This anonymous letter landed in my inbox about a minute ago:

Hello,

After more than 20 years, I've finally decided to tell the world what I witnessed in 1991, which I believe was one of the biggest turning points in popular music, and ultimately American society. I have struggled for a long time weighing the pros and cons of making this story public as I was reluctant to implicate the individuals who were present that day. So I've simply decided to leave out names and all the details that may risk my personal well-being and that of those who were, like me, dragged into something they weren't ready for.

Between the late 80's and early 90's, I was what you may call a "decision maker" with one of the more established companies in the music industry. I came from Europe in the early 80's and quickly established myself in the business. The industry was different back then. Since technology and media weren't accessible to people like they are today, the industry had more control over the public and had the means to influence them anyway it wanted. This may explain why, in early 1991, I was invited to attend a closed-door meeting with a small group of music business insiders to discuss rap music's new direction. Little did I know that we would be asked to participate in one of the most unethical and destructive business practices I've ever seen.

The meeting was held at a private residence on the outskirts of Los Angeles. I remember about 25 to 30 people being there, most of them familiar faces. Speaking to those I knew, we joked about the theme of the meeting as many of us did not care for rap music and failed to see the purpose of being invited to a private gathering to discuss its future. Among the attendees was a small group of unfamiliar faces who stayed to themselves and made no attempt to socialize beyond their circle. Based on their behavior and formal appearances, they didn't seem to be in our industry. Our casual chatter was interrupted when we were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement preventing us from publicly discussing the information presented during the meeting. Needless to say, this intrigued and in some cases disturbed many of us. The agreement was only a page long but very clear on the matter and consequences which stated that violating the terms would result in job termination. We asked several people what this meeting was about and the reason for such secrecy but couldn't find anyone who had answers for us. A few people refused to sign and walked out. No one stopped them. I was tempted to follow but curiosity got the best of me. A man who was part of the "unfamiliar" group collected the agreements from us.

Belgium's government of four years has fallen on the issue of migration after the country's parliament rejected an appeal from prime minister, Charles Michel, for its support for a minority administration.

Michel was forced to offer his resignation to the King of the Belgians, Philippe, after the Socialist party, with support from the Greens, proposed a vote of no confidence in his administration.

The country is now braced for a snap election in January. The head of Michel's party said the opposition had rejected the government's "fair offer" in order to secure a political scalp.

"The Socialist opposition and Greens wanted a trophy and have it", said David Clarinval, chairman of the liberal Reform Movement party.

An MP has taken aim at Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan over the Institute of Statecraft and demanded a probe into a Scottish-based black ops Twitter attack on Labour.

An MP has accused Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan of misleading Parliament over a Government-funded infowars unit that attacked the Labour Party.

Chris Williamson made the claim after an urgent debate in the House of Commons sparked by the Sunday Mail's exclusive report on shadowy Scottish "charity" the Institute for Statecraft (IfS).

The organisation - run by military intelligence experts - is now being probed by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR).

Labour want a full independent investigation and the Tories claim they are reviewing its social media policies.

The arrest of the CFO of the China's largest telecoms equipment company, Huawei, carries hallmarks of deep state or behind-the-scenes sabotage designed to rupture recent progress between US President Trump and China President Xi Jinping on strategic issues. Here are some elements of the case that smack of insider sabotage from the US side, with complicity of Five Eyes member Canada.

After months of trade tariff clashes between USA and China, US President Donald Trump met with China President Xi Jinping during the Buenos Aires G-20 Summit. There the two issued a positive joint statement in which it was stated that the US on January 1 will impose a "cease-fire" and freeze current tariffs at 10% on the $200 billion of Chinese imports to the US, not raising it to 25% as scheduled. For his part, Xi agreed to resume buying US soybeans and other agriculture and energy products to cut the trade imbalance. Most interesting and little-discussed in western media coverage, on the US request, Xi also agreed to list the controversial chemical Fentanyl as a Controlled Substance, meaning that people selling Fentanyl to the United States will be subject to China's maximum penalty under the law.

As well, they agreed to immediately begin negotiations on key US issues including forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber theft, services and agriculture to be completed within 90 days or face resumption of the planned 25% tariff raise.

In almost 30 years as a member of parliament and another 20 years watching it from the outside, I have never seen - or imagined - a basket-case Britain like this.

"It's not one damned thing, it's one damned thing after another," as the former Conservative premier Harold MacMillan once said. That Britain no longer has a functioning prime minister is just one damned thing. Add the dysfunctional government, a parliament of herded cats, a foreign policy deep in disgrace, a media subverted to the core by the deep-state, a wholly uncertain economic future, at "war" with the European continent and with our special relationship to the United States daily undermined by a parallel collapse of the power structures in Washington, it's hard not to be pessimistic about the future.

