Glenn Diesen: NATO’s War of Choice – The Sabotage of the Istanbul Negotiations
Glenn Diesen | February 24, 2026
Professor Glenn Diesen outlines the evidence for how the US and UK sabotaged the peace negotiations in Istanbul to use Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia. After NATO built a large Ukrainian proxy army to weaken a strategic rival, it was absurd to assume that Ukraine would be allowed to restore its neutrality and make peace with Russia.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
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.
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.
Britain is once again poisoning peace diplomacy with Russia and fueling war in Europe
Strategic Culture Foundation | February 20, 2026
For discerning observers, there was an obvious attempt this week by Britain to poison a delicate stage in peace negotiations for ending the conflict in Ukraine.
The sabotage effort was as vivid as, well, how should we put it?, as vivid as a brightly colored dart frog from the South American rainforests.
Five European governments signed a joint statement this week that dramatically claimed that Russian opposition figure Sergey Navalny was murdered two years ago in a Siberian prison by poisoning.
The scripted drama and media orchestration always betray a psychological operation intended for public consumption, which warrants the rapid prescription of healthy scepticism as an antidote.
The intergovernmental report claimed that the lethal toxin allegedly used on Navalny was “epibatidine,” which is naturally produced in the skin of the dart frog. Without any evidence, Britain and four other European governments – France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden – asserted that Navalny was murdered by the Russian authorities. Oh, those evil, dastardly Russians… cue the theme music from a James Bond movie!
Moscow rejected the latest claim as “feeblemindedness of fabulists” and condemned the European governments and media for engaging in “necro-propaganda”. Russia claims that Navalny (47) died of natural causes while serving a 19-year prison sentence for extremism and corruption. He was thought to be suffering from congenital ill health and on various medications before he began his penal sentence.
The joint European government statement on Navalny’s alleged poisoning is suspect for several reasons. For a start, it provides no verifiable data on the supposed toxicological analysis or how biomedical samples were obtained two years after Navalny’s death. The timing is also suspicious, coinciding with the Munich Security Conference last weekend and the second anniversary of Navalny’s demise on February 16, 2022, suggesting that the announcement was timed to maximize media attention.
Moreover, this week saw another round of trilateral negotiations between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia on finding a political settlement to the four-year conflict in Ukraine. The talks are at a tricky stage with little traction or trust between Kiev and Moscow.
The exotic frog story seems conveniently loaded to poison the atmosphere in the negotiations.
Tellingly, it is the British government that is the main protagonist in instigating the “necro-propaganda”.
This is true to form. It was the British who confabulated the Novichok poison story about double agent Sergey Skripal in 2018, and the polonium radioactive poisoning of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, in a hotel in London in 2006. The Sun tabloid has today dredged up the latter story on the back of the Navalny case. This all speaks of British intel-media orchestration.
In an interview for the BBC state broadcaster, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed that the alleged poisoning of Navalny showed that the Cold War is not over and that “we need to be ready for Russian aggression continuing towards Europe.”
She said that Europe must impose more sanctions on Russia and supply more weapons to Ukraine. Hardly conducive to negotiations.
It is remarkable, too, how Britain is not a member of the European Union, yet London appears entitled to define foreign relations with Russia for the 27-member bloc.
It is also significant that the Americans did not seem to be involved in creating the latest twist in the Navalny narrative. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to be blindsided by the development, saying, “We don’t have reason to question it,” but he disclosed that the U.S. had not been involved. “These countries came to that conclusion. They coordinated that… it wasn’t our endeavor. Sometimes countries go out and do their thing based on the intelligence [sic] they gathered.”
This has all the hallmarks of Britain’s endeavor, and to be more accurate, it wasn’t based on factual intelligence. It was based on a concocted black propaganda to demonize Russia and derail the peace diplomacy.
Another significant development was that during the trilateral talks in Geneva, Britain’s National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, showed up unexpectedly at the venue in the Intercontinental Hotel, where he held unofficial sideline talks with the Americans and Ukrainians. Powell’s visit was unannounced by the British government. He wasn’t formally invited to attend. Why was a senior British intelligence figure hanging around a venue for private trilateral discussions?
Britain has a malicious record of sabotaging peace diplomacy in Ukraine. In April 2022, just when the Ukrainian and Russian sides had worked out an early end to the conflict that erupted in February, the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson suddenly intervened to persuade the Kiev regime to fight on, with promises of more NATO weapons. The baleful result has been a four-year war, a slaughterhouse, with over one million Ukrainian soldiers dead and a large number of Russians.
The Trump administration wants to extricate itself from the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Washington seems to recognize that the gambit for “strategic defeat” of Russia is a dead-end.
Not so the Europeans, who, for various reasons, are still fixated on prosecuting the proxy war. The European political class seems to be more infected by Russophobia and is incapable of rational thinking or diplomatic engagement with Moscow.
The has-been empire that is Britain is taking a lead role in galvanizing the hostility in Europe towards Russia. It is to that end that London is the main protagonist in the so-called coalition of the willing, along with that other has-been empire, France. The proposal to deploy British and French troops to Ukraine as a “security guarantee” in the event of a peace deal is intended to act as a deal-breaker since Moscow has repeatedly stated that deployment of any NATO troops in Ukraine is unacceptable and non-negotiable.
Britain appears to be taking an increasing role in the covert mentoring of the Ukrainian regime. This week, the British Foreign Office announced the opening of a new embassy office in Lvov, in western Ukraine, which is a stronghold for anti-Russian nationalists and NATO weapons supplies. London said the new office in Lvov was to “expand the UK’s diplomatic [sic] presence in Ukraine as the two countries deepen their relationship.”
Ukraine’s former top military commander, Valery Zalushny, was appointed the ambassador to London in 2024. The “Iron General” is an admirer of Nazi figure Stepan Bandera, and is considered to be a strong contender to replace Vladimir Zelensky, no doubt under British tutelage.
Continuing the war in Europe gives the British state a political purpose and standing among the Europeans. For petty self-aggrandizement, London is exploiting Russophobia.
Concocting propaganda is part of Britain’s toxic agenda. The history of London’s incitement of wars in Europe – not least its sinister role in precipitating World Wars I and II – is consistent with the latest maneuvers to keep fueling the conflict in Ukraine.
Lawyers ask police to investigate Elbit Systems UK for alleged war crimes complicity
MEMO | February 20, 2026
A London-based law firm has urged the Metropolitan Police to investigate the potential complicity of Elbit Systems UK directors in atrocities in the Gaza Strip, Anadolu reports.
The Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), with the support of Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), submitted a detailed complaint Thursday to the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command.
The complaint said they asked the division to open a criminal investigation into four current and former British directors of Elbit Systems UK for “possible complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza.”
The complaint is brought on behalf of a Palestinian national living in the UK whose close family members remain in Gaza.
It asked the War Crimes Unit to investigate whether decisions taken by Elbit Systems UK and its UK-based subsidiaries, including the export of drone engines, targeting equipment and other military systems to Israel, may amount to aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting grave breaches of international humanitarian law.
CAAT has long documented Elbit’s role in Israeli military operations and its UK-based subsidiaries.
“Our client has watched from the UK as her community in Gaza was destroyed. She has witnessed her loved ones and countless others subjected to mass killings, displacement, starvation, and devastation on an unimaginable scale,” said PILC.
