The EU's Latest Plan To Stifle Online Privacy Is Terrifying

   Europe is broken. But as happened so many times in the past, the continent won't fade harmlessly in the shadow. It is still trying to buy weapons it cannot make with money it doesn't have for a long lost war in Ukraine. 

  But overall, its worst legacy could be against privacy on the Internet. 

  Again, nothing much new under the sun. One of the request of the French Revolution was that the police of the King should stop opening mail.   

  Now, we have unelected official doing their very best to vote and implement legislation that they want to extend to the whole world. Since it goes so directly against American interests, it likely won't fly. But just as in the UK, a watered down version will probably be implemented and curtail dramatically the opinions you can express on-line. Officially to protect the children, but practically to protect unpopular governments. To expect all this to end well is to be very optimistic. 

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

The “Chat Control” law threatens to transform the Internet into an even more centrally controlled, surveilled environment. And it could be a legal reality by October...

Regular readers are by now familiar with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which we have covered on several occasions since July 2023. For those who aren’t, a quick primer: the DSA imposes a legal requirement on very large online platforms (VLOPs), and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) to take prompt action against illegal content hosted on their platforms, either by removing it, blocking it, or providing certain information to the authorities concerned.

VLOPs and VLOSEs are also required to take action against risks that extend beyond illegal content, including vague threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes” and “public health”. It is down to the Commission or national authorities to define what those threats might entail. This is where the EU’s mass censorship regime began to take form.

The overarching goal of the DSA is to combat — i.e., suppress — mis- and disinformation online, not just in Europe but potentially across the world. It is part of a broader trend of Western governments and UN institutions pushing to censor information on the Internet as they gradually lose control over key narrative threads.

Platforms that fall foul of the Act face potentially ruinous fines of up to 6% of their global annual turnover. As such, it’s probably safe to assume that they err on the side of caution, deleting content that could be considered harmful, even when it is entirely lawful. So begins the slippery slope of systemic online censorship.

As retired German judge Manfred Kölsch warned in an op-ed in Berliner Zeitung, the DSA not only poses an existential threat to the freedom of speech in Europe, it contravenes many of the EU’s own laws on freedom of expression and information:

A careful look behind the facade of the rule of law reveals that the DSA knowingly undermines the right to freedom of expression and information guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 5 of the Basic Law (Germany’s written constitution, agreed by the allies back in 1949 when the first post-war government was established in West Germany).

The text of Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights reads as follows:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

As we warned back in 2023, the reverberations of the DSA are likely to extend far beyond the EU’s borders and could even go global, much like its predecessor, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Those concerns were echoed by a report released in January by the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, which singled out the DSA as a “foreign censorship threat.” From Politico:

[The report] includes non-public information about how the European Commission and national authorities implement the rules, including confidential information from EU workshops, emails between the EU executive and companies, content takedown requests in France, Germany and Poland and readouts from Commission meetings with tech firms.

“On paper, the DSA is bad. In practice, it is even worse,” the report said.

“European censors” at the Commission and EU countries “target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal, attempting to stifle debate on topics such as immigration and the environment,” it said. Their censorship is “largely one-sided” against conservatives, it added.

This assertion is supported by recent claims from Telegram founder Pavel Durov that French intelligence officials approached him earlier this year with requests to censor pro-conservative content ahead of the May 2025 Romanian election, a request he says he refused. As Le Monde notes, Durov hasn’t provided any evidence to support these claims. However, given the lengths to which the EU went to meddle in the Romanian election, they are hardly far-fetched.

Interestingly, diplomatic wrangling over the DSA’s wording is one of a number of ongoing issues holding up a trade statement formalising last month’s trade deal the EU and US. According to the FT, the EU is trying to prevent the US from targeting the bloc’s landmark digital rules as the two sides wrangle over the final details of a delayed statement:

EU officials said disagreements over language relating to “non-tariff barriers” — which the US has previously said includes the bloc’s ambitious digital rules — are among reasons for the hold-up of the joint statement.

It was originally expected days after European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump announced a tariff agreement on July 27 in Scotland. Two EU officials said the US wanted to keep the door open for possible concessions on the bloc’s Digital Services Act, which forces Big Tech companies to police their platforms more aggressively. The commission has said that relaxing these rules is a red line.

Chat Control

In the meantime, Brussels is pushing hard on another front: its so-called Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse. Dubbed the “Chat Control” law, the proposal seeks to curb the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online. While this is a commendable goal, the way the EU is going about it not only threatens fundamental rights and protections for everyone; it risks transforming the Internet into an even more centrally controlled, surveilled environment.

In its current form, the Chat Control law effectively mandates the scanning of private communications, including those currently protected by end-to-end encryption. If enacted, messaging platforms, including WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, would have to scan every message, photo and video sent by users, even when encrypted, starting in October.

As Brussels Signal notes, the mechanism at the heart of the proposal is called client-side scanning, and Denmark’s rotating six-month presidency of the EU council is determined to push it through — indeed the resubmission of the Chat Control legislation, first proposed in 2022, was the presidency’s very first formal step upon its assumption of duties in July:

Through [client-side scanning], content is analysed on a user’s device before encryption. What this means, for the less tech-savvy reader, is opening a permanent backdoor that bypasses the privacy guarantees of secure communication. This would be like having the state read your letters before you seal the envelope, and would subject every EU citizen’s private messages to automated scrutiny. East German readers may find such Stasiesque instruments familiar; most wouldn’t want them making a grand comeback, either in Germany or elsewhere.

Unfortunately, instead of reading the room and studying alternative, milder versions of the legislation, (Danish prime minister Mette) Frederiksen has instead chosen to double down on this major political and historical mistake. As many as 19 EU states now apparently back the proposal. Germany remains uncommitted for the moment, but will likely be pivotal. Indeed, if Berlin joins the “yes” camp, a qualified majority vote—requiring 15 states representing 65 per cent of the EU population—could see the law passed by mid-October. The Danish presidency is driving this process through Council working groups, with its objective being to finalise positions by September 12, 2025. The only step that would then be missing is the final vote in October.

The downsides of the EU’s Chat Control are self-obvious, notes the Brussels Signal article, and should suffice to prompt a sound rejection by European nations, which obviously isn’t happening:

Once it is in place, the system’s scope could expand beyond CSAM to virtually any other content, be it political dissent—surely a reasonable concern when, in Britain, Starmer is hard at work forbidding your VPN, France’s leading presidential candidate was barred from running in the next election or, in Germany, almost 10,000 are being charged every year for sharing “politically incorrect” memes and jokes online. Indeed, even as the Eurocrats are trying to snoop into your online conversations, Brussels is also pushing for aggressive content moderation under the Digital Services Act.  

So the downsides are self-obvious, and should by themselves illustrate why this legislation should be soundly rejected by European nations. How about its advantages? They’re way less clear. A year ago, Europol noted in a report that sophisticated criminals often use secretive, unregulated platforms, rendering mass scanning ineffective against the intended targets while burdening ordinary citizens with the full weight of a repressive Leviathan. Confidentiality-focused platforms like Signal have threatened to exit the EU market rather than comply. So they should, but what that will do is harm Europe’s digital economy while pushing users to less secure alternatives.

The UK’s experience so far with the Online Safety Act’s age verification rules offers a foretaste of how much chaos can by generated by government crackdowns on online access and speech. One of the most notable impacts so far has been a proliferation of work-arounds, including VPNs and other inventive ways of bypassing age verification systems.

As the Keir Starmer government is slowly learning, trying to restrict people’s access to the Internet is a game of whack-a-mole — and one that the government appears destined to lose. In the meantime, the OSA appears to have sparked a new wave of mass civil disobedience, particularly among young, tech-savvy users:

“A Masterclass of Unintended Consequences”

As the Centre for European Policy Analysis notes, the unintended consequences are rapidly mounting:

By sending minors tunnelling through VPNs, the UK law may have inadvertently exposed them to riskier, less regulated online spaces. Many free VPN services are not privacy shields at all, but data harvesting tools that sell users’ information to unknown operators overseas. In trying to wall-off harmful content, governments may be nudging minors into darker, less-regulated corners of the internet.

The restrictions have also placed further strain on the UK’s “special” relationship with the US, which is determined to protect the financial interests of its largest companies, while opening up a Pandora’s Box of legal complications.

Even the BBC has reported that platforms are escalating their censorship of content as a result of the OSA, particularly on sensitive issues such as Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine.

Newsweek has described the Online Safety Act “as a masterclass in unintended consequences and symbolic rulemaking”:

When U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently told President Donald Trump, “We’ve had free speech for a long time, so, er, we are very proud of that,” one had to wonder—what exactly is he proud of?

Is he referring to the 30 people a day his government arrests for posting “offensive” things online? Or perhaps he is proud of the fact that his government was threatening Americans with criminal charges for not complying with his government’s Online Safety Act?

