Last Sunday, 60 Minutes featured tyrannical German prosecutors boasting about persecuting private citizens who made comments that officialdom disapproved. Three prosecutors explained how the government was entitled to launch pre-dawn raids and lock up individuals who criticized politicians, complained about immigrant crime waves, or otherwise crossed the latest revised boundary lines of acceptable thoughts.
In a craven slant that would have cheered any mid-twentieth century European dictator, 60 Minutes glorified the crackdown: “Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine in an effort to protect discourse.” Nothing “protects discourse” like a jackboot kick aside the head of someone who insulted a German politician on Facebook, right? Mocking German leaders is punished like heresy was punished 500 years ago—though no one has been publicly torched yet.
Do the priggish German prosecutors realize that they are the latest incarnation of nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel? Hegel declared: “Men are as foolish as to forget, in their enthusiasm for liberty of conscience and political freedom, the truth which lies in power.” Hegel bluntly equated government and truth: “For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements.” Hegel probably did more to propel modern totalitarianism than perhaps any other philosopher.
Unfortunately, many Americans favor the US government becoming a Ministry of Truth like the German government. Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information,” according to a 2023 poll. But other polls show that only 20 percent trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. So why would people trust dishonest officials to forcibly eradicate “false information”? Did some people skip logic class, or what? A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances”—perhaps only when a rascally Republican is president?
Hegelian notions of “Government = Truth” propelled censorship here in recent years. Three years ago, Americans learned they lived under a Disinformation Governance Board with a ditzy Disinformation Czar who boasted of graduating from Bryn Mawr University. A public backlash led to the board’s termination but federal censors quickly and secretly resumed their sway over the internet.
Though American censors rarely invoke Hegel, their schemes tacitly presume that political power is divine, if not in origin, at least in its effect. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), created in 2018, has relied on “censorship by surrogate,” subcontracting the destruction of freedom. CISA partnered with federal grantees to form the Election Integrity Partnership a hundred days before the 2020 presidential election. That project, along with the efforts of other federal agencies, created an “unrelenting pressure” with “the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” according to a 2023 ruling by Federal Judge Terry Doughty.
What standard did CISA use to determine whether Americans should be muzzled? CISA settled controversies by contacting government employees and “apparently always assumed the government official was a reliable source,” Judge Doughty noted. Any assertion by officialdom could suffice to justify suppression of comments or posts by private citizens. But when did government I.D. badges become the Oracle of Delphi?
During the 2020 presidential election campaign, CISA established a “Rumor Control” webpage to deal with threats to the election—including rumors that the feds were censoring Americans. CISA targeted for suppression assertions by Americans such as “mail-in voting is insecure”—despite the long history of absentee ballot fraud. Biden won the presidency in part thanks to Democrats exploiting the covid pandemic to open the floodgates to unverified mail-in ballots. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared, “Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over.”
Censors act as if truth and lies are both self-evident. But as an investigative journalist hounding federal agencies, I have seen how government minimizes disclosures of its outrageous conduct. On April 19, 1993, 80 people died in a massive fire during an FBI tank assault on the home of the Branch Davidians. On that day, the FBI was adamant that they had nothing to do with the fire and also claimed to possess audiotapes proving the Davidians intentionally committed mass suicide. They never disclosed that proof. But anyone who suggested that the FBI was connected to the fatal fire was derided as an anti-government nut case, if not a public menace. A Los Angeles Times book reviewer practically blamed my criticism of the feds on Waco and other cases for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But year by year, the FBI’s Waco storyline fell apart. Six years after the fire, a private investigator found proof that the FBI fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians’ home before the fire, obliterating the FBI cover-up.
The same pattern of delayed disclosures or leaks annihilated the US government’s credibility on the epidemic of Gulf War syndrome cases in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the glorious triumph for democracy and women’s rights after the US invaded Afghanistan. The “trickle down” version of truth was also stark in the notorious Duke Lacrosse case. With his persistent, savvy analysis and investigations, Mises editor Bill Anderson heroically helped vanquish a media and prosecutorial lynch mob.
Unfortunately, in Germany, and at least sporadically in the United States, “truth” is whatever the government proclaims. “Disinformation” is whatever contradicts the latest government pronouncements. It is irrelevant how many false statements politicians or bureaucrats make. Government retains a monopoly on truth and on the right to deceive.
