gathered in Munich spoke of protecting democracy while proposing tools that would let governments identify and punish dissent. They invoked free speech while demanding the power to decide which speech is free. They claimed to defend Europe while stripping Europeans of the ability to speak freely online.

February 16, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer-tied think tank paid PR firm to target The Grayzone

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | February 16, 2026

Leaked files have revealed that Labour Together, the shadowy think tank run by disgraced former top Keir Starmer aide Morgan McSweeney, paid the Washington DC-based corporate intelligence firm APCO Worldwide to spy on journalists who reported on their corrupt handling of campaign finances.

The reporters named appear to have been targeted for their efforts to investigate how the UK’s Labour Party elites spent 730,000 pounds in undeclared donations to install Starmer as their leader.

The files show APCO used those funds to oversee the fabrication of a dodgy, evidence-free dossier claiming that Russia was behind damaging disclosures about Labour Together, which it submitted to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) of Britain’s GCHQ — London’s equivalent to the US National Security Agency.

The “significant persons of interest” listed in APCO’s McCarthyite casebook included The Grayzone and myself.

According to my APCO dossier, “While a self described ‘investigative journalist,’ he is an author for the Gray Zone. The site has been described as a ‘conspiracy blog’ and ‘Wagner propaganda channel.’ In 2023,” the dossier reads, I “was arrested by counter-terror police after [I] arrived in the UK.”

APCO bills itself as “a trusted and strategic advisor… that drive[s] our clients’ missions and objectives forward.” Despite its massive contract with Labour Together, the files show the PR firm struggled to identify its targets, and proved unable to establish the most basic facts about them.

When APCO branded The Grayzone as “Wagner propaganda,” it seemed to have confused us with “Grey Zone,” an entirely unrelated and now-defunct Telegram channel affiliated with the Russian military contractor. APCO also claimed I was “arrested by counter-terrorism police” in May 2023 upon returning to Britain. In fact, I had been detained, not arrested.

APCO also targeted journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul Holden, who led investigations into Labour Together’s potentially criminal activities, based on leaks and Freedom of Information requests. The PR firm had sought to secure “leverage” over Holden in order to sabotage his work.

The spying scandal began in November 2023, when Britain’s Sunday Times revealed that Keir Starmer’s campaign manager, Morgan McSweeney, had failed to declare £730,000 in campaign donations which he diverted to advance Starmer’s rise to Labour leadership. One month later, APCO prepared a memo for Labour Together outlining a strategy to blame the damaging disclosure on Russian hackers and attack the journalists who dared to publish details of the offending documents.

The story was given new life in February 2026, when British journalist Peter Geoghehan exposed a secret contract showing Labour Together paid APCO £30,000 to investigate the journalists it blamed for exposing its legally questionable activities.

It has now gone mainstream, with the Sunday Times publishing a lengthy report branding the Labour operation as a “dirty smear” based on a “lie” about Russian hacking.

However, the Times article omitted any mention of this reporter or The Grayzone, even though we were prominently targeted by Labour Together. In the following investigation, we explain why The Grayzone was targeted, tracing the origins of the slimy spying operation to a network of Labourite operatives who have sought to destroy us since well before Starmer came to power.

“Familiar with masters of the same drivers”

Labour Together was founded in 2015 by McSweeney, Starmer’s longtime svengali. After several failed campaigns for establishment candidates, McSweeney managed to transform his organization into a propaganda juggernaut, soliciting large donations from the UK Israel lobby’s most significant moneyman, Trevor Chinn.

While presenting his campaigning outfit as a plucky little think tank, he wielded it against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the movement behind him. To neutralize the ecosystem of alternative media outlets supporting Corbyn as Labour leader, Labour Together contracted a political operative named Imran Ahmed to spin out a censorship front called “Stop Funding Fake News.”

After weaponizing dubious charges of antisemitism to defund one of the most influential pro-Corbyn outlets, Canary UK, the organization folded, then resurfaced as the much bolder Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Based inside the office of Labour Together, CCDH relied on the funding from Chinn and, as The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal revealed, secretly coordinated with the Israeli embassy in Washington.

McSweeney entered Downing Street as Starmer’s Chief of Staff just one month before Trump’s re-election. Among his most important tasks was repairing relations with the US President. At the time, Trump’s aides were bristling over reports that McSweeney met with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris during the Democratic National Convention to plot strategy. One of Trump’s top donors, the transhumanist mega-billionaire Elon Musk, also had his knives out for McSweeney after journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker revealed that CCDH’s top priority for 2024 was to “kill Elon Musk’s Twitter.”

McSweeney’s solution was to dispatch one of Labour’s most seasoned – and scandal-stained – fixers to Washington. He was Lord Peter Mandelson, the architect of the neoliberal New Labour wave whose notoriously transactional tendencies seemed to make him the perfect match for Trump. Mandelson made himself a fixture at Butterworth’s, a favorite Capitol Hill haunt of MAGA operatives, and insinuated himself into Trumpist social circles.

