Time to Pay Attention: Europe Just Eviscerated Monetary Privacy, and It’s Coming Here Next

By 2027, the European Union will have completed the most invasive overhaul of its financial system in modern history. Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, cash transactions above €10,000 will be illegal—no matter if it’s a private sale, a used car, or a family heirloom. 

“Persons trading in goods or providing services may accept or make a payment in cash only up to an amount of EUR 10 000 or the equivalent in national or foreign currency, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several linked operations which appear to be linked.” — Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, Article 80, paragraph 1

Simultaneously, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) forces all crypto service providers to implement full-blown surveillance via mandatory identity verification and reporting. An anonymous Bitcoin transfer? That window is closing. And rounding out the trifecta is the European Central Bank’s digital euro, which promises privacy—just not too much of it.

This isn’t a proposal. It’s happening. And if you think it’s just about catching criminals, you haven’t been paying attention.

The justification, as always, is safety. European officials cite €700 billion in annual money laundering as the reason for the crackdown, framing the new rules as a bold stand against crime and corruption. But what they’re building isn’t a net—it’s a cage. These laws don’t distinguish between a cartel kingpin and a retiree who prefers cash. They treat every transaction like a threat, every citizen like a suspect, and every private interaction as a problem to be solved by surveillance.

Keep reading

European Commission weighs creation of intelligence arm amid global tensions

The European Commission is considering setting up a dedicated intelligence cell to strengthen security amid geopolitical difficulties, an EU spokesperson said on Tuesday, adding that the initiative is still at an early stage.

“We are in a challenging geopolitical and geoeconomic environment, and the Commission, because of this, is examining how to strengthen its security and intelligence capabilities,” the spokesperson said.

The Financial Times earlier reported that the Commission has begun setting up a new intelligence body under President Ursula von der Leyen, in an attempt to improve the use of information gathered by national spy agencies.

The unit, to be formed inside the commission’s secretariat-general, plans to hire officials from across the EU’s intelligence community and collate intelligence for joint purposes, the newspaper reported, citing four people briefed on the plans.

Keep reading

Europe’s AI Surveillance Race Against the Rules That Protect Privacy

Europol’s deputy executive director, Jürgen Ebner, is urging the European Union to relax its own legal restraints on artificial intelligence, arguing that the rules designed to protect citizens are slowing down police innovation.

He wants a system that allows the agency to skip lengthy rights checks in “emergency” situations and move ahead with new AI tools before the usual data protection reviews are complete.

Ebner told POLITICO that criminals are having “the time of their life” with “their malicious deployment of AI,” while Europol faces months of delay because of required legal assessments.

Those safeguards, which include evaluations under the GDPR and the EU’s AI Act, exist to stop unaccountable automation from taking hold in law enforcement.

Yet Ebner’s comments reveal a growing tendency inside the agency to treat those same checks as obstacles rather than vital protections.

He said the current process can take up to eight months and claimed that speeding it up could save lives.

But an “emergency” fast track for AI surveillance carries an obvious danger. Once such shortcuts are created, the idea of what qualifies as an emergency can expand quickly.

Technologies that monitor, predict, or profile people can then slip beyond their intended use, leaving citizens exposed to automated systems that make judgments about them without transparency or recourse.

Over the past decade, Europol has steadily increased its technical capabilities, investing heavily in large-scale data analysis and decryption tools.

These systems are presented as essential for fighting cross-border crime, yet they also consolidate immense quantities of personal data under centralized control.

Without strong oversight, such tools can move from focused investigation toward widespread data collection and surveillance.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has already promised to double Europol’s workforce and turn it into a central hub for combating organized crime, “navigating constantly between the physical and digital worlds.”

A legislative proposal to strengthen the agency’s powers is planned for 2026, raising questions about how much authority and access to data Europol will ultimately gain.

Ebner, who oversees governance at Europol, said that “almost all investigations” now involve the internet and added that the cost of technology has become a “massive burden on law enforcement agencies.”

He urged stronger collaboration with private technology firms, stating that “artificial intelligence is extremely costly. Legal decryption platforms are costly. The same is to be foreseen already for quantum computing.”