Recent censorship schemes vivify how democracy is being turned into a parody: voters choose politicians who then dictate what citizens are permitted to think and say. Censors destroy freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech. Censorship seeks to force each person to live in mental isolation, with no sparks for their thoughts from fellow citizens. Shortly before Hegel’s rise to prominence, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The external power that deprives man of the freedom to communicate his thoughts publicly, deprives him at the same time of his freedom to think.” By barricading individuals from each other, censors create millions of intellectual Robinson Crusoes, stranded on islands and trying to figure out everything for themselves. Prohibiting citizens from sharing facts of government abuses spawns a bastardized form of sovereign immunity. It minimizes opposition to political power grabs—often until it is too late to resist.
Other European nations are as bad or worse than Germany. Britain is notorious for raiding the homes and arresting anyone who makes allegations about immigrants and crime. According to Irish Senator Pauline O’Reilly, government must “restrict freedoms for the common good” when “a person’s views on other people’s identities” makes them “insecure.”Can I demand that government censor anyone who makes me insecure about my identity by mocking my vintage railroad engineer cap? By vastly expanding the definition of “hate speech,” politicians justify suppressing any views they disapprove.
Faith in officialdom to decree truth and punish error exemplifies growing political illiteracy. In earlier eras, Americans were renowned for heartily disdaining politicians who rose to power by making endless bogus promises.
Why would any prudent person expect bureaucrats to deliver “the truth, and nothing but the truth” like FEMA officials coming to the rescue after a flood? If the government can’t be trusted for reliable mail delivery, why in Hades would anyone trust government to judge and safeguard any thoughts citizens choose to share? Do people honestly expect that turning politicians into censors will evoke their inner sainthood? How can freedom of speech or any other freedom survive if so many people fall for so much BS from Washington?
In an incendiary post on X, Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt called U.S. President Donald Trump the “greatest threat” to NATO, marking a sharp escalation in rhetoric, and potentially a threat to Trump himself.
“Trump is Putin’s puppet, and he’s making it clear: NATO’s greatest threat isn’t abroad, it’s sitting in the White House. Blaming Zelensky for Russia’s war is outright Kremlin’s propaganda. He’s not just betraying the Atlantic alliance—he’s working to dismantle it. Europe, wake up NOW before it’s too late,” wrote Verhofstadt.
The remarks come after an increasing war of words between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who Trump has now labeled a “dictator.” The U.S. president is seeking a peace deal to end the war in Russia and has sharply turned against Zelensky. Trump said he had “4% support” in the country and needed to call new elections. He has also raised questions about what he says is $350 billion in missing funds.
Zelensky was known to keep offshore accounts before the war and was named in the Pandora Papers. Accusations have swirled about Zelensky’s assets but much of it remains hidden in offshore bank accounts. Officially, he has approximately $4 million in assets.
As for Verhofstadt, the very wealthy left-liberal politician is known for his deep hatred of politicians who oppose his agenda, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán one of his top targets.
In 2022, for instance, Verhofstadt called Orbán a “traitor” for his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
However, labeling Trump the “biggest threat” of NATO has borderline militaristic implications and calls into question what Verhofstadt thinks Europe should do about what he believes to be the biggest “threat” to the largest military alliance in history.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly rejected Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s help in brokering a ceasefire or mediating with the new American leadership. However, as Donald Trump now calls Zelensky a “dictator” and demands he step down and hold elections, it looks more and more like Zelensky should’ve taken up Orban’s offer, writes Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has no influence over Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine does not need his mediation in its relations with the United States,” Zelensky said in a speech delivered in December at a session of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Local and Regional Governments.
“Ukraine is a strong country and has proven it on the battlefield throughout Putin’s aggression. Does anyone else in Europe have this experience now? No. Does Orbán have such an army? No. How will he put pressure on Putin? With a joke, a smile? Let him keep it,” added the Ukrainian president.
When Viktor Orbán tried to reach a Christmas ceasefire with the warring parties in December, while Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed open to it, Zelensky flatly refused to help. He did so in a very disrespectful tone.