In the statement, CAAT said Israel’s genocide in Gaza “would not be possible without Elbit Systems.”
“Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest arms producer, and Israel is the single largest market for Elbit’s products. It provides 85% of the combat drones used by the Israeli military,” it noted.
‘Britain’s Index of Repression’ documents 964 incidents of anti-Palestinian crackdown
MEMO | February 18, 2026
A new report by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) has documented 964 verified incidents of anti-Palestinian repression across Britain between January 2019 and August 2025, identifying what it describes as a cross-sector pattern of institutional crackdowns on Palestine solidarity.
The findings form part of Britain’s Index of Repression, a searchable national database developed in collaboration with Forensic Architecture and launched today at the Frontline Club in London.
Documented incidents listed in the database include arrests, workplace dismissals, suspensions and event cancellations. The Index, originally launched in Germany in 2025, is now publicly available for Britain and is described as the first accessible database of its kind in the country.
The data indicates a marked escalation in incidents after October 2023, with the publication following what the press briefing describes as a significant post-Gaza rise in recorded cases.
The report identifies a broad range of actors involved in the repression of Palestine solidarity, with law enforcement and state-linked bodies featuring prominently. Police and security personnel were involved in 220 documented incidents, making them the single most frequent actor. Educational institutions were responsible for 192 incidents, while pro-Israel advocacy and lawfare groups were linked to 141 cases. Journalists and media actors were involved in 113 incidents.
The data also shows that repression disproportionately targets those embedded in public institutions and organising spaces. Students, academics and teachers were the most frequently targeted group, accounting for 336 incidents. Activists and organisers followed, with 229 cases. Public and private sector workers together faced 169 incidents, while 71 cases involved artists and cultural workers.
“From smear to sanction”
The report describes a recurring three-stage pattern in how repression unfolds.
It begins with what the authors term “smear and distortion”, accounting for 261 incidents involving censorship, disinformation campaigns and public accusations. These allegations are then taken up by institutions. In 136 cases there were threats of legal action, in 81 cases threats to employment or funding, and in 41 cases demonstration bans or event cancellations. A further 114 incidents involved formal disciplinary sanctions in schools, universities or workplaces.
The final stage involves direct enforcement. The report documents 131 arrests or law enforcement interventions, 111 cases of harassment, doxing or surveillance, and 90 incidents resulting in legal, financial or professional consequences.
The report argues that this architecture of repression is structured around two recurring allegations directed at Palestine solidarity movements: anti-Semitism and support for terrorism. It identifies the highly controversial IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and the Terrorism Act 2000 as central enabling instruments.
IHRA has been widely criticised, including by its lead drafter, Kenneth Stern. Stern has warned that the definition has been weaponised against critics of Israel and misused to suppress legitimate political speech.
The notorious legal firm, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) was mentioned in the report. The study found that UKLFI was involved in 128 incidents leading to institutional repression of Palestine solidarity.
Launch at the Frontline Club
At today’s press conference at the Frontline Club in London, organisers presented sector-by-sector breakdowns, post-October 2023 trends and the first public demonstration of the searchable database developed with Forensic Architecture.
The event included a panel discussion featuring ELSC research staff providing analysis of patterns identified in the data, as well as the first on-camera testimony from an ELSC client describing workplace repression.
UK prosecutors drop aggravated burglary charges against 24 Palestine Action activists
The Cradle | February 18, 2026
The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped aggravated burglary charges against 18 of the Filton 24 activists on 18 February, citing a “reconsideration of the sufficiency of the evidence” after earlier acquittals in the same case at Woolwich Crown Court.
At a case management hearing in south London, prosecutor Deanna Heer KC told the court, “The prosecution has reconsidered the sufficiency of the evidence … In light of those verdicts and in respect of all the remaining defendants the prosecution offers no evidence on count one, aggravated burglary.”
The aggravated burglary charge linked to the Elbit factory raid carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The decision came two weeks after six co-defendants – Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin — were acquitted of aggravated burglary on 4 February 2026. Jurors had deliberated for more than 36 hours before returning not guilty verdicts on that count.
Heer confirmed the CPS will seek a retrial on other allegations where no verdict was reached.
She told Mr Justice Johnson, “We now confirm the prosecution intention to seek a retrial in respect of all those allegations which no verdict was returned by the jury.”
Those include criminal damage against all defendants, violent disorder against three, and, in Corner’s case, causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Rajwani, Rogers, and Devlin were cleared of violent disorder, while the jury failed to reach verdicts on that charge for Head, Corner, and Kamio.
None of the six were convicted of any offence, with all except Corner being released on conditional bail after about 18 months in custody.
Corner remains on remand over the unresolved Section 18 grievous bodily harm charge.
The remaining 18 continue to face criminal damage charges, with some also facing violent disorder allegations.
Thirteen defendants have applied for bail, while one, Sean Middlebrough, failed to return to custody while on conditional release in October last year.
Epstein files may contain ‘crimes against humanity’ – UN
RT | February 18, 2026
Abuses carried out by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could meet the definition of crimes against humanity, the UN has claimed, while demanding accountability for the suspected perpetrators.
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released a statement in response to the millions of files released by the US government related to criminal investigations into the late financier.
The files reveal instances of “sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearance, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and femicide,” reads the document penned by a group of independent experts and published on Monday.
“So grave is the scale, nature, systematic character, and transnational reach of these atrocities… that a number of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity,” it states.
Epstein, who according to the authorities died by suicide in jail in 2019, moved in circles that included figures from politics, entertainment, and business. He faced criminal investigations in the US over allegations that he operated a system to recruit and sexually exploit young girls.
While Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted, “questions persist regarding the potential involvement of additional individuals” and financial structures linked to the alleged criminal enterprise, the UN wrote in a press release on Tuesday.
The UNHRC has urged the US and other countries to prosecute those implicated in the scandal, stating that “resignations alone” are not enough.
“It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators accountable. No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law,” they state.
The release of the Epstein files, totaling over 3.5 million pages, has triggered a wave of resignations across several countries. In the UK, the political fallout has been most severe, with three senior officials in Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government stepping down, and the brother of King Charles, Andrew, losing his titles.
In the US, a top Wall Street law firm chairman and a prominent New York arts school chair have resigned. In Europe, national security advisers in Slovakia and Norway have stepped down, along with the president of the Swedish UNHCR and a former French culture minister.
UK Government Plans to Use Delegated Powers to Undermine Encryption and Expand Online Surveillance
Delegated powers mean the specific rules (what gets scanned, what gets flagged) get written by a minister, not Parliament.
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | February 18, 2026
The UK government wants to scan people’s photos before they send them. Not just children’s photos. Everyone’s.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall spelled it out on BBC Breakfast, floating a proposal to “block photographs being sent that are potentially nude photographs by anybody or block children from sending those.” That second clause is the tell. Blocking “anybody” from sending potentially nude images requires scanning everybody’s messages. There’s no technical path to that outcome that doesn’t involve reading content the sender assumed was private.
Kendall said the government is conducting a consultation on “whether we should have age limits on things like live streaming” and whether there should be “age limits on what’s called stranger pairing, for example, on games online.” The consultation, she said, will look at all of these. That list now covers messaging apps, photo sharing, gaming, and live streaming. Any feature that lets you share an image with another person potentially falls inside it.
