Showing posts sorted by date for query CONSPIRACY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query CONSPIRACY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

The US Doesn’t Need a Party, It Needs a Revolution



 December 30, 2025

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Two hundred and fifty years ago, European colonists mostly from Britain were conspiring to chase the elements of the British monarchy from the shores of what we now call the United States. Many of those in the conspiracy were mostly interested in personal financial gain, whether it was measured in stolen land, enslaved humans or actual coinage. Freedom for all was not on the agenda for most of the men involved. However, freedom to keep their profits was. Over the years, the struggle by the humans left out of the founding fathers’ intentions has waxed and waned, occasionally winning those freedoms only to see them become weakened over time, mostly via the courts but almost as often through legislation and white supremacists in the White House.

Fifty years ago—1976—the year began with Washington and its media machine hyping the two hundredth birthday of the United States. The resignation of President Richard Nixon some seventeen months earlier was celebrated as proof of the superiority of the US way of governance. You know, no one was above the law and all that stuff. To top it all off, the year 1976 was also a presidential election year; another example of the durability of the “experiment in democracy” being touted by the mainstream media no matter what its political leaning. The then liberal Washington Post and New York Times shouted the same misleading malarkey about the land of the free and the home of the brave as New Hampshire’s right-wing Manchester Union Leader (now New Hampshire Union Leader) and William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review. Tributes to the nation’s history never seemed to mention the genocide of the indigenous that paved the highways and laid the rails across the amber waves of grain, while the fate of the millions forced to take the Atlantic crossing into slavery that consumed their descendants as well was most often framed in terms of denouement as a result of civil war. Rarely, if ever, was the situation of most African-American working people in the 1970s touted as proof of the success of the white man’s American dream. That dream had, as Langston Hughes reminded us, been deferred for far too long. Indeed, it had exploded only a few years before the big Bicentennial bash and been put down by thousands of cops and troops.

I was working as a short order cook at an IHOP in 1976. The best thing about the job was the access to food and the fac that my paycheck—as paltry as it was—covered my expenses and left me with money to spend on various entertainments, from beer to weed and concerts. This had a lot more to do with the price of things (and my side gig of selling weed to friends) in the mid-1970s than it had to do with the $2.50 an hour I was making for my fifty-hour work weeks. The US Left, which was in disarray but still capable of raising a fuss, was planning protest actions for the big day when the Bicentennial party would climax in a spasm of nationalist celebration from sea to shining sea. If Irving Berlin were alive, his royalties would certainly jump in the year to come. Francis Scott Key’s paean to the rocket’s red glare would be set on permanent repeat. The rulers were still convinced that God was on their side and that this land was their land. And don’t you forget it. The ultraleft in the form of the Maoists of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the remnants and political allies of the Weather Underground were looking towards Philadelphia for their marches, while the more mainstream Left formed a coalition called the Peoples’ Bicentennial Commission and began acquiring permits for their rally in DC. Meanwhile, the official celebration that took place every July Fourth on the National Mall was booking bands and musicians. The myth became ever more magnified.

It’s now 2026. Fifty years later. The nation intends to celebrate its two hundred fiftieth birthday even as it becomes a mere shadow of what it proclaimed it wanted to be. If nothing else, we can see the emptiness of words in the wake of history, although this might be the place to note that some of the finest words we hear repeated regarding the founders of the nation were first written by men who owned slaves and celebrated the murders of the indigenous. Francis Scott Key was an attorney who represented slavers in cases challenging their abductions of runaways while he traded in slaves himself. And we know the rap sheet on Thomas Jefferson. Pretty words can only hide ugly truths for so long.