Keep reading

EU to establish ‘Ministry of Truth’ – Guardian

The European Union is planning to launch a centralized hub for monitoring and countering what it calls foreign “disinformation,” according to a leaked document seen by the Guardian. Critics have long warned that Brussels’ initiatives amount to the institutionalization of a censorship regime.

According to the European Commission proposal, set to be published on November 12, the so-called Centre for Democratic Resilience will function as part of a broader “democracy shield” strategy, pitched by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen ahead of the 2024 European elections.

Participation in the center will be voluntary, and the Commission has welcomed “like-minded partners” outside the bloc, including the UK and countries seeking accession.

The draft accuses Russia of escalating “hybrid attacks” by disseminating false narratives, while also pointing to China as another threat – alleging that Beijing uses PR firms and social media influencers to advance its interests across Europe.

Keep reading

The Climate Cult Fails Europe

The roadmap is already set: in the coming years, the EU and its member states will make both businesses and consumers pay even more for CO2 emissions. BASF CEO Markus Kamieth warns of the enormous destructive potential of this policy.

Truth comes on pigeon feet — Friedrich Nietzsche already knew that. And apparently, the same applies to European climate policy: slowly, but inevitably, the reality of the true costs of the green transformation and its impact on Germany’s industrial foundation is emerging.

On October 29, BASF’s CEO Markus Kamieth faced the press during the quarterly results presentation. What he announced was another cold shower for anyone still hoping for a new economic miracle.

Weak Results in a Stable Environment

The world’s largest chemical company reported a 3% decline in revenue in Q3 2025 compared to last year, while EBITDA fell by 5%. BASF is under massive pressure and has already cut 1,400 jobs to meet growing cost pressures.

BASF’s numbers have to be seen against the backdrop of a slowly recovering global economic cycle. The U.S. economy, growing nearly 4%, is driving strong demand. Economies in China and India continue to expand dynamically, particularly in sectors critical to the chemical industry.

While the global economy gains momentum, BASF — like much of Germany’s chemical sector and the broader industry — continues to lose ground.

The company’s main site in Ludwigshafen is hit hardest, leaving its 33,000 employees facing an uncertain future.

Criticism of the Climate Course

Kamieth was unexpectedly outspoken during the presentation. In addition to criticizing EU trade policy and rising energy costs in Germany, he struck at a rarely openly discussed wound: the EU’s climate policy.

Kamieth didn’t mince words, calling the European CO2 emissions trading system (EU ETS 2) what it is: an attack on Europe’s industrial foundation.

For BASF alone, if the current climate course within CO2 trading remains unchanged, annual additional costs of around €1 billion will arise from 2027 onward, when exemptions are removed — costs borne exclusively by European industry, while the rest of the world simply does not participate.

Kamieth hit a sore spot. EU industry is being financially squeezed by an ideologized CO2 policy. Deindustrialization is — whether unspoken or suppressed — the result of Brussels’ policies and their national enforcers, whose only response to their self-inflicted disaster is ever-new subsidies.

Keep reading

The EU’s Green Ideology Is Crashing Europe’s Car Industry

The European Green Deal, launched in 2019, is an ecological pact that has been, unequivocally, an enemy of European taxpayers and innovation. Its declared goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 through a dense web of regulations that reach deep into every sector of the European economy. More than any other sector, the automotive industry is being put at risk of an irreversible crash.

Pressuring companies and citizens alike, the pact promotes the renunciation of capitalism, an inevitable sacrifice in the name of green policies. Such binding commitments will have severe economic consequences for a European Union increasingly weakened by its own laws and regulations.

At the heart of the Deal, by 2035, all new cars sold within the European Union are expected to be electric, imposing a total ban on combustion and engine vehicles. The problem is that this goal, far from being an environmental triumph, represents a deeply ideological political intrusion, an act of social engineering with an anti-capitalist character, disguised as green progress but detached from economic reality. The consequences are serious for the European automotive sector.

It is important to recall that this industry is one of the pillars of the European economy, representing over 7% of the EU’s GDP and around 13.8 million direct and indirect jobs.

Yet the sector now faces the prospect of mass layoffs, relocation of production, and a loss of global influence as a direct consequence of this heavy-handed Deal. Core EU countries such as Germany and Italy have already voiced resistance, warning of the economic and social consequences of a forced transition that ignores the continent’s technological and energy realities.

