Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Andrej Babiš’s ANO, SPD, STAČILO! and others vow to protect the Czech crown, while business leaders and government coalition partners push for the adoption of the euro…

Czechia’s possible adoption of the euro in the future may emerge as an issue in the upcoming parliamentary elections this October.

While most parties in the current governing coalition have expressed support for adopting the common European currency, the opposition ANO movement — widely expected to win the largest share of the vote — remains firmly opposed.

ANO leader Andrej Babiš has repeatedly dismissed the euro as economically dangerous and politically unwise. “I do not support it,” he said bluntly, warning that if the current coalition retained power, “they will introduce the euro.”

He argued that adopting the euro would lead to higher prices and force Czechia to take on the financial liabilities of heavily indebted eurozone members. Instead, he advocates keeping the Czech crown, following the example of wealthy non-euro EU states such as Denmark and Sweden.

Czechia committed to adopting the euro when it joined the European Union in 2004, but remains one of only three countries from that enlargement round — alongside Poland and Hungary — that have yet to join.

Other opposition parties are similarly critical. Kateřina Konečná of the far-left STAČILO! movement said, “The euro means higher prices,” citing Croatia’s experience. “I am against giving up the Czech crown, which would, among other things, give up another part of our sovereignty.” Her party has called for any future decision to be made by referendum.

The populist Motorists, led by Petr Macinka, and the right-wing SPD under Tomio Okamura also reject euro adoption.

“We would be giving up another part of our sovereignty and submitting even more to Brussels,” said Macinka. Okamura’s SPD warned of a forced sharing of debt burdens with large Western states and added, “The Czech crown is also a national symbol.”

The fledgling Motorists are seen as a possible coalition partner for Babiš’s ANO should the parliamentary arithmetic not allow it to govern on its own; however, such an alliance would be subject to the party reaching the threshold to enter parliament. Okamura’s SPD is less likely to be seen as a viable partner, given its more hardline approach, but it is not impossible.

While political resistance remains strong among right-leaning and nationalist parties, much of the current government coalition takes the opposite view.

STAN leader and Deputy Prime Minister Vít Rakušan has declared, “The Czech Republic should adopt the euro as soon as possible,” calling for a parallel public education campaign to dispel what he termed myths about the currency.

Pirates vice-chairman Zdeněk Hřib also supports swift adoption, claiming it would boost economic stability, strengthen Europe, and save the state up to 30 billion crowns annually in debt servicing costs.

Prime Minister Petr Fiala has struck a more cautious tone, acknowledging that the Czech Republic now meets key Maastricht criteria but warning that public opposition remains too high.

“Majority public support is key to the decision to launch the process of adopting the euro,” he said.

“This condition has not yet been met.”

A Median poll from early 2024 found that more than two-thirds of Czechs believed adopting the euro would not be beneficial, with three in five wanting a referendum on the issue. Students and entrepreneurs were somewhat more supportive, with 45 percent and 40 percent backing the euro, respectively.

This heavily contrasts with support among businesses, with a PwC survey showing nearly 70 percent of CEOs see euro adoption as beneficial to their companies, citing savings on transaction costs, elimination of exchange rate risks, and greater investor confidence. “Seven out of ten bosses convinced of the positive impact of the euro on their company is already a very strong signal sent to the new government,” said PwC partner Jan Brázda.

Read more here…

Among all the painfully leftist governments in Europe the leadership of Spain is often cited as the worst.  In 2023, Ipsos published a report conducted in collaboration with King’s College London and The Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, indicating that Spain is the European country with the highest level of “self-identified feminists” and a strong “awareness of gender inequality”.  In other words, the country is doomed to suffocate from the stupidity of far-left politics.

This includes dangerous progressive immigration policies, with Spain being overrun by third-world migrants in the past several years.  The majority of migrants are Muslim, come from North Africa and enter illegally from Morocco.   

