Former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has openly blamed his former German counterpart Angela Merkel for the rise of right-wing populism in Germany, arguing that her 2015 open-border migration policy directly fueled the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
Kurz stated that without Merkel’s migration stance, the AfD would never have gained the support it currently enjoys.
Speaking to Bild, Kurz defended the asylum policies advocated by CDU leader Friedrich Merz, particularly his call to reject all illegal migrants at Germany’s borders.
“I don’t just think that is correct, but it is absolutely necessary,” Kurz said. “If you look at how large parts of Europe — including Germany and Austria — have changed due to uncontrolled migration, it is obvious that this development is not good.”
Kurz, who was Austria’s foreign minister during the 2015 migrant crisis, emphasized that migration policies require not just words but concrete actions. He expressed hope that a policy shift in Germany would serve as a model for the rest of Europe.
“In 2015, I saw firsthand how the Welkomkultur — or ‘welcome culture’ — triggered a negative domino effect, encouraging more migrants to come to Europe,” he explained. “When we shut down the Balkan route, other countries followed, and we saw a reversal of the migration wave. The same is possible today. If Germany takes the lead, other European nations will follow.”
Earlier this week, the CDU sought in the German parliament to implement a stricter immigration and asylum policy, legislation that could only pass with support from the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
The move led to violent protests from left-wing activists at the CDU party headquarters in Berlin, but Kurz dismissed controversy surrounding the AfD’s support, arguing that leaders should focus on implementing the right policy irrespective of political alliances.
“A politician should do what is right and not constantly worry about who supports or opposes it,” Kurz stated. “That is what leadership means.”
The Austrian politician criticized conservative politicians who shy away from necessary policies out of fear of aligning with right-wing populists on certain issues. “In Germany, there is a fear that a policy could be supported by the AfD,” he said. “But you cannot intentionally do something wrong just to avoid being on the same voting side as the AfD.”
He pushed back against criticism that his own coalition with the right-wing FPÖ from 2017-2019 helped legitimize populist movements, emphasizing that he had won two elections against the FPÖ as leader of the Christian-democratic Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), proving that the center-right can defeat right-wing populists by pursuing strong policies.
“The right-wing parties are always strongest when conservative parties fail to implement their policies consistently,” Kurz warned.
After the left-wing parties took control of Austria, the FPÖ rallied to win last September’s elections as the largest party, and its leader Herbert Kickl is now in talks with the ÖVP to form a coalition. He is expected to become the FPÖ’s first-ever chancellor.
Kurz argued that Merkel’s migration policies since 2015 were the main factor behind the AfD’s rise, saying:
“Without the wrong migration policy since 2015, there would not be such a strong AfD in Germany. The failed migration policy is the guarantee that the AfD will continue to grow.”
Kurz concluded with a stark warning to Germany’s political leadership, urging them to address citizens’ legitimate concerns about migration before they drive more voters to right-wing populist parties.
“If you really want right-wing parties to grow without limits, then you should continue ignoring the legitimate concerns of a large part of the population,” Kurz said. “Otherwise, you will only push more people into the arms of these parties.”
Sweden Says No Sabotage In Baltic Sea Cable Damage, Releases Seized Ship (But Russia!)
The mainstream media narrative of Russian ‘shadow fleet’ vessels traversing the Baltic Sea in a clandestine anti-NATO operation to sabotage vital underwater communications cables linking European nations continues to unravel at rapid pace.
Swedish authorities have issued the results of their official investigation into Malta-flagged Vezhen ship, following the discovery of damage to a fiber-optic cable between Sweden and Latvia on Jan. 26. Authorities had immediately seized the cargo ship on suspicion it intentionally damaged the cable.
But in a sudden turn, as of Monday the Vezhen has been released after the investigation found no wrong-doing. It was not the result of sabotage or any intentional plot, investigators now say.
“The investigation concerning a cable break between Sweden and Latvia in the Baltic Sea has clarified that it is not a case of gross sabotage,” Swedish prosecutors said in a new statement.
“It has been established that a combination of weather conditions and deficiencies in equipment and seamanship contributed to the cable break,” Senior Prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist added in the statement.
The consensus is that as the vessel was transporting fertilizer from Ust-Luga, Russia to South America – a ship anchor was damaged and unintentionally dropped into the sea during extremely bad weather, which is when the damage to the cable occurred. The incident is one of several cable incidents in regional waters still being investigated as suspected Russian sabotage.
Now that the ship has resumed its journey to South America, its operator has indicated it may stop for repairs in nearby Denmark.