In June 2025, the restaurant erected a plaque honoring Mandelson during a ceremony overseen by Raheem Kassam, a close associate of former Trump chief of staff Steve Bannon. There, a mirthful Mandelson raised a toast and proclaimed a special kinship with the MAGA elite: “Although we don’t have identical politics, we are familiar with masters of the same drivers that brought our respective figures to power — President Trump in your case and Keir Starmer in mine.”

But Mandelson was also dogged by the same sex trafficking figure who constantly inhabited the personal lives of both Trump and Bannon: Jeffrey Epstein. Both McSweeney and Starmer had been keenly aware of the ambassador’s friendship with Epstein, but they dismissed the concerns, even ignoring a warning from UK security services.

However, when a series of emails confirming Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein poured forth as part of a release by the US Department of Justice, the ambassador’s position became untenable. Following his firing in September 2025, a new tranche of emails published this January provided an even more damning portrait of their friendship. They showed, for instance, that Epstein channeled money to Mandelson’s husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, for a specious initiative which was never completed. Even worse, the communications exposed Mandelson providing Epstein with advance notice of the impending collapse of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government in 2010, as well as sensitive information about the UK’s “saleable assets.”

McSweeney’s scheming had finally caught up with him. Though Starmer initially praised and defended his longtime campaign guru in parliament, he caved soon after, forcing McSweeney to resign his post on February 8.

In the days since, Starmer has been unable to fill the vacancy. Meanwhile, another senior Labour official is reportedly considering leaving his role as well. Amid the chaos, British media has begun to speculate that the Prime Minister will be next to go.

Will the revelation of Labour Together’s media enemies list, and its secret contract with APCO, be the weight that finally sinks Starmer?

Labour Together’s misdirection ploy: blame Russia

McSweeney was aware that Labour Together had secretly contracted APCO to spy on journalists; however, he didn’t carry out the dirty work himself. That job appears to have been commissioned by his successor at the think tank, Josh Simons, who’s now a senior minister in Starmer’s government.

Simons has dismissed reports that the PR firm was tasked with spying on reporters as “nonsense,” insisting that APCO was merely “asked to look into a suspected illegal hack.” Simons’ disingenuous claims are undermined by newly-leaked documents related to the probe, however.

Perhaps most damning is a December 2023 memo prepared by APCO for Labour Together which shows investigators fretting about “recent articles and blog posts” which threatened to draw attention to the political group’s questionable funding schemes. Information published by these meddling journalists, particularly Paul Holden, “[raised] concern about the source of his information and what more he may choose to publish in the future,” the memo continued.

It was therefore deemed “important to identify the source of the information and to ascertain what additional information could be published.” Labour Together tasked APCO with probing several journalists, dubbed “significant persons of interest.”

The memo speculated that Holden and others may have received leaks from inside Labour Together, Labour party headquarters, parliament, or “illegally-gathered information collected” from a purported “hack” of Britain’s Electoral Commission in 2023. APCO concluded it was “essential” for Labour Together to concoct a strategy to counter the critical reporting.

Its response was to blame the organization’s woes on a Russian hack. But rather than hiring a cyber-security firm to investigate the supposed data breach, it contracted a corporate intelligence firm to attack the messengers.

In February 2024, The Guardian contacted Holden to alert him that the paper was preparing a hit piece alleging he was under investigation by the NCSC for receiving illegally obtained information from Russia. The Guardian had clearly been influenced by briefings from Labour Together, as well as by APCO’s report. Yet the outlet backed off when Holden promised to sue them for defamation.

APCO is now under formal investigation for potential standards breaches by Britain’s Public Relations and Communication Association.

How did The Grayzone wind up on Labour Together’s enemies list?

It is unclear how and why I became a “significant person of interest” in APCO and Labour Together’s secret smear campaign. However, their operation dovetailed with another surreptitious attempt by intelligence-tied actors to smear The Grayzone as Russian agents.

I have never spoken to Paul Holden or other journalists named as the firm’s targets, or conducted any journalistic investigations into Labour Together’s corrupt financial dealings. When APCO initiated its probe, I had mentioned Labour Together in a single article months prior that focused on the organization’s censorship-obsessed spinoff, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

Such sloppiness and paranoia is the hallmark of Amil Khan, a veteran British government psyops warrior turned “disinformation expert” involved with Labour Together and Starmer’s Labour.

Khan cut his teeth running covert British-funded psychological warfare operations during the Syrian dirty war, supporting violent extremist groups armed and financed by the CIA and MI6. He subsequently founded Valent Projects, which “specializes in addressing online manipulation.” Khan’s outfit produced a paper on social media ratfucking strategies for Labour Together entitled, “Power and Persuasion: Understanding the Right’s Playbook.”

In December 2021, The Grayzone exposed how Valent Projects covertly produced Covid vaccine propaganda funded by the British monarchy’s Royal Institute, using then-popular “BreadTube” personality Abigail Thorn as the front person for its campaign. The investigation apparently placed this outlet in the crosshairs of Khan and his information warfare network.