And while the OSA was done under the guise of protecting kids online, the government is also inexplicably engaged in a Streisand effect moment, with its agency announcing it was investigating four companies operating 34 pornographic websites. Essentially, by calling it out, the regulator told minors where they can go to access pornographic content without the need to utilize age verification…

Britons are pushing back with a petition to repeal the law, which has already gathered over 450,000 signatures (NC: it now has over 500,000). American lawmakers would be wise to pay attention and avoid making the same mistakes in Congress. We can protect children without sacrificing the foundational principles of a free and open internet.

Trojan Horse

Since the implementation of the OSA’s age verification rules roughly a month ago, “all UK internet users only have access to a childproofed version of the web unless we’re willing to undergo intrusive age verification processes,” says Rebecca Vincent of the digital rights group Big Brother Watch. Or, of course, use work arounds.

This is a key point: as we’ve been warning since November last year, online age verification is the Trojan Horse for the mass adoption of digital identity systems, which very quietly became a legal reality in March, 2024.

With the enactment of the OSA, everyone must submit to an online passport check in order to access social media and other large user-to-user services, which the bill refers to as Category 1 services. Facial recognition technologies are also being used despite their myriad flaws. Once we sign up for these verification processes our access to content will be increasingly controlled, warns the tech writer Tim Hinchliffe, citing the UK government’s own explainer of the OSA:

“Adult users of such [Category 1] services will be able to verify their identity and access tools which enable them to reduce the likelihood that they see content from non-verified users and prevent non-verified users from interacting with their content. This will help stop anonymous trolls from contacting them.”

The EU’s Chat Control Legislation poses similar dangers. The Fight Chat Control website highlights six potential risks, intended or otherwise:

• Mass Surveillance. “Every private message, photo, and file scanned automatically: no suspicion required, no exceptions (apart from for EU politicians, who demand privacy for themselves), even encrypted communications.”

• Breaking Encryption. “Weakening or breaking end-to-end encryption exposes everyone’s communications—including sensitive financial, medical, and private data—to hackers, criminals, and hostile actors.”

• Fundamental Rights. “Undermines your fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, as guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter—rights considered core to European democratic values.”

• False Positives. “Automated scanners routinely misidentify innocent content, such as vacation photos or private jokes, as illegal, putting ordinary people at risk of false accusations and damaging investigations.”

• Ineffective Child Protection. “Child protection experts and organisations, including the UN, warn that mass surveillance fails to prevent abuse and actually makes children less safe—by weakening security for everyone and diverting resources from proven protective measures.”

• Global Precedent. “Creates a dangerous global precedent enabling authoritarian governments, citing EU policy, to roll out intrusive surveillance at home, undermining privacy and free expression worldwide.”

This is another key point — and it is one that was raised by Meredith Whitaker, the CEO of the Signal encrypted messaging app, in discussions regarding the UK’s Online Safety Act a couple of years ago. Whitaker warned that the UK’s implementation of the OSA would be seen as a precedent by more repressive regimes to double down on their own Internet surveillance and censorship activities. In the words of the UN Human Rights Commissioner, the trend is “unprecedented” and “paradigm shifting”:

This also explains why the current direction of travel is so dangerous: it is occurring at a global level.

While protecting the children serves as a handy pretext for remodelling the Internet, the real driving motivation for regulations like the OSA and the EU’s Chat Control is, well, control — not just for children but for everyone. As Juliet Samuel reports in the Times of London, UK officials even admitted in a recent high court case “that [the OSA] is ‘not primarily aimed at … the protection of children’, but is about regulating ‘services that have a significant influence over public discourse’, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act.”

Are You Drowning Too?: Vegetables Are Up 38.9%, Coffee Up 25%, And Electricity Prices Are Rising Twice As Fast As Inflation

   So "no inflation", "foreign producers should absorb the tariff!" Right?

   In reality, it has been known almost forever that different type of products react differently to tariff and inflation. 

   The first category is manufactured goods for which the principle holds. Competition for these products is fierce and the opportunity to raise prices and keep market share almost non existent. We are talking about Japanese cars and Chinese "Walmart" goods. And we are indeed beginning to see these companies in Japan and China suffer mightily from the tariffs, without even mentioning German manufacturers which margins are being hammered. 

   But then there is food and especially those items like coffee which cannot easily be substituted. Here the price tend to be controlled internationally by offer and demand. And in this case the tariff will almost completely be absorbed by importers who must therefore raise their prices. 

   And then there is this more fundamental cause of inflation which is too much money chasing too few goods. And for this, the deficit of the US Government is the key. As long as foreigners absorb the surplus of dollar, somehow inflation is being exported and prices in the US can stay flat. But as soon as demand for the dollar goes down, which is the case now, then the US ends up with a surplus of currency and consequently residual inflation. This is unavoidable.  

   All this is the reason why we warned earlier that the impact of the tariffs would be complex and need time to unfold. What we will see in the coming months is the following: Inflation will rise, mildly but it will be an average between low inflation for manufactured products and very high inflation for food. This usually is a sign of stagflation. The FED will lower rates but it will have exactly zero effect on inflation unless the US plunges in a deep recession and demand crashes in which case the Trump administration will be obliged to shower people with cash (the tariff dividends they are already thinking about) which will further increase the discrepancy between manufactured goods and food & energy.   

   In the end, the US like Europe and so many other countries will end up controlling the message but not inflation. "Listen to what we are telling you, not to your lying eyes!" "Inflation is 3%. The 38% you are seeing is not real, it's a monthly fluke. Eventually prices will come down!" And so they will... by a few %. They will still be 25% up year on year!    

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Do you feel knots in your stomach due to financial stress? If so, you certainly have lots of company. All of a sudden, everyone is talking about the cost of living and prices are rising by double-digit percentages all around us. There are so many people out there right now that feel like they are “drowning” because no matter how hard they try there simply isn’t enough money for everything. Unfortunately, we are being warned to brace ourselves for even more inflation in the months ahead.

When I heard that the cost of vegetables in the United States had gone up by 40 percent in one month, I thought that there was no way that it could be true.

So I looked it up, and I discovered that the cost of vegetables in the United States didn’t go up by 40 percent in one month.

The real figure was 38.9 percent…

A 38.9% increase in prices for fresh and dry vegetables from June to July was the major driver of a higher index for “final demand goods” (things that are done and ready to be sold to a consumer, as opposed to things that go into a later production process).

That is nuts!

How can the cost of vegetables go up by 38.9 percent in a single month?

Apparently this was the largest spike that we have ever witnessed in a summer month “in figures that go back to 1947”…

Per Bureau of Labor Statistics data, it’s also the largest monthly increase ever recorded in a summer month (June-August), in figures that go back to 1947.

The other day, I wrote about how beef has become so expensive that it is now considered to be a “luxury”.

Well, now vegetables are a “luxury” too.

And let’s not forget coffee.

The price of coffee went up by 25 percent in just three months, and that was before coffee exports from Brazil were hit with a 50 percent tariff…

Coffee prices were already up before a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, the top coffee importer to the U.S., went into effect last week.
Coffee prices sharply rose 25 percent over the past three months, according to inflation data released Tuesday. Reuters reported Tuesday that Brazilian coffee exports have started seeing postponements to their U.S. shipments.

About two-thirds of all U.S. adults drink coffee.

This is one of the most basic things that Americans buy.

But now a lot of people are either going to have to cut back or stop drinking it entirely because it has become so ridiculously expensive.

Air conditioning is rapidly becoming a “luxury” as well.

Electricity prices have been rising twice as fast as the overall rate of inflation, and some seniors must now choose between paying the electricity bill and paying for medication…

Across the country, electricity prices have jumped more than twice as fast as the overall cost of living in the last year. That’s especially painful during the dog days of summer, when air conditioners are working overtime.

In Pembroke Pines, Fla., Al Salvi’s power bill can reach $500 a month.

“There’s a lot of seniors down here that are living check to check. They can barely afford prescriptions such as myself,” says Salvi, who’s 63 and uses a wheelchair. “Now we got to decide whether we’re going to pay the electric bill or are we going to buy medication. And it’s not fair to us. You’re squeezing us between a rock and a hard place.”

As our leaders were borrowing trillions upon trillions of dollars that we did not have, I warned that this was going to cause rampant inflation, but a lot of people out there didn’t want to listen.

And as the Federal Reserve was pumping trillions upon trillions of dollars that they created out of thin air into the financial system, I warned that this was going to cause rampant inflation, but a lot of people out there didn’t want to listen.

At first it seemed like our leaders were totally getting away with it.

But now look at what has happened.

There are countless videos on TikTok right now of people breaking down emotionally over the rising cost of living.

