Tag: eu

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

Insanity: AfD’s Petr Bystron Loses Immunity for Sharing Merkel Photo They Said Wasn’t a Nazi Salute — Until He Posted It

The EU Parliament has lifted the immunity of AfD foreign policy spokesman Petr Bystron because he shared a photo of Angela Merkel on Twitter in 2022.

The reason? Bizarre: since Merkel is seen raising her arm in the image, it’s being interpreted as a Nazi salute – but only because Bystron posted it.

Prosecutor: Waving is not a Nazi salute

This farce has a backstory: In 2022, during a protest against COVID-19 measures, Bystron waved to the crowd.

The public prosecutor immediately launched an investigation: “Nazi salute!”

In response, hundreds of AfD supporters filed complaints against Angela Merkel, who had been photographed waving in a similar manner. But in each case, the prosecutor ruled: “Not a Nazi salute, no investigation.”

Bystron used exactly that photo of Merkel in court to defend himself—successfully. The court ruled that not every raised right arm constitutes a Nazi salute. “Great!” Bystron thought. “Then using the Merkel photo should be no problem.”

Far from it! Now, the prosecutor claims it is a Nazi salute after all – and has indicted Bystron for spreading unconstitutional symbols!

Strange? More than that. The charges came a full year after the image was posted on X.

The alleged violation of §86 of the German Criminal Code only came to the prosecutor’s attention once the EU election campaign began – with Bystron leading the AfD list alongside top candidate Krah. What a coincidence!

Keep reading

The Militarization Of Europe

While President Trump is conducting peace negotiations in Ukraine, a general hysteria and psychosis of war is emerging in Europe. Fear is slowly taking hold of citizens of the European Union who are used to ordinary “civilian life”, while wars were regularly fought elsewhere.

It should be emphasized that in this entire psychosis that is being created on the Old Continent, politicians are undoubtedly adding fuel to the fire. As a rule, those in power – liberal, while, interestingly, those in opposition – right-wing, who by vocation should be more warlike and ready for wars – seek a more sober approach to the problem and not hasty, emotionally motivated decisions, which are then presented as strategic and achievable. If they are achievable, the question is at what price? Will it end up being too expensive and harmful compared to the benefits that are to be achieved? What will happen to that pile of expensive weapons that should be produced if there is no war in Europe in the end (by the term Europe here I always mean the EU and NATO members)? And, what about the citizens who will be impoverished under the burden of accrued debts, which will be huge, given that the armament must be started “from scratch” and without cash? The money will have to be withdrawn from banks or from the budget that was intended for various social, infrastructural and other projects, which will negatively affect the standard of citizens.

In order for decisions of this type to be strategic at all, a prerequisite is that there are previous in-depth, precise calculations and projections by the state analytical institutes responsible. This is not the case. The agenda is simply hasty and forced, and is by no means the result of in-depth consideration – and all those who deal with it professionally know that, but it is not advisable to talk about it publicly.

Keep reading

EU Publishes Delusional 72 Hour Bug Out Bag Video In Preparation For War

With all the insufferable quirkiness of a drunken liberal wine-mom, EU Commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management, Hadja Lahbib, explains the “essentials” of an emergency go-bag in a video designed for the average European facing epic disaster should NATO (minus the US) go to war. 

“In the EU we must think different because the threats are different, we must think bigger because the threats are bigger too,” Lahbib told reporters.

Roxana Mînzatu, the Commissioner for preparedness, added that the bloc is “not starting from scratch”.

“The COVID pandemic has shown that the added value of acting together in solidarity, in coordination, in the European Union framework is absolutely crucial, This is what makes us more efficient, makes us stronger,” she said.

Keep in mind, these are the same people that ridiculed the preparedness movement only ten years ago and then accused survivalists of being “hoarders” during the covid lockdowns.  Suddenly the EU elites claim to be concerned about the survival pantries of the citizenry and this may be a signal of expanding hostilities between Europe and Russia.

The advice given, however, is not useful and one can only conclude that the EU is only trying to make it look like they care should the geopolitical situation go sideways.  Hadja Lahbib’s video is not tongue-in-cheek parody – She is quite serious.  She claims that in her travels around Europe she gathered perspectives on emergency survival that were eventually applied to the EU go-bag recommendations.  

Keep reading

“Content Agnostic”: EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies In Bizarre Letter To Congress

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

Keep reading

Europe Waves The White Flag: EU Prepares “Term Sheet Of Concessions” For Trump Trade War

In what may be the first clear confirmation Trump’s plan to realign the global trader system is working, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the European Union is identifying concessions it’s willing to make to Donald Trump’s administration to secure the partial removal of the US tariffs that have already started hitting the bloc’s exports and that are set to increase after April 2.  

According to Bloomberg, EU officials were told at meetings this week in Washington that there was no way to avoid new auto and so-called reciprocal tariffs that Trump is launching next week. Discussions also began on what the contours of a potential deal to reduce them should eventually look like.

That prompted the European Commission (which handles trade matters for the EU) to start working on a “term sheet” for a potential concession agreement, which would set out areas for negotiations on the punitive trade measures, including lowering its own duties, mutual investments with the US as well as easing certain regulations and standards.

In short, Europe – led these days by France’s Macron – did what Europe always does when led by the French: it surrendered.

The reciprocal tariffs which will be unveiled on April 2 are meant to strike out against what Trump considers to be unfair levies on US goods as well as non-tariff barriers, such as domestic regulations and how countries collect taxes, including the bloc’s value-added tax, digital taxes and regulations. The EU says its VAT is a fair, non-discriminatory tax that applies equally to domestic and imported goods (for more on the framework for Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, see this).

The news, which is actually rather bad for Europe as it confirms the continent will be unable to retaliate fully and instead will be on the receiving end of Trump’s trade war, sparked a brief rally in the Euro…

Keep reading