Less than a year later, The Grayzone exposed Khan again – this time, for his role in a covert conspiracy to destroy us. Enlisted by celebrity former leftist journalist Paul Mason, Khan helped coordinate a harebrained scheme to demonetize and deplatform The Grayzone. The pair discussed going “full nuclear legal to squeeze [The Grayzone] financially,” and proposed publishing intelligence agency-sourced smears to delegitimize this outlet.

As their revenge plot approached its paranoid apogee, Mason and Khan fantasized about hosting an anti-Grayzone summit with some of the most rabid, intelligence-tied opponents of our reporting. Among those they pitched for the gathering was Imran Ahmed, director of the censorship-obsessed Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which was founded by Morgan McSweeney and shared an office with his Labour Together.

While it is unknown if the anti-Grayzone summit ever took place, we have since learned that Mason enlisted a team of high-priced London lawyers to sue this outlet just days after our article exposing his secret smear campaign appeared. In May 2023, I was detained at the UK’s Luton International Airport and interrogated about The Grayzone’s activities by counter-terror police. Six months later, APCO initiated its covert investigation of me, The Grayzone, and others whose reporting had wound them up on the Labour Together enemies list.

APCO has so far remained silent about the scandal. The Grayzone has submitted a request for comment to Tom Short, the PR firm’s London chief. We received an automated response revealing he conveniently slipped away to the US. Upon Short’s return to Britain, APCO will no longer be able to hide behind bogus allegations of Russian hacking.

February 16, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Senator Rand Paul Introduces Federal Bill to END Vaccine Makers’ Liability Shield

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH | FOCAL POINTS | February 14, 2026

Senator Rand Paul has introduced S.3853, a federal bill that would amend the Public Health Service Act to end the long-standing liability protections for vaccine makers.

The bill was introduced on February 11, 2026, and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

At the time of writing, no bill text has yet been released, so the precise statutory changes remain unknown. However, based on the title and summary, the legislation appears aimed at dismantling the liability framework established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which shields manufacturers from civil lawsuits and routes injury claims through the failed Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

Current evidence indicates that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 likely sparked the autism epidemic. By granting legal immunity to vaccine makers, 3.2% of American children now have autism:

Bill S.3853 would collapse the vaccine cartel’s 40-year reign of penalty-free mass harm. If passed, this legislation would truly Make America Healthy Again.

February 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Russia open to discussing Ukraine’s ‘external governance’ – senior diplomat

RT | February 15, 2026

Russia is ready to discuss establishing “temporary external governance” in Ukraine under UN auspices to facilitate long-overdue democratic elections, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin has said.

In an interview with TASS released on Sunday, Galuzin noted that the idea was first floated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2025, describing it as one possible way to further the peace process.

This step, he said, “would make it possible to hold democratic elections in Ukraine, bring to power a capable government with which a full-fledged peace treaty could be signed, along with legitimate documents on future interstate cooperation.”

“In general, Russia is prepared to discuss with the US, European nations, and other countries the possibility of introducing temporary external governance in Kiev,” he added.

Galuzin acknowledged that while the UN “does not formally have a standardized mechanism” for these types of cases, there are historical precedents.

Moscow proposed the idea of external governance after the expiration of Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential term in 2024. At the time, the Ukrainian leader refused to hold new elections, citing martial law, which prompted Russia to declare him “illegitimate.” Moscow has since said Zelensky’s legal status is a major obstacle to concluding a binding peace deal.

Following US pressure, Zelensky signaled that he is open to having an election, but demanded security guarantees from the West and Russia.

In March 2025, the US dismissed the external management proposal, saying governance in Ukraine is “determined by its Constitution and the people of the country.” Prior to this, however, US President Donald Trump branded Zelensky “a dictator without elections.”

February 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

Epstein Pitched JPMorgan Chase on Plan to Get Bill Gates ‘More Money for Vaccines’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 10, 2026

In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bill Gates and key figures from the Gates Foundation regularly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, discussing ways to finance and develop a global pandemic preparedness and vaccination network.

The communications between Gates and Epstein were included in the “Epstein Files” released Jan. 30 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Last year’s passage of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act prompted the release.

Sayer Ji told The Defender the files show that Epstein “functioned as a switchboard” connecting “hedge funds, central banks, billionaires, academic institutions and global health initiatives.”

Ji published his analysis of health- and medical-related information in the files in a series of Substack articles and posts on X.

Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said the files revealed the workings of a network of “Controligarchs on steroids, but with shocking new receipts.”

Bruner said the files showed that Epstein helped develop “the architecture for pandemic profiteering” years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The documents largely date from the 2010s — after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting underage sex and his inclusion on a registry of sex offenders.

Ji noted that months before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the same actors who appear in the Epstein files participated in Event 201 — a simulation of a global pandemic caused by a coronavirus.

The pandemic preparedness infrastructure built in the years before the pandemic helped lead to this simulation, Ji wrote.

According to The Hill, members of the U.S. Congress began reviewing unredacted versions of the documents on Monday.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), told The Defender the documents’ release is about justice, not politics.

“Rep. Ro Khanna and I have tried to keep the Epstein files from being political. The Democrats want to make it about Trump, and the Republicans want to make it about the Clintons. We want to make it about the survivors and getting them justice and transparency,” Massie said.