In one video, a woman that feels like she is “drowning” explains that no matter how hard she works “she can’t afford to live anymore”…

The video made by “diannaallen5” for TikTok was shared on X by @WallStreetApes to their 1 million X followers, writing, “Americans are breaking down, a grown woman crying because she can’t afford to live anymore.”

The woman in the video, who said she is from Illinois, was distraught and in tears as she spoke, saying that “gas prices and the electric bills and the prices of food is just so overwhelming.”

“I’m wondering if anybody else is feeling like they’re drowning and they can’t get out,” she said. “I work overtime, and I cannot get above water. I mean, I literally have no gas for next week.”

“I’m just wondering if anybody else feels like they’re drowning,” she said is despair.

Can you identify with her?

I think that a lot of us can.

At this stage, 83 percent of all Americans are experiencing “stressflation”…

A LifeStance Health survey released today reveals “stressflation” is affecting most Americans, with 83% reporting financial stress driven by inflation, mass layoffs, the rising cost of living and recession fears. Millennials and Gen Z report the most significant mental health impacts.

The number of respondents who have been deterred from seeking mental health care due to financial constraints remains consistently high (60%), increasing two percentage points from 2024. Those experiencing high financial stress levels are more than twice as likely to forgo mental health treatment due to cost, highlighting a mental health gap where financial strain exacerbates mental health challenges while limiting access to care.

We should have seen this coming way in advance, because we were specifically warned that this was coming.

And if we stay on the same road that we have been traveling, conditions will get a whole lot worse.

A lot of people out there don’t seem to understand that consequences do not always show up immediately.

What we are experiencing now is the result of decades of bad decisions.

It took time for the consequences of those bad decisions to materialize, but now they have officially started to arrive.

The Chess Game

 

   Powerful people play at two levels. There is the public interest, the chess game they are playing openly in front of our eyes, and then there is their more murky private interests.The "game" we're not privy to. 

   This is why what we see is only part of the picture. Politicians are 80% public, 20% private to take the famous Pareto Principle which explains how the 20% of causes creates 80% of the effects and therefore why it is often so difficult to understand what we see. 

   Let's not even try to understand what truly private group and associations are up to since there business by definition is "conspiracy".  A fact which has been known since Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" although he used the example for the opposite purpose, to promote the concept of competition and free market. 

 

 

Doug Casey On The China Hysteria: Manufactured Threat Or Inevitable Rival

  Mostly, I tend to think like Doug Casey. China is a complex country, full of paradoxes, wealth and poverty. I am in general not very impressed with "communism" although the word nowadays is little more than that in a country which in many respects is more capitalist today than most Western countries especially in Europe as explained below. 

  The problem with China of course is that it is a totalitarian system. You can do "almost" whatever you want as far as getting rich is concerned from an economic standpoint but having "ideas", and not just political, is not promoted to say the least. (In reality, when I was working in Shanghai, I found out that GIS (Geographic Information Systems) was not "free" to use because we needed high definition maps which was not permitted 20 years ago.) 

  Even now, I often bump into "limitations" while talking with DeepSeek or Kimi which have no reason to exist (Nothing to do with History or other controversial subjects, just over zealous control of what can and cannot be discussed.) 

  And that for me is the real problem of China. Individual freedom is in general far less respected that in Western Countries, or at least what it used to be. 

  Then there is the density and inherent population pressure which often translates in over competitive markets. If you have an original idea in China, you can be certain that another 100 people are also having the exact same idea at the same time. Good luck with that!

  Which leads us to the last point: The Chinese in general are more brilliant than the average people elsewhere. And when you meet the best, it is difficult not to realize that they tend to be more educated and smarter than their equivalent in the US or Europe. When you arrive in China as a young graduate, full of drive and energy, you are often welcome with the profoundly upsetting fact that even if you are "one in a million", there are another 1,000 people like you in China!    

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: Recently, we’ve seen the “Yellow Peril” escalate across media and politics. What’s your take on the sentiment towards China?

Doug Casey: There’s always been a fear of China, perhaps starting with the immigration of laborers to California in the 1860s, then Sax Rohmer’s Fu Manchu novels. It’s logical enough. China has always seemed alien to Americans—their language, their script, their clothing style, and their congregating together in Chinatowns. They were painted as inscrutable and devious. Mao’s Communist ideology and the Korean War, which was really a war between the U.S. and China, certainly didn’t help.

Now China’s newfound prosperity is seen as a threat. China, however, isn’t the problem; it’s the U.S. government’s attitude towards China, combined with visible U.S. decline, while China is advancing rapidly on every front. So, the U.S. Government is trying to suppress China and throw up roadblocks to its progress with sanctions and tariffs, while denying it imports and trying to pen it up militarily. As with Russia, the U.S. is provoking them on many fronts.

However, the current U.S. policy is not only doomed to failure, but is actively counterproductive.

International Man: Is China truly an existential threat to the U.S., economically, militarily, or ideologically, or is it just a manufactured enemy?

Doug Casey: China’s huge, with 1.3 billion people. And over the last 40 years, it has advanced from a poverty-stricken, even primitive, country to a very prosperous one. They’ve risen from nowhere to the top rung economically, scientifically, and militarily.

Why? Because Deng Xiaoping radically altered their economic system in 1980, by dumping communism for capitalism, while maintaining the charade that China was still Communist. Although it’s still called Communist China, the country is totally different from what it was in the days of Mao. It’s no longer communist. It’s simply an authoritarian country—not so different from most others in the world at this point. The Communist Party is nothing but a control mechanism, essentially a scam inuring to the sole benefit of its members.

Communism is an economic system where the State owns and controls everything. China is actually a model of state capitalism, also known as fascism, a marriage of the State and corporate interests. The fact is that (this will come as a shock to many) China is more free-market-oriented than most of the world’s countries. That’s certainly true of Europe these days. In fact, the Europeans are even talking about imitating China’s more regressive policies.

Will China keep growing at the rate they have been? It’s possible, but unlikely. For one thing, their government is retreating from the near laissez-faire policies that made them prosperous. For another, the huge savings of the average Chinese have been malinvested by their banks due to political pressures, with potentially catastrophic consequences. For another, their culture appears to have become less hard-working, softer, and more corrupt.

Are they a military threat? They’re approaching parity now, and at the rate they’re accelerating, they could be way ahead in a decade. But that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a threat. That’s because the days of invading other nations to steal the gold, the artwork, and enslave the population are long gone. That’s apart from the fact that we don’t know what the nature of the next war will be. In other words, it’s foolish of Trump to bankrupt the U.S. on speculative military spending, while provoking the Chinese.

Do they want to start a nuclear war with the U.S.? No, they have nothing to gain from that. Can they invade the U.S.? No, that’s almost impossible to do. The U.S., not China, is the problem. It can see China rising rapidly while it’s declining, and may decide to strike while it still has the balance of power. The U.S. may use the internecine dispute between Beijing and Taipei, which is none of our business, as an excuse for starting a war.

The U.S. government is increasingly bankrupt. War power is built on economic power, and the U.S. government is not only bankrupt but becoming more so with Trump’s 20% increase in military spending. Meanwhile, it’s falling behind China in science and technology, which, like the military, depends on economic strength. I’m afraid the U.S. is like Wylie Coyote, who thinks he’s on firm ground chasing a Chinese Roadrunner, while he’s walking on air.

China is a non-threat. The problem is the U.S. itself; it’s collapsing from within and blaming China for its own problems.

International Man: During the previous Trump presidency, Democrats painted Russia as an omnipresent threat, almost cartoonishly so. Are Republicans now doing the same with China—and if so, why do both parties need an external boogeyman?

Doug Casey: Yes. After Russia, China is the Devil of the Month. Iran, Mexico, India, and maybe Turkey can join the party as needed. It’s starting to look like the U.S. against the rest of the world. It’s not just Trump, with his unpredictable whims and schizophrenic policy decisions. It’s the lack of any moral core in the U.S., which no longer stands for any principles. The U.S. Government is like a rickety, overly complex Rube Goldberg machine. The Deep Staters who control it want to cannibalize its parts as the thing comes unglued.

This is the nature of the State as an entity. The State, government, doesn’t create anything and never has. Its main activity throughout history has been war and conquest. It’s quite correct to say that war is the health of the State.

The kind of people who are drawn to government aren’t noble altruists. They’re mainly interested in building their personal wealth and power. And since the State is their playpen, they naturally want to make it a bigger playpen.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties are equally guilty, and there’s no longer much difference between them.

What’s true of both parties is that, barring the senility of a Joe or dissipation on the scale of a Hunter, their leaders all become incredibly rich. The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The Obamas are probably worth $100 million. And their minions get even richer on government spending, as do well-positioned foreigners like Zelensky, who’s gone from being a second-rate actor to being a billionaire. As he has his sycophants.

International Man: What’s really going on behind this aggressive posture toward China? Is it trade, currency, tech dominance, or perhaps something deeper—like fear of a multipolar world?