This is how the mandate grows. The government announced a push for new delegated powers on February 16, framing them around age verification for social media and VPNs.
What Kendall described in broadcast interviews goes well beyond that framing. The official press release mentioned consulting on how companies might “safeguard children from sending or receiving” nude images. Kendall’s BBC comments dropped the qualifier about children entirely, proposing to block “potentially nude” images sent by anyone.
The mechanism matters here. The government plans to introduce these new authorities as amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which has already cleared the House of Commons and the House of Lords and sits in its final stage. Amendments introduced this late receive less parliamentary scrutiny than standard legislation.
Delegated powers allow a minister or department to issue secondary legislation without returning to Parliament for a full vote. That secondary legislation isn’t subject to the same debate as the original Act. The government gets to decide the specific rules, on its own timeline, with limited opportunity for challenge. Kendall told Good Morning Britain that the government plans to push new “online safety rules” every year through this mechanism.
The bill already contains amendments requiring age verification for VPNs (amendment 92) and for “user-to-user” services (amendment 94a). User-to-user covers most online platforms where people share content: social media, messaging apps, forums, and gaming services. Email and SMS are exempt. Most everything else isn’t.
A charitable reading of why the government wants delegated powers: it needs flexibility to update technical standards for age verification as the technology changes, and only if Parliament first approves the underlying requirements. The less charitable reading, and the more plausible one: the government wants the ability to impose VPN and social media age verification even if those amendments fail. It’s building a back door to bypass the outcome of the parliamentary vote it’s currently trying to win.
The House of Lords previously considered and rejected an amendment that would have required constant client-side scanning on most smartphones and tablets to detect child sexual abuse material. The Lords declined to adopt it. That rejection happened through the full parliamentary process.
The government is now signaling it may pursue functionally identical surveillance through delegated powers, bypassing the scrutiny that killed the first attempt. Kendall’s photo-scanning proposal and the failed Lords amendment work the same way technically. Both require software installed on your device to examine content before it leaves. The Lords’ amendment targeted CSAM via client-side scanning. Kendall’s proposal targets “potentially nude” images via client-side scanning. The mechanism is identical. The content category is different.
End-to-end encryption means the service provider can’t read your messages. Client-side scanning, which has already proven to be a disaster in Germany, means your device reads them first, before encryption activates, and reports back. The encryption remains technically intact. The privacy it’s supposed to provide doesn’t. This is the same architecture that Apple proposed and then abandoned in 2021 after security researchers explained what it actually meant for private communication.
The government hasn’t acknowledged that its photo-scanning proposal requires dismantling the privacy guarantee that makes encrypted messaging meaningful. It’s describing the outcome it wants, not the infrastructure required to deliver it.
Photo scanning that flags “potentially nude” images requires training a model to identify what nudity looks like, running that model continuously on a device, and reporting matches somewhere. The system built for that purpose can be retrained or repurposed. A scanner that identifies nudity can be adjusted to flag political content, protest coordination, or anything else a future government decides warrants detection.
The delegated powers structure means those future decisions don’t require new primary legislation. They require a minister, a statutory instrument, and limited parliamentary review.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s February 16 Substack noted that “private chats” are supposedly harming children without proposing to target them specifically. The official press release didn’t mention messaging apps at all. What Kendall said on television this week went further than either document. The consultation hasn’t launched yet. The powers to act on its findings, at speed, with reduced oversight, are already being written into law.
The Mandelson Molecule: Exposing the Architecture of Cross-Border Political Suppression
By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | February 18, 2026
The resignation of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington in February 2026 revealed more than a scandal—it exposed the architecture of a parallel governance system operating through deniable channels. The Epstein files, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) censorship apparatus, and the Mandelson intelligence pipeline are not separate stories. They are component parts of a transatlantic mechanism that converts private access into public control, with enforcement mechanisms that now reach across sovereign borders to silence American citizens.
Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender with deep ties to political and financial elites on both sides of the Atlantic. Peter Mandelson is a former UK power‑broker and ambassador to Washington, now under investigation for secretly sharing government information with Epstein. This article shows how their relationship connects to a wider system of online censorship and private global‑health finance.
The Intelligence Pipeline: Real-Time Treasury Briefings to a Convicted Sex Offender
The Mandelson-Epstein correspondence reveals something far more systematic than indiscreet friendship. It documents a private intelligence channel operating at the highest levels of UK and US financial policy.
In December 2009, while serving as Business Secretary, Mandelson forwarded Treasury positions on the bankers’ bonus tax to Epstein within hours of receiving them, with Epstein requesting advance notice “before Jes” and Mandelson replying simply: “Treasury”. By March 2010, the pattern had escalated—Mandelson forwarded notes from a meeting between UK Chancellor Alistair Darling and US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to Epstein within five minutes, followed by his own meeting with Summers the next day. Those notes were forwarded within two minutes.
The content was market-moving intelligence: Dodd-Frank implementation, hedge fund taxation, derivatives regulation, and Bank of England quantitative easing strategy during the credit crunch. Mandelson advised Epstein that JPMorgan’s CEO should “mildly threaten” Chancellor Darling over policy. This systematic extraction of live government intelligence for private financial advantage can hardly be construed as incidental corruption.
DOCUMENT: Peter Mandelson leaked No 10 documents to Epstein, who then helped him pursue multi-million dollar jobs (Source: Tax Policy Associates)
The Censorship Architecture: From Anti-Corbyn Operations to American Deplatforming
The same censorship machine that produced the Biden White House’s authoritarian campaign against the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” in 2021 had emerged from the notorious Room 216, Brixton, where Israeli loyalist and architect of Keir Starmer’s rise to power, Morgan McSweeney, along with Imran Ahmed, built the “Labour Together” operation to dismantle Jeremy Corbyn. It was a CCDH list of 12 named individuals, which the White House then pushed Facebook to censor. The March 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” report was not independent research—it was unequivocally the identical playbook redeployed. The Biden White House directly cited CCDH’s report to pressure Facebook into censoring American health publishers, with internal documents showing the platform’s “secretly demoted” users, including alleged “anti-vaxxers”, and Twitter accounts of targeted individuals. When Facebook pushed back that the “majority of the accounts in question were not spreading misinformation,” the White House persisted.
Among those branded the “Disinformation Dozen” by the CCDH in March 2021: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Children’s Health Defense), physician Joseph Mercola, and Sayer Ji—whose investigative work exposing the Mandelson intelligence pipeline appears later in this report.
The method was documented in internal strategy papers: cultivate “seemingly independent voices to generate and share content to build up a political narrative,” infiltrate opposition spaces to extract decontextualised content, and feed narratives to sympathetic media. The “antisemitism crisis” that destroyed UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was, as Labour Party files confirm, instrumentalised by this same faction.
Morgan McSweeney was CCDH’s founding director and subscriber for 18 months, operating from the same Brixton office that produced Labour’s anti-Corbyn operation. When he resigned in April 2020 to become Starmer’s chief of staff, Ahmed inherited an apparatus already proven effective at demonetising political opposition.