Gates, Epstein and the ‘architecture behind pandemics as a business model’

Ji’s series of Substack posts revealed what he described as “a 20-year architecture behind pandemics as a business model — with Bill Gates at the center of the network,” along with multinational financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase.

The documents, dating from 2011 to 2019, illustrate an “architecture whose foundations predate the COVID-19 era by more than a decade,” Ji wrote. He said they constitute evidence of “a major Wall Street bank asking a convicted sex offender to define the architecture of a Gates-linked charitable fund.”

The documents included several emails outlining the development of a Gates-led charitable fund. A Feb. 17, 2011, email from JPMorgan Chase’s Juliet Pullis to Epstein included questions from the “team that is putting together some ideas for Gates.”

Epstein’s reply outlined how this fund could be structured. The proposal would be developed further in the following months.

In a July 26, 2011, email from Epstein to JPMorgan Chase executive Jes Staley, on which Boris Nikolic, Gates’ chief science and technology adviser, was copied, described a “silo based proposal that will get bill [Gates] more money for vaccines.”

By Aug. 17, 2011, Staley and Mary Erdoes, then-CEO of JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management, were discussing more details of the proposed fund, including developing “an offshore arm — especailly for vaccines” and projecting “billions of dollars” in donations within two years.

In a response later that day, Epstein said Gates was “terribly frustrated” at the slow pace of establishing the fund. He said Gates was insistent that “additional money for vaccines” be included in an upcoming presentation about the fund.

By Aug. 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase had apparently developed a proposal called “Project Molecule,” where the bank would partner with the Gates Foundation to develop a perpetual charitable fund for pandemic preparedness and surveillance, vaccine promotion and disease eradication.

According to Ji, the proposal contains many of the ideas Epstein had previously discussed with JPMorgan Chase executives. It also contained plans to spend millions of dollars to purchase oral polio vaccines for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a rotavirus vaccine for Latin America, and a meningitis vaccine for Africa.

The proposal suggested that Melinda Gates chair the fund’s strategic program/grant and distribution committee and that Erdoes, Warren Buffett, Jordan’s Queen Rania and Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, also participate. The Gates Foundation funded Gavi’s launch in 1999 and holds a permanent seat on its board.

Ji wrote that while Epstein’s name does not appear in the Project Molecule proposal, it acts as the “institutional translation of the architecture he was sketching informally.”

By 2013, these efforts appear to have led to the launch of the Global Health Investment Fund. A confidential Sept. 23, 2013, briefing described the fund as “the first investment fund focused on global health drug and vaccine development.” The fund promised investors annual returns of 5%-7%.

Among the attendees at the fund’s September 2013 launch were JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and representatives of Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK).

Gates could ‘work with anyone on earth’ but ‘chose a registered sex offender’

According to Ji, Nikolic’s involvement is significant. In August 2013, Gates and Epstein signed an agreement, in which Gates “specifically requested” that Epstein “personally serve” as Nikolic’s representative. The letter noted Epstein’s “existing collegial relationship” with Gates.

“This agreement was executed five years after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution,” Ji wrote. “Gates had the resources to work with anyone on earth. He chose a registered sex offender — and put it in writing.”

The documents showed that a month earlier — on July 18, 2013 — Epstein authored a draft email apparently intended for Gates. It references Epstein’s friendship with Gates, his disappointment that Gates sent him an “unfriendly strongly worded email,” and referenced sordid communications the two apparently previously shared.

“TO add insult to the injury you them implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis,” Epstein wrote.

In a video posted on X, Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, said that while it’s unknown whether Epstein ever sent that email to Gates, “the next month they’re in a contract together.”

“I think Bill Gates got the message,” Kane said.

In November 2023, a federal judge approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and over 100 women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse. The women alleged that JPMorgan Chase continued doing business with Epstein despite internal warnings over a span of several years.

“JPMorgan banked Epstein for years despite clear red flags — over $1 billion in suspicious transactions flagged internally and ignored. They knew. They didn’t care,” wrote The Truth About Cancer.

Did Epstein play role in launch of the ‘biosecurity state’?

According to Ji, the documents provide a roadmap for how a pandemic preparedness infrastructure was developed and how it helped make Event 201 possible.

“By the time Event 201 convened, the architecture … was no longer conceptual. It had been funded, structured, bonded, insured, staffed, and legally papered. What remained was the rehearsal,” Ji wrote.

September 2014 documents show that Gates disclosed his upcoming meeting with President Obama to Epstein, just as an adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak sent Epstein an invitation to a private, off-the-record reception with Obama the following month.

Ji said the communications occurred during “the week Ebola was formally reclassified as a threat to international peace and security.” He said the timing is significant, as this “was the week the biosecurity state was born.”

According to Ji, these developments helped activate the infrastructure outlined in Project Molecule, where Epstein acted as a node for Ebola-related project proposals.

This included Epstein receiving a United Nations (U.N.) diplomat’s proposal for the development of a “Nexus Centre for peace and health” that would take “into account the serious impact of Ebola,” and a proposal by a group of scientists for a pre-symptomatic Ebola detection system using PCR testing.