The problem has been compared to an engineered foreign invasion with leftist/globalist leaders pulling the strings in the name of “multiculturalism”.  If the goal is to create a Utopian society where everyone gets along and respects every other culture equally, then the project has failed miserably and should be abandoned.  If, however, the goal is to destroy western civilization through demographic sabotage, then the project is enjoying wild success (and should still be abandoned). 

Spanish citizens have dealt with years of expanding criminal activity and violence due to migrants – The majority of them tend to be military age males from Islamic nations in North Africa and they have shown no intention of assimilating into Europeans societies.  These migrants have formed numerous street gangs in Spanish cities, committing theft, muggings, beatings and rape while openly wielding knives and machetes.  Since 2019 Spain has seen a 35% increase in knife crimes. 

The “cultural enrichers” commonly record and proudly post their attacks on social media.  This includes a recent mob assault of an elderly Spanish man named Domingo Tomás Domínguez that ended with severe injuries and hospitalization.

🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸

North Africans attack elderly Spanish man…

Many Spanish retaliate…👇⚡️ pic.twitter.com/lQxDMx42hv

— ‘Seeing is believing’ (@dave24144975) July 12, 2025

Such crimes are rarely reported in the international media and quietly buried by the Spanish government.  Leftist activists in Spain fully support the invasion and malign anyone who dares to criticize the lack of immigration enforcement.  The country is so rife with fear, citizens complain that attacks in the streets are ignored by witnesses. They walk away and let victims fend for themselves.

The media refuses to cover immigrant crime with any honesty, but they do jump to the ready when conservative groups try to do something about it.  Citizen riots have exploded in Spain this week after the attack on Dominguez, with the media admonishing the “far-right violence” as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. 

The propaganda on display here is astonishingly vile.  No mention of the years of assaults committed by migrants in the country and the only people being punished are “right wing” protesters reacting to the crimes.  

The goal of Islamic fundamentalists in Europe is to subdue and conquer; what they call “Soft Jihad”.  Just look at how they responded when France banned Muslim face coverings.

Palestinian Muslim scholar:

“Europeans are lowlifes and a civilization of prostitutes, promiscuity, and homosexuality.

We will conquer Paris and Rome and rule Europe with Islam.”

And the useful idiots in the West protest daily in support of these people! pic.twitter.com/TYOjaoJ2ZB

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) April 14, 2025

We witnessed similar events in England:  Native citizens rioted after years of migrant attacks and child grooming gangs, culminating in the murder of three young girls by a teen criminal of migrant descent (Axel Rudakubana) at a children’s dance recital.  Instead of addressing legitimate concerns over third world immigration, the British authorities cracked down on the protesters, including free speech online.  They have jailed numerous citizens for “hate crimes” simply for speaking out on the migrant problem.  

Conservative commentators suggest that the conditions are so intolerable that civil war is a foregone conclusion.  Multiculturalism is a vicious ideology that seeks to snuff out dissent and ravage western societies.  It’s unlikely that the situation will end peacefully.    

Authored by Lika Kobeshavidza via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Europe’s free university model is often seen as a triumph of modern society. With no crushing tuition bills, minimal student debt, and a promise of equal access, it sounds ideal. In countries like Germany and France, students pay only a small administrative fee, typically between $200 and $500 a year, compared to the staggering tuition costs in the US or UK. Many also receive financial aid in the form of grants that don’t need to be repaid, or low-interest loans based on need.

But behind the promises of fairness and opportunity lies a system that too often feels rigid, overcrowded, and uninspiring.

For all its accessibility, the reality of navigating these institutions can leave students feeling like just another number in a giant, bureaucratic machine.

When education is available to everyone, universities become packed. Lecture halls overflow, and personal contact with professors becomes rare. In many European countries, it is normal to attend classes with hundreds of other students. There is little space for discussion, feedback, or even questions.