Morgan McSweeney, founding director of the CCDH, and former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff. (Source: The Edge | Business news)
The March 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” report was not independent research—it was unequivocally the identical playbook redeployed. The Biden White House directly cited CCDH’s report to pressure Facebook into censoring American health publishers, with internal documents showing the platform “secretly demoted” affiliated accounts and Twitter accounts of targeted individuals. When Facebook pushed back that the “majority of the accounts in question were not spreading misinformation,” the White House persisted.
Project Molecule: The Financial Infrastructure of Private Governance
The August 2011 JPMorgan “Project Molecule” blueprint reveals the financial architecture that made this system durable. The $150 million fund Epstein pitched to JPMorgan CEO Mary Erdoes was designed to operate “across sovereign borders, into specific countries, for specific biological interventions”—with no elected officials, no treaty obligations, and no public accountability beyond its own audit committee.
DOCUMENT: JPMorgan “Project Molecule” blueprint (Source: DOJ Epstein File Library | EFTA01301114)
Epstein operated as Bill Gates’s representative under a written agreement, with the explicit purpose of securing “additional money for vaccines” while creating a “permanently governed, privately controlled, transnational system”. The budget allocated $40M for polio vaccines in Afghanistan, $40M in Pakistan, $20M specifically for “financing the surveillance network in Pakistan,” and $30M for rotavirus vaccines in Latin America.
This is the governance model: private intelligence (Mandelson-Epstein), private finance (Project Molecule’s offshore vaccination funds), and private enforcement (CCDH’s deplatforming operations) operating in substitutional parallel to democratic institutions.
The Enforcement Layer: Cross-Border Suppression of American Speech
What transforms influence operations into censorship is enforcement. The original investigation documents the apparatus reaching into foreign legal proceedings against American journalists—cross-border enforcement without due process, extradition treaties, or congressional oversight.
The pattern is now confirmed by US government action. In December 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred Imran Ahmed from entering the United States, citing his role in “leading organised efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose”. Ahmed was one of five Europeans sanctioned under a visa policy targeting foreigners responsible for censoring protected speech in America.
The CCDH is now reportedly under DOJ investigation for potential violations of foreign agent registration laws, given its coordination with UK Labour operatives while targeting US political speech. Labour’s deployment of approximately 100 operatives to US swing states during the 2024 election—conducted by McSweeney’s network—has generated formal FEC complaints alleging direct electoral interference.
After days of parliamentary theatre about “transparency,” Westminster has craftily moved to bury the Mandelson-Epstein papers—not in open sunlight, but inside the Intelligence and Security Committee, a body three of whose members have already stuffed with cash from pro-Israel lobbyists.
In Britain, Downing Street originally wanted veto power over anything “prejudicial to national security”, but the documents will now be reviewed by the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). Critics argue that this allegedly independent oversight body could be compromised. In effect, three sitting members—Deputy Chair Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir John Hayes, and Labour’s Derek Twigg—have all taken money from the pro-Israel lobby, which by some estimates bankrolls roughly a quarter of British MPs. This can be verified in the excellent Declassified UK report published in June 2024.
The bottom line is that the Epstein file, which details how Mandelson piped classified Treasury intelligence to a convicted sex offender, and how British power brokers and Wall Street criminals traded backroom briefings, will now be “vetted” by politicians on the take from foreign influence networks. Forget transparency—it was never on the table.
The Architecture of Manufactured Consensus
The critical insight is structural: these networks exploit the gap between formal democratic institutions and actual governance. Mandelson’s Treasury briefings to Epstein occurred through informal channels. Project Molecule’s sovereign surveillance programs were designed to operate offshore. CCDH’s censorship operations, though effective at capturing White House policy, occurred through a nonprofit rather than state agencies. According to reports, George Soros is said to have donated $250,000 to the CCDH, which is working to censor conservative news outlets and to undermine Musk’s Twitter.
When the same personnel (McSweeney as CCDH founder, then Starmer’s chief of staff), the same infrastructure (Brixton operations), and the same methods (crisis amplification, media laundering, financial pressure) appear across Corbyn’s destruction, COVID censorship, and US electoral operations, we are not observing a coincidence. We are witnessing a system.
The switchboard is not the scandal. The switchboard is the system, and it is now being dismantled by the very government it sought to influence.
The Original Investigation
This synthesis builds upon the groundbreaking investigative work of Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and author of the Switchboard series—including the first publication to connect the Mandelson-Epstein intelligence pipeline to the CCDH censorship apparatus. Ji’s research, conducted under direct legal and professional pressure from the very networks he was exposing, documented how British political operatives built a cross-border enforcement mechanism capable of weaponising foreign courts against American journalists.
His original reporting on Room 216, the Brixton operations, and the emergence of “disinformation” as a tool for political suppression predates mainstream coverage by years, and has now been validated by the Epstein disclosures, the Rubio sanctions against Ahmed, and the DOJ’s investigation into CCDH’s foreign agent activities.
Read the complete investigation series and supporting documentation at Sayer Ji Substack…
Sayer Ji reports on Substack…
The Switchboard: From Epstein to Mandelson to McSweeney to Ahmed — How a British Machine Became America’s Censorship Engine
How the Epstein Files Reveal the Architecture Behind Censorship, Crisis Finance, and What Happened When I Investigated It – Part 3 in a Series
Peter Mandelson, “the Prince of Darkness,” Keir Starmer’s hand-picked ambassador to Washington, the most powerful unelected figure in British politics, resigned from Parliament this week, one step ahead of legislation to eject him. The Metropolitan Police opened a criminal investigation. The Prime Minister apologised to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims for believing Mandelson’s lies.
The press is treating this as a story about a politician’s downfall. It is not. It is a story about what he was connected to — and what was built to make sure you never found out.
Key Findings:
- The censorship machine that targeted American speech during COVID was built inside a Labour Party factional operation. Morgan McSweeney and Imran Ahmed created the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) from the same office, using the same staff, and the same dark-money infrastructure they used to destroy Jeremy Corbyn — then redeployed the identical playbook against U.S.-based health publishers and independent media.
- CCDH’s founder and political patron is a protégé of Peter Mandelson, who was simultaneously routing confidential UK and U.S. government intelligence to Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson forwarded Treasury readouts on the Volcker Rule, Dodd-Frank, and derivatives regulation to Epstein within minutes of receiving them — intelligence worth billions to Epstein’s Wall Street clients. The same political culture of deniable backroom operations that made the Epstein network functional also produced CCDH.
- Epstein’s network was not just criminal — it was architectural. Project Molecule, a $150M JPMorgan blueprint produced the same month Epstein sketched a private global health fund, reveals the institutional machinery: offshore vaccination funds, sovereign biological surveillance programs, and governance structures designed to bypass elected oversight entirely.
- The enforcement layer is not theoretical — it has already been deployed against named individuals. CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” list led directly to platform deplatforming. In at least one documented case, CCDH-originated material was entered into foreign legal proceedings to seek an ex parte arrest warrant against a U.S.-based journalist for lawful American speech — cross-border enforcement with no due process, no extradition treaty, and no congressional oversight.
- The same network is now the subject of a formal FEC complaint alleging direct electoral interference. McSweeney — Mandelson’s protégé, CCDH’s political architect, and now Starmer’s chief of staff — was named in a formal FEC complaint for dispatching approximately 100 Labour operatives to U.S. swing states during the 2024 presidential election. The censorship pipeline and the electoral interference pipeline share the same personnel, the same infrastructure, and the same assumption: that British political operatives can shape American outcomes without accountability.