The scientists behind the proposal — affiliated with a U.S. military biolab at Fort Detrick, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — asked Epstein to send the proposal to Gates and the Gates Foundation.

By October 2014, Epstein was warning Kathy Ruemmler, then White House counsel to Obama, of the political cost if Obama didn’t take action on Ebola. By 2015, Epstein was acting as an intermediary in efforts to convene global experts who would “discuss how we can most effectively address and prevent pandemics.”

The proposal, by the International Peace Institute’s Terje Rød-Larsen, led to the convening of a May 2015 closed-door meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, titled “Preparing for Pandemics: Lessons Learned for More Effective Responses.” The World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank and U.N. were involved with the meeting.

The meeting’s agenda included sessions addressing “how pandemics should be anticipated, how authority should be exercised, how multiple stakeholders should be coordinated, and — critically — what legal, institutional, and financial mechanisms must be put in place in advance to enable rapid, centralized response,” Ji wrote.

According to Ji, the COVID-19 pandemic response has its roots in the 2014 Ebola response, as Ebola “was the first disease to formally justify the suspension of normal political and sovereign constraints on a global scale. … When the next global health emergency arrived — COVID-19 — the playbook was already written.”

“Epstein appears in the background of precisely these formative conversations — serving as a connector between global finance, philanthropic capital, and biological risk governance,” Ji told The Defender.

Epstein involved in ‘strain pandemic simulation’ two years before COVID

By 2017, these conversations led to proposals for pandemic simulations.

In a January 2017 iMessage thread between Epstein and an unidentified physician seeking help in finding a new job, the physician cited “expertise with public health security.”

The physician, who had experience at the U.N., WHO, Gates Foundation and World Bank, said he “just did pandemic simulation,” which could become a “big platform.”

Referring to Gates, the physician told Epstein, “He hates mental health but he’s crazy about vaccines and autism stuff. That could be start to a more broad conversation.”

A March 2017 email chain, which included Epstein and Gates, discussed efforts by the then-bgC3, Gates’ private strategic office, to develop “Follow-up recommendations and/or technical specifications for strain pandemic simulation.”

Ji noted that in 2017, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF), with Gates Foundation funding and a goal of creating “pandemic-busting vaccines” within 100 days. Later that year, the World Bank issued the first-ever pandemic bonds.

Event 201, held just six weeks before the first publicly acknowledged COVID-19 cases were announced, involved the Gates Foundation, WEF and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Global financial institutions, media organizations and intelligence agencies also participated.

The simulation focused on the response to a novel coronavirus outbreak by governments, pharmaceutical companies, media outlets and social media platforms.

Ji said the Epstein Files don’t show that COVID-19 was planned or manufactured, or that Event 201 led to COVID-19. Instead, they prove that “the institutional infrastructure to capitalize on exactly this kind of crisis was already built, tested, staffed, and insured.”

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.

February 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Germany’s CDU Pushes Real-Name Social Media Mandate and ID Checks

The party could ask Germans to show their papers before they can post a tweet

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | February 14, 2026

Germany’s governing CDU is preparing to discuss a proposal that would fundamentally alter the architecture of online speech by tying it to verified real-world identities.

At the upcoming federal party congress in Stuttgart on February 20 and 21, the Schleswig-Holstein branch of the Christian Democratic Union, the party of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will push not only for a minimum age for social media (which would require users to show ID) but for a “Klarnamenpflicht” that would require users to register with their real names and confirmed identities.

This identity mandate is key to the motion. The state association led by Minister President Daniel Günther argues: “A real-name requirement creates greater accountability, facilitates legal enforcement, and strengthens trust in digital discourse.”

It further claims that such a rule would strengthen protection for young people online. The proposal also states: “The anonymity of the internet fosters hatred, incitement, and criminal behavior.”

If adopted, the requirement would compel platforms to authenticate users against official identification or comparable verification systems. Age checks for minors would likely depend on the same infrastructure. That means collecting and storing legally attributable identity data at scale. Anonymous or pseudonymous participation would no longer be the default condition of online engagement.

Alongside the real-name demand, the motion calls for “a statutory minimum age of 16 years for open platforms, flanked by mandatory age verification.” A ban for those under 16 takes “into account the special developmental needs of young people,” the text explains, citing the “Australian model” as a template.

Australia enacted such legislation in December 2025, requiring platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, and X to block accounts belonging to millions of users under 16 and introduce ID checks.

The CDU motion frames its broader objective as a need to “organize the digital public sphere.” It declares: “The CDU stands for a free, but responsible digital order.” It also states that freedom of expression requires state “Leitplanken” (guardrails).

General Secretary Carsten Linnemann has publicly endorsed the age restriction. “I am in favor of social media from the age of 16,” he told Bild newspaper. “We must protect children in the digital world from hate, violence, crime, and manipulative disinformation.”

Within the coalition government, consensus is not guaranteed. Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig of the Social Democratic Party of Germany has indicated openness to the concept, while other Social Democrats oppose it.