You sit, you take notes, you pass or fail. It feels more like an assembly line than a place for learning. And the numbers explain why. In 2022, the European Union had 18.8 million students, about 7 percent of its total population, enrolled in tertiary education. In the United States, about 19.1 million people were enrolled in college during the 2024–25 academic year. In addition to similar enrollment figures, both the EU and the US have made higher education widely accessible. In the EU, where tuition is often free or heavily subsidized, higher education has been expanded to accommodate the majority. As of 2022, 44 percent of EU citizens aged 25–34 had completed a tertiary degree, compared to 50 percent in the US.

The two systems differ in structure. What sets these systems apart is not the number of students, but how education is delivered. European universities tend to rely on large lectures, rigid course pathways, and limited institutional competition. The result is a model built for efficiency over individualization. US institutions, by contrast, operate in a competitive, decentralized environment with a wider range of academic structures, including smaller colleges and more flexible program design.

When higher education is scaled to serve nearly everyone, as in much of Europe, it risks trading depth for throughput and personalization for administrative convenience. It works, but at the cost of treating education less as a journey and more as a bureaucratic process.

Because of this scale, the system relies heavily on standardization. Programs are designed to fit the needs of the majority, which means they often leave no room for those who think or learn differently. This rigidity doesn’t start at the university gate. In countries like Germany and France, students are tracked into academic or vocational pathways as early as age 11 or 12. If you’re not placed on the right path then, your chances of accessing university later can shrink dramatically. So by the time students enter higher education, they’ve already been funneled through a system that limits personal growth, experimentation, and second chances.

This rigidity produces something deeper than just frustration. It creates a culture of conformity. Students are expected to follow the official path, finish on time, and not make too much noise. Failing or taking longer to graduate is seen as a weakness, even though trial and error is essential to genuine learning. The idea of exploring different disciplines or pausing to reflect is rarely encouraged. Success is measured by how efficiently you complete the program, not by how much you discover about yourself or the world.

As a result, creativity gets lost. Students who want to take risks, try new things, or ask uncomfortable questions end up finding little support. Professors often lack time to mentor individuals. Students have limited choice in what they study or how they approach it. In this system, the goal is not to inspire but to produce.

Now compare this with systems where competition and choice are more central. In the United States, students can design their own majors, switch fields, or even take time off without penalty. In the UK, universities compete for students, pushing them to offer more innovative programs and better teaching. These models are far from perfect, especially when it comes to cost. But they often offer more room for personal growth, independent thinking, and academic freedom.

This is not a call to bring back high tuition fees. Education should be accessible. But accessibility alone does not guarantee quality. Europe’s model often gives up flexibility for access. It is built to serve everyone the same way, which means it struggles to serve anyone exceptionally well.

This wasn’t always the case. As European universities opened their doors to the masses in the 20th century, the need for efficiency led to rigid structures and standardized curricula. What was once a system for a privileged few became an assembly line for millions. To put it in context for American readers: most European students pay less than $500 a year in tuition. In comparison, while private US colleges average over $38,000 annually, the majority of American students attend more affordable institutions with in-state tuition at public universities averaging around $10,000, and community colleges around $3,000.

Take Sweden, for example. Many students do not start university until their mid-twenties, partly because the system offers little incentive to start earlier. Once enrolled, academic paths are narrow, and changing direction is difficult.

In Italy, students often remain in university for many years. Not because they are overly curious or passionate, but because the system is outdated and slow. Dropout rates are high, and degrees can carry little weight in the job market.

And in France, some of the most respected schools aren’t part of the public university system at all. The Grandes Écoles charge tuition, are more selective, and offer more personalized education. Ironically, they are considered better precisely because they do not follow the free-for-all model.

The truth is that real educational freedom means more than removing tuition fees. It means allowing students to explore, fail, change, and find their own way. It means encouraging innovation and rewarding curiosity. And yes, it means allowing systems to compete and evolve.

