Tag: eu

‘It’s 2025, not 1939’ – Fico challenges EU’s warning against Moscow trip

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has firmly rejected recent warnings by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas to European leaders against attending Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on May 9, asserting that “the year is 2025, not 1939.”

Kallas stated on Monday that any participation by EU leaders in the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Russian capital “will not be taken lightly” by Brussels.

“WARNING AND THREAT BY MS. KALLAS ARE DISRESPECTFUL AND I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THEM,” Fico wrote on X on Tuesday.

The Slovak leader confirmed his intention to participate in the commemorations, stating, “I will go to Moscow on May 9th.”

Fico questioned the nature of Kallas’ remarks, suggesting they may imply punitive consequences for attending.

“Is Ms. Kallas’s warning a form of blackmail or a signal that I will be punished upon my return from Moscow? I don’t know. But I do know that the year is 2025, not 1939,” he said, in an apparent reference to the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia that year.

Keep reading

NATO’s Operation Condor steamrolls onwards

O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom! ~ Madame Roland

Following what a friend calls my eloquent and excellent article regarding the fate of Ms Ozturk, he writes that we “need to shout loud and often about this growing suppression of free speech, because if we don’t, we will undoubtedly be faced with Operation Condor type disappearances at a future time”. As this article shows, though some of us have long been hoarse, that time is already upon us and, though Latin America is not as jam-packed as it once was with right-wing dictators and former high-ranking Nazis, below the surface, little has changed or will change until we make it change.

The fear factor faucet

As in ancient Rome, we must always be kept on edge, in fear that our “freedoms” are under attack by extraneous powers, Russia’s over-worked President Putin in particular, who is set to conjure up out of thin air a couple of million paratroopers to pop down in front of us and take those illusory freedoms away. To safeguard ourselves against that, we are being urged to stockpile food and, presumably, to give the Ivans a bloody nose with our cans of sardines when they kick in our front doors.

Although crass tommyrot like that is not worth a hearing, it works on its core target markets, most particularly those who are in receipt of State payments and/or who want to aimlessly drift through life, oblivious to the dangerous currents underneath the surface.

Although not all of them will believe that Putin’s paratroopers will shortly be dropping in for afternoon tea, or that every Arab baby is a suicide bomber or that every Latino is a drug dealing cut throat, because enough people will believe there is no smoke without fire, NATO’s charlatans can continue to get away with their scams until they are overthrown.

If one must worry about Putin, it is not his paratroopers that should concern us, but his vast array of state-of-the-art F35 bombers, about which the ordinary Joe is powerless. If we are worried about China annexing the Panama Canal, we should be more worried it is being gifted to Black Rock and the other parasitic companies that are the real powers behind NATO’s machinations.

But, then, fear is only one of our three primary choices, the other emasculating one being freeze, to which we now come and the preferable one being fight, which we will leave to last.

Keep reading

EU Must Buy US Energy to Get Tariff Relief: Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump said late on April 7 that the European Union would need to buy $350 billion worth of American energy to secure relief from tariffs.

Trump was responding to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who said earlier on Monday during a news conference in Brussels that the EU was ready to negotiate a “zero-for-zero” tariff pact on industrial goods.

Asked by a reporter at the White House whether the offer was enough for him to back down on 20 percent duties on imports, Trump said: “No, it’s not.”

“The European Union’s been really tough over the years. We have a [trade] deficit with the European Union of $350 billion and it’s going to disappear fast,” Trump said. “And one of the ways that that can disappear easily and quickly is they’re going to have to buy our energy from us … They can buy it, we can knock off $350 billion in one week.”

On April 2, Trump announced a minimum 10 percent tariff on all trading partners, as well as higher levies on about 60 nations identified by the administration as “worst offenders” in trade imbalances with the United States. China topped the list.

The 27-nation EU bloc is currently facing 25 percent import tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars, with tariffs of 20 percent due to kick in from April 9 for almost all other goods under Trump’s new policy of responding in kind to countries that he says impose high barriers to U.S. imports.