A statement by ship operator Navigation Maritime Bulgare (Navibulgar) to AFP said Swedish authorities formally notified the crew that “there is no reason to believe that sabotage or malicious act was committed on board by our crew.”
It said the crew members, who had been detained along with the ship, are in good health and that they are resuming the journey. A week ago the company had vehemently denied that this was an act of sabotage, and called on Sweden to quickly release the vessel.
The CEO had “cited information obtained from the crew that the ship was sailing late on Sunday in extremely bad weather. Eventually, the crew discovered that the left anchor was apparently being dragged along the seabed.”
“I hope that the investigators will quickly establish that this is not a matter of any intentional action, but a technical incident due to bad weather, and that the ship will be released,” that prior statement had urged.
Still, the mainstream media headlines in the West have perpetuated the idea that this is all a nefarious Russian plot, and it’s unlikely that the actual final results of the Swedish investigation debunking this will get much air time.
Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg told Reuters that he’d like to see Zelensky hold parliamentary and presidential elections, though that outlet’s sources in Kiev claim that Washington has yet to formally request this of him. Ukrainian law stipulates that they can’t be conducted during times of marital law, ergo the need to first lift it. That won’t happen without a ceasefire, however, but therein lies the problem since Russia’s terms for such are unacceptable for Ukraine.
Putin said last June that Russia will freeze hostilities only after Ukraine withdraws from all the territory that his country claims as its own and declares that it no longer wants to join NATO. Negotiations can resume immediately afterwards, but he specified at the time that they’d have to be held with the parliamentary speaker instead of Zelensky, whose legal term expired at the end of May per Putin’s reading of the Ukrainian Constitution. He then reiterated this position last week but added a twist.
According to him, Zelensky could still hypothetically participate in negotiations, but he’d be powerless to sign anything. This followed Zelensky claiming that October 2022’s prohibition on talks with Russia applied to everyone but himself. He then told the Associated Press over the weekend around the same time as Kellogg’s interview with Reuters that he’s interested in resuming talks with Russia but doesn’t think that it wants a ceasefire. Amidst these statements from Kellogg, Putin, and Zelensky were Trump’s.
He claimed that “We’re having very serious discussions (with Russia) about that war, trying to get it ended”, but said that he hadn’t yet talked to Putin about it, thus implying that talks are only taking place at the embassy level. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Rybakov confirmed on the same day that “there is no progress” on organizing those leaders’ upcoming call. Nevertheless, their inevitable conversation will likely concern a ceasefire, and particularly the compromise that Trump hopes to broker.
This could see him proposing the following to Putin:
1) Ukraine withdraws from Kursk and Donbass, the latter of which is at the center of the territorial dispute with Russia, but stays where it’s at everywhere else;
2) Neither side rescinds their territorial claims to the other;
3) a carrot-and-stick approach is applied towards Russia and Ukraine for ensuring compliance with the ceasefire;
4) Ukraine then holds its next elections; and
5) the new government enters into peace talks with Russia after assuming office.
Ukraine can be coerced into agreeing to this by threatening to withhold military aid from it while threats of maximally disbursing such to Ukraine alongside the imposition of maximum secondary sanctions against Russia’s top energy clients (China andIndia) could coerce it into compliance as well. As an incentive to Russia, which has been steadily advancing for the past two years, the US might agree to demilitarize the “trans-Dnieper” region and place it under the control of non-Western peacekeepers.
That proposal forms one of the two dozen compromises that were shared at the end of this analysis here and was elaborated on in detail here. Its full implementation or some variation thereof might ultimately prove pivotal in terms of getting Russia to agree a ceasefire without Ukraine first completely complying with the terms that Putin shared last June as regards withdrawing from all the territory that his country claims as its own. Trump’s negotiators would therefore do well to seriously consider this proposal.
If they get Ukraine and Russia to agree to a ceasefire, then the previously mentioned threats could remain as sticks for encouraging compliance while the carrots could include more reconstruction aid to Ukraine and phased sanctions relief for Russia, thus increasing the odds that it holds. As part of the perks for Russian compliance, the US might even agree to let the EU resume pipeline gas imports from Russia, whether via the remaining undamaged part of Nord Stream and/or across Ukraine if it gets Kiev to agree.
As for the subsequent election step in this process, there US might prefer for Zelensky not to run for re-election otherwise it could back one of his potential opponents as part of a “phased leadership transition” for facilitating a peace deal, which is premised on Putin wanting him out of the way. Between the hypothetical ceasefire and the next elections, Zelensky might still participate in talks, but Russia wouldn’t allow him to sign anything so he’d only take part in them for self-serving political reasons.