Europe’s education system is something to be proud of. But pride should not prevent reform. We need to ask harder questions. Are we building institutions that truly serve students, or just creating machines that treat everyone the same?

If education is meant to prepare people for the future, then we must make sure our systems are flexible enough to grow with them. When you force everyone into the same mold, you risk crushing the very thing that makes education powerful: the ability to think differently.

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

This is it. The ruling classes of the Empire of Chaos, plus the current, clownish Circus Ringmaster have finally realized that BRICS is a serious strategic threat – and existential challenge – to their unilateral domination of the current system of international relations.

They didn’t come to this conclusion by carefully scrutinizing the BRICS annual summit in Rio – or last year’s ground-breaking summit in Kazan for that matter: they are lousy at doing basic homework.

It’s more like they were awakened from their torpor by feeling in their skins which way the – global – wind is blowing, in terms of all sorts of models being tested to bypass the U.S. dollar and the iron-clad control of the Bretton Woods institutions.

The conclusion was inescapable: BRICS have crossed the ultimate red line. No more Mr. Nice Guy talk shop. The 130-plus point Rio declaration, released at the first day of the summit, spells it out, politely but decisively: this is what we are, a systemic alternative; and we’re going to write the rules of the new system our way.

Building the Geopolitics of Sovereignty

BRICS 2025 in Rio was a stunning surprise. Expectations initially were low – when comparing the meek Brazilian presidency with the extraordinary amount of work put out by Russia in 2024 leading to Kazan.

Yet in the end Rio coalesced what Kazan had announced: the new, rising system will be all about sovereignty, equality, and fairness – with emphasis on continental-wide economic integration; trade in national currencies; an expanded role for new global financial institutions such as the NDB (the BRICS bank); and myriad platforms for sustainable development.

A Geopolitics of Sovereignty has to be structurally constructed: the iron and cement for the new system will come from a new interconnection of trade in national currencies, independent payment/settlement systems, and new investment platforms.

Geo-economically, BRICS is already on a roll. A quick glance of a map of Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia, will suffice to convey the existing and emerging interconnection of connectivity, logistics and supply chain corridors. Across BRICS lands, those tie up energy sources, rare earth deposits, and a wealth of agricultural commodities.

To quote the Godfather of Soul James Bown, Papa’s got a brand new (BRICS) bag.

Hence it’s no wonder that a tawdry incarnation of the White Man’s Burden, the Circus Ringmaster, has unleashed Full War on BRICS and its partners – from threats to tariffs, complete with a previous death certificate (at the time he was even more clueless on what BRICS is all about).

The serial Trump Tariff Temper Tantrum (TTT) is of course another manifestation of Divide and Rule, trying to blow up BRICS from the inside. And now we’re up several notches, with a trademark childish letter threatening 50% tariffs on all Made in Brazil products exported to the U.S. – plus extra “sectoral” tariffs.

And yet this has nothing to do with trade. Over the past 15 years, the U.S. trade surplus with Brazil is over a hefty $400 billion. Some Trump 2.0 underling should have whispered that number into his boss’s ear.

But even if they did, that’s irrelevant. Because the latest gimmick actually constitutes a crass foreign interference in another nation’s domestic politics and upcomig presidential race, illegal and predictably once again making a mockery of international law.

The Circus Ringmaster started by hollering in his posts that the Lula government – and the independent Brazilian judicial system – had been involved in a witch hunt against his buddy, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is being legally prosecuted under charges of staging a coup to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential election and prevent Lula from taking power.

It was up to not so smooth operator Steve Bannon to give the whole tawdry game away: if you ditch the prosecution of Bolsonaro, we ditch the 50% tariffs.

President Lula’s response has been measured, but firm: “Brazil’s trade with the U.S. makes up just 1.7% of our GDP. You can’t call these figures vital (…) We will look for other partners“.