1976 was the historical moment just before the advent of neoliberal capitalism. The free marketeers’ ongoing attack on the so-called welfare state was enjoined in Britain and the United States. Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter made speeches that claimed the private sector could do many, if not most, things better than the public sector. Those sentiments were magnified by Ronald Reagan, the ultra-right’s candidate in the Republican party. It’s a reasonable argument that Reagan’s 1976 campaign was the beginning of his successful 1980 campaign for the White House. It’s also quite reasonable to conclude that that campaign began at least back in 1964 with Barry Goldwater who, at least had the wisdom to reject the support of the so-called Christian right wing. It would be Reagan’s embrace of that bunch of zealots (calling themselves the Moral Majority) that would propel the US into the long dark night of Reagan’s morning in America. Just like the champions of capital had proclaimed a hundred years earlier, the Christian god and the god of capital were united in their own pursuit of happiness at everyone else’s expense. When the nascent racism of the US white nation was added into the mixture, a new Trinity was conceived. Like they say on the TV, “Praise the Lord©.” And like they say in the Pentagon: “and pass the ammunition.”

Despite the ravings of countless cheerleaders, neoliberalism was never a unique economics untethered to the history of capitalism; it is a logical step in capitalism’s destructive thrust. Fascist government is the political means by which capital and those who operate within its mechanism ensure their pursuit of profit proceeds. This is where we are currently at—the government of the United States operates primarily, if not yet completely, in the service of capital and those who hold the bulk of that capital. Marxists and capitalists alike agree that this 250th birthday is the anniversary of a nation that put the capitalists in charge, transferring power to a capitalist class and unleashing market forces through debt, land reform, and institutions designed serve that market.

As far as I’m concerned there isn’t much to celebrate when it comes to this national birthday. Washington’s military is murdering people on the high seas and bombing Africans under the guise of religion. Domestically, unaccountable enforcers kidnap citizens and non-citizens alike in scenes reminiscent of police states around the world. Its war industry arms a genocide while provoking conflict across the globe. The rich and the super-rich profit from the rampage. The world can ill afford another twenty years of this, much less two hundred and fifty.

Ron Jacobs is the author of several books, including Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest book, titled Nowhere Land: Journeys Through a Broken Nation, is now available. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com

Support the prisoners, stop the repression in Tunisia


Tuesday 30 December 2025, by Édouard Soulier


Fifteen years after the start of the Tunisian revolution, the authoritarian regime established by Kais Saied is increasing arrests, unfair trials and repression against all civil society. In the face of this offensive, international solidarity is more necessary than ever.


The Tunisian revolution which began 15 years ago put an end to the brutal regime of dictator Ben Ali after nearly 23 years rule. The process of transforming society that began at that time has been gradually called into question, then brutally interrupted over the past four years by the current president, Kaïs Saïed. Elected “by default” in 2019, a candidate deemed harmless and opposed to an increasingly corrupt establishment and political parties, he took advantage of the discredit of almost the entire political class during the post-revolutionary decade. This explains why the July 2021 coup d’état enjoyed some popular support. Under the pretext of Islamist, Zionist and migratory threats, Kaïs Saïed has taken control of all the machinery of power in a few months.

A regime based on repression

Kais Saied’s regime was installed against a backdrop of paranoia and the fight against corruption but also the stigmatization of immigrants, under the guise of fighting against “foreign influences” and even, without shame, against “imperialism.” At the same time, however, Kaïs Saïed has agreed, in order to replenish the state’s coffers, to become Europe’s auxiliary in the repression of migrant crossings. He constantly points to an internal enemy, demonizing his opponents, civil society or judges, in order to justify food shortages, power cuts and all the difficulties of daily life.

Since 2021, Kaïs Saïed has massively used preventive detention, without trial, as well as a law on “fake news”, allowing the arrest of any opponent. Another lever is the charges of undermining state security and terrorism, sometimes punishable by death. After attacking his main political opponents in 2023, Kais Saied has gradually extended the repression to the entire civil society.

Political trials

In early December, the appeals against sentence of the so-called “conspiracy against the security of the state” media trial against journalists, lawyers, political opponents, human rights defenders, senior civil servants and ordinary citizens were handed down. In April, in the first instance, delirious prison sentences, of up to 66 years, were delivered at the end of a procedure marked by serious violations of the rights of the defence. The Tunis Court of Appeal finally upheld sentences ranging from 2 to 45 years in prison.