Keep reading

Beware: The ECB Digital Currency Is Coming

Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, has announced that the digital euro will be ready for October 2025.

However, she stressed the importance of moving forward with the legislative process that would impose the digital euro, urging the European Commission, the European Council, and member states parliaments to accelerate the laws and directives that are required to make the digital euro viable.

Why the rush? The European Central Bank’s losses have risen to 7.8 billion euros, and the European monetary authority has posted the second consecutive loss, while sovereign bonds in Europe have slumped again in the first two months of 2025. The ECB needs a digital euro to wash away its disastrous policy of the past decade.

The second reason is because confidence in the ECB’s policy is declining, sovereign bonds are not a reserve asset anymore, and inflation expectations rise. The hurry to impose the digital euro also comes at a time when European member states have announced large plans to spend, borrow, and invest in defense. Thus, the digital euro is critical to imposing the use of the euro as a currency, expanding the control of citizens, and disguising fiscal imbalances with a dangerous tool issued by a monetary institution that has lost most of its credibility in the past five years.

Remember that the ECB’s mandate is price stability, but inflation in the euro area has exceeded 22% in the past four years. At the same time, the European sovereign bond index has fallen by 14% since 2022.

There is another important reason to rush the digital euro. Global central banks and investment firms are concerned that European states will confiscate the assets of the Russian central bank, setting a dangerous precedent that could affect the assets of other non-European nations. As foreign funds fearing confiscation may leave the European financial system, the digital euro may be a useful tool to impose the use of the currency even if demand declines.

The digital euro, which Lagarde described in 2022 as “a digital banknote with a little less anonymity than the paper banknote because it is issued and guaranteed by the central bank,” is an unnecessary and dangerous tool.

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) have been gaining attention as the technology of the future for monetary systems, but beneath their promise of efficiency and innovation lies a more pessimistic reality: they can serve as tools for surveillance, eroding personal privacy and financial freedom.

Keep reading

New report shows “massive” EU funding for trans NGOs

A new report has revealed that over €220 million in EU funds have been used to advance “a radical gender identity agenda” over the last decade, including support in the EU for adopting a strategy calling for gender  self-ID for children.

The investigation by MCC Brussels, a Hungarian backed think tank, says that research funding is being ‘weaponised’, and that EU-funded research “is being used as an advocacy tool to justify policy changes rather than for neutral academic inquiry” – pointing to €2.4 million in funding for research “Challenging the gender binary”, and a €3 million “MEN4DEM” study which critics say “treats traditional masculinity as a threat to democracy”.

The report, “Mission Creeps: How EU Funding and Activist NGOs Captured the Gender Agenda,” was authored by sociologist Ashley Frawley, and MCC Brussels say it is the first comprehensive investigation into how a small but powerful network of NGOs has shaped EU gender policy under the radar of public scrutiny – and that the funding has been used to promote “controversial policies” that “undermine women’s rights, child safeguarding, and national sovereignty – all without meaningful democratic debate”.

The analysis found that at least €40 million had gone to projects involving the “most radical” transgender advocacy groups – categorised as meeting one or more of the following characteristics: “take for granted and/or promote notions of gender radically divorced from sex, endorse concepts like non-binary gender identity, support the demotion of the significance of sex in national accounting and statistics.”

Spokeswoman for the Irish campaign group, The Countess, Laoise De Brún, said “all roads lead back to Europe when it comes to the capture of our institutions and government departments.”

“Gender Self-ID and Hate Speech laws, anti-Conversion Therapy are all manufactured not to solve actual societal problems but to force our society in a certain direction. They do not do what they say on the tin,” she said.

“For two long, our craven politicians have behaved like foie gras geese, feet nailed to the floor ingesting an endless diet of increasingly unhinged EU legislation that bears no connection to what the people of Ireland need or want.”

“NGOs have the same stranglehold of Ministers in Ireland as they do at a European level and they are all pushing the same drug. A heady new facet of human rights or a new frontier of progressivism which politician drink up eager to burnish their credentials and march in step with the liberal ruling elite. In reality all of these laws are an attack on the family, on childhood, on women’s rights, on free speech and on state sovereignty. We need a DOGE of these NGOs and how they operate in the EU and at home. Before it’s too late.”