“We all hope Viktor Orban at least won’t call Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well. It’s absolutely clear that achieving real peace and guaranteed security requires America’s determination, Europe’s unity, and the unwavering commitment of all partners to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky wrote on social media.
Zelensky has consistently maintained that he has an excellent relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and that everything is in place to ensure they can cooperate well in implementing the Ukrainian president’s so-called “victory plan.”
“I think we agree that the war in Ukraine must end. Putin cannot win, Ukraine must win,” he said after their September meeting.
At a press conference in late January, the Ukrainian president said he supported President Trump’s desire to achieve success in creating a just peace. He added, however, that this could only be achieved together with Ukraine because Russia did not want to end the war. He also noted that Europe should also have a place at the negotiating table.
“I would like the European voice to be present. This is important for us because we will be members of the EU. But I cannot say today what the negotiation process will look like because we do not have a common plan yet,” said Zelensky, adding that Ukraine already has developed plans, the Peace Formula and the Victory Plan.
Now, with Trump in power, it appears Zelensky’s claims that they share the same vision for Ukraine was far from reality. In fact, Trump is now openly calling Zelensky a “dictator” and is looking to settle the conflict as soon as possible, without Zelensky even having a seat at the table.
Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.
While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.
Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:
Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.
Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”
If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).
Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.
Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.
Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.
It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:
Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
Energy and Sanctions Group.
Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.
Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.
US President Donald Trump has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with EU leaders who spoke out against him during the course of the 2024 presidential election, Russian President Vladimir Putin told media on Wednesday.
During the campaign last year, a number of EU officials spoke out in favor of Trump’s Democrat rival for the White House, Kamala Harris, although most stopped short of endorsing her outright.
Trump, Putin noted, continues to be polite with his European allies, who were quite rude to him at the time.
“I am surprised by the restraint of newly elected US President Trump towards his allies, who behaved, frankly speaking, in a boorish manner. He still behaves quite courteously towards them,” he said.
Last October, Trump accused British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of election interference after UK Labour party helped recruit and deploy activists to help the Harris campaign in key swing states.
In August 2024, the Trump campaign accused the EU of interfering in the US presidential election after a senior bloc official warned Elon Musk against amplifying “potentially harmful content” ahead of his interview with Donald Trump.
“All European leaders, all without exception, essentially directly interfered in the election process in the US. It came to direct insults towards one of the candidates,” according to Putin.
President Vladimir Putin celebrated the talks between US and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia. He said the Kremlin was prepared to engage in bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.
According to Interfax, on Wednesday, Putin lauded the first round of talks between the US and Russia before saying Moscow is willing to engage with Kiev on ending the war in Ukraine. “Yes, I have been informed. I rate them highly, there are results,” he said. “In my opinion, we made the first step to restore work in various areas of mutual interests.”
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Saudi Arabia. Rubio said the two sides agreed to normalize diplomatic relations and work to end the war in Ukraine.
Putin explained while US involvement in talks was required, he was willing to engage with the Ukrainians. “No one is excluding Ukraine,” he said. “We are not imposing anything on anyone. We are ready, I have already said this a hundred times – if they want, please, let these negotiations take place. And we will be ready to return to the table for negotiations.”
On Tuesday, the Kremlin said Putin would be willing to speak with Ukrainian President Zelensky. On Wednesday, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that Zelenksy is a “dictator” who has done a “terrible job.”
While ending the war is a top priority, both Washington and Moscow have indicated that the two superpowers have a range of issues to discuss. Arms control is at a historic low point, and talks on nuclear weapons treaties halted during the latter years of the Joe Biden presidency. The last remaining nuclear arms control agreement, the New Start Treaty, is set to expire in a year.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was deeply frustrated by Israel’s behaviour, which he saw as “blowing up” the American foreign policy and “humiliation” of the US, declassified British documents reveal.
The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also indicate that US President Gerald Ford shared Kissinger’s “outrage” over Israel’s approach to negotiations with Arab states.
Kissinger criticised Israel’s strategy of “giving with one hand and taking away with the other” and condemned Israelis’ total “unrealism” and “lack of understanding the Arabs”.