The contours of the “conspiracy” remained extremely vague, the evidence non-existent and, above all, the defendants were prevented from defending themselves. Most of the "evidence" is based on simple meetings with European representatives and diplomats, presented as evidence of international collusion. It should be noted that, among the defendants, Bernard-Henri Lévy (!) was sentenced to 33 years in prison on the basis of clearly anti-Semitic charges. This anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, in which anti-Zionism is instrumentalized, is also tinged with negrophobic racism, against a backdrop of the fantasy of the “great replacement.” In an attempt to show that he still enjoys popular support, Saïed organised a demonstration of support in Tunis at the end of December of about a thousand people, a low figure despite the support of the police and the use of state resources.

Resistance that persists

Despite the repression, resistance continues to be organized: campaigns in support of the prisoners multiply and continue to march every month in Tunis. The anti-pollution movement in Gabès is also continuing. The economic conditions, combined with the delirious repression imposed by the government, have profoundly weakened political and social organizations. Fifteen years of revolution have not been erased in this way and the resistance remains strong, but it is essential to massively support Tunisian activists, imprisoned or not, and to demonstrate that Saied’s pseudo-anti-imperialism only serves to strengthen a police state at the service, precisely, of imperialism.

24 December 2025

Translated by International Viewpoint from l’Anticapitaliste.

Monday, December 29, 2025

Opinion...

A thesis confirmed: Epstein, Dershowitz and the Israel lobby




A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein files on July 23, 2025 in New York City. [Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images]

by Dr Binoy Kampmark

December 29, 2025 
Middle East Monitor.

Conman, convict, paedophile and a life terminated in circumstances of purported suicide. The list for Jeffrey E. Epstein, figure of cosmic social and political influence in the United States, is long. Trafficking in female flesh for his extensive client list, lubricated by his lover Ghislaine Maxwell, tends to be the crowning feature of most discussions about his sordid legacy. Another shrouded aspect has been neglected.

The fuss about releasing the Epstein files – the slowness with which the US Justice Department is undertaking that task, the erratic nature of its redactions, and what gold nuggets might be found – gives us a chance to examine the Israeli dimension in US politics. In November, Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain of Drop Site News showed the seedier side of that dimension in exposing Epstein’s role in what can be loosely termed the Israeli lobby. This involved a dedicated effort to discredit the work of two scholars, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who had done much to sketch the outlines of the very thing his own conduct affirmed.

Originally commissioned in late 2002 by The Atlantic, the article, written as a working paper, was simply entitled “The Israeli Lobby”. The subject, however, had become heated and worrying to the editors. When the article was ready for publication, the United States was involved in a futile, bloody conflict in Iraq that Mearsheimer and Walt argued was “motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.” The authors were offered a “kill fee” of $10,000 for their consent to pull the piece. “That’s the fastest $10,000 we ever made,” quipped Mearsheimer in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

The article eventually found a home at the London Review of Books, to be followed in book form, having an immediate, incendiary effect. It notes the Israeli Lobby as an extensive, fanning presence in the American political landscape, comprising think tanks, the muscular American Israel Public Affairs Committee, neoconservatives, Christian Zionists, and journalists with clout. Its aims are clear: “Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is essential in so far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional power.” Hand in hand, Israel and pro-Israel groups in the US had “worked together to shape the administration’s policy toward Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.”

Epstein proceeded to play a role in the campaign against Walt and Mearsheimer. His pro-Israel credentials were impeccable. He had a close relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He aided the brokering of various deals for Israeli intelligence and security interests. These included oiling a security agreement between Israel and Mongolia; aiding the creation of a backchannel between Israel and Russia during the Syrian Civil War and facilitating a security agreement between Israel and the West African state of Côte d’Ivoire. He hosted an Israeli intelligence officer, Yoni Koren, on at least three occasions in Manhattan. “He was a dealmaker and a fixer at a very, very elite level,” says Hussain.

One need not bother about the accusation that Epstein might have been in the specific pay of the Israeli intelligence service to show where his allegiances lay. He was a dedicated spear carrier for Israeli interests. In the apoplexy that broke out among members of the lobby to the Walt and Mearsheimer paper, he featured prominently, as emails from his Yahoo! account reveal. Epstein’s specific role in targeting the two scholars came from correspondence obtained by the non-profit whistleblower entity Distributed Denial of Secrets and made available to Drop Site News.

