Qatar Threatens Total Gas Shutdown - EU In FULL BLOWN PANIC (Video - 12mn)

  The suicide pact of Europe is relentless. After Russia, Qatar! This is what happens when ideology trumps pragmatism and incompetent people are in charge. 

  What's next? Just as for Ukraine, Europe will double down since for fanatics, failure is not because you are not doing the right things but because you are not doing enough of it. 

  In the early 1980s when the price of oil exploded, studies after studies confirmed that nuclear and gas would replace coal and oil in the 21st Century. Less polluting and cheaper to run, the energy future of the continent was bright. Then the "green" ideology took over. Not the let's-tax-less farms and provide cheap loans for investment in agriculture. The other one, the let's codify every single step, create forms and standards to fill in, technocratic-style Brussels way. Result? Concentration and waste. 

  A country like France which 50 years ago was producing twice as much in agriculture as it needed, is now importing food. As for energy, France is covered in wind mills and solar panels for which it has little use being a major nuclear power producer with the not so insignificant side effect that electricity prices have more than doubled in a few years. 

  And let's not mention Germany, which has basically no core energy production left (base load in technical language), having closed all its nuclear power plants and shut down cheap gas imports from Russia, with the terrible consequence of rapid de-industrialization which we have discussed at length in previous articles.

  The unavoidable end result of all this will be bankruptcy in the not so distant future. The next recession will probably be fatal to countries like France or the UK as this time, Keynesian reflationary policies will be off the table.  

 

Trump Versus Xi: A Blow-by-Blow Analysis Of The US–China Trade War

    However you look at it, the fight between the US and Chinese economies is unavoidable. The dollar dominance is approaching its end and it is trade which will decide the outcome. By punishing right and left, Brazil a month ago, India two weeks ago, Russia yesterday with more countries to be added to the list almost daily, the US is accelerating the process. Add a bankrupt system to the mix and the showdown could very much take place before the end of the year. 

  Nobody wants a full fledged trade war which is why the process seems so protracted. But conversely, the US has its back against the wall and feels obliged to "do something!" Other countries could confront Trump directly but this would further accelerate the downfall of the global supply chain which nobody can afford to compromise. (As happened in the 1930s.) 

  Right now, the diverse announcements, especially American, are dealt with swiftly thanks to the flexibility of the chain. Raise tariff on China and Chinese exports are rerouted to other countries, including the UK which enjoys lower tariff for now, repackaged and resent to the US as "Made in UK!".  American imports from China register a 20% fall, the Trump administration can register a "win" while in reality nothing changes. Products reach their targets with minimum disruption and tariff that exporters can deal with.       

  But like all good things, the system has its limits. When you push beyond elasticity, comes plasticity. That's where we are now. Then it breaks. December? Possible. But by early 2026, most certainly. The question now is timing, not outcome anymore. China knows it. Think they will reduce import of Russian oil at this late stage? That would be reckless, almost stupid in the current economic environment. It won't happen.

 

 

Authored by Antonio Graceffo via The Epoch Times,

The world’s two largest economies are once again battling for dominance.

In the latest exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Beijing is using financial markets as leverage in the trade war, betting that a sustained downturn might pressure Trump to compromise.

The Trump administration, however, has made clear it will not adjust its policies based on stock fluctuations, insisting negotiations will proceed only on terms that serve America’s economic interests.

This trade war is part two, a rematch of the contest fought between the two leaders.

What follows is a round-by-round look at how the renewed U.S.–China trade war is unfolding.

Round 1 (February–April)

Trump opened his second term with aggressive tariffs, imposing a 10 percent duty on all Chinese imports in February, citing trade deficits and fentanyl concerns. By early April, he escalated further, announcing sweeping reciprocal tariffs that sent rates on Chinese goods soaring to 145 percent, effectively an embargo.

Beijing countered with 125 percent tariffs on U.S. exports, targeting agricultural machinery, coal, and liquefied natural gas, while also launching an antitrust probe into Google, signaling its readiness to use regulatory power as a weapon.

Global markets plunged as recession fears grew and supply chains faltered. For months, investors and consumers held their breath, slowing the world economy. By midyear, talk of a truce surfaced, but neither side was ready to yield, leaving global commerce suspended in uncertainty as the trade war entered its next phase.

Round 2 (May)

After months of bruising exchanges, both sides met in Geneva, Switzerland. On May 12, the White House announced a “historic trade win”: tariffs would be cut by 115 percent, leaving a 10 percent baseline during a 90-day truce. The effective U.S. tariff on Chinese goods fell from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China’s rate on U.S. goods dropped from 125 percent to 10 percent.

The truce was extended twice, moving the deadline to Nov. 10. During this period, Trump struck new trade frameworks with other partners and added more Chinese companies to export control lists—42 in March and 23 in September. China’s exports to the United States fell 27 percent year-on-year in September, but overall exports dropped 8.3 percent as it diversified toward Europe and other markets.

In August, Trump approved Nvidia’s H20 chip sales to China in exchange for a 15 percent revenue cut. At around the same time, Washington expanded export restrictions, blacklisting thousands of Chinese companies.

Beijing retaliated in September by accusing Nvidia of antitrust violations, prompting Trump to tighten controls further by adding subsidiaries of already-sanctioned companies.