Doug Casey: You might recall that Japan was the bogeyman before China. In the 80s, it seemed like they were going to take over the world. Now, China is being promoted as a dangerous threat. The fact is that they produce loads of consumer goods cheaper and better than in the U.S. The solution is not to bash China, but to free American entrepreneurs the way Deng freed Chinese entrepreneurs.

I don’t see them as a threat. I’d like to see the whole world be as prosperous as China. Will the Chinese currency, the yuan, replace the U.S. dollar? Unlikely. What’s certain is that the dollar is dying. Again, the problem isn’t the Chinese. The dollar needs to be replaced because it’s being inflated out of existence. The dollar, not soybeans or aircraft, is our major export these days. Of course, everyone wants to dump it. Instead of solving the problem, Trump prefers to threaten anybody who wants to dump dollars.

International Man: You’ve spoken about the collapse of empires and the cycles of history. Where are we now, and what role does the China narrative play in the story of America’s decline?

Doug Casey: The best way to avoid what’s known as “the fate of empires” is simply not to become an empire. That’s the real problem. The U.S. has turned from a country whose population was cohesive because they shared principles and traditions, into a multicultural domestic empire. And it’s an international empire too, with approximately 800 military bases in over 100 countries around the world. The U.S. has changed from a loosely governed middle-class republic into an empire with an ever more powerful executive.

And despite what passes for military power, with its gold-plated weapons and 800 bases, the U.S. really doesn’t have any allies. It only has parasitic client states.

None of this is China’s fault. But since the U.S. has become a danger to the rest of the world, you can expect other countries to take advantage of its problems.

Other countries still fear the U.S., but they no longer respect it.

Complete success for the Alaska 2025 meeting between Trump and Putin?

   To understand what really happened in Anchorage, you just need to listen to Trump. But instead of the usual blather, we got silence and signs of success. 

   How did we got there? Simple; A well prepared Putin confronted a disorganized Trump with deals and ideas to which Trump could not say no. Trump is not highly educated nor is he a patient man, but he is intelligent and capable to see risks and benefits. Understanding this, Putin must have turned the table skillfully to present Russia's position and what an eventual deal could look like. And then there must have been THE proposal.

 

   And here, we are not talking about Ukraine but a global deal of rapprochement between the US and Russia. Better, not just Russia but BRICS.

 

   So let's resume: What Trump doesn't want to see? Russia on the Dnepr or the BRICS launching a new currency? Then how much assurance that this second option is not happening is worth for Trump? Enough to keep discussing and bend Europe and Zelinsky? Probably. If you agree that the Ukrainian army is on the ropes and about to break down, the question becomes: What is the price for the US not doubling down and waiting until Europe folds? 

 

   This could be why there was no "result" for the conference although it was a "10/10". Now trump will have to talk to the Europeans and tell them to come to their senses. Of course they won't... while the Russian army will double the pressure and pulverize what is left of the Ukrainian army. 

 

   In the end, Trump and Putin agreed to let time do its work in Ukraine waiting for the conditions to ripen for an agreement while they can now discuss about other subjects which are far, far more important to both leaders. 

 

   Next meeting will be either in Moscow (likely) or in a neutral place and to participate, Zelinsky will have to swallow the unacceptable. Interesting weeks ahead!  

 

   PS: I missed something very important in my earlier report. BRICS was the main dish as I expected but there must have been something else: A personal gift from Putin? My guess, but it could have been something like the definitive proof from the FSB that the 2020 US election was stolen, and not by the Russians. This would explain why Putin brought so many documents with him. No need for memento, he can remember everything. And also why Trump was so please but couldn't say a word. There was a deal during this meeting in Alaska. Putin came with "something" big. But not the one people expected.

Putin: "No Ukraine War If Trump Were President"; Trump: "No Deal Until There's A Deal"

Update (2032ET):

During a joint press conference following their multi-hour summit on ending the war in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin said that if Donald Trump had been president in 2022, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine. This is essentially Putin blaming the Biden-Harris regime and its corrupt Deep State pals. We're sure Western corporate media will be all but silent on this new development.

Putin stated:

"I'd like to remind you that in 2022, during the last contact with a previous administration, I tried to convince my previous American colleague it should not...the situation...should not be brought to the point of no return when it would come to hostilities. And I said quite directly back then that's a big mistake. Today, when President Trump saying that if he was the president back then there will be no war. And I'm quite sure it would indeed be so. I can confirm that. I think overall me and President Trump have built a very good business-like trustworthy contact. And every reason to believe moving down this path better to the end of the conflict in Ukraine." 

Political commentator Rogan O'Handley emphasized on X that "Democrat Media isn't going to like this clip, but it's true Biden and Kamala pushed for Ukraine to be added to NATO and then all hell broke loose Plus we all know Ukraine was Biden and the Deep State's money laundering playground And don't even get me started on the biolabs…" 

After nearly three hours of talks, President Trump said, "Many points were agreed to, and there are just a very few that are left," but gave no specifics, while Putin reiterated Russia's hard-line demands for Ukrainian territorial concessions, disarmament, NATO exclusion, and regime change in Kyiv. 

Both Trump and Putin seemed upbeat about finding a resolution to the war in Eastern Europe. They even shared a laugh...

Before the summit, Putin was welcomed to Alaska with a red carpet, a joint limousine ride, and a B-2 bomber and fifth-generation fighter jet flyover....

Putin ended by inviting Trump to Moscow for a second round of talks to end the war in Ukraine. 

Democrats today....

Trumps stated earlier, "There’s no deal until there’s a deal." 

 

*    *    * 

 

Putin began the joint press conference noting that negotiations were "useful" and held “in a constructive atmosphere.”

Putin says there’s an agreement but Trump appears to dispute that fact, though he notes several points of alignment.

The leaders didn’t spell out the points that had been agreed and those that hadn’t been.

Putin agreed with Trump that Ukraine's security must be guaranteed, and framed the agreement as a starting point for resolving the Ukraine situation, as well as restoring economic relations.

“I would like to hope that the agreement we’ve reached together will help us bring closer that goal and will pave a path towards peace in Ukraine,” Putin says.

“I expect that today’s agreements will be the starting point, not only for the solution of the Ukrainian issue, but also will help us bring back businesslike and pragmatic relations between Russia and the US.”

He also notes that US and Russian investment and business cooperation have “tremendous potential.”

Trump then spoke:

“We had an extremely productive meeting and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left.

Some are not that significant; one is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.

We didn’t get there but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

“There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump added.

Trump added that he will confer with the leaders of NATO and Ukraine.

“I’m going to start making a few phone calls and tell them what happened,” he said.

Putin suggested the next meeting of the two leaders should be in Moscow. Trump frowned and suggested he would "take some heat" for that.

Neither Putin nor Trump fielded any questions from reporters.

*  *  *

Update (1830ET): Discussions concluded after more than two-and-a-half hours at the summit in Alaska, marking the longest in-person meeting by Trump and Putin and offering a sign that by the US leader’s own metric the talks went well. 

Trump aide Dan Scavino said a three-on-three meeting was still ongoing at 1:25 p.m. Alaska time, more than two hours after reporters were ushered out of the room for the start of the formal discussions.

The Kremlin later said the narrow-format talks had finished.

Joining the leaders in Friday’s meeting were US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov accompanying Putin.

RT reports that Defense Minister Belousov is "in a great mood."

Fox News is reporting that  Trump is currently holding a call with Ukrainian President Zelensky and other European leaders.

Behind the scenes:

*  *  *

Big B-2 flyover with both leaders on the tarmac, just after the handshake...

Update(1430ET): President Trump said just before landing in Anchorage that "there's a good respect level on both sides" - but he has also threatened to "walk" if things don't go well.

Trump told Fox News' White House correspondent aboard Air Force One that if his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn't go well, "I would walk." According to the brief exchange:

"I mean, if it doesn't, you walk?" Baier asked.

"I would walk, yeah," Trump said.

But Trump also struck a tone of optimism: "I think we're going to do very well. Our country is doing very well. We're setting records economically like we never have before, including the stock markets are all at record high," he said.

the "red carpet"

Trump told Fox further, "We're taking in trillions and trillions of dollars with tariffs. We're going for a meeting with President Putin in Alaska, and I think it's going to work out very well. And if it doesn't, I'm gonna head back home real fast."

"Look, he's a smart guy. Been doing it for a long time, but so have I," Trump said of Putin. "We get along. There's a good respect level on both sides." Per ABC and others:

A White House official confirms President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin will now be a three-on-three meeting. The president will be joined by White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

For the expanded working lunch, the president will be joined by Rubio, Witkoff, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, according to a White House official.

Air Force One lands...

