Authored by Brenda Shaffer via RealClearWire,

One of the most important developments this century has been a major increase in energy access across the globe: Billions of people have gained access to modern energy, a precondition for rising from poverty.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region of the world not benefiting from this transformation. In Africa, energy poverty is growing. For the first time since World War II, access to electricity is also backsliding in Africa.

Over the past year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has sought to address Africa’s rising energy poverty, through organizing conferences and publishing reports. The IEA and global leaders gathered in conferences in Africa. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation was a major funder of the endeavor. Yet, the IEA did not offer any practical solution to address the rising energy poverty in Africa because it is unable to utter the essential words: fossil fuels.

In fact, through its promotion of cutting loans and investments in fossil fuels in Africa, the IEA itself contributed to the decline in energy access in Africa. The IEA’s promotion of “Net-Zero” served as the basis of decisions in recent years by the G7, World Bank, and United Nations to cut funding and investments in fossil fuels and production of electricity from fossil fuels in Africa.

The idea behind denying investments and funding for fossil fuels was that it would force Africans to adopt renewable energy. However, reducing access to fossil fuels did not lower pollution and emissions. In fact, the lack of access to stable and affordable electricity produced from fossil fuels, has led to increased pollution, emissions, and premature deaths in Africa, as Africans turn to burning dung, wood, lump coal, and other biomass for cooking and other basic energy functions.

The IEA acknowledged in its recently published report “Universal Access to Clean Cooking in Africa” that burning traditional biomass releases more carbon emissions than using fossil fuels.

Despite this acknowledgment that the path to lower emissions and pollution—improving public health—is through fossil fuels, the IEA isn’t willing to say the plain truth: Africa needs fossil fuels. For the IEA, like so many multilateral institutions, energy policy has become a cult in which fossil fuels are sacrilegious.

The new IEA report on Africa numbers 151 pages and probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to compile, yet it doesn’t give any reasonable path for Africa to increase energy access. The report points to the transformation of China, Indonesia, and India in energy access over recent decades as models for Africa. However, the IEA neglects to point out that those three countries benefitted from access to coal and to government and multilateral funding to develop electricity produced from fossil fuels. Yet, Africa is denied funding and investments to develop its fossil fuel resources.

In the report, the IEA sets South Africa apart as an example of a place where modern energy access is growing and the number of homes reliant on burning biomass is decreasing, in contrast to countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

The IEA, however, neglects to point out that South Africa has succeeded in expanding modern energy access by developing and burning its domestic coal reserves. Coal provides 69 percent of South Africa’s energy consumption and is the source of 82 percent of its electricity production.

In the report, the IEA acknowledges that liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity are necessary to replace the use of traditional biomass. Yet, it still advocates blocking Africa from developing its own fossil fuel resources. According to the IEA report, imported LPG and natural gas can replace traditional biomass, but not local energy resources.

What is the IEA’s answer as to how Africa will pay for that imported fuel and finance new cooking stoves? The IEA suggests that Africa sell carbon credits to fund the transition from burning wood and dung to using LPG and electricity. However, it is highly unlikely that enough revenue from carbon credits could be generated to finance a move from dung and wood—which is collected for free—to pay for stoves, LPG, and electricity. Moreover, this would increase Africa’s dependence on handouts from abroad, instead of strengthening local economies.

The answer to Africa’s energy poverty is development of the continent’s oil, gas, and coal resources. Profits and taxes from the development could be used to expand LPG and electricity access in Africa. Paradoxically, as the IEA acknowledges, developing fossil fuels and producing electricity from them would lower emissions, pollution, and premature deaths in Africa.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently stated that the Trump administration is evaluating whether the United States should withdraw its membership from the IEA or attempt to reform the organization. The administration claims that the IEA has strayed from its mission of promoting energy security. Instead, the IEA has become another one of the dozens of major climate policy advocacy organizations. In his evaluation of the IEA, Wright should add the IEA’s role in increasing energy poverty in Africa and its use of public funding on projects that do not benefit Africans.

The Islamification of the West continues unchecked. Millions of third-worlders have been funneled into Western nations, especially France, Spain, Ireland, England, and Germany. Globalist rulers in Brussels have remained silent about the intentional invasion, while anyone voicing concern is immediately thrown into the state-run government censorship gauntlet and labeled a “racist.” 