In January 1974, Kissinger brokered the first Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement in just eight days. By May, he had successfully mediated a similar deal between Syria and Israel. In early 1975, he resumed efforts, alongside his deputy, Joseph Sisco, to negotiate a second Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement as a prelude to broader peace talks. However, negotiations collapsed in late March.
On his way back to the US, Kissinger met with his British counterpart James Callaghan at London airport, where he blamed Israel for the breakdown of the talks. According to meeting records, Kissinger stated that Israelis “had locked themselves into a more inflexible position than they need have done”. He understood that Israel “seemed intended” to be inflexible from the outset of his mission.
Kissinger described Israeli negotiators as “hopelessly confused” about the military and political aspects of their demand for a formal non-belligerency statement from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He noted that Israel insisted on both military assurances and political concessions, although the main purpose of the negotiations was to reach a deal on non-engagement of forces. He described this confusion as “a Talmudic wrangle”, adding that the Israelis “had shown a total lack of realism”. When the Israelis asked him whether their demands were not unreasonable, he replied they were “disastrous”.
Kissinger’s step-by-step diplomatic strategy aimed at gradually resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, but he warned that if this process stalled, “things would start going rapidly against Israel”. He expressed frustration over Israel’s “extraordinary lack of understanding” of both Arabs and the wider international scene”.
Before negotiations broke down, Ford attempted to push Israel to change its position. Kissinger informed Callaghan that the US president had sent a message to Israel containing “some very stern language” warning that the Israelis “couldn’t expect the Americans to go on financing a stalemate”.
Following the failure of Kissinger’s mediation, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon blamed Egypt for “hardening of attitude” which he alleged “manifested itself only in the concluding phase”.
In a message to British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Callaghan, Allon asserted that Egyptians were prepared to concede to Israel “far less than might have been assumed before the talks began” while the Israelis “went substantially beyond that maximum” to which they “had initially considered it possible” for them to go.
He insisted that at every stage of the negotiation the Israelis showed themselves “ready to move closer towards the Egyptian position but without response on their side.”
Kissinger, however, dismissed Allon’s version of events as “weird” and “almost wholly fictitious,” calling Israel’s supposed concessions “an outright lie.”
In late March 1975, Kissinger told British Ambassador in Washington Peter Ramsbotham that there had “never at any times had there been any real movement” on Israel’s side. “What they gave with one hand, they took away with the other,” he said.
During negotiations, Israel presented six key demands, which Kissinger called “conditions”, including an Egyptian pledge of non-belligerency, end to propaganda against Israel in the Egyptian media, allowing Israeli cargos through the Suez Canal using ships of a third country, allowing overflights in Sinai, an end to the economic boycott and an end to actions against Israel in the international forum.
Kissinger revealed that Sadat had not only shown willingness to meet these demands but also offered additional concessions. These included allowing some Israeli crew members on third-party ships passing through the Suez Canal, preventing paramilitary activities, giving Israel private assurances on maritime passage through the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, and establishing a joint Israeli-Egyptian commission under UN supervision to resolve future disputes. Sisco, who accompanied Kissinger in the meeting with the British ambassador, said these concessions “had come as a surprise”.
While Sadat could not agree to a formal non-belligerency statement, he offered a compromise pledging not to use force during the disengagement period. This pledge, Kissinger explained, was not only “to be signed by the Egyptian military and diplomatic personnel” but there would be a provision that the pledge “would remain in force until suspended by some other agreement”. He described these as “substantial concessions” to Israel, and advised the British that it was “totally wrong” for the Israelis to say the Egyptians hadn’t made any real concessions.
However, Israel rejected Sadat’s offer and continued to insist on a formal non-belligerency agreement, prompting Kissinger to “blow up” and tell them “they couldn’t get this”.
Kissinger informed the British of a heated exchange between Sadat and Egyptian Defence Minister, General Abdel Ghani El-Gamasy, on more concessions Sadat was prepared to concede with regard to the control of strategic passes and oilfields in Sinai. The US minister confirmed that the concessions “brought an explosion” from El-Gamassy, who expressed “vehement objections”. But these objections “were brushed aside by Sadat as had his other objections earlier in the negotiations”.