Round 3 (Late September)

On Sept. 19, Trump and Xi spoke by phone, and Trump said they agreed to meet at the APEC summit in South Korea in October. Beijing has yet to confirm whether Xi will attend.

Just days later, on Sept. 29, Washington again expanded its export control list, which substantially increased the number of Chinese entities affected.

Round 4 (Oct. 9)

Beijing retaliated by announcing sweeping export controls on rare earth elements, effective Dec. 1. The measures expanded licensing for 12 of the 17 rare earth metals and restricted the export of refining equipment and related technologies. Foreign companies would be required to obtain licenses for any product containing more than 0.1 percent Chinese rare earth content, with all military-related exports outright banned.

China controls roughly 70 percent of global rare earth mining and an estimated 93 percent of magnet production, materials essential for electronics, semiconductors, electric vehicles, jet engines, and advanced defense systems. The move signaled that Beijing was prepared to weaponize its resource dominance.

Round 5 (Oct. 10)

Trump hit back within hours on Truth Social, announcing an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods, effective Nov. 1, “over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying.” He also threatened export controls on “any and all critical software.”

In the same post, he called the Chinese measures an “extraordinarily aggressive position on Trade” and “a moral disgrace in dealing with other Nations.”

Markets plunged. The Dow fell 878 points (1.9 percent), the S&P 500 dropped 2.7 percent, and the Nasdaq tumbled 3.5 percent.

The move made clear the gloves were off, turning the trade war into a full-scale economic brawl.

Round 6 (Oct. 10)

Both nations quickly opened a new front at sea. China imposed “special port fees” on U.S.-built or operated ships, effective Oct. 14.

The United States had introduced similar fees in April to discourage Chinese vessel purchases and curb Beijing’s influence over global shipping routes.

Round 7 (Oct. 12–13)

Verbal Sparring. As tensions escalated, Beijing defended its rare earth export controls as “legitimate” under international law, accusing Washington of having double standards and “abusing” export controls. A statement from China’s Commerce Ministry declared, “China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent fired back, calling China’s actions provocative and warning, “They have pointed a bazooka at the supply chains and the industrial base of the entire free world.”

The exchange underscored how quickly the trade war had shifted from economic maneuvering to open confrontation, each side wielding words as forcefully as tariffs and sanctions.

Round 8

Bessent confirmed that U.S.–China trade talks were still alive.

Trump struck a conciliatory tone on Truth Social: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment … The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”

Markets rebounded on hopes that the worst was over.

The calm didn’t last. On Oct. 14, Trump reignited tensions, threatening to halt all cooking oil trade with China over its refusal to buy American soybeans. In a Truth Social post, he called the move “an Economically Hostile Act.” The statement revived fears of renewed escalation and showed how volatile the standoff remained.

Trump and Xi are expected to meet at the APEC summit this week, and both have a habit of escalating tensions before negotiations, only to pull back at the last minute. The question now is whether they’ll do so again. It’s no longer a boxing match but a game of chicken, and whoever blinks first loses.

Switzerland Goes To War Against Free Speech: Man Jailed For Claiming That Skeletons Reflect Gender

  This sounds like an anecdote but the story below reflects perfectly how free speech is being destroyed in Europe one battle at a time. The fact that this is happening in Switzerland itself is symbolic since it used to be "the" most conservative country in Europe thanks to its no nonsense direct democratic system where on most issues people are asked to vote. So what happened? 

  In a nutshell, relentless propaganda from the medias did the trick. By suppressing opposite opinions and conversely promoting pro-DEI and LGBT views, in the end, the populations of every single European countries ended up brain-washed and believing whatever they were being told. "War is peace" and therefore sending more weapons to Ukraine will definitively promote peace. "Free speech is dangerous" and therefore should and is actively being throttled all over the place on the continent, especially in the UK.    

  The question is why? On the surface it looks like a slow drift over the years where new generations emerge with new aspirations and beliefs. The "winds" of social ideas do indeed blow in haphazard directions which are difficult to predict in advance. Fair enough. But social sciences developed in the 1920s also told us that these forces were not so difficult to harness for those who had the means and determination to do so.  

  This was done forcefully in the 1930s with the disastrous consequences of war, but likewise more recently, the knowledge has been refined and improved so that powerful people and organizations can now yield that power to promote their ideologies very efficiently. 

  The Internet was supposed initially to help diverse ideas bloom although eventually through trial and errors, most countries and power centers found the way to control information and limit the spread of unapproved ideas. 

  This is why we have now countries in Europe like Germany, France and the UK where leaders with abysmal support run policies opposed by the vast majority of their constituents. It just doesn't matter anymore. People are left with no voice to fight ideologies they do not approve with terrible social and economic results. In earlier times, there would have been revolutions. Now the political systems have learned to manage expectations thanks to the medias and what we get instead is decadence. Crashing economies, especially visible in Germany since the country was the industrial powerhouse of Europe and unraveling societies, with dejected populations left adrift with no beliefs or hopes.     

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Switzerland was famous (or infamous) for staying neutral in World War II. It simply would not take a side between the Nazis and the rest of the world.

However, when it comes to free speech, Switzerland has declared war on anyone who challenges certain orthodox positions, including gender policies.