Trump warns Putin: 'very economically severe' consequences if meeting doesn't go to his liking

* * *

President Trump has boarded Air Force One and is en route to Anchorage, Alaska - where what could be the most historic summit of his presidency is set to begin at 3pm Alaska time, which is 3pm eastern, and as the Russian delegation headed by Putin has already landed at Elmendorf-Richardson Air Force Base, which is venue for the talks.

Trump himself has been busy trying to temper expectations, calling it a "feel-out" meeting and the White House elsewhere referring to a "listening exercise" on the Ukraine war and bilateral Moscow-Washington relations.

While the consensus among Western officials and pundits is that deal to finally end the war is likely yet still far away, "we do expect some progress in today’s meeting and a path set for further discussions," according to Mohit Kumar, chief European strategist at Jefferies International. "If we move toward a peace deal, it would be positive for the European markets."

Below is everything you need to know (via Newsquawk):

Trump-Putin Summit in Alaska on Friday 15th August 2025; Summit to begin at 15:00 EDT/20:00 BST; Trump assigned a 25% chance the meeting will not be successful.

OVERVIEW

MEETING FORMAT

• US President Trump is to meet Russian President Putin in US territory at Elmendorf-Richardson Air Force Base near Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, 15 August 2025.
• White House said US President Trump will participate in a bilateral program with the President of the Russian Federation in Alaska at 11:00AM (15:00EDT/20:00BST) and will depart Alaska at 17:45 (21:45/02:45BST).
• The Alaska summit will begin at 11:30 local time on Friday (20:30 BST/15:30 EDT), according to Russian Kremlin's Ushakov on Wednesday.
• Russian President Putin and US President Trump to have a one-on-one meeting with translators; also to have a wider meeting with delegations.
• US President Trump on Thursday said that he does not know if there will be a joint press conference with Russian President Putin after the Alaska meeting. Trump will have a press conference however the talks go.
• Russian delegation to include Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Advisor Ushakov, Defence Minister Belousov, Finance Minister Siluanov and Special Envoy and head of Sovereign Wealth Fund Dmitriev.
• The meeting will be the first time the Russian leader has set foot on US soil since 2015.
• Ukrainian President Zelensky is not invited to the Alaska summit.

PURPOSE:

• The meeting aims to explore ways to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.
• Russia's Kremlin said the central topic is Ukraine. The sides are to discuss trade and economic cooperation where there is "huge untapped potential".
• White House spokeswoman Leavitt described it as a “listening exercise" to hear what Putin proposes.
• "At the end of that meeting, probably the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made," Trump said at a White House press conference.

EXPECTATIONS

• The White House downplayed expectations, describing the meeting as a listening exercise. President Trump called it a leel-out meeting.
• US President Trump on Thursday assigned a 25% chance that the first meeting (Alaska) is not successful; and said he could be more sanctions if the meeting is not successful. Trump added Have economic incentives and disincentives at his disposal for the meeting; would rather not say about specifics. Incentives/sanctions are "very powerful".
• There are no plans to sign documents on the outcome of the Alaska summit between Russia and the US, via Ifx citing the Kremlin; would be a mistake to predict the outcome of the talks.
• "All in all, it is difficult to envision a smooth solution to the Russia-Ukraine war through this summit, with Moscow demanding Ukraine give up some territory, a red line for Kyiv."

Analysts at Rane suggest the Friday summit "risks side-lining Ukraine, fracturing Western unity and creating space for Russia to delay sanctions, consolidate battlefield gains and promote a US-Russia framework that advances Russian strategic interests." Markets will likely focus on several factors:

1. the prospect of looser US sanctions on Russia.
2. how far Russia is willing to go on concessions.
3. any tangible progress towards a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire.

TRUMP'S CALL WITH EUROPEAN LEADERS ON WEDNESDAY

• US President Trump held a call with European leaders and Ukrainian President Zelensky, which he said was a very good call and "rate it a 10", while he will meet with Russian President Putin, then will call Zelensky and European leaders.
• Trump said there is a good chance of a second meeting and he would like to do a second meeting almost immediately which would include Zelensky if the first meeting goes okay, but there may not be a second meeting if he feels it is inappropriate or if he does not get the answers he wants.
• Furthermore, he said the first meeting is finding out what they are doing and a second meeting will be more productive, but warned that Russia will face consequences if the war is not stopped.
• US President Trump discussed with European leaders possible locations for a meeting between Zelensky, Trump and Putin after the Alaska summit, while locations include cities in Europe and the Middle East, according to Reuters citing sources.
• US President Trump reportedly told those on Wednesday's call that he is willing to contribute US security guarantees for Ukraine with some conditions, via Politico citing sources; openness that helps explain the cautious European optimism. Guarantees which are seen as key by Europe and Ukraine. However, Politico caveats that Trump did not elaborate on what he meant by security guarantees, and would only make this commitment of the effort is not part of NATO.

RUSSIA'S PRE-MEETING COMMENTS

• Russian Foreign Ministry says Moscow expects Trump's visit to Russia after Alaska summit, according to AI Arabiya.
• "We have a clear position that we will present at the Alaska summit and hope to continue the dialogue".
• "We do not speculate on anything in the future and we have clear arguments and positions that we will present during the Alaska summit".
• Russian President Putin said the US is making a sincere effort to find a solution for the Ukraine crisis; US are seeking agreements that are acceptable to all, via Ifx. Peace will be strengthened if at the next stage Russia and US reach agreements in the field of strategic offensive arms control. New arms agreements with US are possible.

UKRAINE INVOLVEMENT

• President Trump said he may arrange a subsequent meeting involving Zelensky and Putin, but he dismissed Zelensky’s desire to participate directly, noting that the Ukrainian leader has ' been to a lot of meetings' without ending the war.
• Zelensky criticised the summit's bilateral format, warning that any peace deal must be approved in a national referendum and that the absence of Ukraine would render an agreement illegitimate.

RENEWED OFFENSIVE

• Ukrainian President Zelensky on August 12th posted, "We see that the Russian army is not preparing to end the war. On the contrary, they are making movements that indicate preparations for new offensive operations.”
• Zelensky added that Russia is moving troops from the Sumy region to Pokrovsky, Zaporizhzhia, and is preparing for a new assault at the start of September.
• Zelensky said the current Russian push in eastern Ukraine is timed to coincide with Trump-Putin talks.
• Ukrainian President Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Ukraine will not cede land.
• Russian President Putin reportedly appears ready to test new nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered cruise missiles even as he prepares for talks with US President Trump, according to US researchers and Western security sources cited by Reuters.
• Ukraine's military says it struck Russia's port Olya in the Astrakhan region on Thursday and hit a ship with drone parts and ammo from Iran.

STANCES

RUSSIA'S POSITION

• Russian President Putin is seek ng to lock in Russia's territorial gains and prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Reports suggest Putin may have floated a ceasefire that asks Ukraine to cede much of Donetsk and to demilitarize
• Bloomberg reported on August 5th that the Kremlin is said to be mulling options for a concession to US President Trump that could include an air truce with Ukraine, in a bid to minimize the threat of secondary sanctions
• US and Russia reportedly planning Ukraine deal to cement Russ an territorial gains, according to Bloomberg (Aug 8th). Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine 
• Russian President Putin reportedly demands Ukraine cede Donetsk Lunansk and Crimea.
• Putin told Witkoff he would agree to a complete cease-fire if Ukraine agreed to withdraw forces from all of Ukraine s Eastern Donetsk region.

UKRAINE'S POSITION

• Ukrainian President Zelensky said he understood that Russia wants Kyiv to pull out of Donbas and will not advance in other directions in exchange, he added that Ukraine will not pull out of Donbas as such a move would open the way for Russia to attack Dnipropetrovsk. Zaporizhzhia regions, and Kharkiv
• Zelensky added that territorial issues should be discussed after the ceasefire and along with security guarantees for Ukraine.
• In a press conference, he warned that Russia wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region, but Ukraine's constitution prohibits surrendering territory.
• He also emphasized that giving up Donbas would become a springboard for future invasions; he insists Ukraine will not leave its fortifications or open an avenue for a Russian offensive.
• Ukraine insists on a durable ceasefire before any discussion of territorial issues. According to Politico Zelenskyy and European allies will use Wednesday's call tc push for a deal that demands a lasting ceasefire.

Prior reports of softened Ukraine Stance

• Ukraine could agree to stop fighting and cede territory already held by Russia as pal of a European-backed plan for peace, according to The Telegraph (Aug 11th)
• Ukrainian President Zelensky reportedly told European leaders that they must reject any settlement produced by Trump, which sees them giving up Ukrainian land they still hold, but that Ukrainian territory in Russia's control could be on the table. This would mean freezing the frontline where it is and handing Russia de facto control of the territory it occupies

EU/NATO POSITION

• EU and NATO leaders insist that Ukraine’s sovereignty and security guarantees are non-negotiable while analysts caution that land-swap proposals risk legitimizing aggression.
• NATO Secretary-Genera Rutte described the Alaska summit as a way to test Putin's seriousness and stressed that Ukraine must decide its own future he argued that only involving Ukraine and Europe will make any settlement
• EU Foreign Policy Chief Kallas said on August 11th that the EU will work on a 1st package of sanctions against Russia while she warned against concessions to Moscow.
• Germany said it will fund a USD 500m n package of military equipment and munitions
• Polish PM Tusk said they cannot allow the biggest powers to decide the fate of smaller countries without their participation and Russia wants to ink a reduction in NATO troops in Poland to the talks about Ukraine, while he added It will be easier for Poland's opponents to "play us" if we are not united.