Frank Furedi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels, commenting on the new report, said, “What we’re seeing from our research is the corruption of political processes. There’s a two-way-process where civil society is systematically bought off to provide the EU with legitimacy, whilst the EU becomes increasingly radicalised by ideologues claiming to represent civil society. This is an increasingly secretive political process where power is rendered invisible to ordinary people.”

Keep reading

CONFIRMED: Ursula von Der Leyen’s European Commission Paid Millions to ‘Environmental Associations’ for Targeted Campaigns To Smear Political Opponents and Dissenting Voices

By now, it surprises absolutely no one to learn that the European Union Globalists and her powerful Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen are guilty of weaponizing the continent’s powers against their political enemies and the patriotic forces that oppose their suicidal policies.

After years of heavy criticism and scrutiny, the EU Commission has officially admitted a huge scandal: Brussels paid millions to environmental associations – but not only, mind you, for the nonsense ‘climate work’. What the EU was actually financing were targeted campaigns against political opponents and dissenting voices.

Austrian News Site Exxpress reported (translated from the German):

“The suspicion has been around for years, but now it is official: The EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen has supported environmental organizations with taxpayers’ money – not only for climate and environmental protection, but also for political smear campaigns. The aim of the funded NGOs was to specifically attack critics of Brussels’ climate policy.

The explosive admission: In an official statement, the Commission admits that there have been “inappropriate lobbying activities” in funded NGO programs. This apparently refers to targeted attacks on political opponents who opposed individual EU plans.”

Keep reading

European Commission Revives Push for Encryption Backdoors in ProtectEU Strategy, Framing Mass Surveillance as “Lawful Access”

The EU is once again looking for a way to undermine end-to-end encryption in the name of strengthening law enforcement capabilities, this time via a new strategy, ProtectEU.

The internal security strategy, announced this week by the EU Commission, is presented as a “vision and workplan” that will span a number of years but stops short of making concrete policy proposals.

A press release asserts that the current geopolitical environment is one of “growing” threats from hostile states, and mentions powerful criminal groups and terrorists who are “operating increasingly online” – as well as “surging cybercrime and attacks against our critical infrastructure.”

With the threat elements defined in this way, the EU’s new strategy focuses on six areas, one of them being “more effective tools for law enforcement” – which is where online encryption comes under attack.

When it describes how the groundwork might be laid for mandating encryption backdoors, the EU chooses to use euphemisms such as creating roadmaps for “lawful and effective access to data for law enforcement” and seeking “technological solutions for accessing encrypted data.”

A technology roadmap on encryption would allow for these “solutions” to be found. The EU is not alone in searching for mechanisms to, eventually, legislate against encryption, but these initiatives are invariably met with warnings from both tech companies and civil rights and privacy advocates.

The key issue is that encryption provides both for private communications (which is what law enforcement wants access to) and also the technical security of those communications, financial transactions, etc.

The new EU strategy promises that cybersecurity and fundamental rights will be protected as a future encryption backdoor is implemented.

Keep reading

EU Targets Elon Musk’s X with Potential $1 Billion Fine Under Censorship Law

When the European Commission goes to war, it doesn’t send tanks. It dispatches compliance officers with angry emails and billion-dollar fines.

The European Union’s eurocrats’s next target is Elon Musk’s social media fixer-upper, X.

According to the New York Times, four anonymous whisperers from inside the EU machine say the bloc is loading up a billion-dollar bazooka aimed squarely at X, citing violations of their shiny new Digital Services Act, the latest attempt to regulate speech by committee. And what better way to showcase the importance of online civility than by dragging the world’s loudest billionaire into court?

The DSA, which was sold to the public as a digital hygiene law to make the internet a kinder, gentler place, has become a blunt instrument in the hands of bureaucrats who never met a control lever they didn’t want to pull. They’ve apparently decided that Musk’s flavor of digital chaos — too many unregulated opinions, not enough “fact-checking,” and a stubborn refusal to grovel — is a clear and present danger to the European project.

