Tag: eu

Should Europeans Overthrow Their ‘Ruling Class’

War fever is ramping up again across Europe. This has happened several times in the four and a half years since Russia invaded Ukraine, usually coinciding with important national elections – particularly those in Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Poland, and Germany – when certain domestic political parties have been demonized as “pro-Putin” and “security threats” to the rest of Europe. The war drums also get loud whenever increased military budgets are being debated within the governments of the Scandinavian and Baltic states, Finland, Germany, and Poland, as well as the European Commission. The ebb and flow of political battle cries against the Russian Federation track closely with Europe’s electoral and parliamentary calendars.

It is no coincidence that the German government decided to announce five days before Saxony-Anhalt’s September 6 elections that Russia was responsible for a small drone discovered at the Leipzig/Halle Airport over a month earlier. Although the drone carried an explosive charge, the device caused no damage and sat at the airport unnoticed for many hours on August 4. When Germany accused Russia of perpetrating the “attack” four weeks later, Berlin presented no real evidence for its conclusions.

Nevertheless, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and national leaders across Europe immediately declared solidarity with Germany and condemned Russia’s “hybrid war” on “European Union soil.” To many observers, Berlin’s finger-pointing appeared timed to dampen momentum for the “Alternative for Deutschland” political party, which German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the European Establishment have defamed as “Nazis” and “Russian puppets.” If that was Merz’s goal – to stave off election defeat for his political allies by falsely accusing his opponents of being Russian tools and spies – it did not work. The AfD decisively won the September 6 election in Saxony-Anhalt, and support for the pro-national sovereignty political party continues to surge across Germany.

Similarly contrived “national security” incidents arose before elections in Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Moldova. Pro-European Union parties accused Russia of election interference, economic sabotage, or even imminent attack, while framing opposing parties as Russian assets. In the case of Romania, the E.U.-aligned courts annulled the 2024 presidential election due to spurious allegations of “Russian meddling.”

While European politicians predictably drag out the Russian bogeyman before every election, they seem to be ratcheting up their scaremongering in anticipation of the midterm elections in the United States. President Trump has made no secret of his belief that the Russia-Ukraine War is a stupid and unnecessary conflict that would have never happened had he been in office in 2022. For two years, he has attempted to end it. With the exception of Slovakia (and Hungary before former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s electoral defeat), European governments appear committed to an expanded war with Russia in the near future.

Just last week, President Trump asked Ukraine’s holdover-president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to refrain from attacking Russian oil refineries in an effort to stabilize global markets. After agreeing to do so, Zelenskyy did just the opposite and announced Ukraine’s use of NATO-supplied missile systems to target Russian facilities, an action presumably meant to provoke Russia into targeting NATO members directly. Ominously, Ukrainian “journalist” and Zelenskyy confidant Dmytro Gordon recently announced, “Literally within days, something will happen that will give us great hope….I can’t say what it is – it’s a military secret. But I know that in the coming days…something will happen that will give the nation wings. I know this.”

Gordon’s promise that “something will happen” seems to be an open secret throughout Europe. European Commission officials are encouraging all four-hundred-fifty million European citizens to stockpile water, food, and medicine in preparation for war. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has told the Bundestag that war is coming, and Chancellor Merz has successfully worked around prior legal limits on – and substantially increased – defense spending, while acknowledging that Germany is “already in conflict with Russia.” Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are expanding the size of their respective militaries and implementing broader conscription programs. French President Emmanuel Macron has reportedly informed political leaders that war with Russia has arrived, and the British government is furiously revising its war manuals, organizing civil defense exercises, and preparing for large-scale military conscription, including the activation of retired servicemembers up to the age of sixty-five. In the last week, the United Kingdom’s top ten newspapers have published over two-hundred-fifty articles about the likelihood of war with Russia.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former cabinet minister and one-time Conservative Party favorite for prime minister, says that the British people must fight and die for their country: “In the next few years we may face a war, and if we face a war, we will need people who will join the armed services and who will go out and do their duty. We may even face circumstances where people have to die to save their country, as they did in the First and Second World Wars….That is something that makes a country survive. If people are not willing to do their duty, then the country will be taken over by another country.”

Keep reading

Is Europe Restraining Israel – or Merely Protecting the Two-State Illusion?

