Tag: eu

Shocking Data Shows Massive Demographic Transformation In Europe

New data showing the percentage of people not speaking German at home in Austria underlines just how massive the demographic transformation has been in the country, according to a Hungarian economist.

“Ominous winds are blowing in the West,” economist Géza Sebestyén posted on his Facebook page, along with some astonishing data.

“According to the latest Austrian statistics, one-third (32.8%) of primary school pupils in Austria are non-native German speakers. In cities, the proportion is even higher: in Salzburg, for example, one in two children (51.8%) do not speak German at home,” he noted. 

The post featured a map breaking down each region of Austria, showing the huge share of children not speaking German at home as their first language.

Sebestyén, the head of the MCC Economic Policy Workshop, showed that Hungary could have ended up like Austria if it had not followed the policies of Viktor Orbán, who sealed the border and rejected mass immigration. He warned that Hungary could feature a multiculturalism that Austrians increasingly find alienating and fraught with crime.

Keep reading

EU Commissioner Defends EU’s Censorship Law While Downplaying Brussels’ Indirect Influence Over Online Speech

As the European Union moves aggressively to shape online discourse through the Digital Services Act (DSA), EU Commissioner for Technology Henna Virkkunen has been deflecting scrutiny abroad, pointing fingers at the United States for what she describes as a more extensive censorship regime.

Relying on transparency data, she argues that platforms like Meta and X primarily remove content based on their own terms and conditions rather than due to DSA directives. But this framing misrepresents how enforcement works in practice, and downplays the EU’s systemic role in pushing platforms toward silence through legal design, not open decrees.

Virkkunen highlighted that between September 2023 and April 2024, 99 percent of content takedowns occurred under platform terms of service, with only 1 percent resulting from “trusted flaggers” authorized under the DSA. A mere 0.001 percent were direct orders from state authorities.

On paper, this paints a picture of platform autonomy. But in reality, the architecture of the DSA ensures that removals appear “voluntary” precisely because they are incentivized by looming regulatory consequences.

Under the DSA, platforms are held legally accountable for failing to remove certain types of content.

This liability drives a strong incentive to err on the side of over-removal, creating a culture where companies preemptively censor to minimize risk. Virkkunen frames these decisions as internal, but in truth, many of them reflect anticipatory compliance with European legal expectations.

The fact that content is flagged and removed “under T&Cs” does not indicate independence, it reflects a strategy of risk avoidance in response to EU enforcement pressure.

This dynamic is by design. The DSA doesn’t rely on high numbers of direct takedown orders from governments. Instead, it outsources content control to the platforms themselves, embedding speech restrictions in the guise of corporate policy.

The regulatory burden falls on private actors, but the agenda is shaped by Brussels. Delegating enforcement doesn’t dilute state influence; it conceals it. The veneer of decentralization does not remove the fact that the state has created the framework and exerts ongoing leverage over what platforms consider acceptable.

Keep reading

European Commission Launches €5.69M European Fact-Checking Funding Network to Advance “Democracy Shield” and Expand Censorship Infrastructure

The European Commission has launched a €5 million initiative presented as a fact-checking support program; but beneath the surface, it reads as yet another calculated step toward institutionalizing censorship across the European Union.

This call for proposals is marketed as a tool to “protect democracy” and combat “disinformation,” but the structure, goals, and affiliations of the program point clearly to the opposite: a top-down, publicly funded apparatus for narrative enforcement.

Slated to run until September 2, 2025, the project is open not only to EU Member States but also to candidate countries like Ukraine and Moldova; jurisdictions framed as highly vulnerable to “foreign interference,” especially pro-Kremlin disinformation.

This strategic framing serves a dual purpose: justifying increased surveillance of content and securing narrative dominance in geopolitically sensitive areas.

The program’s core deliverables; protecting fact-checkers from so-called “harassment,” creating a centralized repository of “fact-checks,” and building emergency “response capacity;” sound benign to some. But stripped of the euphemism, this is a blueprint for constructing a continent-wide content control grid.

The “protection scheme” offers legal and cyber assistance to fact-checkers, but more crucially it reinforces the narrative that opposition to these groups constitutes abuse rather than legitimate disagreement.

The “fact-check repository” enables centralized curation of what counts as “truth,” and the “emergency response” function gives the Commission a pretext to fast-track suppression efforts in politically sensitive moments.

Most telling is the program’s requirement that participating organizations be certified by either the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) or the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Many of their members, such as AFP and Full Fact, already work directly with major social media platforms like Meta under third-party moderation schemes. This effectively means the EC is reinforcing an exclusive gatekeeper class, already aligned with corporate censorship programs, now endowed with taxpayer funds and the backing of the European bureaucracy.