Despite Sadat’s willingness to compromise, negotiations collapsed due to Israeli obstinacy. Upon learning of the breakdown, Ford “immediately” sent a letter “in a very strong language” to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Kissinger, who showed the British ambassador a copy of the letter, noted that he had “never seen President Ford so outraged.” The president felt “personally betrayed” by Israel’s conduct. To emphasise the gravity of the situation, Kissinger arranged for a prominent American Jewish leader to meet Ford. After the meeting, Kissinger remarked that the man had emerged “a shaken man.”
Kissinger also made it clear to the British government that “all along, there was an Arab willingness to negotiate,” but Israel responded only with “intransigence.” He cited King Hussein of Jordan’s stance on the Allon”s plan as an example of Arab flexibility. Contrary to public statements, Hussein had privately told the U.S. that he “was prepared to accept half of the plan” and “half of the West Bank”.
The plan, which was presented by Allon, the then Israeli minister of labour, in July 1967 and was amended over years, aimed at Judaisation of the Palestinian territory especially the West Bank. It would enable Israel to annex most of the Jordan Valley, from the river to the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge, East Jerusalem, and the Etzion bloc of settlements. At the same time, the heavily populated areas of the West Bank, together with a corridor that included Jericho, would be offered to Jordan.
Meanwhile, in a meeting with Kissinger, Saudi King Faisal expressed his belief that Israel “shouldn’t remain in the occupied areas” he expressed his “support” to the US efforts to “reach a solution in the Middle East”.
Kissinger lamented that Israel’s actions had “destroyed this support.”
Although Kissinger stressed that it was not in the US interest to be “publicly critical” of Israel, he believed that the Israelis “had to learn to be flexible and not believe that because of their friendly links with various governments, they could always count on support regardless of their behavior.” When British Ambassador Ramsbotham asked whether the Israeli behaviour could have any backlash inside the US, Kissinger said that “it wouldn’t be difficult for the Administration to generate a wave of indignation in the US against Israel”. But, the Americans “would not do so”, he added
Kissinger also stressed that the Israelis “had to realise that they could not blow up the US foreign policy, humiliate the United States in the Arab eyes”. The Ford Administration “felt more and more outraged” by what happened, in a reference to the Israeli behaviour that led to failure of the negotiations.
After the collapse of negotiations, Callaghan considered visiting the Middle East. Kissinger advised him to caution Israel that it “had tried the US patience too far”. He also advised that “it was very important not to give the impression to the Israelis that the British government were sympathetic with the position they had got themselves”.
Kissinger believed that if Callaghan had any new proposals, it would probably be “a mistake at this time for him to put them forward himself”. He asked for any suggestions to be “offered to him in private”.
Despite the impasse, negotiations resumed a few months later, leading to the signing of the Sinai II Agreement on 4 September 1975, in Geneva. The accord allowed Egypt to recover parts of Sinai occupied since 1967. While Sadat saw the deal as strengthening ties with the West, it strained Egypt’s relations with the Arab States, particularly with Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
For the longest time, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have been funding foreign NGOs to influence local populations through media propaganda and the presence of a civil society consensus. Donald Trump just pulled the plug by defunding USAID and even going after the NED. This is unprecedented in modern history that a state dismantles its own cognitive warfare apparatus. What happened?
In his first address to his staff, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to subject potential causes of chronic disease to “unbiased scientific investigation.”
“Nothing is going to be off limits,” including his personal past beliefs, Kennedy said at his welcome ceremony today.
Kennedy said today that as part of that agenda, he will direct HHS to investigate many possible causes of the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.
“Some of the possible factors we will investigate were formally taboo or insufficiently scrutinized,” he said. “Those who are unwilling to embrace those kinds of ideas can retire,” he said.
Before and during his confirmation hearings, Kennedy came under fire from Democrats and the mainstream media for raising questions about vaccine safety. Today, he included the childhood vaccine schedule as one of the formerly “taboo” areas he planned to investigate.
Kennedy said he plans to convene stakeholders “of all viewpoints,” and to set study protocols in advance that won’t be changed when the results look like they will be “inconvenient.”
“Let’s all depoliticize these issues and reestablish a common ground or action and renew the search for existential truths with no political impediments and no preconceptions,” he said.
Kennedy also said he’ll work to remove “conflicts of interest” on HHS advisory committees in order to reestablish the public’s trust, Bloomberg Law reported.