This time, Europe seems serious about holding Israel accountable – or at least that is what 11 European countries, together with Canada, want us to believe.

On September 8, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK announced their intention to introduce national restrictions, support European restrictions, or actively consider measures against trade in goods with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Undeniably, the announcement represents a significant political and legal precedent. Dismissing it outright would be impulsive, particularly considering the participation of governments such as those of Canada and the UK, which have historically provided Israel with extensive political and diplomatic support.

Yet celebrating the announcement as an earth-shattering event without examining its context, timing and potential effectiveness would be equally rash. Worse, it could contribute to weakening the public pressure that finally compelled Western governments to take even these limited steps.

The political meaning of the initiative notwithstanding, several important qualifications must be considered.

First, most of the 12 governments have announced intentions, rather than binding and immediately enforceable restrictions.

The decision is therefore still vulnerable to political negotiations, legislative delays, pressure from pro-Israel groups and changing electoral calculations. Without firm deadlines and enforceable mechanisms, today’s declared intentions could become irrelevant by the time they are implemented.

Second, France and Canada have yet to publish detailed implementation schedules. The UK, on the other hand, has announced a comparatively extensive package, covering settlement goods and services related to finance, construction, infrastructure, real estate and advertising. However, its restrictions could take six to nine months to enter into force.

Even if these measures eventually exert meaningful pressure, Israel has been granted additional time to advance its annexation plans and create further irreversible facts on the ground.

Third, the joint commitment focuses largely on goods, while Israel’s settlement enterprise depends on a far broader network of financing, investment, construction, technology and services. These connections often operate through complicated corporate structures that conceal whether a company or transaction is directly linked to a settlement.

Fourth, the initiative is primarily concerned with settlements, particularly the E1 project. E1 is the strategically located area between occupied East Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement bloc. Israeli construction there would further divide the occupied West Bank, sever Palestinian territorial continuity and isolate occupied East Jerusalem from surrounding Palestinian communities.

Europe fears that completing E1 would destroy the remaining geographical basis for a future Palestinian state. That concern is defensible insofar as the two-state solution remains Europe’s declared foreign-policy strategy.

Yet the joint declaration does not refer to the genocide in Gaza. Nor does it confront the wider system of Israeli military occupation that enables settlement expansion, forced displacement and land confiscation. It addresses one particularly alarming manifestation of the occupation while leaving the larger structure largely untouched.

Fifth, there is still no coordinated suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and no collective European arms embargo against Israel.

This omission is especially consequential when measured against the broader economic relationship. European Commission figures show that total EU-Israel trade in goods increased in both 2024 and 2025, the first two full calendar years following the beginning of the genocide.

Therefore, any losses suffered by the settlements – which represent only a small part of Israel’s overall trade – could therefore be absorbed through Israel’s much larger economic relationship with Europe.

The military contradiction is even more glaring. According to SIPRI, Germany provided 31 percent of Israel’s major arms imports between 2021 and 2025, making it Israel’s second-largest supplier after the US. Israel continued receiving major weapons throughout this period despite the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the escalating violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

European states are also major purchasers of Israeli military technology. Europe received 41 percent of Israeli arms exports during the same period, helping sustain an industry deeply integrated into Israel’s military establishment.

Europe is therefore attempting to restrict the settlements while continuing to maintain economic and military relationships with the state that finances, protects and expands them.

A counterargument with some legitimacy is that the announced measures constitute a first step and that greater accountability may follow. But this argument carries weight only if we understand why these governments acted in the first place.

If the restrictions are primarily intended to weaken Benjamin Netanyahu before Israel’s October elections, they may prove to be temporary political instruments whose future depends on the electoral outcome.

Some hope, however, can be found in the growing public solidarity with Palestine across Europe.

Keep reading

REPORT: Pentagon May Cut a Third of US Forces in Europe – 25,000 Troops Would Be Pulled Along With Planes, Ships and Weapons

Germany alone could reportedly lose as many as 5,000 troops.

It’s well known that the US administration of Donald J. Trump is reconfiguring its alliance with Europe, as the old-world Globalist powers show limited loyalty to America, and their efforts to rearm face multiple hurdles.

Now, reports arise that ‘the Pentagon may pull planes, ships, weapons and tens of thousands of US troops from Europe’, in a drastic (but not unexpected) move.