Of course it will be very tough. A 50% tariff is like a deadly hurricane. Example: Brazil is the largest global exporter of orange juice. 95% of indigenous production is exported, nearly half to the U.S. It will take some time and lot of hard work to find “other partners”. The solution may lie across BRICS lands. In time, there should be plenty of candidates for top Brazilian exports such as oil, steel, iron, planes and parts, coffee, timber, meat and soy.

Unionizing every exporter in the world against U.S. importers

In parallel, the top two BRICS actors, China and Russia – both already under zillions of sanctions (Russia) and trade tariffs (China) – see the Trump TTT as a spectacular opportuniy ahead for undermining even faster the unilateral U.S. grip on trade and currency systems.

The war on BRICS has gone up to the next level, now that Russia, China, Iran and Brazil are all confirmed – illegitimate – targets. It’s up to this Sri Lanka viewpoint to delightfully summarize the stakes:

“Trump has effectively unionized every exporter in the world against American importers.” It comes down to a quite simple equation: “If you tariff one person, more power to you. But it you tariff everyone, more power to us.”

“More power to us” translates into BRICS and the wider Global South perfectly aware there’s no way out except full steam ahead for the BRICS project, culminating in full de-dollarization. From Kazan to Rio and beyond, it’s now also clear that out of control TTT will target any nation or partner that aligns with “anti-American” BRICS.

You want war? Bring it on.

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

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, one of the nation’s most successful business owners, shocked CNBC hosts Tuesday by declaring that he is now completely in awe of President Trump.

Langone, who last year stated that he wouldn’t vote for Trump proclaimed “I am sold on Trump … I think he’s got a good shot at going down in history as one of our best presidents ever.”

The stunned CNBC host noted “That is a REAL turnaround, because you didn’t want to vote for him!”

🚨 BREAKING: In a stunning turnaround, the founder of HOME DEPOT, who did not want to vote for President Trump, is shocking the business world.

He also opposed tariffs.

Now?

“I am SOLD on Trump.”

“I think he’s got a good shot at going down in history as one of our best… pic.twitter.com/wH8gbimR7Z

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 15, 2025

“I’ll tell you the reason…I’m a believer. What I’m seeing happening is absolutely nothing short of a great thing,” Langone responded.

He further urged, “And there’s a beat. People are walking with more bounce…I think this guy is turning out to be a [great] president.”

Langone has also flipped on Trump’s tariffs, noting “Initially, my concern was, I DON’T like tariffs…however, dammit, give Trump credit! His instincts are good! Some of these things need to be fixed!”

He flipped on tariffs.

“Initially, my concern was, I DON’T like tariffs…however, dammit, give Trump credit! His instincts are good! Some of these things need to be fixed!” pic.twitter.com/o8bIHkX2Dy

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 15, 2025

Langone further emphasised “When you made a mistake, admit it,” also revealing that he is in favour of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

“I was worried about inflation and the deficit, but I think it might trigger such significant economic growth that we could see tax revenues going up through the profitability bracket,” Langone noted.

Home Depot founder Ken Langone on the One Big Beautiful Bill: I was worried about inflation and the deficit, but I think it might trigger such significant economic growth that we could see tax revenues going up through the profitability bracket. pic.twitter.com/oabL7Knd78

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 15, 2025

But I thought the left keeps saying even Trump supporters regret voting for Trump?! You mean to tell me that not only is that not true but now even people who didn’t vote for him or like him are supporting him?! Color me shocked!

— Kylie Jane Kremer (@KylieJaneKremer) July 15, 2025

That’s a significant shift coming from someone so influential in the business world. It shows how perspectives can evolve based on real-world impact and leadership performance. It’ll be interesting to see how this endorsement resonates with others in the business and political…

— Satyam Singh (@Satyam2831) July 15, 2025

It takes humility to admit you were wrong.

— News Nomad 🗞 (@The_Nomad_News) July 15, 2025

I’m sure the producers at CNBC were pulling their hair out!😅

— Marisa Hastings (@MarisaHastings1) July 15, 2025

Back in May, Home Depot announced that it doesn’t expect to boost prices because of tariffs.