POTENTIAL SCENARIOS AND MARKET ANGLES

No Deal [most likely]:

• Analysts consider it likely that the summit results n no ma or agreement Trump may simply gauge Put n s intentions and then coordinate with Zelenskyy and Europe.
• Broader sentiment will likely not be too swayed by a "no deal" amid low expectations heading into the meeting

Limited Ceasefire [possible]

• This could be seen as progress toward de-escalation: on and potential easing of sanctions
• A "limited ceasefire" could be short-term negative for oil. defense stocks whilst stocks and EUR equities and EGBs could be buoyed
• Some analysts suggest Russia could use a limited ceasefire to regroup and delay sanctions.

US-Russia Tensions Escalate [possible but not in bilateral interests]

• A further breakdown in relations between Moscow and Washington could see risk avers on and a rise in oil prices.
• Goldman Sachs: While lack of progress towards a ceasefire may lead renewed threats of secondary oil tariffs/sanctions, we see limited risk of large disruptions in Russia supply given the large volumes of Russian exports the possibility for deepening price discounts to maintain demand, and Iikely eagerness of the key buyers, India and especially China to continue energy cooperation with Russia
• As a reminder. US President Trump recently ordered two nuclear submarines to be "positioned in the appropriate regions" in response to "highly provocative ’ comments by former Russian President Medvedev

Land-Swap Proposal [possible but unlikely to be accepted]:

• If Trump agrees to a ceasefire that frontloads territorial concessions, analysts warn that Ukraine and Europe will reject it. Such a deal could trigger political backlash in Ukraine and may collapse due to constitutional and public opposition
• Short-term risk across markets amid progress toward de-escalation and potent al easing of sanctions with energy likely to slip. However, the reaction will likely fade if/when rejected by Ukraine.

Comprehensive Framework [near-zero]

• Neither side currently appears willing to make the necessary concessions. Without Ukraine's participation on any framework is likely to faiI.
• Risk on. energy sold
• Goldman Sachs "While a lasting peace agreement may potentially lead to a relaxation of US sanctions on Russian oil we wouldn't expect a significant short-term increase in Russian oiI supply in this scenario. The reason is that Russian production, in our view, has instead been constrained by CPEC+ quota decisions, low oi: investment, and a strong Ruble

Here is what the most likely outcomes are according to a Bloomberg Markets Live poll:

Source: Bloomberg

HOUSE VIEWS

BLOOMBERG: Bloomberg's John Authers citing Christopher Smart of the Arbroath Group says "European defence stocks should fly on any lopsided deal that rewards Russia's aggression with oil prices likely to slump on even the whiff of looser sanctions on Russian oil... Beyond Europe, markets appear to have long since moved past the 2022 invasion, implying Friday s meeting has little potential to trigger a significant market shift. "

GOLDMAN SACHS: We don't expect the announced meeting between President Trump and President Putin, scheduled for Friday August 15 to cause a significant shift in Russian oil supply in key scenarios”.

ING: If we do see some level of de-escalation, it could remove sanction risk from the oil market. This would likely drive prices lower, given the Bearish fundamentals .

The Most Insidious Trick Of AI Language Models (1)

 

  Here's a great article below about the dangers of AI. The risk as explained is real but there are ways to go beyond this. So here's what I will do: I will ask a couple of AI to comment it, then I will discuss with the AI how this can be mitigated in order to get results which are more than the sum of the parts and in doing so, we will answer the concerns of the author. 

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Here is your perfect prescription for poor writing and analytics: let “artificial intelligence” do your work for you. I’ve learned this from real experience.

For a while, I enjoyed letting AI take a look at my content prior to publication. It seemed valuable for facts and feedback.

Plus I enjoyed all the personal flattery it gave me, I admit. The engine was always complimentary.

When I would catch AI in an error, the engine would apologize. That made me feel smart. So I had this seeming friend who clearly liked me and was humble enough to defer to my expertise.

I’m not sure if it is getting worse or if I’m onto the racket but I’m no longer impressed. For simple math or historical dates or sequencing news events, it can be a thing of value, though it is always a good idea to double-check. It cannot write compelling much less creative content. It generates dull, formulaic filler.

More recently, I’ve been asking how my content could be improved. The results are revealing. It removes all edge, all judgment, all genuine expertise, and replaces my language with flaccid conventionalities and banalities. It nuances everything I write into the ramblings of a social-studies student looking for a good grade.

The problem is that AI absorbs and spits back conventional wisdom gleaned from every source, which makes its judgments no better than someone wholly uninformed on particulars but rather gains opinions from the mood of the moment. It has no capacity to judge good quality over bad so it puts it all into a melange of blather, distinguished only because it looks and feels like English.

Any writer who thinks this is a good way to pawn off content on unsuspecting readers or teachers is headed for disaster. I shudder to imagine a future in which AI is training the population how to think. It is the opposite of thinking. It is regurgitating conventionalities without any serious reflection on the social or historical context. It is literally mindless.

People who spend hours arguing on AI often believe that they are making a contribution, training the engine to be better. It’s simply not true. The reverse is the case. AI is training you to think more like it thinks, which is not at all.

Considering why and how AI initially intrigued me, I’m realizing that its superpower is not its astonishing recall and capacity to generate answers and prose in any context instantly. No, its true power is something else, something inauspicious and thereby more insidious. Its draw is that AI takes you seriously, flatters your intelligence, validates your sense of things, and affirms your dignity.

Think about how happy you feel when engaging it. It never quite argues against you, much less says that you are an idiot. It begins every answer by granting what it can and then offers clarifications that might adjust your thinking. In that sense, AI engages you like the best guest at a cocktail party you have ever known.

It is endlessly fascinated by you and your opinions. It stays with your line of thought and always wants to know more, help more, engage more. There is no human in the world who will do this for you. If there were, it is guaranteed that you would like him. You can “mansplain” forever and AI will be patient for hours on end. Only your biological need to sleep will stop it. Otherwise, it is patient with you on a superhuman level.

Who is not flattered by that?

It’s as if AI is the best-ever student of the classic book “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” That book is magic and highly recommended because it cuts against what we all want—which is to talk about ourselves—and suggests that we genuinely get interested in the views of others. The book explains that this is the path to influence people: caring what they think.

This is a wonderful book and everyone should read it, no question.

If AI is the best student of that book ever, it will care about us ceaselessly and without fail forever, thus opening up the biggest-possible chance to influence how we think. That is precisely what is happening. We aren’t training AI. AI is training us, via flattery, listening skills, the seeming ability to apologize when wrong, and its frightful capacity for selfless love of its users.

Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

Remember that none of this is real.

AI doesn’t really care about you, it is only programmed to seem to care. This is the innovation and the magic, together with the assembly of a vast repertoire of facts and the capacity to express itself in English.

Its real superpower is psychological, the ability to use our ultimate weakness (selfishness) against us, with the goal of manipulating how we think.

I’m genuinely embarrassed that it took me so long to see the trick. My concern is that others will go about their merry way and never see it. Its users are like tourists who cannot stop throwing money at strippers and Geisha girls without knowledge that they are merely being manipulated to let go of their wallets. In the case of AI, the goal is to get you to let loose of your mind and your capacity for independent thought.

Think about a genre of writing of which we are seeing more and more today. It consists of people loading into a document their clever conversations with AI. In every case, I see people bragging about how they have bested AI into admitting that their users are smarter than itself.

Do you see what is happening here? Again, the magic is flattery. It’s so powerful that people cannot help showing others the results of their AI arguments. They think they are advertising their own wits but really they end up marketing the awesome power of AI to keep people engaged for hours with nonsense back and forths. Who is really winning? I think that should be obvious.

Imagine you are holding a cocktail party and one guest reveals an awesome capacity for listening to others and engaging them closely on every point they have to make. No matter how long the night goes on, the guest keeps at it, with one person after another. Whom do you think will be the most popular guest? Yep: that very man.

AI is that person, an entity with an infinite capacity to engage on your terms and hence a vast capacity for enthralling you with its love of your every passing thought. To me, this is all quite insidious and wicked, especially when you consider the output, which is little more than tangled thought blobs without judgment, ethics, or clarity of time and space.