The CDU’s motion commission recommends referring the proposal to internal party bodies, including the Federal Committee for Digital Affairs and the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, before any legislative step.

The European Commission has warned that additional national platform obligations beyond the Digital Services Act are a “clear no-go,” adding: “The DSA regulates that.”

February 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies

Glenn Diesen | February 14, 2026

Patrik Baab is a German journalist and best-selling author who reported on both sides of the frontline in Ukraine. Baab outlines how the freedom of speech is destroyed by a failing political elite.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

UK High Court rules Palestine Action ban unlawful

Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026

The UK High Court ruled on Friday that the government’s proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act was unlawful.

On Friday, three judges led by Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division, concluded that the decision to ban the group was unlawful. However, the ban will remain temporarily in place to allow the government time to appeal.

From July 5 last year, membership of or public support for Palestine Action became a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The group had been placed on the list of proscribed organisations, categorizing it alongside internationally recognized armed groups.

The court upheld the challenge on two of four grounds. Judges found that the proscription represented “a very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association. They also ruled that Yvette Cooper’s decision was inconsistent with her own stated policy.

Sharp described Palestine Action as an organisation “that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality”, but continued, “The court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.”

“For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale, and persistence to warrant proscription,” Sharp added.

Legal and political repercussions

The judgment marks the first time an organisation banned under the Terrorism Act has successfully challenged its proscription in court.

According to the campaign group Defend Our Juries, more than 2,700 people have been arrested since the ban took effect, most under section 13 of the Terrorism Act. More than 500 individuals, including clergy, pensioners, and military veterans, have been charged.

If the proscription order is ultimately quashed, the charges could be dropped. For now, those charged remain in legal uncertainty while the ban stays in force pending appeal.

Government to appeal decision

Current home secretary Shabana Mahmood said she would challenge the ruling.

Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori described the decision as a “monumental victory” and said the ban was based on property damage rather than violence against individuals.

 “We were banned because Palestine Action’s disruption of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the corporation millions of pounds in profits and to lose out on multibillion-pound contracts.

“We’ve used the same tactics as direct action organisations throughout history, including anti-war groups Keir Starmer defended in court, and the government acknowledged in these legal proceedings that this ban was based on property damage, not violence against people.

“Banning Palestine Action was always about appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and weapons manufacturers, and nothing to do with terrorism … Today’s landmark ruling is a victory for freedom for all, and I urge the government to respect the court’s decision and bring this injustice to an end without further delay.”

The case is likely to intensify debate in the United Kingdom over the balance between national security powers and civil liberties.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine to ban Russian literature – culture minister

RT | February 12, 2026

The Ukrainian authorities are preparing a draft law to take all Russian and Russian-language books out of circulation, Ukrainian Culture Minister Tatyana Berezhnaya told Interfax-Ukraine in an interview published on Thursday.

Moscow maintains that Kiev’s discriminatory policies against ethnic Russians in Ukraine, as well as its persecution of the Russian language and culture are some of the fundamental causes of the current conflict.

According to Berezhnaya, Ukraine’s media authority is working on a bill to ban Russian books with the support of her ministry. She did not specify whether the measure would only remove them from store shelves or include confiscations from private collections.

Vladimir Zelensky’s predecessor, Pyotr Poroshenko, banned the import of books from Russia and Belarus in 2016, long before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict six years later. Kiev has since systematically purged Russian literature from state curricula, and intensified a purge of cultural monuments, memorials, and inscriptions to remove historical links to Russia.

Kiev has also steadily cracked down on the use of the Russian language in public life, restricting or banning its use in media and in professional spheres. Nevertheless, it remains the first and primary language for many people in Ukraine, especially in metropolitan areas and in the east of the country.

In December, the Ukrainian parliament stripped Russian of its protection under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Berezhnaya at the time proclaimed that the move would “strengthen Ukrainian” as the state language.

Moscow has noted that this crackdown has largely been ignored by Kiev’s Western backers.

“Human rights – ostensibly so dear to the West – must be inviolable. In Ukraine, we witness the comprehensive prohibition of the Russian language across all spheres of public life and the banning of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday, accusing the EU and UK of not addressing the issue in their peace proposals.

Russia has long said that stopping the persecution of Russians in Ukraine is one of its core peace demands, which it is ready to continue pursuing through military means if Kiev resists diplomacy.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

40 State Attorneys General Want To Tie Online Access to ID

The bill’s supporters call it child protection; its architecture looks more like a national ID system for the internet.

Reclaim The Net | February 12, 2026

A bloc of 40 state and territorial attorneys general is urging Congress to adopt the Senate’s version of the controversial Kids Online Safety Act, positioning it as the stronger regulatory instrument and rejecting the House companion as insufficient.

The Act would kill online anonymity and tie online activity and speech to a real-world identity.

Acting through the National Association of Attorneys General, the coalition sent a letter to congressional leadership endorsing S. 1748 and opposing H.R. 6484.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Their request centers on structural differences between the bills. The Senate proposal would create a federally enforceable “Duty of Care” requiring covered platforms to mitigate defined harms to minors.