CEO of Mercedes-Benz, Ola Källenius, stated that the EU’s plan to eliminate combustion engines by 2035 would drive the sector “full speed into a wall.” His words, though strong, capture the growing sense of unease among Europe’s leading manufacturers.

The pressure is twofold. Internally, profit margins are shrinking as companies divert billions into forced electrification. Externally, they face fierce competition from China, with brands such as BYD and NIO, backed by an aggressive industrial policy, consolidated supply chains, and technological dominance in batteries. This combination allows Chinese manufacturers to produce at lower costs and scale faster.

Meanwhile, European brands struggle to survive between the high costs of transition and Asian price dumping, which has already led Brussels to impose additional tariffs of 30–40% on Chinese electric vehicles. 

The interventionist posture of Brussels remains unchanged, failing to understand that regulation only breeds more regulation, and inevitably creates market distortions that harm both businesses and consumers.

Europe is imposing a single path on manufacturers—electric cars—while the automotive sector itself argues that it is possible to meet environmental goals through multiple technological solutions. Brands such as Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari, and Stellantis maintain that the transition can and should be technologically neutral, allowing electric, hybrid, e-fuel, and hydrogen vehicles to compete on equal terms. The goal, they say, must be to reduce emissions, not to eliminate technologies for ideological reasons. Instead of encouraging innovation, Brussels dictates by decree what may exist and what must disappear, ignoring the knowledge and experience of those who actually build the industry.

Synthetic fuels, produced from green hydrogen and captured CO₂, are the clearest example of a more appealing alternative: they drastically reduce emissions without leading to the destruction of engines, factories, and jobs, demonstrating that true innovation arises from freedom of choice, not political imposition.

Keep reading

When A Train Wreck Is No Accident

“In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet.”

– Ron Paul

Never in history have the economic and political structures been so manipulated by those who are responsible for their safekeeping; never has so much been at stake, in so many countries, and facing collapse, all at the same time.

The great majority of people in the First World recognise that the world is passing through an economic crisis. However, most are under the impression that there are some pretty smart fellows running the show and all they need to do is tweak the system a bit more and we’ll return to happy days.

Not so. The “smart fellows” who are in charge of fixing the problem are in fact the very same people who created it.

Understandably, this a hard concept for most people to even consider, let alone accept, as the very idea that those in charge of the system might consciously collapse it seems preposterous. So, we might wish to back up a bit here and present a very brief history of the system itself, in order to understand that the eventual collapse of the economic system was baked in the cake from the very beginning.

Creating a Central Bank

From the very earliest days of the formation of the American republic, bankers (along with inside help from George Washington’s secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) sought to create a banking monopoly that would create the country’s currency and become the central banking system.

The first attempt at a central bank was a failure, and strong opponents, including Thomas Jefferson, prevented a second central bank for a time. Later, further attempts were made by bankers and their political cronies, and each central bank was either short-lived or defeated in its planning stages.

Then, in 1913, the heads of the largest banks met clandestinely on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to make another try. Having recently lost yet another bid to create a central bank, due to the public’s understandable concern that the big bankers were already too powerful, a new spin was placed on the idea. This time, they decided to present the idea as a government body that would be decentralised and would have the responsibility of restricting the power of the banks.

However, the new bill was in fact the same old bill, with a new title and some minor changes in wording. But this time, it would be presented by the new president, who was a liberal.

The president, Woodrow Wilson, had in fact been handpicked by the banks. The banks then scuttled their own conservative party’s candidate, got the Democrat Wilson elected, then installed a secretary of the Treasury whose job it would be to ensure that the Federal Reserve was created.

The bill was widely supported by the public, even though, in truth, it was not a federal agency, but a privately owned conglomerate, controlled by the banks. Neither was it a reserve. It was never intended to store money; it was intended to give the biggest bankers control of the economy. They followed the central principle of uber-banker Mayer Rothschild: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”

From the start, the new institution peddled itself as the protector of the people’s interests, but it was quite the opposite. Its purpose from its inception was to control the economy and the government by controlling the issuance of the currency. In addition, it was to be a system of taxation.

Typically, a population accepts a certain amount of direct taxation but has its limits of tolerance. Yet, the bankers understood that a less direct method of taxation was infinitely more profitable and infinitely safer from criticism.