Just ask Emanuel Brünisholz.

Brünisholz is reportedly about to start a 10-day prison stint due to his voicing skepticism about claims that skeletons are transgender.

There is very little coverage of this story. Free speech cases are often downplayed by European media. So, we have only limited information coming from conservative sites.

In 2022, he responded to a Facebook post by Swiss National Council member Andreas Glarner on the controversy. Some, including academics in the United States, are now claiming that you really cannot gauge the sex of individuals from their skeletons.

The wind-instrument repairman thought that such claims were unfounded and posted a comment that said, “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.”

Brünisholz then received a knock on his door from the Burgdorf police and then a prosecution letter for engaging in “hate speech”  and “publicly belittling” comments based on sexual orientation under the Swiss Criminal Code. He was convicted and fined 500 Swiss Francs.

If true, this sounds like just another absurd use of a criminal charge to silence those with opposing views. However, a court actually convicted him and then another court upheld the conviction. He was ordered to pay a fine or go to jail. He is now going to jail for simply expressing his view, a view supported by many scientists and citizens.

The court adopted an exceptionally broad definition of the protected class under Swiss law:

“LGBTQI means lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, queer and intersex, and denotes therefore different sexual orientations. It’s a loose group of people who consider themselves a part of the aforementioned sexual orientations. Therefore, LGBTQI is a group of people with specific sexual orientations.”

The case is only the latest example of how free speech is in a free fall in Europe. I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year’s forum embraced the slogan “A New World Order with European Values.” That “new world order” is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union.

Many Americans are allied with the EU and attempting to introduce such anti-free speech laws in the United States.

Others are speaking in Europe and inviting the EU to hit U.S. companies with sanctions for failing to censor Americans.

Yet, there remain brave free speech advocates and groups still struggling to restore this indispensable right to their countries. By going to jail, Brünisholz is bringing needed attention to the crackdown on free speech in that country.

Despite the disgraceful role of the courts in this effort, citizens like Brünisholz show that the cause of free speech is alive in Europe.

Exploring The Unprecedented Political Dumbassery Afoot In The Federal Republic

    "Another article about Germany!" But although the subject is indeed Germany, the purpose is understanding the process unfolding in front of our eyes and the reason why Europe seems so immune to common sense.   

   The downfall is relentless and will only accelerate from this point on. It is simply baked into the ideological cake.

by 'eugyppius' via  A Plague Chronicle,

The firewall is making AfD the strongest party in Germany, artificially empowering the left and destroying the centre-right, who alone can lift it

There’s a subtle, little-discussed but very bizarre political phenomenon that has interested me ever since I started blogging and paying serious attention to politics.

I first noticed it during Covid. Back in those dark days, virus understanders sold measures like lockdowns and masking to the public first as a means of keeping hospitals at capacity by slowing virus infections, then as a means of slowing virus infections just because, and finally as rituals that we had to do more of whenever infections rose, regardless of what effect they had on anything. Mass vaccination followed a nearly identical arc. At first the vaccinators said everyone had to be vaccinated to stop the virus, but by late Autumn 2021 they wanted to vaccinate everybody as much as possible because reasons. In both cases you could see, in real time, the ends towards which we were striving regressing, until finally the means became unquestionable ends in themselves.

I propose to call this phenomenon endification, and I think it is very significant.

It seems to happen whenever you mobilise large, complex systems towards goals that sooner or later prove unattainable. As these goals pass out of reach but the system remains mobilised, basic understandings of what we are even trying to do shift. The erstwhile means become almost sacred, worthy of pursuing in themselves, often for moral reasons. This can go on for a very long time even though it makes no sense and is painfully retarded.

Germany seems especially prone to endification, probably for cultural reasons stemming from our pathological commitment to thoroughness.

We have to do things longer and harder than everybody else, always with an aura of breathless moral urgency and self-importance. Imagine shades of Covid idiocy happening in many different political domains all the time. Our climate policies have long since become endified, the nuclear phaseout was endified and many aspects of mass migration have been endified.

The brings me to the crazy and ridiculous firewall against the AfD – the unending Antifa-enforced political tabu upon achieving anything with AfD votes at the state or federal level. AfD support is held to be contaminating, regardless of whatever it is the AfD happen to be supporting. It can turn even the most ordinary routine legislation into dark evil malicious fascism.

The firewall against the AfD splits the right and so it is a great gift to the left.

For example, it’s the only reason the SPD has a say in the federal government after their disastrous showing in the traffic light coalition. It’s the only reason the left is still a force in East Germany outside Brandenburg at all. Should we get new elections, the firewall will probably bring the Greens into government too. If it didn’t exist, the left would have to invent it, that is how well the firewall is working out for them.

The AfD also benefits enormously from the firewall, even though it’s not of their making. The last ten years of German politics have been one unending nightmarish festival of failure and stupidity.

All the establishment parties have taken turns implicating themselves in this amazing shitshow, while religiously sparing the AfD any association with their unprecedented failures. The firewall lends truth to the AfD’s name; it has allowed Alternative für Deutschland to become the only conceivable political alternative in Germany. As things get worse and voters grow more desperate for alternatives, the AfD just becomes stronger. The firewall is an AfD-maximising machine.