In a new report, The Intercept sheds light on the complex interplay of geopolitics and corporate power in Silicon Valley.
As Oracle, which has secret partnerships with “Israel”, steps into the spotlight in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a law banning TikTok, the company has emerged as a leading candidate to take over the embattled platform.
However, the tech giant’s unwavering support for “Israel”, particularly in light of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, has raised serious concerns. Questions surrounding Oracle’s political allegiances and their impact on global discourse have never been more urgent.
Pro-Palestine voices in Oracle suppressed
The broader campaign to ban TikTok, driven by US political figures critical of China, has gained added momentum from pro-“Israel” activists.
While the push to ban TikTok has been driven largely by US lawmakers critical of China, pro-“Israel” activists have played a key role in amplifying the campaign, exposing the intersection of technology, politics, and global conflicts in Silicon Valley.
The company’s pro-“Israel” stance, led by CEO Safra Catz, has led to accusations of suppressing pro-Palestinian voices within Oracle.
According to an investigation by The Intercept, Oracle has faced internal backlash from employees who feel their pro-Palestinian views are being repressed. One employee shared that there is a culture of fear, with some workers leaving the company due to its stance. Last year, 68 employees signed an open letter criticizing Oracle’s partnership with “Israel”, and one worker was reportedly fired for creating a pro-Palestinian symbol.
Oracle’s longstanding ties with “Israel” have been pivotal. The company has not only partnered with the Israeli government but also provided technological support to military projects. These collaborations have extended from cloud services to high-profile secretive initiatives like Project Menta, which has worked with the Israeli Air Force. Employees have also expressed concern over Oracle’s involvement in a PR initiative called “Words of Iron” aimed at boosting the Israeli narrative on social media platforms, including TikTok, as per the report.
The company has notably restricted donations to Palestinian causes and banned some charities from its employee donation matching program. Catz, in her statements, referred to pro-Palestinian rights groups as “brainwashing organizations” and dismissed any concerns about Oracle’s involvement with “Israel” during the Gaza conflict. As Yael Har Even, Oracle “Israel’s” deputy CEO, stated, “Safra always says — the U.S. first, the second country is Israel, and after that the whole world.”
The pressure on employees to align with Oracle’s stance has drawn criticism, highlighting the broader influence of political and military alliances in Silicon Valley’s tech giants.
The Labour government’s reported decision to issue a secret order to Apple to build an encryption backdoor into iCloud is turning into a major political issue between the UK and the US, just as the move is criticized by more than 100 civil society groups, companies, and security experts at home.
The fact that this serious undermining of security and privacy affects users globally, including Americans, has prompted a strong reaction from two US legislators – Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Congressman Andy Biggs, a Republican.
In a letter to National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, the pair slammed the order as “effectively a foreign cyber attack waged through political means.”
Wyden and Biggs – who sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, respectively – want Gabbard to act decisively to prevent any damage to US citizens and government from what they call the UK’s “dangerous, shortsighted efforts.”
The letter urges Gabbard to issue what the US legislators themselves refer to as an ultimatum to the UK: “Back down from this dangerous attack on US cybersecurity, or face serious consequences.”
Unless this happens immediately, Wyden and Biggs want Gabbard to “reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK.”
They add that the relationship between the two countries must be built on trust – but, if London is moving to “secretly undermine one of the foundations of US cybersecurity, that trust has been profoundly breached.”
The letter points out that the order appears to prohibit Apple from acknowledging it has even received it, under threat of criminal penalties – meaning that the UK is forcing a US company to keep the public and Congress in the dark about this serious issue.
In the UK, well-known privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch agreed with what the group’s Advocacy Manager Matthew Feeney said were “damning comments” made by Wyden and Biggs.
Feeney said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s “draconian order” to Apple was in effect a cyber attack on that company, and that the letter penned by the US legislators is “wholly justified” – and comes amid “a shameful chapter in the history of UK-US relations.”
“Cooper’s draconian order is not only a disaster for civil liberties, it is also a globally humiliating move that threatens one of the UK’s most important relationships,” he warned, calling on the home secretary to rescind it.