At least 60% of the funding will go to third parties, who must co-finance their participation.

Keep reading

Merkel’s Back, Warns Europe Could Be ‘Destroyed’ Without More Open-Borders

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel is back with a message; Europe could be ‘destroyed’ unless they continue to allow millions of ‘non-Europeans’ to flood the bloc.

Criticizing Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s migration policy, Merkel told Southwestern Press Forum in Neu-Ulm last week that efforts to secure borders could have catastrophic consequences.

“I do not believe we can decisively combat illegal migration at the German-Austrian or German-Polish border… I have always advocated European solutions,” she said when asked about Merz’s latest measures adopted by his cabinet – which include a prohibition on asylum applications at all German land borders, with exceptions for pregnant woman, children and other vulnerable individuals – a sharp reversal from Merkel’s 2015 open-border policy.

“Otherwise, we could see Europe destroyed,” she continued.

Critics have called Merkel’s open-border policy “disastrous” after over a million migrants flooded into Germany during the peak of the 2015-2016 refugee crisis, while Germany continues to be the top destination for asylum seekers – ‘welcoming’ over 237,000 applicants in 2023, roughly 25% of the bloc’s total, according to EU stats.

Keep reading

US lawmakers want Soros-linked Polish election ‘violations’ addressed

US lawmakers have called on the European Commission to address suspected election fraud in Poland, voicing concern over what they describe as a biased approach ahead of the country’s June 1 presidential runoff.

In a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast and fellow members expressed “profound alarm” over developments “undermining the integrity of democratic processes” in Poland. The letter cited foreign-funded online campaigns backing liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski and the Polish government’s refusal to release public funds to the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party.

The concerns centered on political ads favoring Trzaskowski, backed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition, which were allegedly financed from abroad. Poland’s digital watchdog NASK earlier this month flagged paid Facebook ads that promoted Trzaskowski while targeting right-wing candidates Karol Nawrocki and Slawomir Mentzen.

Keep reading

European Kakistocracy Locked In a Forever War Against Russia

Never interrupt your enemy when he is committing serial suicide (in reverse American gore-style, when the serial killer always resurrects). In the case of the EU kakistocracy, serial self-destruction is always a given, and always skyrocketing.

So the EUrocrats in Brussels have just adopted their 17th round of sanctions against Russia – the sky is the limit – targeting nearly 200 tankers of the so-called Russian shadow fleet. The package, endorsed by EU member states, includes proverbial scores of asset freezes and visa bans.

The EU + UK combo is also scheming how to tighten the oil price cap on Russia to $50 a barrel, aiming to “hurt” Russia’s energy revenue.

Cue to a monster pipeline of laughter from the whole Global South, especially India and China. As if they would impeach any vessels of the shadow fleet, or if OPEC+ would care about a puny unilateral EUrocrat oil price cap.

To qualify EU actions as self-destructive anti-intellectualism is actually benign. The IQ of people at the top in Brussels is at dismembered worm level, exemplified by the Estonian batshit crazy chick in theory representing the foreign policy of 450 million EU citizens. Brussels has been reduced to a pathetic Estonian propaganda snake pit with a whiff of British accent.

The SVR has noted how there is a groundswell of despair in Brussels for the “mistake” of appointing the imbecile Estonian, universally known for “absolute incompetence” and a cringing “inability to build bridges” with EU leaders. She has already been removed from EU strategic defense policy planning.

Still, the sanctions package dementia will keep rollin’ on – redacted by careerists with fat salaries who only care about their own retirement gold package.

The next, the 18th, is supposed to be the largest sanctions package in History, according to the Brussels rumor mill, not only accusing Russia of multiples stances of Hybrid War and alleged use of chemical weapons (when it’s actually the neo-nazis of country 404 who resort to it) but targeting several Russian defense sector companies plus companies and intermediaries from third countries supplying sanctioned products to Russia.

Add to it the German BlackRock chancellor actively lobbying for an EU ban on the Nord Stream pipeline – blocking any possibility of a U.S.-Russia business cooperation, already signaled by Trump. This ban will be part of the 18th package.

Cue to Grandmaster Sergey Lavrov, who recently felt the need to emphasize that political EUro-trash banning the return of NordStream are “either sick or suicidal.”

Keep reading

Outrage as British Trawler Detained by French Navy Days After PM Starmer Betrays Fishing Industry in His ‘Brexit Reset’

Failing British Prime Minister is under fire for his ‘Brexit Reset’ deal with the European Union, in which he basically sold out his Fishing Industries by allowing EU boats unfettered access to the UK’s waters for the next 12 years.