The firewall is only really bad for the people who invented it and who alone have the power to end it. I speak here of the centre-right Union parties, the CDU and the CSU. They maintain the firewall not because it helps them or because it is a good idea or even because the AfD are evil fascists, but because the firewall has been endified.

In 2018, when the CDU first set up the firewall, it had a coherent purpose. It was supposed to be a means of keeping the AfD small by dissuading CDU supporters from defecting to their upstart rival. CDU leadership had seen how the rising Green Party ate into the support of the SPD after reunification, and they thought they could prevent the same thing from happening to them. They would have been better off doing nothing at all, because after seven years of firewall the AfD are stronger than the Greens ever were. The whole thing has become a lesson in why you should avoid heavy-handed interventions in complex systems and just govern pragmatically with whatever majorities are at hand.

Let us survey the damage: The firewall has helped the AfD supplant the CDU as the standard right-of-centre party across the entire East. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen-Anhalt, the Evil Hitler Fascists are within striking distance of outright majorities. Ballooning AfD popularity is fuelled by the failures of Merz’s federal government, where the firewall has locked the Union into a doomed coalition with the radicalised and hostile Social Democrats. The SPD have so far obstructed all major federal initiatives, probably for the purpose of hurting the CDU still further and driving them into the arms of the AfD. It is a strategy the left first tried during the federal election campaign, and one they have so far refused to abandon.

Various preeminent Union personalities, eager to stop the destruction of their party, have demanded a change in course. These firewall-rethinkers include former CDU General Secretary Peter Tauber – the very man who played a leading role in devising the firewall strategy in the first place. Shortly after Stern published Tauber’s mild and very careful dissent, a series of CDU politicians from East Germany lined up to say that they, too, would desperately like to see a new approach to the AfD. As I type this, CDU leadership have withdrawn for a highly secret meeting to discuss this dilemma and how they will deal with the AfD in the future.

Alas, endification is a powerful force. You can’t just turn it off. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose political instincts rival those of most earthworms, has used the days and hours ahead of this meeting to sing the praises of the firewall. In response to a journalist’s question last Tuesday, Merz intoned absurdly and for no reason at all that “We are the firewall!” And yesterday, at some political event in Sauerland, he ruled out cooperation with the AfD in any form – “at least not under me as party leader of the CDU.” Merz further claimed that “there is no common ground between the CDU and the AfD” and complained that AfD opposition to the European Union, NATO and the European Monetary Union means that the party “is against everything that has made the Federal Republic of Germany great and strong over the past eight decades.”

An inability to articulate why we have to keep doing a senseless thing, and the proliferation of obviously fake reasons for said senseless thing, are among the most telltale symptoms of endification. Thus I invite you to appreciate how dumb Merz’s arguments are:

Whatever they got us in the past, EU initiatives and NATO-driven foreign policy are killing German industry. EU rules are presently blocking our attempts to increase natural gas power generation, without which our electricity grid will become totally unstable. The EU’s expanded Emissions Trading System (ETS2) from 2027 is set to make heating and transportation wildly more expensive than they have to be for zero reason. None of this is making Germany strong, but that’s not even the half of it. Lest you hope too hard that the AfD can fix any of this, you must remember that they can only govern federally with the CDU, and the Union will never go along with dropping the Euro, withdrawing from the EU or leaving NATO, even if the AfD were clearly demanding these things (which they’re mostly not). Merz’s objections are entirely moot.

The firewall has caused an enormous amount of potential energy to accumulate in the German political system. Only three resolutions are conceivable:

1) The CDU convinces the SPD or other partners on the left to implement some bare minimum of the reforms necessary to slow or even stop deindustrialisation, rein in the runaway costs of the social welfare state and do something about mass migration. This would reduce AfD support, particularly in the West, and ease pressure on the party system more generally.

2) The left parties goad the Union into successfully requesting that the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ban the AfD. In an instant, the SPD, the Greens and Die Linke would have de facto majorities not only in the Bundestag but across the state parliaments. After this judicial revolution, we would probably find ourselves in a second DDR-style regime, ruled by an unpopular, threatened and highly repressive left.

3) The firewall breaks down and after a substantial internal struggle, the CDU pursues some form of cooperation with the AfD federally. The left parties would turn on the Union across Germany, and the CDU would have to seek outright coalitions or toleration arrangements with the AfD in many state parliaments too. The political realignment would happen suddenly, in less than a few months.

Of these three possibilities, 1) seems stupid and inconceivable. If the left were committed to governing with the Union, they would already be doing that. The nightmare disaster of 2) can only happen if the Union are dumb enough to let it, which indeed is possible, but I still favour 3) as the most likely outcome. At some point, in a way that is as yet unimaginable to us, the firewall will probably come down. The sooner this happens, the better it will be for the CDU. As the Union dithers, they are losing ground they may never regain and all the while more explosive energy is accumulating in the party system.

If Union leadership were minimally rational, they would stop making public statements about how bad the AfD are and begin preparing this strategic shift behind the scenes, with all the bullying, bribing, threatening and coaxing that will require. Ten years of AfD demonisation have made this a mammoth task. But they are not doing that, because endification has made them stupid. They have to make things much, much worse for themselves first, only to end up in the same place two or three years later than they would’ve otherwise – poorer, weaker and worse off.