In any case, the legal changes that Russia’s declared goals of restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality and denazifying its society entail can only be advanced after the elections legitimize a new parliament, which could then bring these about under US pressure (the second goal perhaps only partially). Prior to that, the size of the armed forces could be curtailed in partial compliance with Russia’s demilitarization goal as a trust-building measure, but Russia’s spring 2022 demands might not ever be met in full.
As can be seen, Trump’s plan to broker a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia mostly depends on the second’s agreement since the first can be much more easily coerced into this, thus necessitating pragmatic compromises that satisfy some of Putin’s ceasefire demands from last June. This could take the form of forcing Ukraine into withdrawing from Donbass, seriously considering a demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” region controlled by non-Western peacekeepers, and promising phased sanctions relief.
Putin might agree to these terms if they’re accompanied by threats of maximally disbursing military aid to Ukraine alongside the imposition of maximum secondary sanctions against Russia’s top energy clients (China and India). He’s continually proven his preference for avoiding escalations, notably reaffirmed last November through Russia’s unprecedented use of the hypersonic Oreshniks for de-escalation purposes vis the US, while a sizeable share of Russia’s budgetary revenue is dependent on Asian energy imports.
These factors would work in Trump’s favor if he proposes the ceasefire terms that were discussed together with the threatened consequences if Putin rejects them.
The path to peace will predictably be paved by a ceasefire, which will itself likely require some territorial concessions on Ukraine’s part in order for Putin to agree to compromise on his associated demands, then new elections can be held for legitimizing peace talks.
This is the most realistic sequence for diplomatically ending the conflict.
The 1983 film “The Year of Living Dangerously” tells the story of a journalist who faced intrigue and risk during the collapse of the Sukarno regime in Indonesia. Like this regime, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faces significant challenges to its legitimacy and the stability of Xi Jinping’s rule in 2025.
At the core of these challenges are the erosion of public trust, deepening economic crises, internal political purges, and rising social discontent. But external factors will also damage the CCP’s credibility, not the least of which is the new Trump administration’s focus on pushing back against Beijing’s trade and foreign policies.
Erosion of Trust
In broad strokes, one of the most profound threats to the CCP’s legitimacy is the erosion of public and political trust. The Chinese people are very aware of the state’s egregious abuses on multiple fronts and are pessimistic about the future. As a result, many Chinese, particularly the younger generation, are feeling alienated. This is partly because the Party has strengthened its control over nearly every aspect of Chinese society, at great expense to public opinion, and partly due to the lack of well-paying jobs.
Beijing’s grand promise of so-called common prosperity, for example, has fallen short and revealed itself to be a wealth and power grab by the CCP. This erosion of trust also extends beyond social grievances and into the investment community. Investors’ loss of confidence in the CCP’s ability to reverse the economic decline and lead the country back to prosperity helps explain record levels of capital flight from China. Even global investment funds are avoiding Chinese bonds.
These financial events indicate serious long-term concerns about the sustainability of China’s financial system.
The erosion of trust is a critical challenge because the CCP’s legitimacy has always rested on its ability to provide economic growth and stability. Fewer Chinese believe that the CCP can do that. Hence, the trend of discontent isn’t new, but it is rising.
A Slew of Economic Crises
China’s deepening economic crises also weaken the CCP’s grip on power. Once lauded for lifting millions out of poverty, Beijing’s policies are the direct cause of China’s ongoing economic collapse. As noted, good jobs for young, educated Chinese are disappearing, and youth unemployment (ages 16–24) is at an all-time high. But that’s just a symptom of a deeper malaise.
The real estate sector, which has accounted for more than 30 percent of GDP, has been imploding for years and continues to do so. This has led to job losses and financial ruin for millions. At the same time, income and wages are down, making housing unaffordable.
What’s more, state-owned enterprises make up an estimated 28 percent of GDP and are mired in inefficiency and corruption. These and other economic obstacles have crushed consumer confidence and spending, causing stagnation and deflation in the domestic economy and slowing growth to its lowest levels in decades.
Compounding these internal crises is the growing capital outflow from China. Billions of dollars are leaving the country each month, driven by both Chinese elites and ordinary citizens seeking safer havens for their wealth. This outflow signals a lack of confidence in the Chinese economy and raises serious concerns about the sustainability of China’s financial system.
A weakening economy undermines the CCP’s core promise of prosperity, further threatening the Party’s credibility at home and abroad.
Political Purges: Strengthening Control at a Cost
Xi has consolidated his power more than any leader, even surpassing Mao Zedong. Like Mao, political purges that include the business, financial, and military spheres have become a hallmark of Xi’s leadership.