Of interest here is the correspondence between Epstein and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz, himself a devoted apologist for Israeli causes. During the first week of April 2006 Dershowitz, who also acted for Epstein in criminal matters, passed on several drafts of his article “Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy” to the financier. That tatty, travesty of a piece accused Walt and Mearsheimer of putting together “little more than a compilation of old, false, and authoritatively discredited charges dressed up in academic garb”, incarnating in modern form the conspiratorial tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

After Epstein’s warm congratulations for the libellous effort, the question of how best to distribute the piece comes to the fore. To a query from Dershowitz’s email address sent by an assistant regarding progress on the matter, Epstein replies: “yes I’ve started.” Here, the vital entrails of the Lobby become clear: Epstein’s relationship with Harvard (donor of sums over $9 million between 1998 and 2008); Epstein as trustee and president of the family financial office of retail mogul and philanthropist Leslie Wexner, himself a donor of almost $20 million to the Kennedy School between 2000 and 2006 via a foundation bearing his name and responsible for a scholar program for visiting Israeli government officials to study a one-year Master’s degree.

The effect of such strategizing was to curb the reach of Walt and Mearsheimer. Scheduled talks were cancelled or readjusted to include a pro-Israeli voice. Mearsheimer, in reacting to the emails, proved characteristically unflappable. “I’m not surprised to see these emails, because Dershowitz and Epstein were close and both have a passionate attachment to Israel.” It will be a frigid comfort for both he and Walt that their thesis on the bewitching influence of the Israeli lobby’s workings has been so profoundly vindicated.


The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.


Unfounded theories blame Australia bushfires on smart meters and lasers

Bushfires destroyed more than a dozen houses along the Central Coast of Australia's New South Wales during a blistering December heatwave, prompting conspiracy theories online that the blazes were triggered by smart meters -- digital energy use meters -- or laser weapons, as nearby plants were "mostly untouched". However, a police investigation has not identified any evidence suggesting the fires were a deliberate act. Authorities also told AFP plenty of vegetation burned during the blaze and the flames torching the homes came from bushland embers.

"According to several firefighters and eyewitness accounts, the fires are reportedly leaping from house to house while leaving nearby trees and surrounding vegetation mostly untouched," reads a Facebook post from an Australia-based user on December 10.

It goes on to suggest that smart power meters -- an upgrade from older models that require manual readings -- or directed energy weapons, such as high-energy lasers, "could be the ignition source". It also adds that "the government will blame 'Climate Change' on the devastation". 

The post, which was shared more than 400 times, includes a picture of a house ablaze, with embedded text reading "NSW wildfires destroy homes, but skip vegetation?"

More than 50 bushfires burned in New South Wales on December 6, destroying a number of homes on the state's mid-north coast (archived link).

Bushfires are a common occurrence in Australia's summer months, and it is not unheard of for dozens of blazes to burn through sparsely populated areas on hot and windy days.

Image
Screenshot of the false Facebook post taken on December 29, 2025, with the red X added by AFP

The same image with the embedded text was shared in similar posts by several Australia-based users on Facebook and X, and also circulated widely in Canada and the United States

"The 'smart meters' are being ignited, making way for the 'smart cities'!" commented one user, while another said, "DEW weapon for sure, fire doesn't jump over dry grass and trees and burn houses". 

The claims repeat unfounded conspiracy theories blaming smart meters -- which are now being rolled out nationally in Australia -- and directed energy weapons for major wildfires (archived link). 

The New South Wales government says the meters meet strict health and safety standards set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). 

AFP has debunked similar false claims surrounding the Los Angeles fires in early 2025 and the Hawaii wildfires in August 2023. 

In a December 10 press release, NSW police said its investigators determined the fire was "likely to have originated in bushland on Nimbin Avenue", situated in the coastal Koolewong suburb (archived link). 

"Forensic examinations at the point of origin have not identified any evidence suggesting the use of ignitable liquids or a deliberate act," the police statement said.

Burned vegetation

A spokesperson for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service also told AFP on December 24 the claims that vegetation was "skipped" by the fires was "not correct" (archived link). 

"There was vegetation that did burn. The size of the fires was 129 hectares."