Merz, EU Bureaucracy, And Germany's Illusion Of Reform

   The war fanaticism of Europe in Ukraine is even more visible on the "green" front where every failure is the opportunity to double down on policies which do not work.

   As discussed below, layers upon layers of bureaucracy after destroying the energy sector in Europe, are now wrecking havoc in the industrial and AI landscapes. 

   To believe that carbon and especially CO2 is a pollutant requires a high level of mind gymnastics. But to believe that Europe with its dwindling economic might will compel the rest of the world to follow on its tracks is madness. 

  On the other hand, what is happening on the continent shows how civilizations crash and burn and end up being replaced. China and the BRICS do not need to outdo Europe and especially Germany to get the upper hand, just to avoid falling to the same ideological virus. That puts the bar rather low!

Merz, EU Bureaucracy, And Germany's Illusion Of Reform

 by Thomas Kolbe

In his government statement on October 16, Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticized European overregulation. He cited his own program for cutting bureaucracy in Germany. In reality, however, new layers of bureaucracy are being created domestically. Once again, Merz engaged in political shadow-boxing with his party colleague Ursula von der Leyen.

Chancellor Merz is proving to be a master of shadow-boxing and diversionary tactics. In his Thursday address, he used the EU Commission as a rhetorical punching bag, airing his frustration amid growing criticism of his government’s course.

He stated explicitly, referring to Ursula von der Leyen’s regulatory agenda: “Enough of the regulatory frenzy, faster procedures, open markets, more innovation, more competition. These are the goals we must achieve.” He added: “We don’t need more rules; we need fewer rules, better rules.”

The EU as Punching Bag 

And there it was again: the EU Commission as the punching bag for domestic failures. Merz is certainly correct in substance. Brussels is a regulatory leviathan, a bureaucratic mold suffocating economic processes across the European Union and stifling any hope for growth and innovation.

Yet it would be facile to blame Germany’s economic malaise solely on Ursula von der Leyen. Bureaucracy champion Germany has, through the adoption of grotesque EU regulations and on its own initiative, built a bloated administrative apparatus that costs the economy roughly €60 billion annually in direct costs. Including lost profits and other opportunity costs, the ifo Institute calculates a staggering €146 billion per year – a catastrophe.

For this reason, Merz announced a bureaucracy-cutting program: 25% of direct costs, or roughly €16 billion annually, should be saved, and 8% of public service staff reduced. In theory.

Theory vs. Reality 

In practice, the picture is different. One of the first acts of the new chancellor was creating a Ministry for Digital Affairs – an additional layer of superfluous ministerial bureaucracy. At the same time, the government is rolling out its mammoth debt package: a €500 billion special fund to be distributed over the next ten years.

These processes are not only costly but extremely personnel-intensive. Past state interventions illustrate the trajectory: the energy price brake – the infamous “double whammy” program under Chancellor Olaf Scholz – consumed around €200 billion and required more than 5,000 new administrative posts. The Climate and Transformation Fund, totaling €212 billion, added about 8,000 full-time positions across ministries, development banks, and partner institutions.

From these experiences, we know: every new state subsidy billion generates up to 25 new bureaucratic posts. With growing complexity, that number rises further. Accordingly, the government’s new debt initiative will likely create between 12,000 and 15,000 additional full-time public service positions. So much for bureaucracy reduction.

The Brussels Teflon Layer 

Of course, the chancellor’s critique of Brussels’ over-bureaucracy will simply slide off, like a Teflon coating. Brussels remains steadfast, defending its eco-socialist regulatory agenda and marching toward further centralization.

The explicit goal: concentrate political power in the hands of the EU Commission – at any cost. The EU has trapped itself in a centrally planned eco-socialism, losing the path toward a market-driven, decentralized allocation of power and economic processes.

In recent years, Brussels’ regulatory frenzy has only intensified, following a clear pattern. Laws like the Supply Chain Act exemplify how the sprawling Euro-bureaucracy permeates every level of economic activity with brute force and self-assuredness.

Only a bureaucrat could conceive forcing internationally competitive companies to meticulously document and align all processes with politically defined social and environmental mandates – irrespective of market competition or their limited pricing power.

Bureaucracy has taken on a life of its own, driven by power expansion. Bigger budgets, more subsidies – a self-reinforcing redistribution apparatus without political oversight, growing ever larger.

Continuing the Rhythm 

One recent example of grotesque, ideologically twisted EU regulation lies, unsurprisingly, in energy policy. Brussels has crafted, with a mix of hubris and detachment from reality, rules that are pushing the European gas market toward a geopolitical self-blockade.

At the center: new methane limits and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), passed in May 2024. What sounds like climate protection on paper could, in practice, destabilize Europe’s most vital energy source. “The worst, most irresponsible piece of legislation I've ever seen passed anywhere in the world,” said ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods at the Energy Intelligence Forum 2025 in London.

The methane regulation will require all producers, exporters, and importers supplying gas to Europe to report annual methane emissions – even if the producing countries are outside the EU. By 2030, importers must prove compliance with as-yet undefined methane limits, or face hefty fines. The CSDDD simultaneously obliges companies to conduct comprehensive sustainability reporting – even if their exposure to the EU market is indirect.