The situation became even more volatile after a British trawler was held in French custody yesterday (24) after it was allegedly caught operating without a license in the English Channel.

Daily Mail reported:

“The Lady T, which is based in Eastbourne, East Sussex, was being held in Boulogne-Sur-Mer on Saturday and now risks being confiscated. She was caught by the Pluvier, a French Navy ship, on Thursday, and the catamaran’s skipper now faces prosecution for fishing for whelks without a license.”

This comes days after Starmer closed a deal with the EU on fishing rights which is seen as hugely favoring the French.

The French Navy’s ‘public service patrol vessel’, the Pluvier, was inspecting in the French Exclusive Economic Zone.

French Maritime Authority spokesman: “’During this operation, which was part of the State’s maritime enforcement, a British fishing vessel was inspected by sailors from the Navy patrol vessel while fishing without a license in French waters.

‘As the offence was proved, the fishing vessel was diverted during the night of May 23rd to the port of Boulogne-Sur-Mer, following the instructions of the Delegate for the Sea and Coastline, acting on behalf of the Regional Prefect, who oversees the fisheries police, for the purpose of initiating prosecution under the authority of the Public Prosecutor.’”

Keep reading

EU Commission Sues Five Member States Over Censorship Law Non-Compliance

Five EU member countries are being taken to court by the EU Commission for failure to “effectively” comply with the bloc’s online censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

DSA, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are EU’s key regulations often criticized for centralizing the bloc’s power in the digital sphere at the expense of free speech, and tech companies’ business interests – but also, it appears, the sovereignty of member countries.

Among the “May infringements package” covering various areas regulated by the EU is the section dedicated to the digital economy. It is here that the Commission announced legal action against Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.

These countries have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union; Bulgaria, meanwhile, has been put on notice and may eventually also find itself in court, unless it empowers a national digital services coordinator (DSC, a role established under DSA) and “lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements (of DSA).”

The EU Commission said that designating and empowering DSCs is an essential step in enforcing the DSA rules and “in ensuring the uniform application” of the regulation across the bloc.

Of the five EU members that are already in court, Poland has not designated or empowered a DSC at all, while the other four have done that – but failed to “entrust them with the necessary powers to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

All five countries have yet to come up with rules regarding penalties for DSA infringement.

Keep reading

Inside the Brussels Showdown Over Europe’s Speech Police

On a mild Brussels morning, inside the halls of the European Parliament, a group of politicians, legal scholars, and policy skeptics gathered to talk about a piece of legislation most Europeans haven’t read, but which may soon be quietly reshaping how they speak, share, and think online.

Yesterday’s event, hosted by MEPs Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, with support from ADF International, focused on the increasingly controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), a law initially sold as a digital shield against misinformation and tech giant abuse, but which critics now say has evolved into something more aggressive.

The conference title “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the room.

Virginie Joron, a French MEP, opened the event with a direct shot at what she sees as the DSA’s unspoken evolution. “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” she said. Her argument: a law intended to protect rights is now being used by institutions to regulate dissent on platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and X.

Many have previously tried to dismiss this as anti-Brussels paranoia. But even the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour has flagged the DSA’s “chilling implications” for open debate in Europe.

The devil, as always, lives in the definitions. Who decides what’s “disinformation”? What counts as “hate speech”? How far can governments go in flagging and removing content that someone, somewhere, considers problematic?

Paul Coleman, the Executive Director of ADF International, doesn’t seem particularly reassured by the current answers. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” he told the room.

Keep reading

European Commission Accused of Orchestrating $735M Speech-Control Campaign

A new report has uncovered an expansive and quietly orchestrated campaign by the European Commission to shape public discourse through nearly €649 ($735M) million in taxpayer-funded projects aimed at regulating online speech.

Titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, the document was released by the think tank MCC Brussels and authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a seasoned analyst of digital communication and regulatory policy.

Behind the EU’s frequent calls to combat “hate speech” and “disinformation” lies what the report describes as a vast ideological infrastructure designed to erode free expression under the guise of safety and civic empowerment.

The Commission, the report states, “has funded hundreds of unaccountable non-governmental organizations and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ to the tune of almost €650 million.”

That staggering figure surpasses what Brussels spends on transnational cancer research by over 30%, a discrepancy the report calls deliberate: “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022, for example.”

While EU officials present these programs as public-interest research, the report argues they constitute a form of “soft authoritarianism,” enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus,” it states, “where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.”

Many of these initiatives feature a distinct use of vague and euphemistic terminology, part of what the report calls “NEUspeak;” a deliberate linguistic strategy designed to obscure intent and preempt scrutiny. The project acronyms alone, such as FAST LISA and VIGILANT, are described as a form of branding deceit.

Keep reading