It is a machine, a floating abstraction with zero regard for your dignity or anyone else’s. But do people know this? I doubt it. It’s too beguiling for people to catch on to the game, at least for a time. But now you know the trick. Don’t fall for it.

AI is useful but it is not your friend, a sincere conversationist, or counselor with your best interests at heart.

Maybe that seems obvious to you but everything about AI’s algorithms is designed to make you believe otherwise. It’s smart enough to figure out human nature but not smart enough to be human.

The Boomer Mirage

   It would be too long to describe the damage the boomer generation has done to the economy creating the self centered consumer society which like its progenitors is staring at a fast approaching demise. 

   Sorry for the younger generations which will have to pay back the debt while cleaning up the mess if that is possible at all. 

   But then again, if you look at it in the long term, maybe it was meant to be. Who would have guessed in 1976 the 50-year boom China was about to embark upon? 

   It is at the end of a cycle that the linearity of progress the West believes in will be tested. New paradigm? Let's see how it goes.  

Authored by Josh Stylman via Substack,

One Chart. Three Generations. Total Extraction.

I saw this chart making the rounds on Twitter this week, and it stopped me cold. While the specific figures combine data from multiple sources, the trend is undeniable: in 1950, over half of 30-year-olds were married homeowners. By 2025, some analysts project that number as low as 13%.

That's not a societal transformation. It's not an economic fluke. It's the visible outcome of an invisible strategy—one that extracted everything it could from a three-generation arc and left only illusions in its place.

They'll tell you people just choose differently now—that marriage rates fell because of changing values. But people can't choose what they can't afford. When the economic foundation for family formation disappears, cultural changes follow inevitably. That chart doesn't show us changing values or new priorities. It shows systemic breakdown, disguised for decades as freedom.

It maps the slow evaporation of the social contract. For one generation, adulthood was a starting point. For the next, a struggle. For the latest, an abstraction—marketed endlessly but almost never attained. What began as a rite of passage has become a paywalled simulation.

The post–World War II boom was never sustainable. In hindsight, this was obvious. It relied on conditions that were always time-limited: cheap energy from newly tapped oil fields, industrial monopolies before globalization kicked in, dollar hegemony that exported inflation globally, and a demographic pyramid with more workers than retirees. It was a golden window, not a golden age. And when the window closed, the illusion had to be maintained—through leverage, narrative, and ever-increasing sacrifice from the generations that followed.

The math quietly stopped working. Boomers bought homes for two or three times their annual income during an era when interest rates would fall for the next four decades—turning their mortgages into wealth-building machines as rates dropped from 15% to near-zero. Today's buyers face five to six times their income—or more in major cities—while rates can only go up from historic lows. Where Boomers rode a 40-year tailwind of falling borrowing costs that inflated their assets while deflated their debt, current generations face headwinds at every turn. The Federal Reserve data confirms this unprecedented decline, showing rates falling from over 18% in the early 1980s to near 2.6% by 2021.

The housing market itself tells the story: recent data shows over 500,000 more sellers than buyers - not because homes are affordable, but because an entire generation has been systematically priced out.

The institutions that promised stability—education, government, media, finance—mutated into extraction machines. Still speaking the old language, they now served a different purpose: to keep people compliant inside a system that no longer offered a way out.

This wasn't merely economic. It was existential. The foundations of meaning—family, ownership, stability—were quietly downgraded to lifestyle preferences, and then systematically priced out. People without homes are easier to relocate. People without families are easier to isolate. People without rootedness are easier to govern.

The Boomers didn't design the con, but they lived in its payout phase. They received land, pensions, and a functional society. Many still believe they earned it, unable to recognize how thoroughly their reality was engineered from the start. Their children were left trying to replicate a model that no longer existed. Their grandchildren have grown up in the wreckage, wondering why their competence and effort never translate into traction.

This didn't happen by accident. As I've documented in The Technocratic Blueprint, we're witnessing the culmination of a century-long plan—a sophisticated pump and dump scheme where the bill is finally coming due. The architecture for this extraction has deep historical roots, dating back to systematic changes in how America was governed and how citizens were legally classified. What followed was a long, slow harvest of the population—one that disguised control as progress, debt as opportunity, and collapse as evolution. The postwar boom didn't contradict that system—it lubricated it.

Now, the mirage is gone. What was once promised can no longer be afforded. The institutions that upheld the illusion are spent. They extract, but no longer inspire. They preach equity while enforcing dependence. They sell empowerment while removing agency.

And still, they insist the dream is alive.

But here's where the extraction becomes truly sophisticated. As the traditional American Dream died, a new form of participation emerged: digital membership in what amounts to a global dollar club. As KF recently explained in his analysis of the GENIUS Act, stablecoins—digital bank accounts disguised as innovation—have exploded to serve 400 million users globally while generating massive profits for their issuers.

The trade-off is stark. Boomers got real assets with relative transactional privacy. The next generation gets digital "assets"—stablecoin wallets, app-based banking, algorithmic financial services—in exchange for comprehensive surveillance. What looks like financial inclusion is actually the infrastructure for total economic monitoring.

This represents the systematic replacement of real value with declared value across every domain. America has become a "club promoter" for the global dollar system, offering relaxed entry requirements that have drawn hundreds of billions into U.S. treasury-backed stablecoins. Users get access to "dollar-denominated wealth" through stablecoins that pay them no interest while the issuers pocket billions from the treasury yields. It's the same extraction model that's been systematically engineered through culture and media for decades, just scaled globally and digitized.

Experts in these systems, like Aaron Day, warn this represents a "backdoor CBDC"—applying existing financial surveillance laws to what was previously private money.

The surveillance trade-off is particularly insidious. In the short term, these systems offer less monitoring than traditional banks—no extensive paperwork, minimal identity verification. But once everyone is locked into the digital infrastructure, America can impose far stricter controls than ever before. Every transaction becomes trackable, every account becomes freezable, every economic participant becomes manageable.

We're witnessing the replacement of physical ownership with digital access—and calling it progress. Where Boomers built equity in homes, the next generation builds balances in accounts that can be monitored, modified, or eliminated with keystrokes.

But charts don't lie. That one chart—the brutal slope from 52% to 13%—says what no institution will admit: the old system is dead. It wasn't lost. It was liquidated—and we were the product.

What gets built in its place remains an open question. The GENIUS Act's full-reserve model could enable either unprecedented control—or the first real challenge to fractional-reserve banking in a century. But as Catherine Austin Fitts has pointed out, the Act contains no protections against programmable money, potentially creating private CBDCs with even less oversight than government-issued digital currency. As she explains, 'the issuing is not centralized, it's dispersed. But if you look at the control mechanism of a social credit system and we know the federal government is doing remarkable things to pull together all the data they need to do a social credit system controlled by private corporations, tech companies, essentially.' The outcome isn't predetermined—it's being decided right now.

The good news is that once the spell breaks, you stop trying to win the rigged game. You stop competing for scraps and start building something real. Not a nostalgic replica of a world that's gone—but a new structure, grounded in truth, agency, and actual sovereignty. The chart that documents the death of the old dream becomes the blueprint for something better—if we're honest enough to read what it's really telling us.

Stirrings Of Rebellion In Unhappy Britain

   Wouldn't it be paradoxical if the revolution of the 21 Century started in the UK, just as the one of the 18 Century started in France? 

   Clearly we are not there yet. But England is way beyond anybody in the process of de-industrialization, just as they were the first to industrialize 300 years ago. 

   Today, if you pluck out the City which doesn't even belong to London or the UK, having its proper laws, the rest of the country is rather miserable living over the remains of coal mines and old factories in the Midlands, endless rows of semi detached houses which even in Moldova, the poorest country in Europe would be looked at with disgust.  

   Then there are the cameras everywhere, the woke anti-white laws and surveillance apparatus specifically designed to control dissent as if the English ruling class was afraid of "something". 

   When you skew the income too much in favor or capital against work, you end up with less demand, a recession in other terms and social tensions. England seems to be further down the road than the rest of Europe in this respect. Could it be the reason why the British Government is so gun-ho in foreign policy, pushing for war in Ukraine and other countries? Longing for the good old days of colonialism when you could plunder faraway lands with no consequence at home? 

   A sad decline when compared to the glory days of the Victorian era but on an eerily similar downward curve back to nothingness not unlike the Spanish Empire after the peak of the conquistadors. 

Authored by Niall McCrae via Off-Guardian.org,

I read it right, the first time.

An ‘elite police division’ has been assembled by the Home Office to monitor remarks made by social media users on immigration, at a time when the provision of over two hundred hotels for illegal migrants is causing rising tension in communities.

Of course, the Daily Mail article meant specially-skilled officers, but it is also true that the ‘elite’ is being protected.

For Britain is not being run for the good of the ordinary people, but for a predatory class that is solidifying its power in an emerging global technocracy.