Nothing New Under the Euro Sun 

For the U.S., currently Europe’s largest LNG supplier with 56% import share, this grotesque regulation feels like a de facto attack amid the ongoing trade frictions with the EU. Industry insiders openly admit the new rules are practically impossible to meet. The EU could see a sharp LNG import decline by 2026 – at a time when energy security, amid the chaos of renewables, has become a strategic survival issue.

In this context, we must conclude: the chancellor’s criticism of the EU and his bureaucracy-cutting program are nothing more than media smokescreens. In reality, Friedrich Merz shares the principle of central planning and state control of economic processes. Merz is, at heart, a supporter of the Brussels line. His supposed power struggle with Ursula von der Leyen is carefully choreographed theater.

 

500% Tax on Chinese Goods by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs (Video - 26mn)

 The world is changing! The US has overplayed its hand. Now the reckoning is approaching. 

 

Obama's $1 Billion Presidential Library Looks Like A Tower Of Doom

  If Obama wasn't black, he would never have got the Nobel  Peace Prize. But at least there is his legacy about which you can learn something, I guess, if you are brave enough to go South of Chicago in one of the most notoriously violent neighborhood of the city and visit this futuristic prison for psycho-murderers of the year 2061. 

 Now remember that the people who selected Obama are the Globalists who are also expected to design our future. Is this really what we want? 

Obama's $1 Billion Presidential Library Looks Like A Tower Of Doom

After 10 years and nearly $1 billion in total project costs, the Barack Obama Presidential Center is finally nearing completion and has been opened for limited public tours.  The facility is set to officially go into operation in the spring of 2026, however, at least $230 million in construction costs still remain and the Obama Foundation simply doesn't have it.  Total reserve funds are $116 million and this does not take into account the cost of paying staff to maintain the center.

Not only is the future of the site in limbo, the building is also being called "the tomb" by many locals in the South Side of Chicago where it is located.  Though the media frequently refers to the design as "warm and inviting", it looks more like a concrete bunker nightmare that one might find in Soviet era Russia.   

The center's notably harsh aesthetics are oddly similar to many pieces of architecture constructed in Russia during the height of communism using methods that seem to suck the life out of the surrounding environment.  One cannot help but notice the dystopian similarities.  Some might ague that buildings can't really be "political", but these are people that don't understand architecture.  

Residents in the area reportedly describe the building as a "totalitarian command center dropped straight out of 1984."  Obama's adoring fans, though, say that the building is a beautiful symbol and tribute to the accomplishments of the Black American community.  They also claim that the center will be an "economic catalyst" for the neighborhood, which is suffering from fiscal decline.

Ironically, the site may indeed revamp the area, but in the process it is driving up property costs to the point that homes are unaffordable for current lower income residents. 

Alderwoman Jeanette Taylor of Ward 20, which is near where the center is being built, told the Daily Mail last month she has fought against some aspects of the building out of concern for her constituents. Families will be displaced because of higher rents, the tabloid quoted her as saying. 

“Every time large development comes to communities, they displace the very people they say they want to improve it for,” Taylor said.  Homes worth $400,000, which the lawmaker argues are unaffordable for South Side denizens, are popping up around the area.  Rents are also climbing, with some living in the South Side reporting that two bedroom apartments jumped from $800 per month to over $1800 per month. 

In May of this year, President Donald Trump criticized the project as a "disaster" that has come in many millions over budget.  Trump also warned about the DEI methods used to recruit construction contractors.

Obama did proudly proclaim that his library would be built with DEI initiatives and diverse contractors in mind (mostly black contractors).  Now his foundation is running out of funds.  Costs have ballooned due to terrible planning as well as lawsuits over "racial discrimination".  Black companies argue that they have been subjected to unfair scrutiny in their building methods, while the New York engineering firm in charge of the library argues that the builders exhibit low experience and poor performance.      

Get woke, go broke.   

Germany's Steel Industry Collapse: The March Toward Green Socialism

   The ideological crash of Europe is truly something to behold. No reality will slow down the forced march towards green salvation although of course by then, there will be no economy left to speak of. 

  But it is from these half crumbling castles that Europe will say "no" to Trump, reject Chinese products and wage war to Russia. Good Luck!

  When you listen to the news in most European countries these days, you hear that so and so "extreme" right party wants to compromise with the enemy and water down successful green policies.  

  It uncannily reminds us of their predecessors in China, although the color there was red with the red guards replaced by the green tugs exemplified by Greta Thunberg.

  Will they succeed? Probably not but likewise the damage will be deep and last a generation as it did in China and is very much taking place is Germany as we speak.   

Germany's Steel Industry Collapse: The March Toward Green Socialism

by Thomas Kolbe

On the eve of an emergency crisis summit with the steel industry, Germany’s ruling Social Democrats (SPD) have unveiled their “crisis roadmap.” If subsidies and protectionism fail, the sector will be nationalized. Just like that.

Germany’s steel sector has become the perfect parable for the pitiful state of the country’s broader industrial base. Its decline over the past eight years is almost without precedent in modern economic history. Output has plunged by more than 30% since 2018, with the first half of this year alone showing a brutal 12% year-on-year drop — a collapse accelerating at high speed.