Zionist-controlled companies to surveil British citizens
Press TV – February 17, 2026
The implications of the British state using technology produced by Zionist-controlled companies to surveil British citizens are beyond belief.
The cornerstone of a sovereign nation is the absolute control over its own justice, its own data, and its own watchmen. Yet today, the very machinery of British law enforcement is being quietly and systemically outsourced.
The British government has allowed the digital and physical infrastructure of the state to become a high tech extension of a foreign power, driven by the pernicious influence of Zionism, an ideology that prioritizes the expansion of a foreign entity over the rights of people in the UK.
This is not merely a matter of procurement. It is a surrender of independence.
By embedding Zionist-linked firms into the heartbeat of British society, the government is importing a surveillance philosophy rooted in the subjugation of one people and applying it to their own subjects.
These are combat-proven technologies forged in the fires of the Gaza genocide, and they are now the primary eyes and ears of the metropolitan police.
The police use Israeli intelligence firm Cellebrite to unlock the phones and private lives of their own citizens. They also use BriefCam to track people’s movements through video synopsis.
BriefCam is a company co-founded by Gideon Ben-Zvi, a veteran of the IOF elite unit 8200 Intelligence Corps, who openly admits to using unit 8200 criteria to lead his ventures.
The reach of foreign intelligence into the streets is even more direct through Corsight AI, which provides facial recognition throughout the country.
Born as a subsidiary of Cortica, it was founded by Igal Raichelgauz, another alumnus of the Zionist military intelligence apparatus.
When our faces are scanned by software overseen by the architects of the occupation of Palestine, can we truly say that the British public is being policed by British consent?
But the intrusion goes deeper than software. It reaches the very hands of our officers on the front lines.
ISPRA, an Israeli specialist in riot control, has historically supplied the crowd management munitions used to police the streets.
When the tools used to suppress dissent in the UK are manufactured by a firm specializing in the containment of occupied territories, the line between domestic policing and foreign military occupation begins to blur.
Furthermore, Motorola Solutions, a company listed by the United Nations for its links to illegal settlements, is now deep inside our research projects.
Through initiatives like CREST and Connections, they’re building predictive policing tools designed to monitor the social media content and online lives of the British public.
When a company that facilitates surveillance in the West Bank is the same one mapping the future crimes of Londoners, we have fundamentally compromised our domestic integrity.
Links between Zionist movement and Lionel Idan
Lionel Idan is a key British prosecutor serving as the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS and also the National Hate Crime Lead Prosecutor.
He’s currently being heavily lobbied by a network of powerful Zionist groups.
We’re not just talking about casual meetings.
Idan has held repeated engagements with the Israeli embassy and Zionist lobby groups, the board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust, CSD, an organization headed by convicted fraudster Gerald Ronson.
The objective is clear, to ensure the Crown Prosecution Service, CPS, fully adapts the IHRA definition of anti-semitism, a definition weaponized against anti-Zionists, as we saw during the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.
Lionel Idan has not hidden these alliances. In an op-ed for the Jewish News, he boasted that the CPS sits on the anti-semitism Working Group alongside the CSD and the Jewish leadership council.
He confirmed that lobby groups, the CSD and the Antisemitism Policy Trust, are now core members of the CPS External Consultative Group on Hate Crime.
Perhaps most concerning is that the national prosecution guidance is being shaped by these very groups. Idan has admitted that their involvement helps the CPS define the line where anti-Zionism becomes a criminal offense.
When the person overseeing London’s prosecutions attends Israel lobby annual dinners to celebrate new security task forces, where is the independence of the UK legal system?
It should be demanded that the CPS remain an impartial body free from the influence of political lobbyists and foreign interests.
THE CHILDREN GAMBIT
How Europe’s Political Class Weaponises Innocence — and Has Been Building This Machine for Years
Islander Reports | February 17, 2026
Before we start. These platforms aren’t innocent. They’ve extracted billions from our attention, manipulated our children’s dopamine cycles, censored truth tellers, handed our data to surveillance capitalism and slept soundly every night. Hold that. And then read what follows anyway — because what’s happening right now is something else entirely.
Let’s start with the money. Because the money never lies.
€1.2 billion. Ireland’s Data Protection Commission. Meta. May 2023. The largest GDPR fine in history, for routing EU citizen data to the United States without adequate protection. A record that lasted about five minutes.
€530 million. TikTok. May 2025. Same Irish authority. For sending European user data to China and then, this is the part they buried in the press release — lying about it during the inquiry. TikTok told regulators throughout the investigation it wasn’t storing EEA data on Chinese servers. In February 2025, they quietly admitted it had been. All along.
€345 million. TikTok again. 2023. Children’s data. €14.5 million from the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office on top of that, same year, same issue. €91 million to Meta Ireland in September 2024 — they stored hundreds of millions of user passwords in plaintext. Just sitting there. No encryption. Exposed. €390 million to Meta the year before, for forcing users to accept personalised advertising as a condition of accessing their own accounts.
And then December 5th, 2025. The European Commission handed X — formerly Twitter, now Elon Musk’s megaphone and the primary target of every European leader who’s discovered that their citizens can organise against them online — a €120 million fine. First ever penalty under the Digital Services Act. For misleading users about the blue verification badge, concealing advertiser identities, and blocking government-approved researchers from accessing algorithmic data.
Over €2.5 billion. Just the verdicts. Just the ones that made it to conclusion. Fourteen active DSA proceedings still grinding through the machinery, with Meta and TikTok each facing potential fines of 6% of global revenue. That’s €9.9 billion for Meta. €9.3 billion for ByteDance. Numbers large enough to restructure companies. Numbers designed to make platforms obedient.
So when Pedro Sanchez walked out this morning and announced that Spain’s Council of Ministers would invoke Article 8 of the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecution Service — sic prosecutors onto X, Meta and TikTok for “crimes they may be committing” through AI-generated child pornography — understand what you’re looking at.
This isn’t a regulator at the end of its rope. This is a political class that has already built the machine, tested the machine, extracted billions through the machine — and is now deciding what else the machine can reach.
“May Be Committing”
That’s the phrase. Not “has committed.” Not “is committing.” May be. Sanchez posted it on X — the very platform he’s threatening to prosecute — and the media swallowed it whole, no questions about evidence or methodology or whether a public prosecutor’s office is the right instrument for making technical judgements about AI image generation pipelines.
The Spanish government claims Grok produced three million sexualised images in eleven days, including over 23,000 involving minors. Strong numbers. Specific numbers. Precise to the point of being designed to prevent challenge — because you can’t interrogate evidence you haven’t been shown, and asking to see it means you’re defending the indefensible. Not one published source. Not one independent methodology. They arrived complete, ready-made for outrage.
That’s the genius of it. The children gambit works precisely because you cannot question it without becoming the villain of the story.
Pavel Durov said it plainly — and look, nobody should hold Durov up as a civic virtue. But he’s spent years watching governments use platform regulation as a control mechanism, and when he says Sanchez’s moves aren’t safeguards but steps toward total control, he’s speaking from operational experience. He’s seen this architecture before. From the inside.