The NBC report is sourced to ‘seven current and former U.S. and Western officials.’ Meaning that it is another ‘secret source’ report that we need to take in with a pinch of salt – even if it sounds in line with known initiatives by Trump’s Department of War.

“The reduction could be roughly one-third of all U.S. troops in Europe, or roughly 25,000. One U.S. official and another person with knowledge of the deliberations say it could be even larger — as much as half, or up to 40,000 troops. If carried out, it would be the most significant scaling back of the 80,000-strong U.S. military presence in Europe since the aftermath of the Cold War in the 1990s.”

Keep reading

Brussels Is Robbing America Blind — And Someone In Washington Is Letting Them Get Away With It

In recent years, Brussels has conducted a bitter economic war against America’s most successful companies: Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon. Brussels uses an array of fines, investigations and even forcing the companies to hand over key technologies in return for exemption from other regulations. Brussels even has imposed a number of very far-reaching rules that are nothing more than a large scale expropriation of their IP. Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon have already had to pay out to the European Union many billions of dollars, not because they failed in any way to come up with better products and services than their competitors, but because Brussels’ draconian rules and regulations are so difficult for them to comply with.

President Trump saw it and said enough.

When on July 24th the US President Donald Trump announced the opening of a Section 301 investigation concerning the campaign of fines and regulation of large tech companies by Europe, he started by criticizing the European Commission’s latest move against Google. In two separate decisions Google has been fined for almost $1 billion for alleged breaches of the Digital Markets Act. The US President called those fines “another example of Europe robbing American companies and, in turn, the American taxpayer”.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer laid out the reasons why a Section 301 investigation into the EU’s fines on Google and other big tech companies is fully warranted. “The European Commission’s practices with respect to Google amount to de facto forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft, supported by unfair and unreasonable financial penalties,” Greer said in a statement. He noted that Google’s EU fines alone would total more than two percent of the EU’s annual budget.

More than seven weeks have now passed since Trump gave his Trade people their instructions concerning the EU’s ‘robbing’ of American technology companies.

Keep reading

Brussels Finally Admits Borders Matter

For years, anyone who dared to say that a nation must control its borders was treated as some dangerous nationalist. Now Ursula von der Leyen stood before the European Parliament and declared that “Europe needs the means to protect its borders at all times.” Brussels is proposing a new European Emergency Response Framework to deal with sudden mass migration, particularly when migration is “engineered and weaponised.” Apparently borders matter after all, but only when Brussels decides that they matter.

The announcement follows the extraordinary crisis in Ceuta this summer, when a mass movement across the border from Morocco forced EU interior ministers into an emergency meeting. Von der Leyen now says the new framework would operate under strictly defined circumstances and temporarily relax standard procedures so governments can respond faster. She also wants stronger external border management, faster returns, greater Frontex involvement, and improved cooperation with countries outside the EU. These are policies Europeans have demanded for years while being lectured that migration required solidarity, humanitarian obligations, and increasingly centralized European management.

What makes this even more remarkable is that the EU’s new Pact on Migration and Asylum only became fully applicable on June 12, 2026. Brussels called it a comprehensive solution that would finally provide secure external borders, faster asylum procedures, better returns, and a permanent solidarity system among member states. Barely three months later, von der Leyen is already saying Europe’s tools must “evolve” because the existing system is inadequate for emergencies.

Brussels now openly uses the term “weaponised” migration. Think about what that admission actually means. Human beings can be deliberately used as instruments of geopolitical pressure because European governments surrendered sufficient control over migration that adversaries recognized it as a vulnerability. Poland, Finland, Greece, Spain, Italy, and other frontier states have confronted different versions of this problem, yet Brussels spent years trying to impose a common political answer upon countries facing completely different geographic and security conditions.

The new migration pact goes even further by establishing a mandatory solidarity mechanism. The European Commission determines which member states are under migratory pressure and organizes support through a European solidarity pool, which can involve relocations or alternative contributions. Brussels presents this as burden sharing.

This is where the sovereignty problem becomes unavoidable. Hungary does not have the same migration politics as France. Poland does not have the same geography as Portugal. Italy and Greece confront Mediterranean migration routes that northern European states do not. Spain faces pressure through Ceuta and the Canary Islands. Yet Brussels continually responds to these radically different circumstances by creating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Keep reading

EU’s Social Media Ban Could Bring ID Checks for Adults

As expected, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced that the EU Kids Act will propose that no child under 13 should be allowed on social media, while 13 and 14-year-olds should have limited accounts.