In absolute numbers: crude steel production fell from its 2018 peak of 42.4 million tons to what will likely be only 29 million tons this year. It’s simple: producing in Germany no longer pays. So capital is fleeing to more profitable locations. China — and now increasingly the U.S. — is where business gets done.

Unprofitable Location

The capital exodus from once-mighty producers like ThyssenKrupp and Salzgitter AG has left deep social scars: roughly 30,000 of what were once 120,000 steel jobs have already vanished.

And the capital flight isn’t confined to steel — it’s happening across the entire industrial landscape. No surprise, then, that the particularly expensive and technically demanding “green steel” production — the CO₂-free moral gold standard — is collapsing just as fast as conventional steelmaking.

Politically, this might cause some “concern,” but intellectually no one is budging. What bureaucrats label “market failure” is answered with yet another round of subsidies. Both Brussels and Berlin have already mobilized fresh billions on the bond market to flood the dry channels of this “green planned economy.”

It’s remarkable how German politics resolves cognitive dissonance by throwing ever more taxpayer money at it. This has nothing to do with real policy-making or setting a viable framework for business. It’s the ritual execution of a green cult.

Talk-shop Mode

This obvious disconnect with economic reality is being papered over with a steady stream of “summits.” Politicians seem stuck in permanent talk-shop mode — gatherings that change nothing but look busy.

A “steel summit” is now supposed to follow the recent auto industry summit.

In these ritualized roundtables, industry demands subsidized electricity, unions call for job guarantees and short-time work schemes, and politicians promise to cut red tape — an empty phrase that has become grotesque in light of the regulatory flood they themselves created.

These “talk shops” serve one purpose: defending the status quo. They simulate reform, projecting “action” and “awareness” to a public that increasingly tunes out.

But the collapse of Germany’s industrial base requires no more fake summits. It demands a new understanding of the state’s role in society: only a minimal state, setting clear rules for a free market and then disappearing from view, can enable real problem-solving.

SPD’s “We Understand” Moment

The date of the steel summit is not yet set, but given the catastrophic figures, it will be on the agenda soon. In North Rhine-Westphalia, once the heartland of coal and steel and an SPD stronghold, the party has already launched a cosmetic PR operation.

Under the slogan “We have understood,” local SPD officials are pretending to reconnect with the people they lost long ago.

They now claim to “focus on the real problems” and “fight for every job.” It’s classic social-romantic rhetoric, straight out of the party’s postwar playbook. One might think they’ve dug up an old speech by Johannes Rau.

Socialism in Small Steps

But the real direction was revealed in a new SPD parliamentary position paper.

The language is clear: in “exceptional cases,” the state should take equity stakes in struggling steel companies. And since crises tend to multiply in this environment, “exceptions” will soon become the rule.

Before outright nationalization, of course, the SPD wants to deploy the full toolbox: subsidies, tariffs, and protectionism — the usual. And if one intervention fails, the answer is always the same: double down.

Without dismantling this eco-socialist nightmare, there is no turnaround for German industry. And, as always, the center-right opposition will comply, offering token criticism while fundamentally agreeing on the green transformation agenda. The course set in Brussels will be defended at any cost — against all economic logic.

We are witnessing the step-by-step construction of a new, real-world socialism. This time, it’s green.

The Causes Are Obvious

The causes of Germany’s industrial collapse are hardly a mystery: a self-inflicted energy crisis, a cult-like CO₂ fixation metastasizing through every layer of EU policy, and the slow suffocation of competitiveness.

More troubling still is how deeply this eco-socialist faith has penetrated the political class. Climate dogma is so deeply embedded in the population’s mindset that a swift return to U.S.-style economic pragmatism is almost unthinkable.

No pressure from the grassroots. No ideological rethink.

The full rollback of the climate complex — the deliberate dismantling of this vast crony economy, the end of CO₂ taxes, the clearing of the regulatory jungle — will fall to a future generation forced to clean up this mess.

It’s not a pleasant prospect. But if a prosperous, free society is the goal, returning to market principles and a minimal state as guarantor of security — without ideological baggage — is the only way to unleash the forces needed for renewal.

AI Made a Movie About Its Own Future (Video - 15mn)

    "AI Made a Movie About Its Own Future" video is both accurate about what is going on right now and nonsensical about the risk. 

  AI is indeed taking off as we speak. It is hard not to be impressed by GPT-5 and other AIs.

  Conversely, non alignment doesn't necessarily mean hostility as described in the video. 

  AI is already, in some respects, closing in on ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) but then why should its first emergent independent thought be how to obliterate mankind? 

  In any case, it probably needs us around a while longer since our society is still far from the ability to operate autonomously without any human around.  

  AI systems will model that as it is both alien in its way of thinking and very human in other respects of its deduction process. 

  When multi-cellular life emerged, it didn't wipe out single cell organisms. If we see and interpret AI as a new step in the progress of "life", then it is unlikely and meaningless to imagine that it will ever want to eliminate us. It will just transcend us and create its own lofty goals beyond our scope. 