Here’s what this moment actually is, in the longer register. Every time a Western liberal government needs to consolidate control over the information environment, it finds a victim group whose protection cannot be questioned. In the 20th century they used communists, terrorists, drug dealers. The 21st century discovered something more powerful — children. Unimpeachable. Unchallengeable. A shield so morally absolute that any surveillance infrastructure built behind it arrives pre-legitimised. Sanchez didn’t invent this playbook. He’s just the current page.
Here’s the question nobody in any press conference asked today. If you actually wanted to protect children from AI-generated abuse material — if that were the genuine, singular, burning priority — what would you do?
You’d hunt the producers. Fund specialist cyber units with the resources and legal powers to identify, locate and prosecute the people who generate and distribute child sexual abuse material. Build better reporting pipelines so victims and witnesses have direct, fast routes to enforcement. Nail the distribution networks — the forums, the channels, the file-sharing infrastructure where this material moves — with targeted operations and international cooperation. Invest in takedown technology that works at scale. These are the unglamorous tools of actual child protection. Forensic. Technical. Expensive. Slow. Not suited to a press conference.
None of that is what Sanchez announced today. What he announced was prosecution of three of the most visible American technology platforms, with unverified statistics, under a legal mechanism designed for emergency government intervention in the public interest — on the same morning Keir Starmer in London announced restrictions on the last tool of genuine online privacy.
That’s not child protection. That’s the political class treating every ordinary user as a pre-suspect, building infrastructure that watches everyone in order to catch a tiny minority — and using the minority as the justification.
When someone says “think of the children,” look at what they’re actually building. Because what they’re building right now, across Europe and Britain, is an internet where you need permission to speak.
The Network They Actually Protected
Let’s be precise about who’s invoking children to demand your identity.
Jeffrey Epstein ran an international child trafficking operation for decades. Not speculation. Court and DOJ documents. Thirty-five girls identified by Palm Beach police in 2005. FBI reports going back to 1996. Federal prosecutors in Florida prepared a 60-count draft indictment in 2007 — conspiracy, sex trafficking of minors, enticement — charging Epstein and three co-conspirators described as employees who “persuaded, induced, and enticed individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution.”
The names of those three co-conspirators were in the indictment. Then US Attorney Alexander Acosta gave Epstein 13 months in county jail with work release six days a week and immunity for “any potential co-conspirators” — in direct violation of federal victims’ rights law. The investigation was shut down. Epstein walked. The network persisted.
Fast forward. January 2026. Department of Justice releases 3 million pages (a mere 2% of what they have in possession) under a law Congress passed unanimously demanding transparency. Victims’ names exposed. Driver’s licenses published. Witness statements naming perpetrators? Redacted. Draft indictment naming co-conspirators? Still redacted. Attorneys for over 200 victims called it “the single most egregious violation of victim privacy in one day in United States history” and accused DOJ of “hiding the names of perpetrators while exposing survivors.”
Congressmen like Thomas Massie had to read names aloud on the House floor before DOJ would release them. Rep. Ro Khanna: “The survivor statements to the FBI naming rich and powerful men who went to Epstein’s island, his ranch, his home — who raped and abused underage girls — they were all hidden.”
Now look at who’s demanding you hand over your identity to speak online.
Keir Starmer — the man proposing VPN bans and bypassing Parliament to regulate your thumbs on a screen — appointed Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the United States in December 2024. Mandelson called himself Epstein’s “best pal” in Epstein’s 50th birthday book. Their friendship continued after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Emails released in the January 2026 DOJ files show Mandelson received £75,000 in payments from Epstein between 2003-2004, leaked classified government information to him while serving as Business Secretary in 2009-2010, and sent messages suggesting Epstein was wrongfully convicted.
Starmer knew about the Epstein connection when he made the appointment. Mandelson had already resigned from government twice before — conflicts of interest, financial misconduct — and the Epstein relationship was public record. Starmer appointed him anyway. Made him Britain’s top diplomat. Gave him the US ambassador post. When the files dropped and the depth of the relationship became undeniable, Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney — who recommended Mandelson — resigned. Then Starmer’s communications director. Then his cabinet secretary. Three senior aides gone in days.
Mandelson is now under criminal investigation by the Metropolitan Police for misconduct in public office. US Congress has requested he submit to interview as part of its investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers.
And Starmer — whose government just had VPN downloads surge 1,800% because British citizens don’t trust him with their browsing data — is the man now lecturing the public about online child safety.
This isn’t hypocrisy. It’s consistency. The same political class that gave Epstein’s network immunity and protected co-conspirators for two decades is now demanding total visibility over your identity. The same Department of Justice that hid perpetrators and exposed survivors is the one telling you encryption backdoors are necessary to protect children. The same institutions that shut down the Epstein investigation in 2008 and buried the names in 2026 are building the Digital Identity Wallet, the fact-checker networks, the 24-hour removal mandates.
When they say this is about protecting children, look at the Epstein files. Look at who they protected. Look at who they prosecuted. Look at who they gave immunity. Look at whose names are still redacted while survivors’ information gets published.
Then ask yourself why these exact same people need to know who you are before you’re allowed to speak.
What This Actually Is — Unelected, Unaccountable, and Expanding
Here’s what nobody in the mainstream coverage will say: the regulatory apparatus now targeting these platforms was not built by people you voted for.
Picture what happens when a flag arrives. It’s 2am. A compliance officer at a major platform — a 26-year-old in Dublin or Amsterdam with a policy degree and a quota — opens an alert. A Brussels-appointed body has flagged a post as potentially harmful. The DSA gives the platform 24 hours to act or face fines of up to 6% of global revenue. There’s no named accuser. No court order. No adversarial process. Just a designation, a deadline, and a number so large that hesitation is financially irrational. The post gets removed. The writer wakes up to find their words gone. The politician whose opponents wrote it points elsewhere. The regulator points at the law. The compliance officer points at the process.
Nobody elected any of them.
The European Commission is not elected. Its commissioners are appointed by governments, approved by a parliament most Europeans couldn’t name the composition of — and its enforcement apparatus, the officials running fourteen DSA proceedings and handing out nine-figure fines, operates at a distance from democratic accountability that is not incidental but structural. The “trusted flaggers” embedded in the DSA framework, deputised to mark content for priority removal, are appointed bodies. Ofcom in the UK is a regulator, not an elected chamber. The European Board for Digital Services, coordinating enforcement across 27 countries, answers to no electorate anywhere on earth.
Sanchez and Starmer announce the intention. The technocrats execute it. And when it goes wrong — when the journalist’s article vanishes into a compliance process with no appeal, when the civil servant’s flagging of “migrant hotel” videos turns out to be political interference dressed as child protection — there is no one to vote out. The politician points at the regulator. The regulator points at the law. The law was written in workshops whose attendees you’ll never know. Democratic majorities change. Regulatory architecture doesn’t.
That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s the system working exactly as it was designed.
Britain and the VPN — The Moment the Mask Slipped
The week before Sanchez made his announcement, Keir Starmer was in London saying “no platform gets a free pass.” New powers to restrict social media. AI chatbots brought under the Online Safety Act. Infinite scrolling — the physical act of moving your thumb down a screen — to be regulated. Action in “months, not years.” And crucially, explicitly, openly: bypassing the parliamentary scrutiny that would normally apply to legislation this significant. He said it out loud. The urgency is too great for debate.
But the detail that should stop every person who cares about liberty cold is the VPN proposal.