A spokesperson for the NSW Police also confirmed to AFP in a December 26 email: "There was considerable vegetation destroyed in the fire. It's clearly seen in the news vision."

reverse image search revealed that the circulating picture is similar to Sky News footage of the bushfires in Koolewong published on December 7, where the burning house is shown around the 15-second mark (archived link).

Image
Screenshot comparison between the false post (left) and Sky News footage on YouTube, with the red X added by AFP

Later in the Sky News video, there is footage of razed vegetation next to the house, leaving a blackened mass with nearby trees missing leaves. 

Image
Screenshot of the Sky News footage taken December 26, 2025, 
showing smouldering and burned trees on the bottom right side of the frame

Other photos and videos published by local media show burned bushland alongside affected homes in Koolewong (archived herehere and here).

Friday, December 26, 2025

British Activist Blasts ‘Sociopathic Greed’ of Big Tech After US Judge Blocks His Detention

“I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that,” said Imran Ahmed, one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration.


Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, is one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration with a travel ban.
(Photo: Imran Ahmed)


Jessica Corbett
Dec 26, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


After a US judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from detaining one of the European anti-disinformation advocates hit with a travel ban earlier this week, Imran Ahmed suggested that he is being targeted because artificial intelligence and social media companies “are increasingly under pressure as a result of organizations like mine.”

Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The 47-year-old Brit lives in Washington, DC with his wife and infant daughter, who are both US citizens. While the Trump administration on Tuesday also singled out Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of HateAid, and Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who helped craft the Digital Services Act, Ahmed is reportedly the only one currently in the United States.

On Wednesday, Ahmed, who is a legal permanent resident, sued top Trump officials including US Attorney General Pam BondiImmigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“Rather than disguise its retaliatory motive, the federal government was clear that Mr. Ahmed is being ‘SANCTIONED’ as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs,” the complaint states. “In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights.”

“The government’s actions are the latest in a string of escalating and unjustifiable assaults on the First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny,” the filing continues. “Simply put, immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration.”


Our people-powered journalism cannot survive without you

Your support allows Common Dreams to continue covering the stories and amplifying the voices that the corporate media never will. Make a tax-deductible year-end gift to ensure we can sustain the reporting needed to meet the challenges of 2026.




Just a day later, Judge Vernon Broderick, an appointee of former President Barack Obamaissued a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration from arresting or detaining Ahmed. The judge also scheduled a conference for Monday afternoon.

The US Department of State said Thursday that “the Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here.”

Ahmed’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that “the federal government can’t deport a green-card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn’t like what he has to say.”

In the complaint and interviews published Friday, Ahmed pointed to his group’s interactions with Elon Musk, a former member of the Trump and administration and the richest person on Earth. He also controls the social media platform X, which sued CCDH in 2023.

“We were sued by Elon Musk a couple of years ago, unsuccessfully; a court found that he was trying to impinge on our First Amendment rights to free speech by using law to try and silence our accountability work,” Ahmed told the BBC.

Months after a federal judge in California threw out that case last year, Musk publicly declared “war” on the watchdog.

“What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable,” Ahmed told the Guardian. “There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference, and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people.”

Ahmed explained that he spent Christmas away from his wife and daughter because of the Trump administration’s track record of quickly sending targeted green-card holders far away from their families. He said: “I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that. My family understands that.”

The British newspaper noted that when asked whether he thought UK politicians should use X, the former Labour Party adviser told the Press Association, “Politicians have to make decisions for themselves, but every time they post on X, they are putting a buck in Mr. Musk’s pocket and I think they need to question their own consciences and ask themselves whether or not they think they can carry on doing that.”

Ahmed also said that it was “telling that Mr. Musk was one of the first and most vociferous in celebrating the press release” about the sanctions against him and the others.

“He said it was great, and it is great, but not for the reasons that he thinks,” the campaigner said. “Because what it has actually done is give a chance for the system to show that the advocacy that we do is both important and protected by the First Amendment.”