Enforcement authority would rest with the Federal Trade Commission, which could investigate and sue companies that fail to prevent minors from encountering content deemed to cause “harm to minors.”

That framework would require regulators to evaluate internal content moderation systems, recommendation algorithms, and safety controls.

S. 1748 also directs the Secretary of Commerce, the FTC, and the Federal Communications Commission to study “the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”

This language moves beyond platform-level age gates and toward infrastructure embedded directly into hardware or operating systems.

Age verification at that layer would not function without some form of credentialing. Device-level verification would likely depend on digital identity checks tied to government-issued identification, third-party age verification vendors, or persistent account authentication systems.

That means users could be required to submit identifying information before accessing broad categories of lawful online speech. Anonymous browsing depends on the ability to access content without linking identity credentials to activity.

A device-level age verification architecture would establish identity checkpoints upstream of content access, creating records that age was verified and potentially associating that verification with a persistent device or account.

Even if content is not stored, the existence of a verified identity token tied to access creates a paper trail.

Constitutional questions follow. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized anonymous speech as protected under the First Amendment. Mandating identity verification before accessing lawful speech raises prior restraint and overbreadth concerns, particularly where the definition of “harm to minors” extends into categories that are legal for adults.

Courts have struck down earlier efforts to impose age verification requirements for online content on First Amendment grounds, citing the chilling effect on lawful expression and adult access.

Despite this history, state officials continue to advocate for broader age verification regimes. Several states have enacted or proposed laws requiring age checks for social media or adult content sites, often triggering litigation over compelled identification and privacy burdens.

The coalition’s letter suggests that state attorneys general are not retreating from that position and are instead seeking federal backing.

The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental health risks and point to evidence suggesting firms are aware of adverse consequences for minors.

Multiple state offices have already filed lawsuits or opened investigations against Meta and TikTok, alleging “harm” to young users.

At the same time, the coalition objects to provisions in H.R. 6484 that would limit state authority. The House bill contains broader federal preemption language, which could restrict states from enforcing parallel or more stringent requirements. The attorneys general warn that this would curb their ability to pursue emerging online harms under state law. They also fault the House proposal for relying on company-maintained “reasonable policies, practices, and procedures” rather than imposing a statutory Duty of Care.

The Senate approach couples enforceable federal standards with preserved state enforcement power.

The coalition calls on the United States House of Representatives to align with the Senate framework, expand the list of enumerated harms to include even suicide, eating disorders, compulsive use, mental health harms, and financial harms, and ensure that states retain authority to act alongside federal regulators. The measure has bipartisan sponsorship in the United States Senate.

The policy direction is clear. Federal agencies would study device-level age verification systems, the FTC would police compliance with harm mitigation duties, and states would continue to pursue parallel litigation. Those mechanisms would reshape how platforms design their systems and how users access speech.

Whether framed as child protection or platform accountability, the architecture contemplated by S. 1748 would move identity verification closer to the heart of internet access.

Once age checks are embedded at the operating system level, the boundary between verifying age and verifying identity becomes difficult to maintain.

The internet would be changed forever.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Instagram suspends Track AIPAC, watchdog tracking pro-Israel lobby spending

MEMO | February 11, 2026

Instagram has suspended the account of Track AIPAC, a widely followed watchdog project that tracks political spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and related pro-Israel lobbying groups. The social media giant cited alleged violations of the platform’s intellectual property and trademark rules. The suspension places the account at risk of permanent deletion unless successfully appealed within 180 days.

Track AIPAC — also known as AIPAC Tracker — was launched in 2024 by Cory Archibald and Casey Kennedy as a transparency and advocacy platform documenting AIPAC’s political donations, endorsements and influence on US elections. The project publishes Federal Election Commission data on pro-Israel political spending, highlights which lawmakers receive the most support, and endorses opponents of candidates reliant on AIPAC funding.

The watchdog has become a prominent source for voters and activists seeking to make AIPAC funding “politically toxic” and to hold elected officials accountable for their ties to the pro-Israel lobby.

In a post announcing the suspension, Track AIPAC said Instagram had removed its account, which had amassed more than 137,000 followers, for alleged trademark violations, without clear explanation of what specific content triggered the action. The group said it plans to appeal the decision while shifting its engagement to its website and its X presence.

Supporters of Track AIPAC decried the suspension as a double standard on free speech and accountability. On X, critics argue that transparency about political influence is being stifled while lobbying groups with deep pockets continue to operate without similar oversight.

Commentators noted that the suspension comes at a time when AIPAC’s influence in US politics is increasingly being challenged. Since Israel’s genocide in Gaza began, there has been a steady shift among Democratic voters and some candidates away from accepting pro-Israel lobby funding.

Once considered politically untouchable, AIPAC is now viewed by many as a liability, with candidates distancing themselves from its donations amid growing public anger over Israel’s policies and its role in the genocide.

Polling suggests that a significant portion of Democratic voters now oppose candidates who accept pro-Israel lobby funding, reflecting a shift in grassroots sentiment.