It comes as no surprise that Brussels’ failed open-borders experiment since 2015, flooding Europe with millions of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, has sparked not only a deepening identity crisis for Europe, but also fueled a powerful resurgence of nationalism across the continent. 

Barcelona, Spain, has sadly been conquered. pic.twitter.com/z9n9kpWAxn

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) July 9, 2025

The latest example comes from the small Spanish town of Jumilla, where the local nationalist party Vox enacted the country’s first ban on Muslim use of public spaces (sports halls, civic centres) for activities “alien to our identity” unless organized by the council, effectively blocking Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha gatherings.

The local Vox party posted on X: “Thanks to Vox, the first measure to ban Islamic festivals in Spain’s public spaces has been passed. Spain is and will be forever the land of Christian people.”

Spanish Town Bans Islam in Public Spaces, calls them ‘alien to our identity’.

The ban was passed in Jumilla, a town in the Murcia region with a population of around 27,000 – roughly 7.5 per cent of whom come from mostly Muslim countries.

The motion was proposed by Spain’s… pic.twitter.com/3iNTP52G1i

— Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 (@TRobinsonNewEra) August 7, 2025

Vox spokesperson Alba Franco told the Qatari-owned pro-Arab news outlet The New Arab that Muslim practices are linked to “insecurity” and warned of the “Islamisation” of communities. 

For some context, Jumilla was once part of the Roman Empire and fell to Berber and Arab forces in the eighth century and remained predominantly Arab for centuries, until Christian troops under Alfonso X of Castile seized the land in the mid-13th century. 

Islam does not belong in Spain 🇪🇸https://t.co/4QOBYXXTpP pic.twitter.com/3ThtourvXn

— The Christian Nationalist Party (@the_christnats) July 31, 2025

Last month, anti-migrant protests unfolded in Murcia, about an hour away from Jumilla, after locals were infuriated with reports that third-worlders from North Africa had attacked an elderly pensioner. 

Walid Habbal, coordinator of the Islamic Commission of Murcia, told New Arab that Vox’s move “is a step backwards. It has left the Muslim community in shock. We don’t see it just as a political attack, but as a lack of respect.” 

The broader issue here is that failed globalist open border policies from crazed leftists in Brussels are driving increasing odds for civil conflict as some of these migrants fail to assimilate and upend lives for natives. 

Hmmm. 

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Laws demanding internet users provide proof of age are sprouting up around the world.

In the United States, at least 24 states have already passed laws requiring pornography sites to verify users’ ages, according to the Age Verification Providers Association.

A handful of countries, including Germany, France, Australia, and Ireland, have implemented age verification to access specified content, from social media access to pornography.

At the end of July, the UK rolled out the most comprehensive national system so far.

How does age verification work in practice? What are the loopholes? And how might it reshape the internet? Here’s what the experts say.

How Age Checks Work in Practice

Age‑verification systems range from uploading a photo of an identification such as a driver’s license to advanced biometric scans.

The Age Verification Providers Association lists several approved methods for age checks, including mobile phone account verification, credit database matching, transactional records, and digital ID apps.

Some platforms ask users to upload a government‑issued ID, while others rely on mobile phone account data, banking or credit records, or digital ID apps to confirm age.

Increasingly, sites are turning to biometric solutions, such as facial analysis that estimates age from a selfie or a brief movement check.

Reddit, for example, uses the third‑party service Persona to verify either an ID or a live selfie, while Discord relies on k‑ID, which confirms age by analyzing facial movements. X combines internal account signals with optional ID checks.

Porn sites like Pornhub offer a mix of options, such as requiring a photo ID or running a credit card check before users can view sexually explicit material.

The Next 24 Months

Mary Ann Miller, vice president and fraud adviser at Prove, a digital identity verification platform, said that age verification will become more standard and required over the next 24 months.

Miller said that simpler methods include uploading a government-issued ID that is sometimes checked for authenticity or a selfie taken to ensure identity accuracy and that the person is alive.

“Other methods use solutions that leverage technology that uses the phone as a proxy for our identity since we have them with us ‘all the time’ and determine the assurance and trust of the person presenting information or attesting their age or attesting for a child’s age as part of parental consent,” she told The Epoch Times by email.

“Other methods include age estimation from facial recognition or other data sources.”