Keep reading

Migrant-Youth Crime Exploding in Various European Countries (Yet Some Won’t Prosecute Under-15s)

After evaluating 45,000 youths, an interesting study out of Germany found that with increasing religiosity, Christian teens became less violent. The research also found, however, that with increasing religiosity, Muslim teens became more violent. That was back in 2010. Now, 15 years later, another study in Germany finds that violence among migrant children is exploding. Meanwhile, native German youth are actually becoming more peaceful.

(If the Morlocks and Eloi come to mind for you here, you’re not alone. You’re also probably over 45 [if you’d make that association].)

Of course, none of this means the German kinder are “Christian,” except in name (secularism reigns in today’s Western Europe). Nor does it mean all the criminal migrant youths are Muslim, though an inordinate percentage would be. Germany isn’t alone, either, as some other nations are also experiencing this fruit of diversity. Why, some migrant children are “waging war” in Norway, with two 13-year-olds having hurled grenades at a storefront in September. The kicker:

Authorities can’t charge the little miscreants. Because kids younger than 15 can’t be prosecuted under Norwegian law for even serious crimes. Danish and Swedish law has the same loophole, too.

Deutschland Unter Alles?

As to the story out of Germany, website Remix reports on the aforementioned recent research:

The study, produced by the University of Cologne and the State Criminal Police Office, looks at youth crime in North Rhine-Westphalia….

The study found that more and more of the criminal suspects in the German state are children, with attacks on teachers, police officers, and emergency responders reaching alarming figures. In particular, the study shows that children with a migration background are causing significant damage.

Over the course of several months, researchers surveyed 3,800 students in grades seven through nine at 27 different schools in the area of Gelsenkirchen, Marl, and Herten. These are known as especially high-crime areas in the western German state. The same study was conducted in 2015, with dramatically different results this time around.

The study showed that violence, hatred, and disrespect are all increasing among young perpetrators.

Note here that Germany’s “migrant-background” population now accounts for a whopping 30.4 percent of the country. (“Migrant background” references those not born with German citizenship or having at least one parent who wasn’t thus born.) More strikingly, the migrant background share rises to ~40-45 percent for those 0-18, according to a Grok AI analysis. It also finds that for children under five, the percentage is 43.1. In other words, native Germans are disappearing.

Note as well, however, that many of the migrants are fellow Europeans. This said, the largest migrant group arriving between 2015 and 2021 was Syrians (716,000). And Muslims now constitute 6.5 percent of the German population.

Keep reading

Europe’s Solar Surge Exposes Cracks In Aging Power Grid: Analysts

Europe’s solar power boom is putting huge pressure on electricity grids that were never built to handle this much renewable energy, say analysts.

As a record number of new solar panels are being installed every year, the old grid system is struggling to keep up.

Solar generation capacity in the European Union continues to increase and reached an estimated 338 GW by 2024, according to SolarPower Europe.

To curb its dependence on Russian energy and accelerate its green transition, the EU set a goal in 2022 to install at least 700 gigawatts of solar power by 2030, enough to supply electricity to hundreds of millions of homes.

But the rapid expansion has exposed cracks in Europe’s energy system, threatening to slow the transition unless grids catch up.

Europe’s power grids faced a surge in voltage problems last year, with 8,645 over-voltage incidents reported in 2024—nearly 10 times more than in 2023, according to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E).

Aging distribution infrastructure complicates the issue. Industry group Eurelectric estimates that nearly half of Europe’s distribution networks will be more than 40 years old by 2030.

Energy analyst and project lead at the Helmholtz Center Berlin, Susanne Nies, told The Epoch Times that Europe’s power system is under heavy strain because it was designed for a time when electricity made up only a small share of total energy use.

“When you go to the countryside and countries like France or even Germany, those grids have been built in the 50s. They are really nearly 70 years old,” she said.

Europe’s electricity system was initially designed for one-way flows—from large power plants to homes and businesses, Nies explained, adding that now it must handle power flowing in both directions, as millions of solar panels feed energy back into the grid.

She said today’s grid needs to combine large regional “super grids” with smaller, local systems that can operate independently during emergencies.

Harry Wilkinson, head of policy at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the challenge is not only that Europe’s grid is aging but that it must be vastly expanded to connect power sources that are far more scattered than in the past.