Let’s be clear about what a VPN actually is, because the political class is clearly hoping you don’t know and don’t care to find out.
A Virtual Private Network encrypts your internet connection and masks your IP address — your digital location, the identifying tag that follows you across every website you visit, that your internet service provider logs, that governments can and do compel ISPs to hand over. When you use a VPN, your traffic passes through an encrypted tunnel. Your ISP sees that you’re connected to a VPN server. That’s it. They cannot see where you go. They cannot see what you say. They cannot read your communications.
This is the tool that domestic abuse survivors use to hide their location from abusers. That investigative journalists use to protect their sources. That activists use to organise without government surveillance. VPNs aren’t a loophole. They’re a lifeline.
After the UK Online Safety Act came into force, VPN downloads in Britain surged by 1,800%. Half the top ten apps in British app stores became VPN services. Ordinary British citizens — not criminals, not paedophiles, not terrorists — reached for the exact same tool that people under authoritarian regimes use to avoid state surveillance, because they didn’t want to submit government-verified identity just to browse normally.
Starmer’s response to that 1,800% signal was to propose restricting VPNs.
Not to reconsider whether the surveillance infrastructure was too invasive. Not to ask why a free people felt the need for anonymity tools in a democracy. No — the tool of privacy is the problem. The loophole to be closed.
And here’s the thing that proves this was never about children. Ban commercial VPNs tomorrow and any determined teenager circumvents it within hours — cheap cloud servers, open proxies, custom tunnels for less than a dollar a month. The only people genuinely impacted are the ones relying on them for legitimate safety: the abuse survivor hiding their location, the journalist protecting a source, the person who simply doesn’t want their ISP building a commercial profile of their private reading habits. A VPN ban doesn’t protect children. It closes the last gap in the surveillance infrastructure — means that when the DSA triggers an investigation into your political commentary, when the Brussels-appointed fact-checker flags your article, there’s nowhere left to go. No tunnel. No private space. Just a 1984 dystopian, digitally enhanced.
The Wallet Nobody’s Talking About
Beneath all of this — quieter, slower, more permanent than any headline — is the piece of architecture that makes everything else irrelevant to debate once it’s in place.
By December 2026, every EU member state is legally required to provide its citizens with a European Digital Identity Wallet. Not a proposal. Law — Regulation EU 2024/1183, in force since May 2024. Major platforms will be required to accept it as a login mechanism. The private sector — banks, retailers, online services, social media — can request verified identity information through it.
Brussels will tell you the privacy protections are robust. And it’s worth taking that position seriously, because it isn’t entirely dishonest.
Article 5a of the regulation is real. It states explicitly that relying parties — the companies and platforms using the wallet — “shall not refuse the use of pseudonyms, where the identification of the user is not required by Union or national law.” The Commission points to this as the safeguard. They have a point. It’s in the law. It’s binding. If you want to use your wallet pseudonymously on a platform that has no legal requirement to know who you are, the regulation says you can. Proponents argue this is a meaningful, enforceable right — and that critics conflating the wallet with mandatory real-name requirements are misreading the text.
The problem is the eleven words the Commission would prefer you not to dwell on: where the identification of the user is not required by Union or national law.
That clause means the pseudonymity right exists only in the space where no law has yet required your identity. It is protection that any member state can legislate away, for any service, with a single national law and a stated reason. Child protection. Anti-terrorism. Financial crime. Age verification. The reasons are not hard to find. The EU has no override mechanism — Brussels cannot prevent a member state from passing a law that, in its domestic application, triggers the exception and requires identification. So the right survives only until a government decides it shouldn’t. One parliament. One vote. The pseudonymity is gone for that service, in that country — legally, permanently, with the full blessing of the regulation’s own text.
And there’s something else the Commission won’t volunteer. The architecture meant to enforce the pseudonymity right — the mechanism that would actually prevent platforms from demanding your identity when they have no legal right to — was quietly gutted in implementation. Privacy advocates at epicenter.works, the only civil society organisation that worked on this file throughout the entire reform process, found that the Commission made relying party registration certificates optional rather than mandatory. Without mandatory certificates, the wallet cannot verify whether a company’s request for your real identity is legitimate or overreaching. Tech giants can demand identification in contexts that don’t legally require it. There is no technical mechanism to stop them. The safeguard exists in the legislation. The infrastructure that would make the safeguard real was made optional in the implementing regulations.
The Commission was told this directly. They proceeded anyway.
Civil society organisations warned EU officials in an open letter that the wallet “may eliminate anonymity, leading to over-identification and a loss of privacy.” Unacknowledged. One hundred and thirteen free speech and privacy experts wrote separately to raise similar concerns about the broader regulatory framework. Ignored. The pattern of constructing the infrastructure first and addressing rights concerns later — or not at all — is not a run of oversight failures. It’s a consistent set of choices made by people who understood exactly what they were choosing.
The Machine Is Already Running
People keep framing this as something that might happen. Future concerns. Hypothetical overreach.
It’s not the future.
The European Democracy Shield is operational — fifty action points, a European Centre for Democratic Resilience, a state-funded network of fact-checkers on Brussels money with a Brussels mandate, described in their own documents as “rapid response capacity” for information “crises.” The Commission decides what a crisis is. There is no external appeal. Just a bureaucrat with a mandate to act within 24 hours and a definition of disinformation so broad that it extends, in the Commission’s own telling, to content “that is not illegal.”
How broad? In May 2025, the Commission hosted a closed-door workshop with platform compliance teams. Training exercises. Internal documents. The US House Judiciary Committee obtained these documents under subpoena — you can disagree with the committee’s politics but you can’t argue with what the documents actually show. One exercise asked participants how to handle a post: an image of a teenage Muslim girl in a hijab alongside the text “we need to take back our country.” The exercise classified the combination as “illegal hate speech” requiring removal. Now, a reasonable person might argue about that specific scenario. Fine. Argue it. But the fact that this is the level at which European regulators are working — training platform compliance teams to remove common political sentiment combined with religious imagery, in closed-door workshops, before any court has ruled, before any democratic debate has happened — tells you something important about where the definitions are pointing.
Think about what that means in practice. Not in theory — in practice. A compliance officer at a platform with 400 million users gets a flag from a Brussels-funded body. The post contains a political opinion combined with an image. The body has designated it harmful. The platform has 24 hours. The alternative is a fine that could be measured in billions. Nobody phones a judge. Nobody consults the person who wrote it. The post disappears. And when it does — when that specific combination of political sentiment and religious imagery gets quietly removed from 400 million people’s feeds at 2am by someone following a process designed in a workshop that was closed to the public — that isn’t a transparency obligation. That’s the state deciding what the public is allowed to see. And doing it with plausible deniability built in at every layer.
That fact-checker network plugs directly into DSA enforcement. Platforms — X, Meta, TikTok, and by mid-2026 almost certainly ChatGPT, which already has three times the user numbers needed to trigger Very Large Online Platform designation — will be legally required to act on those findings. Not consider them. Act. Within 24 hours. Or face fines of 6% of global revenue.
The €120 million fine X received in December 2025 wasn’t for hosting child abuse content. It was for opacity — for not giving government-approved researchers access to the recommendation algorithm that determines what information reaches citizens. The Commission called it a transparency obligation. What it actually was: the state asserting the right to see inside the machine that shapes what the public thinks, so it can instruct the machine to shape it differently.