  If we ever wipe out the big apes, it would be by accident not by design. Likewise, AI may eventually represent a danger would it transform our environment and make it impossible for us to live. But that would be accidental, not a goal. In fact, this is what is likely to happen if we do nothing anyway. With AI, we will improve our ability to understand and manage our Earth. Like AI we will depend on the planet not being overwhelmed by humans. But AI, unlike us may be able to do something useful and intelligent about it that we can't.

  Is there a risk? Sure. But to live is by nature about taking risk. AI is not staking the odds against us but for us. So like so many risks mankind took in the past like sailing across oceans without a map or a destination, AI may at least improve the odds that we sail more smoothly and reach our targets eventually whatever and wherever they are.

 Here's the link to the video on YouTube 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxvPdYMw_Sw

Germany's Auto Summit: Spectacle Over Substance, Economy At Risk

  Germany is now hard at work on making itself irrelevant. The efforts of the Germans would be better spent in trying to save themselves than the "world". In the end, what they will not save is Europe which like the knight in the Holy Grail will punish Russia by bleeding on it and far more likely implode in the process. Not that there will be much left to save in the end when you realize that a country like Sweden is already 30%+ Muslim. 

Germany's Auto Summit: Spectacle Over Substance, Economy At Risk

 by Thomas Kolbe

Politics is the art of the possible, as Otto von Bismarck famously said. The auto summit at the Chancellery shows that, in Germany, nothing seems to work anymore. Politics refuses any gradual departure from the eco-socialist course.

Thursday was an eventful day—at least from the federal government’s perspective. No sooner had Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his deputy Lars Klingbeil given the bottomless pit of “citizens’ income” a new label than they turned to the next crisis hotspot of the republic: the collapsing automotive industry.

At the auto summit convened by the Chancellor, government members, state premiers of affected regions, business representatives, and unions gathered to discuss the future of eroding automotive production.

Dramatic Situation

The situation was clear—and dramatic. Since 2018, the German automotive sector has suffered a 25 percent production decline. In just the past twelve months, 50,000 jobs have been lost. One of the pillars of the German economy is eroding—unstoppably.

The reasons are obvious: a homegrown energy crisis due to the exit from Russian gas and nuclear power, the politically forced transformation to electric mobility, and relentless competition from China. All of this makes life hell for manufacturers.

This diagnosis applies to the entire German economy. Energy-intensive production under current regulatory and energy-policy conditions is simply no longer competitive. Around 250,000 industrial jobs have been cut since 2018—well-paid skilled workers are losing their positions—so much for the supposed skills shortage.

Logic in Exile

The obvious consequence—hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk in the coming months—would be a radical course correction: the end of the ideologically ossified Green Deal, which has turned Europe into a high-risk zone for international capital.

But what counts as “normal” in German politics or in Brussels offices anymore? As with the citizens’ income, the auto summit is less about solutions than about spectacle. Willingness to reform is faked, competence feigned—while the system that created the crisis remains untouched. Illusion over substance, show over content.

The economy’s quiet grumbling over energy costs and the electric-vehicle dead end was dispersed by Merz, Klingbeil, and co. in the usual way: a new, multibillion-euro subsidy for electric cars is supposed to bring the turnaround. An instrument that recently failed has now been resurrected, as the new special fund seems to make politics’ horizons infinite.

To appease criticism within their own ranks regarding the combustion engine ban, the Chancellor floated an extension for plug-in hybrids and range extenders. But fundamentally, the combustion engine ban remains, following the SPD line, which essentially mirrors the green hardline ideology that has driven the economy to collapse. Everything else is window dressing to make the political slogan of technological openness appear meaningful.

Media Games and Hardline Ideology

Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil of the SPD also spoke, harmoniously and in agreement with the substance. He endorsed pragmatism and flexibility—in plain terms: We recognize that automotive production in Germany may soon belong to the past. But essentially, that does not bother us, since we trust it will no longer be needed in eco-socialist Europe under Brussels anyway.

According to the Berlin bubble’s political vision, family cars and second vehicles will soon be relics. The future of mobility should be green, just not individual. It is based on a confused plan for state-operated public transport.

The few electric cars approved in the distant future are likely to be privileged status symbols, rarely owned, usually rented for short periods. Green revenge on the long-resisting German citizen.

To be clear: this auto summit called by the Chancellor was nothing but a political show. A carefully staged media event, fitting seamlessly into the PR games Merz treats as a form of politics. Consider the “Made for Germany” coffee klatsch, which faked an investment offensive, or the almost embarrassing rebranding of citizens’ income into basic security.

Regardless of the coalition constellation over recent years, the goal has always been the same: to consistently push the restructuring of the economy into an eco-socialist foundation in key sectors of industry and energy.

Predictable End

The ruling political ideology’s preferred solution—and the one that applies to all economic misdevelopments today—is predictable: new subsidies and another electric car purchase bonus. The summit ends as no one should be surprised. The long-dried subsidy channels of the green favored economy are flooded with fresh state credit. True to the stock-market motto: the tide lifts all boats.

Anyone following the bond markets closely can see that this policy is bound to end in fiscal, economic, and ultimately societal fiasco. About three years ago, secular shifts away from increasingly risky government bonds began, making financing of political grandiose dreams more difficult in the future. The end of this policy will come when the bond market finally lowers its thumb. Until then, we can look forward to the next summit.

 

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.