Sanctioning Fever: The United States, European Union, and Free Speech


At present, there is a pot-calling-the-kettle-black approach being taken by the European Union and the United States regarding the imposition of sanctions upon individuals deemed hostile to free speech. On December 23, the US State Department announced that it would bar five European citizens accused of spearheading efforts to pressure US tech giants to censor or suppress American opinions. This came after the European Union’s own tilt to sanctioning individuals accused of spreading Russian misinformation or disinformation, particularly about the Ukraine War.

Those caught in the State Department vice are former EU Commissioner for the internal market Thierry Breton, a key figure behind the Digital Services Act (DSA), Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of the German legal aid organisation HateAid, British head of the US-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) Imran Ahmed, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

Von Hodenberg and Ballon assisted Jewish college students sue the social network platform X over the dissemination of antisemitic content while Ahmed, in particular, has been praised for his work by the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) and Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) on advancing social media hygiene. “He is a valuable partner in providing accurate and detailed information on how the social media algorithms have created a bent toward antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and he will remain a valuable partner,” insisted the JFNA’s head of government relations, Dennis Bernard. Given that many a policy decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from international institutions – the UN Human Rights Council comes to mind – has been based on thinly justified accusations of antisemitism, this was side splittingly comic.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was suitably bolshie in making the announcement, calling the barred individuals “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex”. “For too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.”

Sarah Rogers, the US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, had her share of stones to cast, lashing Breton for “ominously” reminding “[Elon] Musk of X’s legal obligations and ongoing ‘formal proceedings’ for alleged noncompliance with ‘illegal content’ and ‘disinformation’ requirements under the DSA.” Ahmed’s organisation was taken to task for its 2022 “Disinformation Dozen” report lacerating anti-vaccination advocates, among them the current US Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

A spokesperson for GDI called the sanctions an “authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship.” The Trump administration had yet again used “the full weight of the federal government to intimidate, censor, and silence voices they disagree with.” The actions were “immoral, unlawful and un-American.” French President Emmanuel Macron saw matters in terms of autonomy, calling the decision intimidatory and coercive “aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty”.

The European Union can hardly claim to be saintly on the subject of protecting free speech either. When it comes to discussing Russian policies, tolerance for its exercise shrinks. (Consider, for instance, the imposition of EU sanctions on experts associated with the Russia-based international forum, the Valdai Club.) The recent, most troubling case of Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss colonel living in Brussels who finds himself the target of an executive sanctions listing, stands out. The listing was made as part of the Russia hybrid-threats framework adopted in October 2024 (Decision 2024/2643 and Regulation 2024/2642) covering such non-military actions as the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda, cyberattacks and interference in elections. Member States are directed to take measures against “natural persons” who are involved, for instance, in “planning, directing, engaging in, directly or indirectly, supporting or otherwise facilitating the use of coordinated information manipulation and interference” in favour of Russia.

Baud, according to the EU sanctions tracker, is described as “a former Swiss army colonel and strategic analyst [and] a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example, accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO.” An odd curriculum vitae to warrant an executive listing that is punitive and lacking curial assessment.

For holding and promoting such views, an asset freeze has been placed upon him within the EU jurisdiction, along with an entry and transit ban across the EU. Stranger in this whole affair is the fact that Switzerland does not subscribe to this monochrome sanctions regime. A situation of the absurd has been created: a Swiss national residing in Brussels who is effectively incapable of returning to Switzerland for expressing views no good European should have.

Attacking a viewpoint deemed unsavoury and out of step with accepted, if not dictated opinion, is the very essence of censorship. The mood of the moment is that of a bouncy militarism in Europe, a reverie of warmongering committing Member States to ever increasing defence budgets against imaginary jackboots awaiting to make their way to Paris and Brussels. Those wishing to question the Ukraine narrative in terms of history and origin, or the need for the prolongation of war, have become targets.

These formulas deny debate, endorse a police version of history, and affirm fundamentalist scripts. Stick to the script, or else. It becomes chilling to then see various countries and political entities punish those with undesirable, even unsavoury opinions. This might be a good time for the EU to drop all pretence on the subject and admit that opinions are there to be policed by the stuffy mandarins of the day. And while there is much to be said that is problematic about such restrictive, babying instruments as the UK’s Online Safety Act and the EU’s DSA, preventing activists and researchers from travelling to a country where free speech is protected seems similarly perverse.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.