The announcement, just in time for the EU’s planned digital ID rollout, was made in von der Leyen’s State of the European Union address in Strasbourg on Wednesday.

According to von der Leyen, the Act would ensure that “no social media under the age of 13. No personal account under the age of 15.”

Children between the ages of 13 and 14 will be allowed a limited account, with a limited set of features, and with a time limit of one hour a day, and parents will have to set up and supervise these “mini accounts.”

Von der Leyen also said that the Act would reverse the burden of proof, so that instead of regulators having to prove that a service is unsafe, it will be up to the platforms to prove that their product is safe for minors.

The Commission President also took aim at Big Tech, saying, “I am aware that many perceive the power of big tech as overwhelming and impossible to roll back. I disagree.” She added, “Europe has the power to act. It is us who decide the rules, not Big Tech.”

The scope of the Act will cover social media, video sharing platforms, app stores, online games, as well as AI companions and chatbots, with a focus on “high-risk” services, although the definition of that category is not yet clear.

Other rules that have been reported as part of the Act are age checks for every new account, with existing users also subject to “proportionate” checks, taking into account the time they have been subscribed to a service. Verification will be done via an app, either the one developed by the Commission or a national equivalent. These apps will only return information about whether a user is over or under a certain age.

The draft also reportedly seeks to ban certain design features, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications, as well as artificial notifications and rewards. The text is said to state that “technology companies bear primary responsibility for making their products safe.”

Fines for non-compliance can reach up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover, while a supervisory fee will be introduced to make sure the Commission can enforce the new rules.

The Commission’s app was presented by von der Leyen in April in Brussels, and at the time, she said it was “fully open source. Everyone can check the code.”

But security consultant Paul Moore took the Commission up on that and found that the app stores sensitive data on phones and leaves it unprotected. According to Moore, he was able to hack the app in under two minutes.

The Commission first responded to this by saying the app was ready and could always be improved. A week later, a spokesperson described the version presented as “a demo version.”

Keep reading

Beware Contrived Scares And False Flags In Europe

On the evening of August 4, an airport employee at Leipzig/Halle noticed a small drone resting on the apron near a parked Ukrainian Antonov freighter. It carried an explosive charge and a detonator. The charge did not go off. A bomb-disposal robot rolled out across the tarmac, and by the account German officials would later give, the device had gone unnoticed for roughly four hours before anyone found it. Then the airport reopened and the country moved on.

Twenty-eight days later, on September 1, the German government told its citizens who had done it. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stood together in Berlin and named Russia. The consulate in Bonn would close on September 18; the lease on Berlin’s Russian House cultural centre would be torn up; more Russians would be proposed for European Union sanctions lists. The attribution was delivered as settled fact. The evidence behind it was not.

Five days after that, on September 6, the voters of Saxony-Anhalt went to the polls with the Alternative für Deutschland polling around 41-43%, within reach of an absolute majority in a state the entire German establishment had spent months trying to deny it. The sequence is worth holding in the mind as a single object. A device found in early August, a public silence lasting four weeks, and then an official enemy announced in the final days of a campaign. Nothing about that ordering is illegal, but nothing about it is accidental either.

Dobrindt’s case, as he laid it out, does not rest on a single piece of proof. It rests on three strands said to point the same way: police forensics, the resemblance of the device to earlier operations, and intelligence reporting. “Taken together,” he said, the investigations, the pattern and the intelligence findings established Russian responsibility. He named no GRU officer. He named no unit. He said the people who carried out the plan appeared to be “low-level” agents acting on behalf of unspecified “Russian state entities.”

What the public was given, then, was a conclusion and a description of the kinds of evidence that produced it—not the evidence. An independent observer cannot test the chain. Even sympathetic accounts noted the gap: the ministers named the state but kept most of the underlying material out of view. NATO’s Secretary-General Mark Rutte pronounced the evidence “clear” without any of it being made public, and welcomed the German measures. The European Union’s foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas went further still, telling reporters in Ireland that the incident bore “all the hallmarks of state-sponsored terrorism.”