“We don’t see broad based price increases for our customers at all going forward,” said Billy Bastek, executive vice president of merchandising.

NEW: Home Depot says it will NOT raise prices in response to U.S. tariffs

CFO says more than half of the company’s merchandise comes from the U.S.

“Twelve months from now, no single country outside of the United States will represent more than 10% of our purchases” pic.twitter.com/H1PJYpqyM8

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) May 20, 2025

In June, the US government saw a surplus as tariff collections under Trump’s presidency increased to just over $27 billion.

US government posted a budget surplus of $27 billion in June, which is largely attributed to a surge in tariff revenue. This marks the first June surplus since 2017. I’m sure you saw this in legacy media…well, maybe not. pic.twitter.com/L4rAbkAoRm

— David Asman (@DavidAsmanfox) July 13, 2025

May saw a $316 billion deficit. The fiscal year-to-date deficit after June is $1.34 trillion, which is up five percent from 2024.

NEW: Tariff revenues grew to a record $27.2 billion in June — producing a $27 billion federal budget SURPLUS for the month. pic.twitter.com/X2jJzb2GPS

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 11, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

As the world confronts overlapping crises, from accelerating climate change to the unchecked spread of misinformation, global risks are increasingly interconnected, compounding one another in ways that could overwhelm current institutions and systems.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the top 28 most important global risk as outlined in the United Nations Global Risk Report 2024.

Risk importance combines the likelihood and severity of a risk, with top risks seen as most likely to occur with severe impacts if or when they manifest.

Rankings are based on a survey of 1,100 stakeholders across 136 countries which includes representatives of government, industry, civil society, and academia.

What is the Most Important Risk the World is Facing?

Below, we show the top 28 most important global risks and their importance scores, according to the United Nations.

Across all regions, environmental risks emerged as the highest priority, with climate change inaction and large-scale pollution both seen as highly likely and highly severe.

Climate change inaction was the most important risk overall, ranking as the most pressing issue in three of the seven regions.

In total, 84% of respondents said mis- and disinformation is already occurring, making it the most immediate risk today, according to the UN.

Mis- and disinformation also ranked as the top risk in the next two years, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report.

While environmental concerns were top of mind for all regions, other perceptions varied by region. For example, in North Africa and Asia, concerns about cybersecurity breakdowns and artificial intelligence (AI) were among the top 10 risks, unlike in other regions.

Cybersecurity breakdowns were among the least prepared-for risks, with a preparedness score of just 3.9 out of 7. The only risk the world is less prepared for is a potential space-based event.

To learn more about risks the world is facing in the near and long term, check out this graphic that visualizes the top global risks, as ranked by the World Economic Forum.

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

Beijing’s Jitters: A Shifting Trade Landscape

As China’s trade with the United States continues to diminish, Beijing is anxious to stabilize trade relations with Washington—and has done so, at least for a while. But how long will any trade agreement last if the Chinese regime continues to violate it?

The harsh reality is that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is aware of its precarious position. On the one hand, China desperately needs to stabilize its trading relationship with the United States. On the other hand, it can’t live up to agreements because it has to cheat on trading terms, as structural weaknesses prevail in driving the economy downward. As a result, the trust level between Washington and Beijing is low.

Lack of trust isn’t the only factor against China, of course. The Trump administration’s antipathy toward the Chinese regime as a strategic rival is well understood, and that’s unlikely to change. Furthermore, direct foreign investment is dwindling, and foreign companies are exiting China as quickly as possible.

Many of them are relocating to India. The list of companies choosing India over China is significant and has been steadily growing, even before U.S. President Donald Trump won a second term in office. In 2024, dozens of major companies, including Dell, HP, Intel, Samsung, LG Electronics, Nike, Hasbro, Blizzard Entertainment, Stanley Black & Decker, and many more, have already relocated their factories to India or plan to do so in the near future.