“Just the physical amount of additional cabling that you have to add to the grid, to connect, that is a big challenge, just in itself,” he said.

Keep reading

European Billionaires Funneled $2 Billion Via Transatlantic NGO Network To Erode U.S. Democracy, Finance Anti-Trump Protest Machine

A new bombshell report by Americans for Public Trust (APT), based on IRS Form 990s and media reports, reveals that five foreign “charities” have funneled nearly $2 billion into American leftist nonprofits, injecting what can only be described as a far-left extremist European policy agenda and toxic social-engineering campaigns into U.S. institutions like cancer. The report alleges that these foreign influence operations, exploiting the dark webs of the NGO world, also bankroll part of the protest industrial complex that has waged an ongoing color-revolution-style operation against President Trump, his supporters, and seeks to dismantle the Make America Great Again movement.

APT’s 31-page analysis (first revealed on Fox News), backed by grant records, shows that while foreign nationals can’t directly donate to U.S. political candidates, there is an alarming interconnected web of transatlantic funding networks into the NGO world where foreign billionaires bankroll American far-left nonprofits to unleash all sorts of activist campaigns. This unchecked foreign philanthropy risks undermining U.S. sovereignty, and according to APT Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland, who told Fox News, “foreign money is coming in, and it’s trying to erode our democracy.”

Here are the five foreign funders outlined in the report:  

  1. Quadrature Climate Foundation (UK) – $530 million
  2. KR Foundation (Denmark) – $36 million
  3. Oak Foundation (Switzerland) – $750 million
  4. Laudes Foundation (Switzerland) – $20 million
  5. Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) – $553 million

The key findings are shocking:

Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF): Founded in 2019 by hedge-fund billionaires Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya. Has given roughly $530 million to 41 U.S. groups, including ClimateWorks Foundation ($147 M), Growald Climate Fund ($80 M), Grantham Foundation ($80 M), Windward Fund ($49 M), and Sunrise Project ($36 M). QCF also funds controversial solar-geoengineering research and “climate litigation and regulation advocacy.”

KR Foundation: Danish climate charity tied to the Carlsberg family. Has provided $36 million to 53 U.S. groups backing climate litigation, ESG advocacy, and fossil-fuel divestment. Major recipients include Center for International Environmental Law ($1.4 M), Conservation Law Foundation ($0.4 M), Oil Change International ($2.2 M), and Fossil Free Media ($1 M). It even funded The Associated Press ($300 K) for climate-related programming.

Oak Foundation: Swiss-based trust founded by British billionaire Alan Parker. Gave >$750 million to 152 U.S. groups advancing “climate justice” and lawsuits against fossil-fuel firms.

Key recipients include:

  • Environmental Law Institute ($650 K, creator of the Climate Judiciary Project)
  • Community Change ($1.6 M, linked to Free DC protests)
  • Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($108 M)
  • New Venture Fund ($67 M)
  • NRDC ($6.5 M)
  • Tides Center ($8.2 M)

Laudes Foundation: Established in 2020 by the secretive Brenninkmeijer family (C&A clothing empire). Has sent $20 million to 17 U.S. groups promoting ESG disclosure, “climate-friendly diets,” and equity mandates. Largest grants: Pulitzer Center ($3.7 M) for climate-justice reporting, Ceres ($1.7 M), Community Initiatives ($1 M), and World Resources Institute ($2.8 M).

Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF): Run by British hedge-fund billionaire Sir Christopher Hohn. Sent $553 million to 39 U.S. entities before pledging in late 2025 to halt U.S. funding after APT’s exposure.

Key recipients include:

  • Energy Foundation China ($70 M) — under House investigation for links to former CCP officials
  • Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development ($25 M)
  • Environmental Defense Fund ($17 M)
  • Sunrise Project ($36 M)

ATP points out that these funding flows exploit gaps in U.S. oversight laws, which prohibit foreign election donations but allow influence through 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations. Through the nonprofit world, foreign billionaires can conduct foreign influence operations through leftist nonprofits, including funding protest industrial complex against Trump, get-out-the-vote drives, anti-Trump ads, lobbying, and whatever else.

Sutherland said, “There’s not a question about where it’s going and where it is coming from. We know that it’s foreign money coming into our U.S. policy fights, climate litigation, research, protests, lobbying, you name it“. 

Keep reading