This is the ordinary grammar of attribution in the sabotage era. A government states that its services and their partners have reached a judgement, allied governments affirm the judgement, the proof stays classified; and the citizen is invited to supply the trust that the missing evidence would otherwise earn. It may be that the classified material is overwhelming. It may be that it is thin. The structure is identical either way, which is precisely the problem. A public asked to accept an attribution on faith has no way to tell a strong case from a convenient one.

The load-bearing sentence in the German case is not about forensics at all. It is about familiarity. Wadephul said the drone’s configuration, its components, its explosives, and its ignition technology were “familiar to us from other Russian hybrid operations and from Russia’s war against Ukraine.” Dobrindt used almost the same words: elements “known to us,” a device of “high technical expertise” assembled with care. Recognition, in other words, is doing the work that a signature would normally do.

Keep reading

Brussels’ Version of Democracy: Pick a Bird

Europeans finally get to vote! Brussels has discovered democracy. Do they get to vote on the war in Ukraine? No. Immigration? No. Sanctions on Russia? No. The endless climate regulations coming out of Brussels? No. Do they get a referendum on whether they even WANT the European Union to continue swallowing national sovereignty? Certainly not. But the European Central Bank has graciously decided that the people may express their opinion on what pictures should appear on the next euro banknotes. This is what democracy has been reduced to in Europe. You may not decide the policies that govern your life, but please select your favorite bird.

The ECB is currently allowing the public to rank ten preselected designs for the next generation of euro banknotes. The choices have already been narrowed to two themes: “European culture” and “Rivers and birds.” More than 1,200 designers originally applied, 25 were invited to produce designs, and an independent jury of 21 experts selected the ten finalists. Now the public gets its little moment of participation before the ECB Governing Council makes the FINAL decision around the end of 2026. The ECB itself says public opinion will merely be one of several inputs alongside the jury’s conclusions and a technical assessment. So even when they finally allow you to vote on the appearance of your own money, THEY STILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY.

Christine Lagarde declared that euro banknotes are “one of the most tangible expressions of Europe” and that the new designs will reinforce a “shared identity.” There is the entire problem in two words: shared identity. What identity? Europe is not a nation. It never has been. A Greek is not a Finn. An Italian is not an Estonian. A Spaniard is not a German. Europe contains different languages, histories, cultures, religions, traditions, economies, and national experiences stretching back centuries. Brussels has spent decades attempting to manufacture a single political identity from the top down, and even designing a piece of paper exposes how impossible that project really is.

Look at what they have selected for the “European culture” notes. Maria Callas appears on the €5, Beethoven on the €10, Marie Curie on the €20, Cervantes on the €50, Leonardo da Vinci on the €100, and Bertha von Suttner on the €200. Immediately you encounter the problem Brussels can never solve. Where is YOUR country? Where is YOUR history? Where is the person your nation believes represents its culture? Twenty countries use the euro, and this proposed series has only six denominations. Somebody will be excluded because there is no such thing as a single national European culture that can be represented on six pieces of paper.

They have already stumbled into controversy over something as basic as Marie Curie’s name. Polish MEP Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus objected to the way the ECB identified her and pressed the institution to recognize her Polish heritage and birth name, Skłodowska. Lagarde eventually responded that the ECB would refer to her as “Marie Curie (born Skłodowska)” while it continued considering how names might appear on the notes. There you have it. They cannot even put ONE famous European on a banknote without immediately encountering national identity because national identity actually EXISTS.

This is why the alternative is birds and rivers. The ECB’s own research found that people considered nature “neutral,” “safe,” “borderless,” and unlikely to create controversy. They have been forced toward politically neutral wildlife because depicting actual European civilization exposes the fact that Europe is composed of independent nations.

Keep reading

Tyrannical EU To Threaten AfD But Could Be Its Downfall

EU technocracy shows its face again – this time it’s aiming at German voters, the AfD in particular.

Brussels is discussing the freezing of EU funding for Saxony-Anhalt where the populist party just won. The €2.95 billion in EU funding for the German federal state for the current 2021-2027 budget period alone amounts to around €500 million per year and approximately 20 percent of the Saxony-Anhalt investment spending in schools, in hospitals, in daycare centers across the country.