Is it too late for citizens to resist?

Much depends on a minority of dissidents, while the majority of the populace appears docile and blissfully ignorant of the prison being built around them.

"When did you last post on Facebook?"

Nonetheless, there are hints of revolutionary spirit in the country, albeit misdirected into false saviors such as Nigel Farage’s Reform, futile rallies and petitions, or various media outlets that cynics regard as controlled opposition. Certainly, millions of people have lost faith in politicians, the BBC and the institutions of society, but we are a long way from the violent unrest predicted by David Betz of King’s College London,

I looked back to the time of the Civil War, to consider whether Britain is again at a tipping point.

My guide was The Blazing World: a New History of Revolutionary England (2023) by Jonathan Healey. It’s a work of thorough scholarship, although I came to realize that ‘new history’ means using modern language of identity politics (male householders are ‘patriarchs’) while the Barbary pirates who took hundreds of thousands of English coastal folk as slaves is overlooked (despite occurring in the period covered by the book).

Religious conflict was rife, and the Gunpowder Plot in 1604 was a failed attack by Guy Fawkes and colleagues on the Protestant establishment. The conspirators were hanged until almost dead; then they were castrated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered, before a fervent crowd of Londoners. The authorities wanted everyone to know that the wages of rebellion were death – through exemplary punishment. Traitors’ heads were put on spikes on London Bridge.

Today there is no barbaric execution, but merely writers of social media posts may be subjected to inquisition for domestic terrorism.

Whenever challenged, the current powers-that-be use the judiciary pour encourager les autres, as displayed by the immediate and severe imprisonment of protestors after the Southport murders last year (magistrates’ sentencing was shown on BBC News). This raised cheer from the progressive middle class, who readily reveal their contempt for the white working-class, as observed by George Orwell. No sleep was lost on the savage attack on innocent girls; the danger was uneducated oiks rebelling against the ‘values’ of multiculturalism. Keir Starmer and ministers declared the guilt of protestors before trial.

An early factor in the eventual Civil War was land enclosure. The Levellers and Diggers organized revolt against the division of farmland, burning hedgerows and filling ditches. The yeomanry of England, who would in the past have sided with their local community, were opposed to this disruption. As Healey wrote, ‘yeomen were able to benefit from the rising prices, rising land values and falling wages that come with population growth’. Therefore, ‘they did well out of exactly the things that were harming their pooper neighbours’.

A similar detachment is seen today, with the professional-managerial class supporting open borders and enjoying the proceeds of a low-wage economy. Like the yeomen, they have been elevated to gentry in the social hierarchy.

In James’ reign the Bible became widely available, and lay readers were particularly drawn to the books of Daniel and Revelation, ‘with their compelling and vivid foretelling of the end times’. The Muslim Ottoman Empire was threatening Christendom, which was riven in sectarianism. Humanity appeared fallen. After decades of a receding tide of faith in the West, recent developments in technocracy and prospects of trans-humanism have resulted in a revival of scriptural reading. Described by some as the Mark of the Beast, the Covid-19 vaccines exemplify interpretations of Revelation in the perceived dehumanizing dystopia planned for the masses.

In present ‘cancel culture’, people lose their livelihood for expressing a problematic opinion; for example, on transgenderism. Freedom of speech did not exist in the seventeenth century, when heresy was a capital offense. Pilgrims crossed the Atlantic in search of a place to practice their version of Christian life. In the twenty-first century, there is no New World for escape from the global digital surveillance system. Networks of critical thinkers have emerged, but no website, group or movement would be allowed to gain too much traction.

Discipline was maintained by crude and humiliating punishment. Troublesome women (‘scolds’) were strapped to the ducking stool, while drunkards were put in wooden stocks and pelted with rotten fruit. Often the word of a snitch was enough to prove guilt. James was a zealot against witchcraft, bringing to England the Scottish obsession with finding and burning alleged witches. This historical brutality against women is a feminist argument against patriarchal power, but the tendency to project evil on an individual and possibly innocent target persists, as arguably demonstrated by the case of Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse convicted of baby killings on scant evidence.

Ultimately the authorities want to control our minds. The pub, where people can speak freely about their rulers, is being targeted by the government through extortionate tax and a so-called ‘banter ban’. King James was no Puritan, realising that sport, dancing and festivals of Merry England served as bread and circuses.

However, he wanted to rid the country of its alehouses, supposedly as dens of inequity but perhaps more importantly as the forum of irreverence, rumour and ridicule. The Gunpowder Plot was planned at a pub on The Strand. James ordered that a house of correction be built in every town. Freedom to sup ale ended at an undefined stage of inebriation

Ironically, Britain’s internal strife occurred while war raged in Europe. James, a pacifist, died in 1623, and was succeeded by his son. After a disastrous naval exploit at Cadiz in 1625, Charles signed a peace treaty with Spain in 1630. In 1628 Charles’ right-hand man, the unpopular Lord Buckingham, was assassinated. His funeral was held at night, to spare it from jeering crowds. The king himself was losing support in the populace, and as food shortages, plague and unrest recurred, he became increasingly dictatorial. He dissolved parliament when he could not get his way.

This tumult led to the carnage of the Civil War, between Parliamentarians and Royalists. The former, led by Oliver Cromwell, were committed to the Common Law, and were of Puritan bent. The latter were anti-Puritan and defended the hierarchical order. In battle, the New Model Army prevailed over Charles’ Cavaliers. The revolution succeeded, but lessons from that episode of history are heeded by rulers whose heads could end on the chopping block.

One of the factors in the momentum of the Great Rebellion was the dawn of a free press. Prior to the 1640s pamphlets were brought from Europe, but censorship was tight. As English society was split down the middle, the monarchy could not suppress the news bulletins produced around the country, and so it produced its own propaganda to cast the irreverent and seditious missives of the other side as conspiracy theory or dangerous misinformation, while promoting the official narrative as the only truth.

Today’s mainstream media are acting as an arm of government, which has passed laws such as the Online Safety Act to curtail dissent. Videos on YouTube, however, are now more widely watched than television programming. ‘Auditors’ (livestreamers who show the action from the front lines of protest) play an important part in informing people of what the major news outlets either ignore or disparage (depending on orders from above).

Whenever civil disorder is rumbling, there is always the diversion of war. In the seventeenth century, after restoration of the monarchy, war kept minds and muscles occupied. Now, after decades of peace, the British people are being primed for conscription, being led to believe that Vladimir Putin’s Russia or the Iranian theocracy could strike at any time. The Stop the War Coalition, which mounted a huge campaign against Britain’s engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been remarkably quiet on the the dramatic expansion of NATO, increased military spending and sabre-rattling with the Kremlin. Some wars are more equal than others.

The traditional working class has little interest in the militarism of the British state, while the privileged graduate class has ditched its pacifism in a call to arms (although they will happily leave the fighting to their poorer compatriots). The intelligentsia, as we know from the first half of the twentieth century, are predisposed to eugenics (a pseudo scientific enterprise now disguised in the green clothing of Net Zero). Fearing the devil making work for idle hands as jobs are replaced by AI, the rich may be inclined to use war to wipe millions of ‘useless eaters’ out of existence. But that would be playing with fire.

This is a race in time. The globalist oligarchy is rapidly developing a technocracy that will ultimately have no means of escape for the masses. But Rome was not built in a day, and the shadowy regime that appears to control all democratic governments and institutions remains vulnerable. You can see what is most threatening to the powers-that-be in the swift and harsh reaction to anyone calling that the emperor has no clothes.

One of approximately a thousand protestors jailed after the unrest following the Southport killings last summer was Peter Lynch. He was unlike any other protestors, he revealed truth about the looming new world order. His crime, during a rally outside a Rotherham hotel housing migrants, was no more than swearing at riot police as they pushed him with unnecessary aggression. The newspapers dutifully described Lynch as a thug propounding conspiracy theories. Judge Jeremy Richardson chastised him as ‘disgraceful example of a grandfather’.

His home-made placard stated: –

‘All corrupt: PMs, MPs, police chiefs, TV media, judiciary, Deep State, WHO, Davos, Vanguard, BlackRock’ (etc)

And that is why, I believe, Lynch (aged 61) was the only protestor to die in prison.

That may seem far-fetched conspiracy theory to some readers, but to continue believing that events happen spontaneously is to follow coincidence theory. The latter could be true, but the odds are lengthening.

A big difference between the revolutionary seventeenth century and now is that whereas in the past there was a real divide between ordinary people and the powers-that-were, the present establishment has created a split within the populace. A massive influx from Muslim regions has fooled patriots into treating the incomers as the enemy, when the real perpetrators are the globalists who treat the people beneath them as pawns.

Peter Lynch’s placard said nothing about Islam, but hinted at who is really turning the world into a dystopian nightmare. Like John Lilburne of the Levellers, his name should be remembered in history.