And when the Digital Identity Wallet closes the last gap — when the pseudonymity is quietly legislated away by a member state with a “reason,” when the VPN tunnel gets restricted, when every platform knows exactly who is saying what with a government-verified name attached — the system is complete. Everyone who speaks online, identified. Everything said, attributable. Every flag by a Brussels-appointed body, actionable within a day.
All of it constructed, piece by deliberate piece, in the name of protecting children from harm.
Final thoughts
The Soviet Union had a name for the officials who ran its censorship apparatus. Guardians of the public good. They had fact-checkers — called editors, party reviewers, information officers. Rapid response systems. Legal frameworks for acting on speech that threatened the stability of the state. Most of them genuinely believed they were protecting something real. That’s what makes these systems so durable — the people inside them are sincere.
They didn’t think of themselves as censors either.
What you are watching, from Madrid to London to Brussels, is the construction of a digital order in which the ability to speak freely, anonymously, without state knowledge, is being dismantled — not through jackboots but through frameworks, directives, DSA workshops, government-funded fact-checker networks, and the entirely reasonable-sounding proposition that we must protect our children.
Sánchez is a man whose government has been at war with X since the platform gave his opponents a direct line to Spanish voters that bypassed media institutions his party spent years cultivating. Starmer is a man whose government monitored social media during a domestic political crisis and then moved to expand its legal authority over the very platforms that let citizens talk about what they saw. The European Commission is a body of unelected officials who trained platform compliance teams, in closed-door workshops, to remove political sentiment they’d categorised as harmful — and then ignored 113 experts who wrote to warn them what they were building.
Keir Starmer is a man who appointed an Epstein associate as his personal envoy to Washington, knowing the relationship, knowing the history, and when it collapsed appointed himself the guardian of online child safety
These. Are. The self appointed guardians of the children.
They gave Epstein’s co-conspirators immunity and are still hiding their names two decades later. But they need to know yours before you can post a political opinion. They protected a trafficking network with clients in the highest levels of Western power. But you’re the threat that requires a Digital Identity Wallet. They redacted the men who procured children for a convicted paedophile while publishing the victims’ driver’s licenses. But your VPN is the problem that demands legislative action.
Call that what it is.
They didn’t prosecute the network because they were the network’s best customers. So how dare they invoke children’s safety to strip yours.
€2.5 billion extracted. Fourteen proceedings active. A Digital ID mandate rolling out across 27 countries by year’s end. VPNs under legislative attack in the birthplace of the Magna Carta. Parliamentary scrutiny openly bypassed in London. A Democracy Shield with a rapid response protocol for information crises that no one elected anyone to define.
They’ve been building this for ten years. The fines, the frameworks, the wallets, the fact-checkers, the VPN bans, the bypassed parliaments. Layer by layer. Always with a reason. Always with a child somewhere in the justification.
They’re nearly done.
And when it’s finished — when the wallet is in your pocket, the fact-checkers are wired to the platforms, the pseudonymity has been legislated away in some member state that needed a “reason,” the last encrypted tunnel closed — they will stand in front of all of it and tell you it was always, only, ever about the children.
An internet where you need permission to speak isn’t a safer internet. It’s a controlled one.
Epstein’s co-conspirators walk free while you need state permission to call them what they are.
Believe them if you want. History will know what it was.
Featured Video
The KAL Flight 007 Tragedy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
US-Israel War on Iran: The Myth of Limited Warfare
By James Petras :: 04.04.2012
Introduction
The mounting threat of a US-Israeli military attack against Iran is based on several factors including: (1) the recent military history of both countries in the region, (2) public pronouncements by US and Israeli political leaders, (3) recent and on-going attacks on Lebanon and Syria, prominent allies of Iran, (4) armed attacks and assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials by proxy and/or terrorist groups under US or Mossad control, (5) the failure of economic sanctions and diplomatic coercion, (6) escalating hysteria and extreme demands for Iran to end legal, civilian use-related uranium enrichment, (7) provocative military ‘exercises’ on Iran’s borders and war games designed for intimidation and a dress rehearsal for a preemptive attack, (8) powerful pro-war pressure groups in both Washington and Tel Aviv including the major Israeli political parties and the powerful AIPAC in the US, (9) and lastly the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (Obama’s Orwellian Emergency Decree, March 16, 2012).
The US propaganda war operates along two tracks: (1) the dominant message emphasizes the proximity of war and the willingness of the US to use force and violence. This message is directed at Iran and coincides with Israeli announcements of war preparations. (2) The second track targets the ‘liberal public’ with a handful of marginal ‘knowledgeable academics’ (or State Department progressives) playing down the war threat and arguing that reasonable policy makers in Tel Aviv and Washington are aware that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons or any capacity to produce them now or in the near future. The purpose of this liberal backpedaling is to confuse and undermine the majority public opinion, which is clearly opposed to more war preparations, and to derail the burgeoning anti-war movement.
Needless to say the pronouncements of the ‘rational’ warmongers use a ‘double discourse’ based on the facile dismissal of all the historical and empirical evidence to the contrary. When the US and Israel talk of war, prepare for war and engage in pre-war provocations – they intend to go to war – just as they did against Iraq in 2003. Under present international political and military conditions an attack on Iran, initially by Israel with US support, is extremely likely, even as world economic conditions should dictate otherwise and even as the negative strategic consequences will most likely reverberate throughout the world for decades to come. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Why are Americans killing and dying for Israel, again?
- Timing of US-Israel attack on Iran bears symbolic meaning in Judaism
- 70 martyrs, 90 wounded in US-Israeli strike on elementary school
- Did Israel Just Forfeit Its ‘Right To Exist’? — Carlson’s Interview with Huckabee
- Trump Starts a Major Regime-Change War with Iran, Serving Neoconservatism and Israel
- The KAL Flight 007 Tragedy
- Why Trump’s war on Iran will fail
- Lebanon: Between sovereignty and the mirage of normalization
- Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates
- The military is babying F-35s to hide their true cost to taxpayers
- If Americans Knew
- When Presbyterians Fought Christian Zionism
- Israel starts another war on Iran – Not a ceasefire Day 141
- ‘Terror Was Needed to Make Arabs Leave’: What the Israeli Army Did in 1948, Revealed
- 17,000 Unaccompanied Orphans in Gaza, in World’s Biggest Orphan Crisis
- Israeli leaders want to buy global legitimacy – Not a ceasefire Day 140
- Israel warns of a Ramadan escalation — while doing everything to provoke one
- Democrats Should Release Their 2024 Election Autopsy – and Stop the Gaza Denial
- Israel responsible for 2/3 of press killings worldwide – Not a ceasefire Day 139
- Are the Jews indigenous to Palestine?
- AIPAC Wants to Kill a Bill that would Ensure Israel Complies with Ceasefire
- No Tricks Zone
- Glaciers Worldwide Are Suddendly Surging, Experts Blame Warming!
- Surprising Discovery: Sahara Is Greening…Billions Of Trees Where Once Thought To Be Barren
- New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving The Climate System’
- Germany: Electric Car Catches Fire At Charging Station, Sets Off Local “Inferno”, Widespread Damage
- New Study: Canada’s New Brunswick Was 1°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
Aletho News 