That trend isn’t likely to change, either. According to a 2024 survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 45 percent of U.S. companies in China have initiated plans to diversify their suppliers outside of China, while 38 percent are considering doing so. The writing is on the Great Wall of China: the trade gap is widening, not narrowing. Their days of leading the world in manufacturing and the strategic clout that comes with it are on their way out.

India’s Big Opportunity With the US

In the meantime, to Beijing’s great concern, India is strategically pivoting to fill that widening gap by expanding its trading relationships with the United States. The United States is equally intentional in steering trade away from China and toward India.

India’s intentions are aligned with those of the United States. In April this year, U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited India to establish a broader bilateral trade agreement between the two countries. The goal is to increase the current trade of $190 billion to $500 billion by 2030.

The growing U.S.–India relationship extends beyond trade. Prior to Vance’s visit, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was in India for a geopolitical conference. Perhaps even more telling, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was among the first world leaders to visit with Trump after he returned to the White House. At the time, Modi mentioned a “mega partnership” with the United States and began negotiations to address Trump’s tariffs on Indian products.

Notably, Modi had already reduced tariffs on some U.S. goods before he met with Trump. That may help explain why Indian officials have described trade negotiations as “very active” and “intense,” supporting the perception of a fast-track trade deal being worked out between the United States and India.

The Strategic Ripple Effects

China may be unaware of these developments and can already see several strategic ripple effects unfolding. As noted, the United States is keen on “friend-shoring” or restructuring global supply chains out of China and into India. One additional impact may be diminishing Beijing’s ability to support Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Although a trade reset of sorts appears to be in place between Washington and Beijing, the trend of businesses leaving China en masse remains undeniable. Apple has announced that it will relocate up to 25 percent of its iPhone production from China to India by 2025, and a significant portion of its U.S. phone production will also be moved out of China.

But other ripples are occurring as well.

A closely related issue is China’s dominance of the rare earths market. Like the United States, India is dependent on China’s rare earth monopoly. One of Modi’s policy shifts is to focus on India’s potential to increase its rare earth production capacity and potentially become a key supplier to the United States. That would be a huge blow to China and a big win for both India and the United States.

Another significant issue is India’s increasing involvement in U.S. defense planning in the region. India will play a growing role in U.S. security arrangements in the Indo-Pacific region.

Beijing’s Double-Edged Response

In response to these developments, the CCP is getting creative. For example, in contrast to the trade barriers it put up after the Galwan incident involving military exchanges, Chinese state media has floated the possibility of reducing trade restrictions and encouraging engagement between China and India. That’s a direct result of India’s rising profile in the region and engagement with the United States.

Perhaps more importantly, China’s ambassador to India recently pledged to stop dumping Chinese products into Indian markets, ease trade deficits, and possibly even remove tariff and non-tariff barriers on Indian imports. This announcement comes alongside resumed diplomatic dialogue, high-level engagement, direct flights, and even the potential for enhanced access to rare earths for India.

On the flip side, in an effort to counter the friend-shoring trend, China is restricting machinery exports and equipment transfers to India in order to minimize its ability to handle incoming manufacturing demands. Beijing is also warning New Delhi that its deeper engagement with Washington—both in trade and in strategic alliances such as the Quad, as well as significant cooperation in evolving U.S.-led defense postures—could threaten its cordial relationship with China.

Another card for the CCP to play would be to increase support for Pakistan, India’s nuclear-armed regional rival. That’s a threat with a very thin veil, but unlikely to work because both Pakistan and India are nuclear-armed nations. Beijing’s support doesn’t fundamentally alter the status quo.

Will any or all of these potential countermeasures by Beijing be enough to sway New Delhi away from its tilt toward Washington? Will the Chinese regime be able to thwart India’s rise, even as its economy continues to collapse?

Not likely.