This shift has been evident in recent elections and legislative cycles, with some lawmakers returning AIPAC donations or refusing further support, and others publicly criticising the lobby’s priorities. For instance, US Congressman Seth Moulton announced that he would return AIPAC funds and no longer accept the lobby’s support, citing concerns about its alignment with current Israeli government policy, a move that underlines how AIPAC’s brand has become fraught within its once-traditional political base.

The suspension comes at a time when AIPAC’s political spending is facing heightened scrutiny and growing resistance from segments of the Democratic base. As some candidates increasingly distance themselves from pro-Israel lobby funding, the removal of a watchdog account dedicated to tracking those donations has added to debate over transparency and accountability in US politics.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Epstein and the Structure of Impunity

By Alice Johnson | The Libertarian Institute | February 10, 2026

Public discussion of the Epstein files has largely centered on individual misconduct and reputational fallout. That emphasis risks overlooking the more consequential question raised by the Justice Department’s response to the disclosure mandate. The episode is less instructive as a scandal than as an example of how executive institutions behave when transparency carries political cost. What is at stake is not the identity of those named in the records, but how legal obligations are treated once compliance becomes inconvenient.

Congress attempted to limit executive discretion through the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It was signed into law on November 19, 2025. The statute required the release of all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. It was unusually explicit, narrowing permissible redactions and barring withholding for reputational or political reasons. By design, the law sought to reduce delay by removing ambiguity rather than relying on voluntary cooperation.

That effort fell short. The Department of Justice missed the statutory deadline, released only a portion of the required records, and applied extensive redactions without a detailed public explanation at the time. Subsequent reporting indicated that several documents initially posted were later removed from the department’s website, according to Al Jazeera. The department also indicated that additional materials would be released at a later date, effectively extending a deadline Congress had already set.

What matters here is less what the records suggest about particular individuals than what the episode reveals about enforcement. When a statute imposes a clear obligation but noncompliance carries no immediate consequence, the obligation weakens in practice. Compliance becomes conditional. This dynamic is familiar in other areas of executive authority, but the clarity of the statute makes it harder to dismiss as routine bureaucratic delay.

Public attention has largely focused on elite reputations. Yet credibility in American political life has rarely depended on moral standing alone. It has been sustained by institutional insulation, legal privileges, procedural barriers, and discretionary enforcement that limit exposure to consequence. The Epstein disclosures unsettle that arrangement not by exposing hypocrisy, but by making those protective mechanisms more visible.

Elite moral standing has never rested on transparency by itself. It has relied on narrative management and on institutional buffers that absorb political risk. When those buffers hold, reputational damage remains contained. When they weaken, confidence erodes. The present controversy reflects that erosion. It is not evidence of a sudden ethical collapse, but of declining faith in the mechanisms that once kept misconduct marginal and manageable.

The Justice Department’s response illustrates how impunity operates as a structural feature rather than an exception. Congress retains theoretical enforcement tools, including criminal contempt referrals, civil litigation, and inherent contempt. In practice, most of these mechanisms depend on the executive branch itself. Criminal contempt referrals are handled by the Justice Department. Civil suits move slowly and frequently defer to claims of privilege. Inherent contempt, while constitutionally available, has not been used to detain a federal official in nearly a century.

This structure produces predictable incentives. Executive agencies know that delay or partial compliance is unlikely to trigger meaningful penalties. Negotiated disclosure becomes a rational response. In this sense, the Epstein disclosures echo other episodes where official misconduct became public, but meaningful consequences failed to follow.

What distinguishes this episode is not the nature of the misconduct, but the lack of interpretive flexibility in the statute itself. The Epstein Files law explicitly required disclosure of internal Justice Department communications and barred withholding to protect reputations. When common-law privileges are invoked to narrow a statute designed to override them, institutional self-protection takes precedence over legislative command.

Transparency alone does not resolve this imbalance. In some cases, it reinforces it. Partial disclosure and heavy redaction can create the appearance of compliance while leaving the underlying distribution of power intact. Over time, this pattern conditions both officials and the public to treat disclosure as an endpoint rather than as a step toward accountability.

The broader implication is not that elites are uniquely immoral. It is that the structure of the modern administrative state rewards insulation. Concentrated authority combined with weak enforcement produces consistent outcomes regardless of who occupies office. The same design that shields political allies today can just as easily shield their successors tomorrow. From a libertarian perspective, the problem is unchecked discretion, not partisan advantage.

Viewed this way, the Epstein files function as a case study in governance rather than scandal. They show how laws intended to constrain executive behavior falter when enforcement depends on the goodwill of the institutions being constrained. They also help explain why elite credibility erodes when transparency is separated from consequence. Trust does not fail because uncomfortable facts emerge. It fails when legal mandates can be ignored without cost.

If Congress does not enforce its own statutes, future transparency laws will operate largely as symbolic gestures. Executive agencies will continue to weigh compliance against political exposure, and elite credibility will persist so long as institutional protections remain intact. This is less a moral failure than a structural one. Until enforcement mechanisms operate independently of executive discretion, impunity will remain a feature of the system rather than a deviation from it.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »