By Thomas Kolbe

The European Central Bank has reached the end of its rate cycle – and has become ensnared in the very problems to which it has significantly contributed. In Sintra, this was all but hidden behind a facade of central banker utopia.

The annual Sintra conference, just west of Lisbon, serves the ECB much as Jackson Hole does for the Federal Reserve. It’s a moment to review, to look ahead, and to tie the past year’s monetary policy into a broader political narrative. For ECB President Christine Lagarde, that narrative is easily summed up: after eight cuts, rates now rest at two percent; inflation hovers around the two-percent target; employment across the eurozone remains stable; and a fresh debt crisis is nowhere in sight.

That is the essence of Lagarde’s Sintra address—designed to convey one message: everything is under control. Even uncertainties such as Trump-era trade volatility, geopolitical upheavals, or the collapse of German industry are said not to derail the ECB’s set course. Following the market flood during the lockdowns, things are now deemed normal—markets “swing” around their equilibrium. In central bank parlance: they’ve found the “neutral rate.”

The Chimera of the Neutral Rate

The “neutral rate” is the holy grail of central banking mystique. When policy makers feel secure, and media campaigns successfully mask the erosion of fiat currency, it becomes the mantra. In this worldview, the ECB’s policy rate and some theoretical, consolidated market rate align—not by chance, but by design. Even before Lagarde’s closing remarks, ECB Executive Board members Joachim Nagel and Philip Lane had laid the groundwork all through June, repeatedly sending the “neutral-rate” message.

That message? That they have balanced inflationary and deflationary forces and steered the eurozone back onto a growth trajectory. Let’s skip debates over manipulated inflation stats and dramatically understated unemployment figures. These neutral-rate narratives are nothing more than central-bank fairy tales from One Thousand and One Nights—prepackaged press releases meant to evoke sovereignty. Economic processes don’t reduce to such simplistic frameworks. But that’s precisely not the point: the neutral-rate story is a sedative—for governments and markets alike.

The Fiscal Original Sin

The tale of the ECB as guardian of monetary stability is a relic of Bundesbank days. That era is long gone. Central banks worldwide, dragged into political-fiscal entanglements during the last debt crisis 15 years ago, have since become dependent. During the lockdowns alone, the ECB’s PEPP absorbed €1.85 trillion of eurozone sovereign debt—and today still holds roughly a third of that mountain of obligations.

Today, the ECB’s sole goal is to keep those sovereign debt-stacks liquid—buying up bonds shunned by the market to maintain the illusion that public debt, generous welfare, and Keynesian interventionism are all sustainably reconcilable.

Eurozone governments have long relied on external liquidity. With public debt averaging 100 percent of GDP, many member states would be insolvent without the ECB’s backstop. That would have consequences—not just for markets, but for social cohesion, internal stability, and the self-image of an EU-Europe built on oversized welfare motors that offer citizens a false sense of security and dangerously misjudge public capacity.

A withdrawal of the ECB from this nexus of fiscal irresponsibility, monetary support, and political overreach is thus unthinkable. The central bank is no longer just a guardian of the currency—it is the stabilizer of an eroding social model. Through indirect means and backdoor channels, it is underwriting pensions, welfare budgets, bureaucratic cogs—and obscuring how fragile the whole edifice has become.

The ECB is the last mortar holding that crumbling structure together. Remove it, and the house of cards collapses instantly. Which is why Lagarde and cohort must preserve the illusion of a steerable eurozone.

The Facts Tell a Different Story

Beyond the gloss of Sintra—in the real world of data—the eurozone is in serious crisis. Industry continues to shrink, and construction is in a deep recession. Over 50 percent of firms cite insufficient orders. Since 2021, German industry alone has cut 217,000 jobs—and by year’s end will lose another 100,000. Deindustrialization is advancing. Production is being moved abroad. Capital is fleeing, and productivity has stalled for eight years running.

The result: countries’ tax bases are eroding. Revenues fall and welfare costs rise, pushing debt burdens higher. Without genuine reforms, the eurozone risks a debt crisis that will once again force the ECB to serve as lender of last resort.

Years of zero interest have immersed the eurozone in the sweet poison of cheap credit. Now, subvention-dependent firms are collapsing under real positive rates. That’s “zombie economy.” And the latest casualty of green industrial planning—Northvolt—is just the latest to close its doors, a consequence of centrally managed economic policy.

Fed Holds Tough

Making matters worse: across the Atlantic, the Federal Reserve stands firm on its consolidation path, keeping rates at 4.5 percent—well above other major central banks. The U.S. is clearly prepared to accept a positive market rate, giving its economy room to purge unproductive elements. This lets productive capital reposition and fuel a fresh investment cycle. With tax cuts, energy deregulation, and rolling back green agendas, the U.S. is becoming a capital magnet—one that European economies can only envy.

In Washington, the view is clear: a period of pain brings greater rewards. While the U.S. equips itself administratively, technically, and innovatively for the digital age, EU-Europe stages a competition in ever-expanding welfare plans—rent caps, social handouts, green subsidies: consumption decreed and regulated to substitute for the productive machinery of revenue generation.

Europe has become addicted to welfare-state subventionitis—sticking to a hyper-statist model to defer social and economic pain. And always in the wings: the ECB and its fatal money press. How long this can last, only time will tell. But market tensions are mounting. The day when those tensions trigger a seismic shift, shaking the tectonic plates of the economy into new alignment, looms ever closer.

* * * 

Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Much of the Western, industrialized world is worrying about falling birth rates and aging societies.

While reaching 65 is still a privilege in most parts of the world, social security and welfare systems typically rely on a growing working-age population to support dependent groups (children and seniors).

When this balance shifts due to aging populations, countries face increased pressure on healthcare, pension systems, and economic productivity.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, ranks countries by the share of their population aged 65 and over, along with their total numbers. The figures are estimates for 2025, made under the medium variant projection in the UN World Population Prospects (2024).

Ranked: Countries With the Most Seniors

Monaco has the highest share of older adults in its population, at 37%.

However, second-place Japan stands out with 30% of its population aged 65+, totaling nearly 37 million people.

On top of ranking second by percentage, it’s fourth by total senior population (after China, India and the U.S.).

Japan’s demographic profile has long raised concerns over labor shortages and economic growth. Policymakers are responding with automation and immigration strategies to adapt.

Japan has been under the spotlight for its aging society, but it’s not the only one with a growing senior demographic. In fact, many European nations are also seeing a significant uptick in older adults.

Europe: The Oldest Content by Median Age

Of the 36 countries on this list, 28 are in Europe. They include Italy (25.1%), Germany (23.7%), and France (22.4%), all major European economic powerhouses.

This growing population of older adults reflects Europe’s low birth rates and increasing life expectancy. With a median age of 44, Europe faces unique challenges in sustaining its welfare and pension systems.

For example, many European countries already have some of the highest tax-to-GDP ratios, leaving little room for increased taxation to create more revenue room.

This demographic shift is also influencing political and economic priorities across the continent, including unrest over increasing retirement ages.

Small Territories, Big Senior Shares

Smaller territories like Monaco (36.8%), Martinique (26.5%), and Montserrat (25.0%) have disproportionately high senior shares.

These places often attract retirees or have low birth rates, skewing their demographic makeup.

While their overall populations are small, their needs for senior-focused healthcare and services are growing fast, which may force governments to shift priorities away from education, or other services for younger demographics.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Cities With the Largest Working-Age Populations on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The State Department revoked the U.S. visas of the British punk-rap band Bob Vylan, following the group’s anti-Israel comments at a world-famous English music festival. 

Lead singer Bobby Vylan led attendees at his June 28 concert at the Glastonbury Festival in chants of “Death, death to the IDF!” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.

The concert came just days after the United States and Israel engaged in an offensive against Iranian nuclear sites, and almost two years after Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, prompting Israeli military actions in Gaza aimed at eliminating the Palestinian terrorist group and freeing the hostages taken by it. The ongoing Israel–Hamas conflict also triggered protests by pro-Palestinian activists against Israel’s military responses.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced in a June 30 X post that “The [State Department] has revoked the U.S. visas for the members of the Bob Vylan band in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants. Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country.”

The band was scheduled later this year to make appearances in cities across the nation, including Washington, Utah, Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and other states.

During the weekend show, Vylan chanted against the IDF while performing in front of 200,000 people at the festival, held in Somerset, England, which is one of the world’s largest music events.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned Vylan’s message.

“There is no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech,” Starmer said in a statement. “I said that [Irish hip-hop group] Kneecap should not be given a platform, and that goes for any other performers making threats or inciting violence.”

Vylan took to Facebook the day after the performance, saying he had been “inundated” with a mixture of “support and hatred,” but reiterating his stance that “I said what I said.” 

The singer referenced his daughter, saying:

“Teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place. 

“Let us display to them loudly and visibly the right thing to do when we need change.” 

Police said they are considering whether an investigation is needed. Avon and Somerset Police wrote on X, “We are aware of the comments made by acts on the West Holts Stage at Glastonbury Festival this afternoon. Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.” 

Chris Philp, the Conservative MP for Croydon South and Shadow Home Secretary in the UK, encouraged prosecution against Vylan, saying on X:

“It seems clear Vylan was inciting violence and hatred … I call on the Police to urgently investigate and prosecute the BBC as well for broadcasting this.”

The BBC admitted on June 30 that it should have cut the broadcast after the “anti-Semitic” and “utterly unacceptable” comments were made.

The broadcaster has since removed the performance from its website.

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

Via Remix news,

In the past 12 months, the German Federal Police have identified 12,858 illegal migrants who entered Germany by air, a significant number that is on the rise. Now, migrants are increasingly choosing simply to fly into Germany instead of dealing with the long ordeal of crossing multiple borders in dangerous conditions.

This increase in migrants flying into Germany jumped after Germany tightened border controls.

In May of this year alone, at least 977 illegal entries were recorded using air travel to enter Germany, accounting for over 20 percent of all identified illegal border crossings.

However, the true number of such crossings is likely much higher, as foreign nationals traveling within the Schengen area are not required to show identification. As a result, they are often only discovered long after they have left the airport, making it impossible to turn them back.

“It would be consistent to also notify the Schengen air borders,” said Heiko Teggatz, a board member of the German Police Union (DPolG).

“If the smugglers aren’t completely stupid, they’ll simply bring their people from other Schengen states to Germany by plane. Today, you can easily book a plane ticket within the Schengen area, and you generally don’t have to show your ID anywhere.”

All of this information came from a government response from Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) after Alternative for Germany (AfD) MP Gottfried Curio, the party’s domestic policy spokesperson, launched an inquiry.

Dobrindt was forced to acknowledge that the tightened controls “refer exclusively to the land borders,” meaning no illegal migrants were turned back at airports.

This trend of illegal entry by plane has intensified since the new federal government instructed officials to begin rejecting asylum seekers at internal borders. 

Teggatz confirmed this “increase in secondary migration via airports,” noting that “Medium-sized commercial airports like Hanover are particularly affected.”

Despite hundreds of officers being deployed at German airports, checks are almost exclusively conducted on flights from outside the Schengen area. That means if a migrant makes it to Greece and manages to get on a plane to Germany, there is little chance he will be checked.

Dobrindt, like his predecessor, Nancy Faeser (SPD), has reported rejections of migrants coming into Germany, but only from land borders. It remains unclear why airports were not included in tightened border measures.

Read more here…

Authored by Colin Todhunter via Off-Guardiam.org,

It must be made clear from the start that, drawing on the work of sociologist Max Weber, capitalism is an ‘ideal type’ concept. An ideal type is a conceptual tool that highlights certain key characteristics of a phenomenon by accentuating some elements while omitting others. It is not meant to perfectly correspond to any specific real-world instance but serves as a construct to analyse and compare social or economic phenomena.

This framing is critical: while capitalism is often described as a system of free markets and voluntary exchange, in reality, it frequently relies on collusion, corruption and state-corporate coercion and violence. Having stated this, as an economic system, capitalism inherently requires constant growth, expanding markets and sufficient demand to sustain profitability.

However, as markets saturate and demand falls, overproduction and overaccumulation of capital become systemic problems, leading to economic crises. When capital cannot be reinvested profitably due to declining demand or lack of new markets, wealth accumulates excessively, devalues and triggers crises. This tendency is linked to a long-term decline in the capitalist rate of profit, which has fallen significantly since the 19th century.

Neoliberalism’s playbook

Capitalism in the form of neoliberal globalisation since the 1980s has responded to these crises by expanding credit markets and increasing personal debt to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages are squeezed or they are made unemployed.

Other strategies have also been deployed. These include financial and real estate speculation, stock buybacks, massive bailouts, public asset selloffs, regulatory ‘reform’ and subsidies using public money to sustain private capital and boosting militarism, which drives demand in many sectors of the economy (one reason why Germany and other European countries are following in the footsteps of the US by boosting their spending on militarism and creating bogeymen as a justification).

These financial manoeuvres are not isolated tactics but part of a broader neoliberal agenda that also involves deregulating international capital flows and exposure to global capital markets, resulting in the obsession of maintaining ‘market confidence’ to hedge against capital flight and surrendering economic sovereignty to finance capital. We also see the displacement of production in other countries in order to capture foreign markets.

This global expansion of neoliberal capitalism is a form of imperialism, where powerful corporations and financial interests impose structural adjustments and policies that undermine local economies, especially in the Global South. The capture of new markets abroad is essential for capital accumulation and offsetting potential declining profitability at home.

This imperial dynamic is particularly visible in the agricultural sector. For instance, the process involves the destruction of indigenous rural economies, the imposition of chemical-dependent industrial agriculture and transformation of food systems to benefit global agribusiness oligopolies. Think too of the profit-driven technofixes being rolled out by Big Tech and Big Ag: the ultimate commodification and corporate capture of knowledge, seeds, data and so on under the crisis narrative of impending Malthusian catastrophe.

And this alludes to the fact that capital seeks ideological cover for its financial ambitions. The climate emergency narrative is being used to legitimise new financially lucrative instruments such as carbon trading and green investments, schemes designed to absorb surplus wealth under the guise of environmentalism. This reflects a broader pattern where perceived (or manufactured) crises are exploited to create speculative markets and investment opportunities that maintain capital accumulation.

COVID and Ukraine

This logic reached a new intensity during the COVID event, which provided a stark and recent illustration of how the ongoing crisis of neoliberal capitalism is exploited and managed, serving as a critical phase in its evolution. This event and associated lockdowns amplified structural inequalities and reshaped the dynamics of capital and control.

COVID was used as a strategy of ‘creative destruction’, accelerating the destruction of millions of livelihoods globally and pushing small businesses towards bankruptcy. Rather than providing genuine aid to the public, COVID policies and massive government spending primarily benefited large corporations—boosting their margins while forcing smaller enterprises to the brink and consolidating corporate power.

At the same time, COVID was used to justify unprecedented restrictions on freedoms, increased surveillance and digital control mechanisms. More on this later.

Lockdowns helped reshape capitalist accumulation patterns by externally imposing economic shutdowns that monetary policy alone could not achieve. They created conditions for increased indebtedness for households, small businesses and (Global South) nations, corporate bailouts and the imposition of new forms of control, thereby managing the contradictions of capitalism through non-market means.

According to Prof. Fabio Vighi of Cardiff University, financial markets were already collapsing before lockdowns were imposed; lockdowns did not cause the market crash in early 2022 but were imposed because financial markets were failing. Lockdowns effectively turned off the engine of the economy—suspending business transactions and draining demand for credit—which allowed central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, to flood financial markets with massive emergency monetary injections without triggering hyperinflation in the real economy. Looking at Europe, investigative journalist Michael Byrant says that €1.5 trillion was needed to deal with the financial crisis in Europe alone in 2020.

This strategy was designed to stabilise and restructure the financial architecture by halting the flow of economic activity temporarily, enabling a multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Big Finance and large corporations under the guise of COVID relief. A bailout that dwarfed anything seen during the 2008 financial crisis.

Lockdowns not only destroyed small businesses and accelerated corporate consolidation, but—unlike the 2008 bailouts—this process faced little opposition, as it was justified as a public health necessity.

While COVID marked one phase of crisis management, the subsequent war in Ukraine has further accelerated these dynamics. It has served to redirect flows of energy, finance and industrial capacity. The destruction of Europe’s energy ties with Russia—via sanctions, decoupling and sabotage—engineered a forced dependency on high-cost US liquefied natural gas, delivering record profits to American fossil fuel firms (in 2022 alone, US LNG exports to the EU more than doubled—from 22 to 56 billion cubic metres—making up over half of all US LNG exports).

As European industries faltered under the weight of inflation and energy instability, the US subordinated its allies through enforced dependency while securing new opportunities for accumulation at home. Dollar supremacy was reinforced, compliance internalised and capital relocated under the banner of war. In this scenario, Europe has become both a very junior partner and collateral damage with its economic sovereignty sacrificed on the altar of transatlantic profit realignment.

The state, crisis and control

This brings us to a broader understanding of the state’s role in maintaining the economic system. The state and ideology are crucial for maintaining capitalism’s economic base, with the state intervening through financial support and strategic market expansion. At the same time, ideology shapes public perception and legitimises actions by re-framing individual freedoms and exploiting crises like COVID and Ukraine to manage dissent and uphold elite power.

This ideological reconfiguration aligns with technological transformation. The rise of artificial intelligence and advanced automation technologies—such as robotics, driverless vehicles, 3D printing, drone technology and even ‘farmerless farms’—will reshape the traditional mass labour force that underpins capitalist economic activity: it is being profoundly transformed and, ultimately, significantly reduced.

Looking ahead, as economic activity is restructured through these technologies, the entire social infrastructure built to reproduce labour—mass education, welfare, healthcare—will be rendered increasingly unnecessary because fewer workers are needed to sustain production and services. This transformation alters labour’s classical role as a seller of labour power to capital, fundamentally changing the dynamics of the labour-capital relationship.

The question is: if labour is defined in terms of its relation to capital and is the condition for the existence of the working class, why bother with maintaining or reproducing labour?

In this context of social erosion, neoliberalism has already weakened trade unions, suppressed wages and increased inequality. And now the message is: get used to being poor or on the scrapheap, and dissent will not be tolerated.

From surveillance to subjugation

The so-called ‘Great Reset’ anticipates a fundamental transformation of Western societies, resulting in permanent restrictions on liberties and mass surveillance.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has speculated about a future where people ‘rent’ rather than own goods (as seen in the widely circulated ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ video), raising concerns about the erosion of ownership rights under the rhetoric of a ‘green economy’, ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.

Climate alarmism and the mantra of sustainability are about promoting money-making schemes. Beyond this, these narratives also serve to cement social control.

Neoliberalism has run its course, resulting in the impoverishment of large sections of the population. But to dampen dissent and lower expectations, the levels of personal freedom we have been used to will not be tolerated. This means that the wider population will be subjected to the discipline of an emerging surveillance state.

To push back against any dissent, ordinary people are being told that they must sacrifice personal liberty in order to protect public health, societal security or the climate. Unlike in the old normal of consumer-oriented neoliberalism, an ideological shift is occurring whereby personal freedoms are increasingly depicted as being dangerous because they run counter to the collective good.

In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulation-privatisation neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of the ‘nanny state’, trade unions and the collective in society.

We are currently seeing another ideological shift. As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by an economic impulse. This time, the collapsing neoliberal project.

The masses are being conditioned to get used to lower living standards and accept them. At the same time, to muddy the waters, the message is that lower living standards are the result of mass immigration or supply shocks that both the Ukraine conflict and ‘the virus’ have caused.

The net-zero carbon emissions agenda will help legitimise lower living standards (reducing your carbon footprint) while reinforcing the notion that our rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. You will own nothing, not because the rich and their neoliberal agenda made you poor, but because you will be instructed to stop being irresponsible and must act to protect the planet.

Decreased consumption (your poverty) will be sold as being good for the planet by coopting the concept of ‘degrowth’; something to be imposed on the masses while elites continue to accumulate. This contrasts with genuine ecological or socialist degrowth proposals that would target elite consumption and redistribute resources.

Meanwhile, the framework is in place to ensure that huge corporations and the super-rich continue to rake in near-record profits through militarism, an energy transition, a food transition, speculative finance schemes involving land, carbon trading, data monetisation, surveillance capital, pharmaceuticals, green bonds, commodities and agribusiness, real estate and climate risk derivatives.

And there is always money available for Ukraine and various destabilisations around the world to further ensure the bottom line of giant corporations.

India as global microcosm

To illustrate global dynamics and the real-world impact of neoliberal policies, we can examine the case of India’s agricultural sector.

Structural adjustment programmes imposed by institutions like the IMF and World Bank or bilateral agreements with the US have forced countries like India to radically transform their agricultural sectors. Subsequent directives have demanded dismantling public support systems such as state-owned seed supply, subsidies and public agricultural institutions, while promoting export-oriented cash crops to earn foreign exchange.

This shift is part of a neoliberal agenda to further integrate agriculture into global capital markets, reduce the role of the public sector and open up the sector to foreign direct investment and multinational agribusiness corporations.

The outcome in India thus far has been devastating for millions of small-scale farmers and rural dwellers. Neoliberal reforms have led to spiralling input costs, dependency on proprietary seeds and agrochemicals and the erosion of traditional farming systems. This has resulted in widespread indebtedness, economic distress and a decline in the number of cultivators—millions have been pushed off the land, many driven to suicide, and hundreds of millions face jobless growth and rural displacement.

This restructuring facilitates the capture of agriculture by large agribusiness corporations and financial investors. These entities dominate global commodity trading and are increasingly consolidating control over seeds, inputs, logistics and retail. The public sector’s role is reduced to a facilitator of private capital, enabling the entrenchment of industrial, GMO-based commodity crop agriculture suited to corporate interests rather than local food security or ecological sustainability.

Contrast this with agroecology, a means to free farmers from dependency on manipulated commodity markets, unfair subsidies and food insecurity. Agroecology prioritises local food sovereignty, ecological sustainability and farmer knowledge, opposing the reductionist, industrial agriculture paradigm promoted by capitalist agribusiness.

In India, the policy of population displacement compels displaced rural workers to migrate to urban areas in search of precarious, low-paid employment or remain unemployed, swelling the ranks of a surplus labour force.

This reserve army of labour is not accidental but serves a strategic function within global capitalism. It helps suppress wages and weaken the bargaining power of workers and trade unions both in India and internationally. By maintaining a large pool of cheap and insecure labour, capital can discipline workers through competition and insecurity.

Moreover, many of these displaced Indian workers are absorbed into offshore factories and global supply chains, effectively acting as a tool to undermine labour rights and conditions in wealthier countries.

This analysis reflects the country’s incorporation into the global capitalist system, where rural displacement and labour ‘flexibility’ are central to maintaining capitalist dynamics.

There is a historical comparison to be made between the displacement of people from the land in England during the Industrial Revolution and the contemporary displacement of the peasantry in India under neoliberal capitalism. Just as the enclosure movement in England forcibly removed peasants from their land, pushing them into cities to become a labour force for emerging industrial capitalism, a similar process is unfolding in India today.

Benign language

This displacement is not simply a byproduct of ‘development’ but a deliberate process tied to capitalist accumulation and imperialist restructuring of agriculture, where local food systems and rural livelihoods are subordinated to corporate interests and global markets.

Global communications and business strategy company APCO Worldwide is a lobby agency with firm links to the Wall Street/corporate US establishment and facilitates its global agenda. Some years ago, following the 2008 financial crisis, APCO stated that India’s resilience in weathering the global downturn has made governments, policy makers, economists, corporate houses and fund managers believe that the country can play a significant role in the recovery of global capitalism.

Decoded, this means global capital moving into secure control of markets. Where agriculture is concerned, this hides behind emotive and seemingly altruistic rhetoric about ‘helping farmers’ and the need to ‘feed a burgeoning population’ (regardless of the fact this is exactly what India’s farmers have been doing). APCO talks about positioning international funds and facilitating corporations’ ability to exploit markets, sell products and secure profit.

And the state has been actively obliging. The plan is to displace the peasantry, create a land market and amalgamate landholdings to form larger farms that are more suited to international land investors and export-oriented industrial farming.

For instance, an MoU was entered into by the Indian government in April 2021 with Microsoft, allowing its local partner, CropData, to leverage a master database of farmers. CropData was to be granted access to a government database of 50 million farmers and their land records. As the database is developed, it will include farmers’ personal details, profiles of land held, production information and financial details.

The stated aim is to use digital technology to improve financing, inputs, cultivation and supply and distribution. The unstated aims are to impose a certain model of farming, promote profitable corporate technologies and products, encourage market (corporate) domination and create a land market by establishing a system of ‘conclusive titling’ of all land in the country so that ownership can be identified and land can then be bought or taken away.

Globally, the financialisation of farmland accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis. From 2008 to 2022, land prices nearly doubled throughout the world. Agricultural investment funds rose ten-fold between 2005 and 2018 and now regularly include farmland as a stand-alone asset class, with US investors having doubled their stakes in farmland since 2020.

Meanwhile, agricultural commodity traders are speculating on farmland through their own private equity subsidiaries, while new financial derivatives are allowing speculators to accrue land parcels and lease them back to struggling farmers, driving steep and sustained land price inflation.

As far as India is concerned, it is becoming a fully incorporated subsidiary of global capitalism. Displaced farmers and farm workers are pushed into urban sectors like construction, manufacturing and services, despite these sectors not generating enough jobs. This displacement facilitates the replacement of labour-intensive, family-run farms with large-scale, mechanised monoculture enterprises controlled by a few powerful transnational agribusiness corporations and financial institutions.

Moreover, India is being directed to rely increasingly on its foreign exchange reserves to buy food on the international market as it is forced to eradicate its buffer food stocks.

This process is driven by pressure from global agribusiness and finance capital, which seek to dismantle India’s public food procurement and distribution systems, including the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the Public Distribution System (PDS). These state-backed mechanisms have historically ensured food security by maintaining strategic grain stocks and providing fair prices to farmers.

Eliminating these buffer stocks would mean that India would no longer physically hold and control its own food reserves. Instead, it would have to depend on volatile global markets to procure essential food supplies, using foreign currency reserves. This shift would make India vulnerable to price fluctuations, speculation by investment firms and manipulation by multinational corporations dominating global commodity markets.

The massive farmer protests in India were, in part, a resistance to these policies. Without buffer stocks, India would effectively be paying corporations such as Cargill to supply food, perhaps financed by borrowing on international markets.

Resistance and refusal

The narrative presented here reveals a deeply systemic crisis within capitalism—one that cannot be understood through isolated events, personality politics or short-term policy shifts.

From financialisation, predatory practices abroad and speculative markets to state-backed bailouts, war and digital surveillance, capitalism continually reinvents mechanisms to prolong its accumulation cycle.

This article exposes the underlying logic of an economic system marked by the increasing convergence of state and corporate power—a trajectory that points towards a shift away from ‘capitalism’, possibly towards a technocratic or even techno-feudalist system where e-commerce platforms, algorithms, programmable centralised currencies and monopolistic entities determine how we live.

Such developments raise urgent questions about the future shape of society and, crucially, how a mass movement might resist without being co-opted or subverted. Yet, recognising these dynamics is the essential first step in fostering informed debate and effective resistance.

However, the hegemonic class and its media and NGOs continue to divide the population along lines of race, religion, identity politics and immigration. They do anything and everything to sow division or sedate courtesy of gadgets, games, entertainment, infotainment and sports. Their media will do all it can to keep people in the dark about what is really happening and why.

But even when people do manage to see through the smokescreen, they will try to promote apathy, convincing people that nothing can be done about any of it anyway.

They will try anything to fragment opposition and suppress movements for systemic change.

That is not to say resistance is absent—far from it, especially in the realm of food and agriculture (discussed in my books on the global food system linked to at the end of this article).

The fightback against emerging digital authoritarianism is already underway and takes many forms: rights groups are challenging mass surveillance laws and practices in the courts; campaigns are mobilising to block or roll back digital ID schemes, facial recognition and mass data retention.

Mass mobilisations against surveillance infrastructure are growing, as are acts of refusal in the form of non-compliance with digital ID requirements, opt-outs and public data obfuscation campaigns. There is also a burgeoning movement to build and promote peer-to-peer, federated or blockchain-based social networks and communication tools and to develop grassroots internet infrastructure that bypasses state and corporate control.

International solidarity is crucial, too, to expose and resist the export of surveillance technologies and the global harmonisation of repressive policies.

Meanwhile hundreds of millions endure poverty and many more face declining living standards and welfare cuts. At the same time, the super-rich have stashed an estimated $50 trillion in hidden accounts (as of 2020) and have only grown wealthier in recent years.

And here lies the crux of the matter—economic power.

While resistance to the surveillance state and digital authoritarianism is vital, the deeper struggle is against the concentration of wealth and control in the hands of a global corporate and financial elite.

Across the world, workers, peasants and communities are organising through strikes, land occupations, agroecology, seed and food sovereignty movements, debt resistance and the fight to reclaim public goods. The task is to build movements capable not only of resisting but of transforming the structures of economic power that underpin the entire system.

For further insight into all the issues discussed here, readers can access the author’s open-access books which can be read or downloaded on Figshare (no sign in or sign up required).

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

President Trump said Tuesday that Israel has agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza and warned Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. 

Trump announced the development as he prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks at the White House on Monday. The US leader has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to broker a ceasefire and hostage agreement and bring about an end to the war in Gaza.

“My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War,” Trump wrote, saying the Qataris and Egyptians would deliver the final proposal.

“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better – IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he said.

Trump’s promise that it was his best and final offer may find a sceptical audience with Hamas. Even before the expiration of the war’s longest ceasefire in March, Trump has repeatedly issued dramatic ultimatums to pressure Hamas to agree to longer pauses in the fighting that would see the release of more hostages and a return of more aid to Gaza’s civilian populace.

Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer was in Washington on Tuesday for talks with senior administration officials to discuss a potential Gaza ceasefire, Iran and other matters. Dermer was expected to meet with US Vice-President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump repeated his hope for forging an Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal next week.

Asked if it was time to put pressure on Netanyahu to get a ceasefire deal done, Trump said the Israeli prime minister was ready to come to an agreement.

“He wants to,” Trump said of Netanyahu in an exchange with reporters while visiting a new immigration detention facility in Florida. “I think we’ll have a deal next week.”

Talks between Israel and Hamas have repeatedly faltered over a major sticking point – whether the war should end as part of any ceasefire agreement. About 50 hostages remain captive in Gaza, with less than half believed to be alive.

The development came as over 150 international charities and humanitarian groups called on Tuesday for disbanding a controversial Israeli- and US-backed system to distribute aid in Gaza because of chaos and deadly violence against Palestinians seeking food at its sites.

The joint statement by groups including Oxfam, Save the Children and Amnesty International followed the killings of at least 10 Palestinians who were seeking desperately needed food, witnesses and health officials said. Meanwhile, Israeli air strikes killed at least 37 in southern Gaza’s Khan Younis, according to Nasser Hospital.

“Tents, tents they are hitting with two missiles?” asked Um Seif Abu Leda, whose son was killed in the strikes. Mourners threw flowers on the body bags.

Authored by Terri Wu via The Epoch Times,

The world had a moment of clarity during the Israel–Iran conflict.

For years, analysts have noted that China is closing in on the United States as a peer competitor, whether in terms of high-tech industries, naval fleets, or the size of its diplomatic corps.

That power shift seemed to have also played out in the Middle East, a region where the United States has traditionally held significant influence.

Two years ago, Beijing brokered the normalization of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Later the same year, the China-led BRICS bloc, designed to counterbalance the U.S.-led Western democracies, admitted four new members from the region: Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The bloc was formed by Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2009 and expanded to include South Africa in 2010.

However, the action of the United States—and the inaction of China—during the 12-day Israel–Iran conflict revealed that the power gap between Beijing and Washington remains sizable.