In terms of which methods are most reliable, Miller pointed to those that “can use passive techniques to determine identity assurance first, then age verification as part of an identity flow.”

Passive identity assurance techniques verify a user’s identity without requiring the user to actively perform actions—such as entering a password or scanning a fingerprint—by using data already available to infer age, including credit cards, IP addresses, or other information.

Businesses in the near future will have to overhaul their age‑verification systems to meet stricter standards, rather than relying on low‑accuracy or patchwork identity checks.

“What has taken many businesses by surprise is that when they try to apply age verification with low-accuracy identity checks or the absence of identity checks, they have to ‘go back to the drawing board’ on both aspects,” she said.

The Push for Biometric Verification

Biometric age estimation can be conducted using facial analysis.

Other methods include voice blueprints, gestures, and keystrokes (how you type). These methods are currently less well-developed than facial analysis but are progressing quickly.

Derek Jackson, chief operations officer and cofounder of Cyber Dive, a tech company founded with the mission of keeping children safe online, told The Epoch Times by email that facial biometrics are “newer but catching on quickly.”

“They estimate your age by analyzing your facial features, cheekbones, eye spacing, skin tone, in real time,“ Jackson said. ”Voice biometrics and keystroke patterns are even newer. They try to match your unique patterns, your voice pitch, how fast or slow you type to known age profiles.”

He said that facial recognition is growing quickly because “it’s simple, fast, and surprisingly effective.”

Privacy Risks and Skepticism

Users remain wary about sharing personal data online, especially government IDs or biometrics.

Denis Vyazovoy, chief product officer of AdGuard VPN, said that some platforms attempt to be more privacy-aware by, for example, not permanently storing selfies or ID documents or keeping data for just seven days.

“But even with such reassurances, trust is low,” he told The Epoch Times by email.

“Even though platforms claim that facial data or ID scans are not stored long-term, people remain wary, and rightfully so. The truth is, any method that requires biometric data, government ID, or sensitive financial information introduces serious privacy risks.”

The UK’s New Law

The UK’s Online Safety Act does not mandate a single method of age verification. The UK’s tech regulator Ofcom, which is in charge of policing the law, just requires companies to implement highly effective age assurances.

The law focuses on keeping under‑18s out of adult spaces but does not tell companies how to achieve this goal, leaving firms to choose their own verification systems as long as they are “highly effective.”

But failure to implement a system can result in financial penalties of up to 10 percent of a service’s qualifying worldwide revenue, or 18 million pounds ($23.9 million), whichever is greater. The Online Safety Act is a UK-specific law, but it affects U.S. and global companies with no legal presence in the country.

Read the rest here…

Netanyahu’s security cabinet has approved a plan to takeover the whole of the Gaza Strip, including intense operations in Gaza city, resulting in outrage among some European capitals, who see this as doubling down on the carnage which has left over 60,000 Palestinians dead, based on Gaza health sources.

Germany has announced itself as the latest European nation to suspend its arms exports to Israel, noting that these could be used in human rights violations and potential war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Berlin backs the anti-Hamas fight, however.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz made clear as Israel’s military is poised to take over Gaza city his government will not approve or transfer any exports of military equipment to Israel that could be used in Gaza until further notice.

Merz says it was “increasingly difficult to understand” how the Israeli military plan could achieve its war aims in a legitimate way, adding:

“Under these circumstances, the German government will not authorise any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice.”

The German arms industry has historically been among the globe’s largest arms suppliers to Israel. Of course, the US has long been far and away the biggist supplier of arms, and under Trump this doesn’t look to cease – with Germany coming in second, according to global monitors, over the last half-decade.

“Israel has the right to defend itself against the terror of Hamas,” Merz continued in his statement. “The release of the hostages and determined negotiations on a ceasefire are our top priority. The disarmament of Hamas is essential. Hamas must not play a role in the future of Gaza.“

But apparently Merz vehemently disagress with the practical how in terms of the methods whereby this is accomplished. Global critics have said Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing and ultimately plans to annex the strip.

PM Netanyahu has sought to deflect this criticism by saying Israel will conquer the whole enclave, but that it doesn’t ultimatley want to govern it. This vaguely suggests it could be handed over to an entity like the Palestinian Authority (PA) one day, but likely this would be done (or not done at all) by a future Israeli government.

Shekel Falls After Cabinet Approves Plan to Seize Gaza City–Bloomberg

Meanwhile other major powers like China are raising the alarm over Israel’s takeover plan, with China on Friday expressing “serious concerns” over the move on Gaza City, urging it to “immediately cease its dangerous actions.”

Now its getting real.

Germany going beyond statements and blocking weapons exports to Israel.

Source: Bundesregierung
https://t.co/rGTCNkDLzd pic.twitter.com/J8frsDOA9R

— Latika M Bourke (@latikambourke) August 8, 2025

“Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people and is an inseparable part of Palestinian territory,” a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson told the AFP. “The correct way to ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and to secure the release of hostages is an immediate ceasefire.”

“A complete resolution to the Gaza conflict hinges on a ceasefire; only then can a path to de-escalation be paved and regional security ensured,” the Chinese government statement said. Beijing is “willing to work together with the international community to help end the fighting in Gaza as soon as possible,” it added.

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump will host the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan on Aug. 8 at the White House to sign a joint declaration ending four decades of hostility between the two nations.

The accord also launches the “Trump Route,” a new transport corridor aimed at unlocking the region’s commercial potential, the White House said.

During the meeting, the two countries will sign a joint declaration formalizing the agreement and establishing the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” or TRIPP, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told reporters during a call previewing the meeting.

“By locking in this path to peace, we are unlocking the great potential of the South Caucasus region in trade, transit, and energy flows,” Kelly said.

Trump will also sign bilateral agreements with both countries that “span energy, technology, economic cooperation, border security, infrastructure, and trade,” she added.

The new route will be a multimodal transit corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, enhancing regional trade routes.

The new route will allow goods to be moved from not just the Caucasus but also Central Asia without transiting through Russia, Iran, or China, according to the White House.

“What President Trump has done is he’s taken the politics out of the picture and made common sense prevail,” a senior White House official said during the call.

“What this will do for American businesses, and frankly, for energy resources across Europe, will be enormously powerful.

“The losers here are China, Russia, and Iran. The winners here are the West.”

Azerbaijan has long sought a transport corridor through Armenia to connect its main territory with Nakhchivan bordering Turkey. Under the agreement to be signed on Friday, Armenia will grant the United States exclusive long-term development rights to build a route through the southern part of Armenia.

The U.S. government plans to delegate the project to a consortium to handle both infrastructure and management.

The official said that Trump is going to sign on Aug. 8 a directive to “set up a TRIPP negotiating team” with talks expected to start “in the middle of next week.”

The official noted that since the announcement yesterday morning, they had received calls from nine potential operators, including three American companies.

“We’re going to get everybody around the table. We’re going to find the most first-class operating system,” the official said.

In a Truth Social post on Aug. 7, Trump announced that he’d be hosting Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan for a “Historic Peace Summit” at the White House on Friday.

“These two Nations have been at War for many years, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Many Leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now,” Trump said, adding that his administration has been “engaged with both sides for quite some time.”

The two nations have engaged in cross-border conflicts since the late 1980s.

Early this year, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff traveled to Azerbaijan and met with Aliyev. From February through mid-April, U.S. officials expressed significant concern about the potential for renewed hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Following Witkoff’s trip, a U.S. team conducted a series of five additional visits to the region, traveling between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

During the meeting, the countries will also sign a joint letter officially requesting the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, to dissolve the “no longer relevant Minsk Group,” according to the White House.

The group, co-chaired by France, Russia, and the United States, was created in 1992 to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno–Karabakh conflict.

Authored by ‘Shinobi’ via BitcoinMagazine.com,

This week’s guilty verdict for Roman Storm on the count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money service business is absolutely insane. 

FinCEN, the regulator responsible for licensing, monitoring, and enforcement actions concerning criminal activity in money transmission has itself explicitly stated that self-custodial tooling that facilitates the transmission of value using cryptocurrencies are not money transmitters and are not subject to the relevant regulations.

So, how did we get here? Eight months after the election of a president who describes himself as a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency advocate, after the Department of Justice themselves have explicitly stated that they are not going to engage in regulation by prosecution, or prosecute mixing services, how was Roman Storm found guilty?

There is nothing to describe this situation except pure, unbridled insanity. Incoherence. Hypocrisy and contradiction. There is a lesson here, though, one that I think it’s time more people in this space learn. 

The government’s word is worthless. It means nothing. 

They will continue cracking down on privacy, they will continue pushing KYC surveillance through things like the GENIUS Act and through the backdoor, applying them to just stablecoins (for now). They will continue treating the desire for privacy as evidence of criminal intent. They will do all these things while talking out of the other side of their mouth about supporting Bitcoiners and the “importance of self custody.” 

This is what the government does. This is what politicians do. It is inherent in their very nature. 

We need to stop treating these people as our friends. We need to stop pretending and lying to ourselves that they can be won over and become powerful allies to push the values and tools that we wish to see in the world. They are not our friends. They will not become allies, sharing a common cause with us. They are our enemies. 

It is time to stop pretending. These people must be treated as hostile, and dealt with as such. 

We need to stop begging them for clauses and riders in bills. We need to take them to court. We need to stop kissing their ass and pandering to their egos and notion of public persona. We need to call them out as the two-faced spineless people they are. 

If there is any legitimacy whatsoever to the legal foundations of the United States government, we do not need new laws, we do not need these people’s permission — we have the Constitution. Remind them of that in court. 

If, at the end of all of that, this system is so corrupt and hypocritical that it functionally ignores the constitutional rights of Americans (and non-Americans), then we need to ignore them.

Civil disobedience is the last mechanism we have to hold the government accountable to the foundational constraints they are built upon short of violence. It is time to use it. 

Free human beings do not ask for their freedom; they take it. In a digital age creeping ever closer to Orwellian totalitarianism, that is the only way you will ever attain it.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday asked a federal court to unseal grand jury exhibits from the investigations into sex traffickers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In a submission to U.S. District Judge Richard Berman and fellow U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, the DOJ said it wants grand jury exhibits in the two cases unsealed with redactions to keep the identities of their victims private.

Earlier this week, the DOJ asked the judges to unseal grand jury transcripts in order to compare those documents with the public record.

“As there are parties whose names appear in the grand jury exhibits but did not appear in the grand jury transcripts, the Government is undertaking to notify such parties to the extent their names appear in grand jury exhibits that were not publicly admitted at the Maxwell trial (and they were not already notified in connection with the request to unseal the grand jury transcripts),” the Justice Department’s attorneys wrote.

The latest request relates to the 2019 criminal case that was brought against Epstein, which was later dropped after he was found dead in a New York City jail cell, as well as the criminal case against Maxwell.

She was convicted on child sex trafficking charges in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in a federal facility.

Friday’s filing by the government also said that some of the evidence in the Epstein and Maxwell cases may overlap with exhibits that were released to the public when Maxwell went on trial.

Also, the DOJ said that it will later submit sealed submissions to clarify what sections of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury exhibits have already been made available to the public. The government has also compared the exhibits against the trial record and civil complaints that were filed by certain victims, the court filing said.

It’s not clear what the exhibits may include or when they could be unsealed.

The Epstein grand jury met twice in 2019, on June 18 and July 2 of that year, the DOJ letter said on Aug. 4. Meanwhile, the Maxwell grand jury met three times, on June 29 and July 8 of 2020, and on March 29, 2021, according to the letter.

That letter had also asked for the release of the five grand jury transcripts and told the judges that the DOJ may also request the unsealing of grand jury exhibits. The agency said it wants several more days to craft arguments for that request.

Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.

Previously, in 2008, Epstein was sentenced to 13 months in work custody for procuring a child for prostitution and sex trafficking.

The Social Security trust funds are projected to run out about six months earlier than previously estimated, according to a new analysis from the program’s chief actuary.

Letters sent on Aug. 5 to Sen. Ron Wyden (D‑Ore.) and Rep. Steven Horsford (D‑Nev.) say the combined Old‑Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds are now expected to be depleted in the first quarter of 2034, rather than the third quarter of that year as in the most recent trustees’ report.

The 2025 trustees’ report, released in June, had already moved up the combined depletion date by one year—from 2035 in the prior report to 2034—reflecting worsening demographics and legislative changes.

Under the new analysis carried out in response to requests from Wyden and Horsford, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act accelerates that timeline further by about six months.

As Tom Ozimek reports for The Epoch Times, the actuary’s letter attributes the earlier depletion to income‑tax provisions in the law, which make lower tax rates enacted in 2017 permanent and temporarily expand deductions for older Americans.

It estimates the changes will reduce revenue from taxing Social Security benefits and increase program costs by about $168.6 billion through 2034, worsening the program’s 75‑year actuarial deficit from 3.82 percent to 3.98 percent of taxable payroll.

When viewed separately, the OASI fund—which pays retirement and survivor benefits—is now forecast to run dry in the fourth quarter of 2032, roughly three months earlier than the previous estimate of the first quarter of 2033.

The DI fund, by contrast, remains solvent through the end of the 75-year forecast window. However, because the two funds are often assessed together to reflect total benefit obligations, the combined reserves are still expected to be exhausted by early 2034.

The actuary’s office said the analysis covers only the tax‑related provisions and will serve as a baseline for the 2026 trustees’ report, which will incorporate updated data and assumptions. In particular, the forthcoming trustees’ report will also include proposals intended to extend the solvency of Social Security.

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the actuary’s findings confirm earlier warnings that recent Republican tax and spending policies are straining the program.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has said its tax policy will stimulate economic growth and expand the tax base, mitigating the fiscal effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act without raising tax rates.

A White House Council of Economic Advisers paper from May stated that the permanent extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and business incentives in the bill would boost capital investment, wages, and job growth, strengthening government revenue streams over time.

Proposals to Shore Up the Program

Democrats have largely focused on raising payroll taxes for higher earners to close the funding gap. The Social Security tax currently applies to 6.2 percent of wages up to $176,100 in 2025, and income above that level is exempt. The wage base is adjusted annually for inflation by the Social Security Administration.

A proposal introduced in 2023 by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D‑Mass.)—known as the Social Security Expansion Act—would apply the tax to earnings above $250,000 and boost benefits for some groups. Proponents say the measure would keep the program solvent through 2096, though conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation say that it would amount to one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history and risk broader economic harm.

Republican plans have taken a different approach, focusing on changes to benefits and eligibility rather than new taxes. A blueprint released last spring by the Republican Study Committee—the largest group of conservatives in the House—called for gradually raising the retirement age, adjusting benefit formulas, and limiting certain spousal and dependent benefits for high‑income retirees.

Some analysts, such as those at Brookings, have suggested that any lasting fix will likely require a mix of tax increases and benefit adjustments, phased in gradually to give workers and retirees time to plan. They note that previous solvency deals, such as the 1983 reforms, combined measures from both parties to extend the program’s life for decades.

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: Today, we’ll explore some of the most common criticisms of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

Imagine two tribes. One is cohesive and tightly knit. The other promotes hyper-individualism. Which is likely to win in a conflict?

Doug Casey: There’s nothing wrong with forming cohesive groups. Humans have always been tribal because it’s conducive to survival. Many hands make light work. And specialization and division of labor—which is critical for progress—is only possible with a group. The problem is whether the group is voluntary or coercive in nature.

And you’re right. In a war, the tribe structured like a military unit has some advantages over a loose group of rugged individualists. But its only advantage is in war, which is something to be avoided at almost any cost. Why, then, do humans usually default to collectivism instead of libertarianism?

Unfortunately, the institution of the family, which is the foundation of society, inadvertently sets a bad example. That’s because the family—by its very nature—is authoritarian and socialistic. The parents call the shots and provide free food and shelter, while the kids get into the habit early of having things provided for them. They give according to their ability and receive according to their needs, a Marxist ideal. So perhaps the family, which is a good thing, paradoxically gets people off on the wrong foot.

Worse, in the real world, the arguments for liberty and individualism are all intellectual. They’re logical, they make sense—but most people don’t reason. The average person doesn’t live in an intellectual world; he lives in an emotional world. He acts according to what he feels, not what he thinks. He does what feels right without thinking about the consequences—even the immediate and direct ones, let alone the indirect and delayed ones. Reason is often used to justify emotions.

Those are two major reasons—and there are lots of others—why socialism has more appeal than capitalism, not to mention libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

The socialistic habits we learn with the family are reinforced by emotions, feelings, and, oftentimes, irrational assumptions. Unlike libertarianism, socialism promises something for nothing, the prospect of automatic security, and a perpetual free lunch. Socialism sounds better to those who haven’t got critical thinking skills. That’s a real problem, and a cause for pessimism about the future of humanity.

The problem is compounded by the nature of politics, which brings out the worst in people. When you’re trying to influence “the masses,” emotion works 100 times better than reason. Worse yet, the people who are drawn to politics want power and want to manipulate others. Politics naturally attracts criminal personalities.

It’s almost genetically guaranteed that individualists, AnCaps, and libertarians have the odds stacked against them.

International Man: How, then, do you respond to critics who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are impractical, utopian fantasies?

Doug Casey: Well, you can look at this from two points of view—the practical and the moral.

In primitive times, it was possible for a central power to dictate how much food would cost, how much laborers would be paid, and what the rules were in every area of life. It was counterproductive, but it was possible because things were very simple, unlike today’s world, with billions of people and trillions of transactions taking place every day. However, central authorities and socialism are at odds with a technological society. Collectivism is unworkable on any scale larger than a family, as the Soviets and the Maoists proved. It turned out that, in the real world, communism was the utopian fantasy.

More importantly, any system other than radical libertarianism is immoral. I won’t discuss property rights at length here, but suffice it to say that your primary possession is your own body. And why should anybody else have a right to tell you what you must or must not do with your own body? That includes how you use it, what you ingest, what you think, what you say, and how you use your other possessions. Every person is a sovereign being.

Unfortunately, humans’ innate character flaws and ingrained psychological tendencies cause them to do self-destructive things like trying to replicate the family on a giant scale, by creating the institution of the State.

International Man: How do you respond to those who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are, at best, irrelevant? And at worst, tools used by powerful interests to atomize individuals, making them easier to control and dominate?

Doug Casey: Politicians are disinclined to treat people as individuals. They try to control and dominate by forcing individuals to become parts of a collective.

Some say libertarianism is irrelevant because so few people understand its principles. And even if they do understand them, they don’t put them into effect.

But libertarianism cyclically expands and contracts. For instance, the reason that America was unique in world history is that it was the first country ever founded on the principles of libertarianism. And those principles are responsible for its immense success. But over America’s history, sometimes those principles grow, and sometimes they fade.

Libertarianism is basically a belief in the non-aggression principle and the limiting of force. Anarcho-capitalism goes beyond libertarianism because it doesn’t believe in the existence of the State as an entity, as an institution. And 50 years ago, the term “anarcho-capitalism” didn’t even exist. Now it’s widely discussed. The president of Argentina is an anarcho-capitalist, and the country is being radically transformed.

Speaking as an Ancap myself, I’d like to see not just 200, but eight billion sovereign nations in the world. The key is to develop institutions and accepted ways of thinking that emphasize cooperation, not coercion, in everything.

International Man: Many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that fully privatizing all property would effectively solve the migrant and border issue.

Critics, however, say this vision is unrealistic and not a serious solution, claiming it ultimately serves as cover for open-border advocacy and worsens the situation in practice.

How do you respond to that criticism?

Doug Casey: Moving the U.S. toward pure libertarianism—anarcho-capitalism—is by far the best solution to the border issue. Much better than walls and border guards checking to see if “your papers are in order.” If 100% of the U.S. were privately owned, with no exceptions, it would be up to the owner of that property to decide whether any given person or group could use it or trespass on it.

The real problem is the welfare systems of the U.S. In the 19th century, there was immense immigration to the U.S. But there was zero government support. Arrivals were immediately responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves—or they would, frankly, starve. Immigrants knew that. As a result, the U.S. drew the best and most enterprising people.

Today, however, migrants are quite aware of the immense welfare systems available at the local, State, and national levels, in addition to what’s provided by NGOs, which are basically maintained with tax dollars, directly or indirectly. There are networks that actively facilitate the travel and upkeep of the migrants. If welfare were abolished, we wouldn’t draw these kinds of people. The argument can be made that George Soros might use his billions to purposely import them to property that he owns. But there they would have to stay; it’s a straw man argument.

Without a government to support them, migrants would be discouraged. Of course, they could steal for a living. But thieves could expect to be treated harshly, perhaps with extreme prejudice.