However, as I noted in a previous post, they are also a source of fear, friction, and instability among even the highest officials. They are also a sign of Xi’s paranoia and insecurity. While many purged officials are believed to have been genuinely corrupt, others are believed to have represented potential threats to Xi’s power.
The repeating cycle of purges has created uncertainty within the Party itself, making effective governance more difficult.
Distinct but related to the purges is the aforementioned increase in the number of state-owned enterprises. As economic conditions worsened, the CCP resorted to taking over more private companies as a means of perpetuating its control over the economy and the populace. This is only accelerating the downward spiral.
Social Discontent
The social contract that secured the CCP’s legitimacy for decades—economic growth in exchange for political obedience—is unraveling. Despite its unrivaled surveillance state, social discontent is still a potent force. The grievances of the younger generation—which is deeply dissatisfied with life, their prospects, and the Party’s pervasive control—are bubbling to the surface.
Consequently, a rising number of protests have erupted across the country in recent years.
Discontent within the political and military echelons is also rising. The Chinese regime has responded with increasingly harsh crackdowns and constructing hundreds of new detention centers. Doing so, however, may well undercut loyalty to Xi and his ability to govern.
External Headwinds Pose More Challenges
Given the Trump administration’s determination to push back against Beijing in trade, technology, and foreign policy, the rivalry between China and the United States will intensify in 2025. Decoupling from China is a top priority for the United States, and doing so will make economic growth more difficult for the CCP in 2025 and onward. Tariffs reaching 60 percent are on the table, as well as other trade policy options.
But it isn’t just the United States that wants to decouple from China. Some countries in the European Union are wary of being reliant on China and seek to limit Beijing’s exports to the EU. Japan and South Korea are also cooperating to blunt Chinese trade and influence in the region and globally. The Taiwan question looms large, as does the Trump administration’s declaration to take back the Panama Canal and reduce Beijing’s influence there.
All of the above are but a few of the many external challenges the CCP faces in 2025, which may indeed be a pivotal year for the CCP, Xi, and the Chinese people.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Per the source: ratings reflect a trailing seven-day simple moving average of views among adults in each country surveyed.
Some Recently Elected (Or Re-Elected) Leaders Are Popular
India’s Narendra Modi (75% approve) and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum (66% approve) top this rating sample of world leaders.
Leader
Country
Approve (%)
No Opinion (%)
Disapprove (%)
Narendra Modi
🇮🇳 India
75
6
19
Claudia Sheinbaum
🇲🇽 Mexico
66
7
26
Javier Milei
🇦🇷 Argentina
65
5
30
Karin Keller-Sutter
🇨🇭 Switzerland
56
24
20
Donald Trump
🇺🇸 U.S.
52
10
38
Anthony Albanese
🇦🇺 Australia
46
11
42
Dick Schoof
🇳🇱 Netherlands
42
19
39
Donald Tusk
🇵🇱 Poland
42
11
47
Giorgia Meloni
🇮🇹 Italy
42
7
51
Ulf Kristersson
🇸🇪 Sweden
38
11
51
Cyril Ramaphosa
🇿🇦 South Africa
37
9
54
Alexander De Croo
🇧🇪 Belgium
35
22
43
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
🇹🇷 Türkiye
33
11
56
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
🇧🇷 Brazil
33
8
59
Pedro Sanchez
🇪🇸 Spain
33
5
62
Jonas Gahr Store
🇳🇴 Norway
30
9
60
Keir Starmer
🇬🇧 UK
27
11
61
Shigeru Ishiba
🇯🇵 Japan
25
21
54
Karl Nehammer
🇦🇹 Austria
24
9
67
Justin Trudeau
🇨🇦 Canada
22
7
71
Olaf Scholz
🇩🇪 Germany
20
6
74
Emmanuel Macron
🇫🇷 France
18
7
75
Yoon Suk-Yeol
🇰🇷 South Korea
17
8
75
Petr Fiala
🇨🇿 Czech Republic
16
7
77
Modi was re-elected for a third term as India’s prime minister last May and Sheinbaum became Mexico’s (and North America’s) first woman president last October.
President Donald Trump, just sworn in for a second term, also makes the top five with a 52% approval rating. Relatedly, people in other countries may not be as pleased about a second Trump presidency.
However, the People Are Unhappy
In most of these countries, the majority of people disapprove of their current government leader.
Among the least-liked leaders is Yoon Suk Yeol, the suspended South Korean president who is currently detained on charges of insurrection and abuse of power.
And then there’s France’s Emmanuel Macron, with three quarters of the population disapproving. According to Euronews, his ratings plummeted after he called for snap elections in 2024.