The sight of the prime minister literally rushing from the chamber seconds after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn rather cleverly wrong-footed everyone (not least his own party) by tabling a no-confidence motion not in the government - which would have united her own side and their allies on the principle that turkeys seldom vote for an early Christmas, in this case an early general election - but in the prime minister personally. It was a rational assumption that some at least of the 117 Conservative MPs who had just expressed their own no-confidence in Theresa May might do so again, or even sit on their hands and abstain. They would, after all, be then rid of her and keep their government.

President Donald Trump's ill-fated first national security adviser Michael Flynn will twist in the wind for another three months or more, before he can face a sentence for getting caught in a FBI ambush while doing his job.

Flynn was supposed to be sentenced on Tuesday, ending the year-long legal saga that destroyed his reputation, nearly bankrupted him, and even endangered his family. Then, in a bizarre last-minute twist, his lawyers asked for a delay. The next status hearing will be in March, with the actual sentencing who knows when.

At one point in the hearing, Judge Emmett Sullivan urged Flynn to reconsider his guilty plea, telling him that the violation he was admitting to amounted to treason - only to walk back the comments minutes later. The media, predictably, gave far more coverage to the original statement than the retraction. It's the perfect example of the collective hysteria that has followed Flynn's case from the very beginning.

Washington has confirmed its decision to withdraw from the INF treaty is final, Russia's deputy foreign minister said, adding that Moscow will 'take measures' if American missiles that threaten its security are placed in Europe. Sergey Ryabkov told the Kommersant newspaper:

"Washington publicly announced its plans to withdraw from the treaty (the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) already in October. Through the high-level bilateral channels it was confirmed to us that this decision was final and wasn't an attempt to initiate dialogue."

The Deputy FM said that Moscow will respond to possible attempts to place short and intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles in Europe if the US decides to go on with this plan.

"We'll be forced to come up with effective compensating measures. I'd like to warn against pushing the situation towards the eruption of new 'missile crises.' I am convinced that no sane country could be interested in something like this. Russia isn't threatening anybody, but have the necessary strength and means to counter any aggressor."

U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the establishment of a space command that will oversee the country's military operations in space.

Trump signed the one-page memorandum on December 18 directing the Department of Defense to create the new command to oversee and organize space operations, accelerate technical advances, and find more effective ways to defend U.S. assets in space, including satellites. The move comes amid growing concerns that China and Russia are working on ways to disrupt, disable, or even destroy satellites on which U.S. forces rely for navigation, communications, and surveillance.

The new command is separate from Trump's goal to create an independent space force, but could be a step in that direction.

Speaking at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Vice President Mike Pence said: "A new era of American national security in space begins today."

Space Command will integrate space capabilities across all branches of the military, Pence said, adding that it will "develop the space doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures that will enable our war fighters to defend our nation in this new era." It will be the Pentagon's 11th combatant command, along with well-known commands such as Central Command and Europe Command.

When 'Russian hackers' and their malign activities feature so much in your reports, it may be difficult to switch to another country. Just ask Reuters, which falsely claimed Twitter found suspicious traffic coming from Russia.

Twitter said on Monday that it found out a certain form on its website could be used by a third party to identify the country of origin of a user, if they had a phone number linked to their account. The vulnerability was fixed last week, but the microblogging service said it identified many requests related to this form "coming from individual IP addresses located in China and Saudi Arabia" and suggested that "state-sponsored actors" may be responsible.

Reuters reported the find, but apparently its first impulse was to blame Russia for the suspicious traffic. Because the first version said it was coming from China and Russia. A correction was soon issued.

Well, when you are a big news agency, being swift in reporting the news is paramount for staying ahead of the competition. And humans do make errors, nothing wrong with that, as long as they are corrected. One can honestly mistake one country's name for the other.

Kim Jong Un, angered by the newest U.S. sanctions, is warning that North Korea's commitment to denuclearization could be imperiled and we could be headed for "exchanges of fire." Iran, warns Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is testing ballistic missiles that are forbidden to them by the U.N. Security Council.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that, within days, he will launch a military thrust against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria, regarding them as allies of the PKK terrorist organization inside Turkey. Vladimir Putin just flew two Tu-160 nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela. Ukraine claims Russia is amassing tanks on its border.

How did the United States, triumphant in the Cold War, find itself beset on so many fronts?

First, by intervening militarily and repeatedly in a Mideast where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, and thereby ensnaring ourselves in that Muslim region's forever war.

Second, by extending our NATO alliance deep into Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Baltics, thereby igniting a Cold War II with Russia.

Third, by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.

The question, then, for our time is this: Can the U.S. pursue a Cold War policy of containment against both of the other great military powers, even as we maintain our Cold War commitments to defend scores of countries around the globe? And, if so, for how long can we continue to do this, and at what cost?