Ultimately, you can’t keep people from coming or going. And why should you? Groups have migrated throughout world history. But the best way to maintain stability is with 100% private property, not a reliance on political gimmicks. Politicians can be corrupted and bribed. In fact, that’s why many get into politics. Ancaps rely on the market, not politicos, bureaucrats, and storm troopers, to maintain stability.

International Man: Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism emphasize individual liberty and voluntary exchange, but critics argue they offer little guidance on deeper ethical or moral responsibilities beyond the non-aggression principle.

How do you see these philosophies addressing complicated questions of ethics and morality in real-world situations?

Doug Casey: Ancaps don’t intend to address issues of ethics and morality. Those things are settled by religion and philosophy. Libertarianism and ancapism are mainly concerned with how society can best protect itself from the initiation of force and fraud. It doesn’t really matter what philosophy or religion individuals are partial to, as long as they don’t initiate violence against each other.

Remember, there are just two rules: Do all that you say you’re going to do, and don’t impinge upon other people or their property. With only two laws, you don’t need a legislature. And ignorance of the law is truly no excuse.

Beyond that, you can believe or do whatever you’d like. The fact of the matter is that birds of a feather naturally flock together. People form into groups based on whatever is important to them. For some, it’s their race. For some, it’s their religion. For some, it’s their way of thinking. None of that matters as long as they don’t aggress against other individuals or other groups.

There’s much more to be said about these things. I urge you to read “The Market for Liberty.” It’s a very short book. But one that can totally change how you see the world.

*  *  *

Economic turmoil isn’t a question of if—but when. Most will panic. The prepared will not only survive but come out ahead. We’ve put together a free special report revealing practical steps to protect your assets, secure your lifestyle, and uncover opportunities that emerge when the system breaks down. Download your Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse now—free of charge.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ Food Price Index, a global benchmark for food commodity prices, registered its highest level since early 2023 in July. This marks a notable inflection point after a multi-year downward trend that followed the Covid and Russia-Ukraine war price spikes. 

The FAO Food Price Index averaged 130.1 in July, up 1.6% from June, driven primarily by sharp increases in meat and vegetable oil prices.

“The index tracks monthly changes in the international prices of a set of globally traded food commodities. In July, price increases in the meat and vegetable oil indices more than offset declines in the cereal, dairy and sugar indices,” FAO wrote in its monthly report. 

The FAO Food Price Index has undergone a significant reversal since bottoming out in early 2024, following a downturn after the price spikes during Covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is now at its highest level since February 2023, up 43% from its early Covid-era lows, and will likely remain elevated into next year.

Here’s a summary of the report:

• Headline Index: Averaged 130.1 (+1.6% MoM), driven by meat and vegetable oils. Still 18.8% below the March 2022 peak but 7.6% above July 2024.

• Cereals (106.5, -0.8% MoM): Wheat & sorghum prices fell on new harvests; maize & barley rose. Rice (-1.8%) declined on ample supply and weak demand.

• Vegetable Oils (166.8, +7.1% MoM): 3-year high. Palm oil up on strong demand; soy oil supported by biofuel sector; sunflower oil higher on Black Sea supply tightness; rapeseed oil down on new EU crop.

• Meat (127.3, +1.2% MoM): Record high. Bovine & ovine prices surged on China/U.S. demand; poultry edged higher as Brazil regained AI-free status; pig meat fell on oversupply & weak EU demand.

• Dairy (155.3, -0.1% MoM): First drop since April 2024. Butter & milk powders down on abundant supply; cheese prices up on strong Asia/Near East demand & tighter EU exports.

• Sugar (103.3, -0.2% MoM): Fifth monthly decline on expectations of 2025/26 production rebound (Brazil, India, Thailand), partly offset by recovering import demand. 

Last month’s uptick signals increasing price momentum in global food markets. While the index remains well below its 160 peak in 2022, sustained upward pressure in global food prices could reignite inflationary pressures. 

Implications:

• Fragile States: A renewed price surge could spark food insecurity and social unrest in low-income, import-dependent nations.

In the U.S., the Trump administration needs to place a larger emphasis on strengthening local food supply chains to mitigate external supply shocks. That means know your local rancher and farmer, as well as make plans for a backyard garden and chicken coop.

Readers have been well-informed about this inflection point…

Related:

• Global Food Prices Climb Toward Arab Spring-Era Highs Amid Trade War Turmoil

• Global Food Prices Are Creeping Up Again

. . .