Green MEP Daniel Freund is one of the lobbyists from Brussels who wants to strip Saxony-Anhalt of its EU funding because the voters in the German state ‘chose wrong’. He threatens that if the AfD-led government ‘undermines EU fundamental rights or the rule of law’ then the European Commission should take away his money. Freund did not wait for the new government to be sworn in, he attacked the voters in Saxony-Anhalt already before the election results had been confirmed.

It would be nothing new for the EU to use such a measure – as it has done already with Hungary and Poland. Brussels has frozen up to €18 billion of funding for Hungary so far because of alleged rule-of-law violations. Billions more have been withheld from Poland. In both cases, the EU’s financial pressure has had serious consequences for the governments and have contributed to changes of government which the EU regards more favorably.

It is undemocratic and the EU has been attacking Saxony-Anhalt for too long now. The European Superstate is trying to starve the region of vital public services – as is already the case in Hungary and Poland – if the voters there choose a party that is not approved of by the Brussels elite.

Keep reading

Europe’s Von Der Leyen Wants To Put Private Bank Deposits Under State Direction

How will we deal with private property in Europe in the future?

A highly complex debate follows from this question, one that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen interpreted in her own very particular way on Friday. In a speech to French business leaders at the MEDEF’s La Rencontre des Entrepreneurs de France in Paris, the former defense minister talked about using EU citizens’ bank deposits to get the ailing eurozone, the European economy, back on its feet.

An unmistakable message: In the view of the EU’s chief Eurocrat, private property as a protective wall shielding citizens from an overreaching state has served its purpose as a pillar of civilization.

Central planning, subsidy madness – this is Brussels under the magnifying glass.

Certainly: In the face of towering government debt and capital flight from the old continent, in whose wake thousands of patents and tens of thousands of highly qualified professionals are being swept away, citizens’ wealth is bound to awaken political appetites. A ruthless expropriation or the decreed redirection of cash, as the finest bureaucratic German puts it, is supposed to solve the problems Brussels itself has caused through its stubborn climate policy, its overregulation and its continuing insanity of interventionism.

Von der Leyen was explicit before the business leaders: Europe has savings, she said, but unfortunately those savings are sitting on the sidelines. Ten trillion euros are sitting as cash savings in the hands of private households in bank accounts, lectures von der Leyen in the manner of a classic central planner who can no longer take her eyes off citizens’ wealth. The European economy must now put this capital to work for its companies, the chief bureaucrat decreed.

None of this merely sounds like Erich Honecker. Von der Leyen is increasingly turning into a socialist sister in spirit to this disastrous regime.

Von der Leyen is following the path of the German chancellor. Friedrich Merz, too, discovered the cash holdings of Germans as political capital for himself more than a year ago – thoroughly socialist, indeed almost dictatorial, the chancellor also pointed to the possibilities opened up by what he called an activation of this money.

Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz reveal not merely an ethical and ideological abyss; they are contemplating dictatorial control over the private wealth of citizens who are still sovereign.

Almost tragically comical is the economic ignorance of these two political protagonists of an EU that is now openly turning toward an illiberal ideology.

Bank deposits are by no means useless cash. From the perspective of the banking sector, customer deposits are a central source of refinancing and liquidity, embedded in the money and credit cycle and enabling the provision of loans. Bank credit in the modern monetary system does not simply arise from passing on existing deposits. Commercial banks create new bank money through lending, although this process cannot simply be understood as a mechanical “leveraging” of existing deposits. Customer deposits thus fulfill numerous functions, from private liquidity planning and cash holdings to the financing and management of banking processes.

Such a massive intervention in the highly complex and fragile liquidity and credit structure of the banking sector would not merely be a barbaric act of socialism – it would be a frontal assault on the functionality of the banking system as such.

Nevertheless, the EU will resort to massive interventions – financially, after all, they have run into a wall.

Starting in 2028, repayment of the €800 billion Eurobond “NextGenerationEU” will come due. Von der Leyen’s speech before business leaders was ostensibly directed at the private sector, but in reality it concerned the financing of the European debt club, which is now moving toward tapping every financial source that can help keep the Ponzi scheme of European credit alive – the activation of cash appears to be one of those sources.

France is caught in a debt spiral, with new borrowing amounting to 5.7% of GDP this year and a parliamentary deadlock that rules out any form of fiscal consolidation.

Keep reading