The United States joined its ally Israel in the conflict on June 21 by attacking key Iranian nuclear sites with 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs.

Two days later, President Donald Trump announced a cease-fire between Israel and Iran. The truce appears to be holding so far.

By contrast, Beijing’s support for Iran remained largely rhetorical.

The Chinese regime condemned Israel and criticized the United States over the strikes on Iran. It also released joint statements with member states of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a China- and Russia-led security grouping, expressing “grave concern” that the attacks on Iran violated international law.

The revelation of the power gap between the United States and China means that countries will move closer into Washington’s orbit, according to Yeh Yao-yuan, a professor of international studies at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.

That means Middle Eastern countries will shift from a pro-Beijing position to a neutral stance in the contest between China and the United States as the world moves into two camps led by the two powers, he told The Epoch Times.

Beijing is keenly aware that the U.S. focus is on Asia, particularly China, according to Christopher Balding, a senior fellow at the UK-based Henry Jackson Society. The Chinese regime deliberately kept a low profile during the Israel–Iran military conflict, he said.

“The more that they can keep the U.S. working on other non-China issues, I think that they see it as better for them,” Balding, also a contributor to The Epoch Times, told the publication.

According to China expert Alexander Liao, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is uncertain about its next steps.

“Beijing has realized that its existing assessment of the world—that the East is rising and the West is declining—doesn’t hold anymore,” Liao told The Epoch Times.

“Should they change the course of their strategic directions? If so, how? They haven’t made up their mind yet.”

Iran’s Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh (C) attends the Shanghai Cooperation Organization defense ministers’ meeting in Qingdao, China, on June 26, 2025. The SCO’s nine official members include China, India, and Russia. China’s support has helped Iran sustain its economy and nuclear program despite decades of U.S. and UN sanctions. Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images

Iran’s Role in China’s Plan

China’s support is the main reason Iran could sustain its economy and nuclear enrichment program despite decades of sanctions by the United States and the United Nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency verified a few days before the Israel–Iran conflict that Iran had 400 kilograms of enriched uranium.

Iran holds high geopolitical value to China. Its location, linking East and West, has made it an important node for the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative. This foreign policy platform presents itself as a global infrastructure development program.

Chinese communist leader Xi Jinping visited Iran in 2016, during which the two countries formed a so-called comprehensive strategic partnership.

In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a 25-year agreement. China committed $400 billion in investments in telecom, banking, ports, and other infrastructure in Iran. In return, Iran agreed to supply China with oil.

Today, China purchases approximately 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil. Last year, the daily volume was about 1.5 million barrels, according to market intelligence company Kpler.

To circumvent sanctions, the oil trade between China and Iran is typically conducted in Chinese yuan or as a barter. This reduces trade volumes transacted in U.S. dollars and aligns with Beijing’s ambition to de-dollarize and increase the importance of the yuan in global trade.

The Rise of NATO

During this year’s NATO summit in The Hague, 32 member states agreed to increase defense spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic products (GDPs) by 2035.

That means the NATO military spending will more than double, given that members on average spent 2 percent of their GDPs in 2024.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, NATO members accounted for about 55 percent of the total $2.7 trillion in global military expenditure. With NATO’s double spending, the ratio is expected to increase to roughly 70 percent.

NATO also reaffirmed its “ironclad” commitment to Article 5, which states that any attack on a member country is an attack on all.

On June 25, the military alliance also released a statement, along with its Indo-Pacific partners, stating that “the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific is interconnected.” The four partners are Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Chinese regime is monitoring NATO developments closely.

NATO heads of state and government pose for an official photo at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. Among other matters, 32 member states agreed to increase defense spending to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035. A day later, China’s foreign ministry criticized the move as well as NATO’s increasing focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Omar Havana/Getty Images

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, in a post on social media platform X on June 26, criticized the spending boost and the alliance’s growing interest in the Asia-Pacific region.

Liao considers it “very likely” that democracies will expand their regional security alliances to one that’s global in scope.

“If such a significant expansion happens, it will be lethal to the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.

The expansion would mean that the Article 5-style commitment would cover Indo-Pacific nations, Liao said. He said he believes that the United States is poised to expand the current security alliance; it’s just waiting for the right time and opportunity.

“Any conflict with South Korea or Japan will evolve to a conflict with a group that accounts for 70 percent of global military spending,” he said. “This will make China’s goal of taking over Taiwan very challenging.”

Amy K. Mitchell, a founding partner at geopolitical consultancy Kilo Alpha Strategies, said that there’s a “very strong potential” that Trump will try to establish a NATO-like security alliance in the Indo-Pacific.

That would be a “very big legacy project for President Trump,” she told The Epoch Times.

For now, she sees the president himself and his unpredictability as the main deterrent to China.

“The Chinese Communist Party is probably rethinking how it’s going to handle the administration,” Mitchell said.

China still faces uncertainty in the ongoing trade war with the United States.

Beijing announced new controls on two fentanyl precursors on June 20, a day after a rare meeting between Chinese Minister of Public Security Wang Xiaohong and U.S. Ambassador to China David Perdue. Wang told Perdue that the regime was open to collaboration on curbing narcotics and illegal immigration, according to Chinese state media reports.

The move was aimed at lifting the 20 percent fentanyl-related U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. The current tariff level on China is about 50 percent, which is the cumulative rate composed of fentanyl tariffs, 10 percent reciprocal tariffs, and existing levies from the Biden administration.