China is facing a multi-front storm, mainly of its own making through the CCP’s policies, and that storm is only getting worse. To carry the metaphor, it’s a perfect storm against China and for India.

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

Authored by Phil Gurski via The Epoch Times,

Remember Chicken Little (a.k.a. Henny Penny)? She was the one running around warning that the sky was falling and spreading panic all around. In the end, the heavens were not, in fact, plummeting, and we now use the phrase “Chicken Little” to describe those who spread myths about danger that are ill-founded.

Last week, Canadians learned of an “imminent” plot by four men in Quebec, including two members of the Armed Forces, that probably came as a bombshell (no pun intended) to those tuning in.

This “anti-authoritarian militia” had weapons, planned to seize land, had engaged in “training,” and appeared to be recruiting like-minded people online.

The self-styled “national security experts” consulted by print, radio, and television media – I did nine interviews in three days on this issue, but generally eschew the moniker “expert” –  all saw this as the end of civilization as we know it and that we in Canada had dodged a bullet (!) at the 11th hour.

Except that very little of this “analysis” was accurate.

In fact, the RCMP had seized the weaponry in the possession of this “militia” – 80 firearms, 11,000 bullets, and 16 explosive devices – in January, of 2024! A full 18 months before they made the arrests. Yes, these amateurs could very well have obtained more guns, but there is nothing in the open media to suggest they did. Furthermore, that the RCMP knew about these guys a year and a half ago means they had a good idea of who they were and what they were up to.

Many were confused as to the time lag.

Why wait so long between weapon confiscation and arrests/charges? Simple: what else could the Mounties learn about this gang?

Were there others involved? Did their “plot” ever get more plausible? Was there really a “plot” in the end?

As an RCMP spokesperson noted, there was never a threat to the public.

This demonstrates, to me, that the force had everything they needed, possibly through surveillance, federal court wiretaps, and human agent penetration.

This was actually a huge investigative success, not a potential disaster. In other words, they had the whole thing under control at all times.

In addition, the incompetence of the “militia” was made clear when Canadians learned that they were recruiting on social media (Instagram).

This weakness underscores a terribly unprofessional comsec (communications security) practice and demonstrates the very ridiculousness of their venture.

These were not the sharpest pencils in anyone’s box. It is fortunate that most extremists, in my experience, are that stupid.

Yes, far right extremism, including “anti-authoritarianism” and ‘”accelerationism” (those with the belief that the existing state of society is irreparable and that the only solution is the destruction and collapse of the “system”), appears to be on the rise in the West.

A number of Canada’s allies, including the United States and Germany, are seeing a link between these ideologues and their serving armed forces.

The main takeaway, however, is that the law enforcement and security intelligence agencies are up to speed on this threat and I am confident they are monitoring it to the best of their ability given their finite resources.

We also need to stop suggesting that our armies, navies, and air forces are rife with neo-Nazis, fascists, and their ilk.

What is not acceptable, nevertheless, is the conviction that this particular form of terrorist threat has risen to the top in the world.

Jihadis still kill and maim at scales orders of magnitude larger than any other extremist movement and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

No one seems to want to say that, maybe for fear of being labelled an Islamophobe or a “racist” (I have been called both on many occasions).

The RCMP has rightly charged these individuals with planning an act of terrorism as defined under section 83.01 of the Canadian Criminal Code—even if their chances of actually doing something were only slightly above zero. The far right has risen over the past decade, although, again, jihadis still rule the terrorist roost, and our protectors are looking at all these actors, as they should.

The average citizen, however, needs to be assured that the threat they pose is neither imminent nor existential. It would be unfortunate if a group got lucky and was able to carry out an attack despite the best efforts of our police officers and spies, although that is probably inevitable given the number of investigative priorities and finite resources.  Many more will be stopped, thankfully, due to the former’s efforts.

Pushing the panic button is neither necessary nor useful.  We should leave the running around and shouting to the birds of children’s tales, not the front pages of our media.

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