The same is being asked of Cooper by over 100 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts – an initiative led by the Global Encryption Coalition (GEC).
ST. PETERSBURG – Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that he had been briefed on the results of talks between Russian and US delegations in Riyadh and gave a positive assessment of the negotiations.
“The assessment is positive,” Putin told reporters when asked about the Russian-US talks, adding that the meeting was friendly.
The Russian delegation told that from the US side there were those who were open to cooperation, the Russian president added.
The purpose and agenda of the conversation at the meeting in Riyadh was to restore trust between Russia and the United States, Putin pointed out.
Russia and the United States are working on the issues of economy, energy, space and other areas, Putin said.
The Russian president, commenting on Tuesday’s meeting between Russia and the US in Riyadh, mentioned that the sides have taken the first step to resume work in various areas of mutual interest, including the Middle East.
“We have other issues, the economy, and our joint work in the global energy markets, space, of course… All of this was the subject of discussion, consideration at the meeting in Riyadh,” Putin told reporters.
Putin said that he had been briefed on the results of talks between Russian and US delegations in Riyadh and gave a positive assessment of the negotiations.
During the telephone conversation US President Donald Trump said that Washington assumes that negotiations will take place with the participation of both Russia and Ukraine, Vladimir Putin said.
“As for the negotiation process, President Trump told me during a telephone conversation, and I can confirm this, that, of course, the United States assumes that the negotiation process will take place with the participation of both Russia and Ukraine. No one excludes Ukraine from this process,” Putin told reporters.
Putin said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump has begun to receive objective information.
“When he [Trump] started receiving information — objective information — he changed his position. This information has changed his approach,” Putin said.
Russia and the United States in Riyadh have agreed that the work of diplomatic missions will be resumed in normal mode, Putin.
“The first thing I would like to say is that we have agreed to resume the work of diplomatic missions in normal mode,” Putin told reporters.
The expulsions of diplomats from Washington and Moscow do not lead to anything good, if it continues, only cleaners will be left to work in the embassies, Putin added.
Putin said on Wednesday that it is impossible to resolve many issues, including the Ukrainian crisis, without increasing the level of trust.
“The most important thing here in resolving all pressing issues, including the Ukrainian settlement, is that without increasing the level of trust between Russia and the United States, it is impossible to resolve many issues, including the Ukrainian crisis,” Putin said.
Russia has never refused to negotiate on the conflict with Ukraine, Putin added.
Kiev’s hysteria about its absence in the negotiations between Russia and the United States is inappropriate, Putin said.
“Everyone has probably forgotten, but I remind you that exactly one year from now, in February 2026, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty expires. Do they [representatives of Ukraine] want to sit here at the negotiating table and mediate between Russia and the United States? Well, probably not. Why get hysterical? Hysteria is inappropriate,” Putin told reporters.
Russia will inform all its BRICS friends about the results of the US-Russia talks, Russian President said.
“For our part, we shall undoubtedly inform all our BRICS friends. We know that they are interested in settlement of the Russia-Ukraine relations, termination of combat actions.
We treat their suggestions with respect. And any time soon we shall inform them about the results of the Russia-US talks,” Putin told reporters.
The recent attack on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) may result in high energy prices on global markets, Vladimir Putin said.
“Of course, the attack on such a facility will affect global energy markets, first of all, because, unfortunately, it is impossible to quickly restore this facility, because there was mainly Western equipment there, and it was damaged … This leads to consistently high energy prices on world markets,” Putin told reporters.
On Monday, the CPC said that its crude oil pumping station in Kropotkinskaya, Russia’s southern Krasnodar Territory, had been attacked by drones in the morning.
Kropotkinskaya is the company’s largest pumping station in Russia. The CPC said the attack was carried out by seven drones packed with metal striking elements in addition to explosives.
Soldiers of Russia’s 810th military brigade have crossed the Russian border and entered Ukrainian territory, Putin said, adding that Russian troops are advancing along the entire front line.
“The latest information, which was reported to me literally an hour ago, is that tonight the fighters of the 810th brigade crossed the border between Russia and Ukraine and entered the territory of the enemy. And our troops are advancing along the entire line of contact,” Putin told reporters.
The 810th brigade is fighting in Russia’s Kursk Region.
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 