A worker moves pieces of steel machinery at a manufacturing company in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China, on June 16, 2025. China’s factory output rose less than expected in May amid continued uncertainty from its trade war with the United States. STR/AFP via Getty Images

China signed an additional trade agreement with the United States last week, detailing the terms negotiated in Geneva in May. For now, the 20 percent U.S. tariff tied to China’s role in fentanyl trafficking will remain.

Beijing’s slow walk on exporting rare earth elements has been a focal point in rounds of negotiations between the two countries.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry on June 27 stated that it would “review and approve eligible export applications for controlled items in accordance with the law” as a part of the framework agreement. While it did not explicitly mention rare earths, the statement was made in response to an unnamed reporter’s question on rare earths exports.

Rare earths are essential for producing permanent magnets, a must-have component of modern manufacturing. They are also critical to military and defense hardware. China’s export licenses only cover civilian purposes and need to be renewed every six months.

Balding said China is likely to hold more tightly onto its near-monopoly control over rare earth supply.

“In addition to demonstrating its power over the global economy, China does not want to be helping the U.S. military prepare when each side is focusing more and more on how to fight each other,” he said.

Cord-cutting — the consumer shift away from traditional cable and satellite TV toward streaming platforms — has been underway for over 15 years and continues to accelerate.

A new report from UBS confirms that streaming has officially surpassed traditional TV in terms of consumption. The era of streaming dominance has arrived ahead of the 2030s. 

Video streaming services like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+, and others offer consumers a massive array of programming choices at competitive subscription rates compared to the large bundles provided by traditional cable providers. 

Analysts, led by John Hodulik, told clients Monday that traditional TV viewership continues to decline, actually in their words “worsened” in the second quarter:

• Total TV consumption is falling faster: P2+ PUT (Persons 2 and older, Persons Using Television) is down 12% YoY in Q2, steeper than the 9.2% decline in Q1.

• P18–49 demographic viewership fell 17% YoY, with its share of TV consumption dropping to just 17%.

• Fox News (+30% YoY in P2+) kept the cable news category in positive territory, though gains have slowed from Q1.

• Entertainment cable networks improved slightly but still declined 18% YoY.

“Streaming surpasses traditional TV in May,” Hodulik told clients. 

Boomers dominate traditional TV consumption. 

What TV consumption used to be like… 

Watching TV with the Family in 1988 pic.twitter.com/WofkdmhOmQ

— Fascinating (@fasc1nate) June 26, 2025

. . .

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

India refused to sign the document since it didn’t condemn late April’s Pahalgam terrorist attack…

India found itself at odds with the SCO once again less than two weeks since it clarified that it didn’t participate in the group’s joint statement on the Iranian-Israeli War.

This time its Defense Minister refused to sign the joint statement that was supposed to conclude last week’s meeting with his peers in Qingdao ahead of the leaders’ summit in Tianjin this autumn.

The reason was that the document didn’t condemn late April’s Pahalgam terrorist attack even though it condemned terrorism in Balochistan.

As this year’s chair, China has extra influence over the SCO’s workings during the events that it hosts, so it therefore follows that this might have been a deliberate provocation meant to signal support for Pakistan while snubbing India.

To add insult to injury, Pakistan blames India for terrorism in Balochistan, which is why it was even more unacceptable from Delhi’s perspective for that issue to be mentioned while no mention was made of the Pahalgam terrorist attack to balance everything out.

India’s conventional retaliation against Pakistan in the aftermath sparked the latest Indo-Pak Conflict between these two SCO members, however, so China or at least its supporters in the media might claim that omitting any mention of Pahalgam was meant to avoid further dividing the group. Be that as it may, it would have been predictable that this would result in India refusing to sign the SCO Defense Ministers’ joint statement, but that might have actually been what China was aiming for all along.

To explain, a perception has taken root among some members of the Alt-Media Community and even some experts that India is the so-called “weak link” in the SCO, with the reason allegedly being its close economic and military ties with the US. Adherents ignore China’s much closer economic ties to the US, the Central Asian Republics’ growing military ones with the West in general (especially NATO member Turkiye), and the US’ attempt to subordinate India, however. It’s therefore an agenda-driven narrative.

Nevertheless, this analysis here from early June argued that it was precisely this perception that accounts for why Russia lent credence to Trump’s claim that he personally stopped the latest Indo-Pak Conflict despite Delhi’s repeated denials, which hyperlinks to related pieces over the preceding month. The gist is that a pro-BRI policymaking faction comprised of anti-Western “hardliners” is rising in the Kremlin at the expense of the establishment’s balancing/pragmatist faction that currently calls the shots.

Although the pro-BRI faction hasn’t been able to effect any tangible shift in policy towards (or rather, away from) India due to Putin being part of the balancing/pragmatist faction, that scenario would be of grand strategic importance for China. Russia and India would no longer jointly accelerate tri-multipolarity processes, thus making it more likely that a form of Sino-US bi-multipolarity could one day be restored. Russia would therefore become China’s “junior partner” while India would become the US’ in that event.

Thus, China might have sought to provoke India into refusing to sign the SCO Defense Ministers’ joint statement so as to craft optics that could lend more credence to the claim of it being the SCO’s “weak link”, hoping that this can strengthen the influence of Russia’s pro-BRI faction. Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov effusively praised India during the summit though so no changes are expected under Putin, but if a member of the pro-BRI faction succeeds him, then this can’t be ruled out in the future.