Among X’s alleged crimes against the algorithmic gods: refusing to hand over data to “independent researchers” (friendly academics who publish pro-censorship PDFs no one reads), hiding the secrets behind those little blue check marks, and failing to spill the tea on who’s advertising to whom.

Naturally, this has prompted Brussels to threaten a fine that could “top $1 billion,” a figure clearly pulled from the same place all government fines originate — an angry dartboard. One idea floating through the regulatory fog? That if X itself can’t pay up, maybe SpaceX can. Because when you’re short on jurisdiction, why not go fishing in another company’s wallet?

Keep reading

Europe’s Misguided Interventions

At last week’s Paris meeting of the ‘coalition of the willing’, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron congratulated themselves on reinserting Europe into the peace process opened up by President Trump. In practice, they have done their best to derail it.

Nothing is more foolish than their idea of placing British and French military soldiers and aircraft in Ukraine to provide ‘reassurance’ against renewed Russian aggression after a ceasefire.

Not only cannot it not be made to happen – since both America and Russia reject it – but the attempt to make it happen distracts attention from the serious business of making peace. It is, rather, a desperate attempt to make Britain and France relevant to a peace process which they did not initiate and never wanted.

What might be made to happen, because potentially acceptable to both Russia and the United States, is a UN-supervised ceasefire with non-NATO peacekeepers. But there has been no European suggestion to this effect.

Scarcely less foolish is the Paris decision to ‘accelerate’ and ‘toughen’ economic sanctions against Russia. To keep sanctions as a pressure point is perfectly sensible, but to urge their expansion now is to derail peace talks just at the moment when a real prospect of peace has opened up.

Economic sanctions are instruments of war, successors to the blockades. Their phased withdrawal should be part of peace-making.

The project of ‘reassuring’ Ukraine against renewed Russian aggression says nothing about reassuring Russia against future NATO aggression.

This reflects the dominant western view that NATO is a purely defensive alliance, that Russia’s attack on Ukraine was unprovoked, and that therefore any Russian demand for reassurance is bogus.

This flies in face of credible evidence that NATO’s leader, the United States, played an active, and possibly crucial, role in destabilizing the elected pro-Russian government of Yanukovych in 2014, and installing a Ukrainian nationalist alternative.*

That the Russian invasion was provoked, is not to say that it was justified. It was a moral and strategic blunder, one of whose consequences was to add two new members to the NATO alliance. Nevertheless the hostility to NATO expansion which underlay it was a product not just of a long history, but of insistent repetition from Gorbachev onward which the West, confident of its victory in the Cold War, cheerfully ignored. It was naive to believe that vengeance would limp after Russia had recovered its strength.

Keep reading

Europe Wails And Gnashes Its Teeth Over Trump Tariffs

Europe knows it has been ripping off American citizens for years, racking up massive trade deficits. Europe also knows it has been freeloading on the American national security umbrella for decades.

Yet, this morning, Europe chooses to bad mouth the United States and the Trump administration for the President’s insistence that the dishonest relationship between the continents end, with the announcement of a global tariff regime by Washington.

Globalists leaders in Europe, fat and happy from decades of grifting off America, are not happy this morning.

Their reactions are below:

Spain’s PM Sanchez declared Europe was already being attacked from the East by Russia, now faces trade attacks from the West. The U.S. return to 19th-century protectionism is not an intelligent move.

German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said, “Donald Trump will buckle under pressure from Germany and Europe in an escalating trade war.”

German Chancellor Scholz declared, “Even if we did nothing in response, the tariffs will cause problems for the U.S. economy. It would be a serious economic error.”

The Austrian Economic Minister declared, “To force Trump to the negotiating table, we need to impose tariffs that hit Republican states and his friends including tech firms.”

French PM Bayrou said on Trump tariffs, “This marks a catastrophe for the world economy.”

Keep reading