Finally, there’s Petr Fiala, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. Fiala’s government is struggling to handle the country’s economic problems and is deeply unpopular after breaking a promise to not raise taxes.
Today, we are witnessing a profound transformation. We are increasingly impacted by algorithmic decision-making, artificial intelligence, data proliferation, data harvesting and sophisticated monitoring of how we think and act. This affects how we work, how we access services and how we relate to and interact with others.
While digital innovations and online platforms offer unparalleled ease, they also raise critical concerns about our independence. The constant connectivity and data-driven decision-making that characterise modern life has major implications. Technological advancements are used to shape preferences and behaviour, and predictably, powerholders use the notion of convenience to manipulate and exert control over populations.
Giant corporations and the state are leveraging what is often termed ‘technological solutionism’ to establish a digital iron cage of control. By monitoring and predicting our thoughts and actions, these intertwined entities impose a tightening noose of automated systems, suffocating personal liberty.
We are increasingly hurtling toward a reality reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where a dystopian technocracy merges with a plutocracy.
Huxley foresaw a society where the ruling class maintains control not through overt oppression but through subtle manipulation and distraction, effectively creating a system where people are conditioned to accept their servitude without resistance. In this emerging landscape, the values of order, conformity and compliance reign supreme, overshadowing individual freedoms and critical thought.
In agriculture, technocratic control is increasingly evident in the push for a ‘one-world agriculture’ dominated by AI, genetic engineering and precision farming, all under the sway of a few powerful corporations. Companies like Bayer, Cargill, Corteva, Syngenta, Microsoft and Amazon, along with influential investment firms that hold stock in companies throughout the agrifood chain, aim for the standardisation of food systems.
Their vision is a monopolistic, cloud-driven agricultural framework that prioritises control, dependency and uniformity over diversity and local practices. This approach threatens to reduce our food systems to an even blander, more standardised product line, stripping away traditional farming methods and local knowledge.
In culture as well, the trend is starkly toward standardisation. The goal is to dilute or erase traditional knowledge, local customs and diverse worldviews, creating a bland, uniform, AI-driven existence that can be easily controlled and manipulated. This push extends to a radical alteration of human biology itself through transhumanism.
The transhumanist agenda seeks to enhance human physical and cognitive capabilities through technology, aiming to transcend what it means to be human. This ambition aligns with the drive for a one-world agriculture, envisioning a standardised, technologically enhanced version of humanity (genetically engineered humans).
When we scrutinise the transhumanist agenda, it reframes our understanding of movements like transgender rights, relaxed border controls and the breakdown of the nuclear family. We begin to see a vision of beings uprooted and detached from countries, families or fixed genders — the ultimate one-world human.
For deeper insights into these implications, consider the work of Silvia Guerini, who critically examines transhumanism and its far-reaching consequences.
Some may argue that this is merely human evolution. But history shows us that there has never been a predetermined, linear path for humanity. Our past is marked by conflict and struggle, where outcomes were never guaranteed.
Moreover, who determines that the current powerholders driving these agendas are the ‘natural’ heirs to humanity’s legacy? Who grants them the authority to dictate the fate of billions? They have seized this role for themselves.
It is not bit-part players like Musk, Bezos or Gates who are really orchestrating the agenda — it is those who hide in the shadows, not least the powerful banking families. According to Dean Henderson, this includes the Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller, Lehman, Kuhn Loeb, Rothschild, Warburg, Lazard and Israel Moses Seif families (see The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families).
It is clear from the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual get-together at Davos that global powerholders and their minions do actually believe they have the right to sit in judgement over the fate of billions. They have contempt for genuine democracy and think they have some divine entitlement by virtue of stolen wealth or wealth acquired by manipulation or from sweated wage labour.
The mainstream narrative would have us believe that these people have the best interests of humanity at heart, rather than ruthless, arrogant, devious schemers with contempt for the mass of humanity.
It is revealing that in a 2007 interview, the late Aaron Russo, US filmmaker and businessman, shared claims about conversations that he said had taken place with Nicholas Rockefeller. According to Russo, these discussions took place some months before 9/11.
Russo claimed that Nicholas Rockefeller told him about several future events and plans, not least an “event” that would lead to the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Russo claimed that Rockefeller had said the “event” would be used to initiate a “war on terror” without a real enemy, which Rockefeller was said to have described as a mystification to control US citizens.
Rockefeller was also said to have stated that there were plans to reduce the world’s population by half and that paper currency would be replaced by subcutaneous microchips containing digital money (that can be switched off by the state) and personal information as a means of controlling the population.
Nicholas Rockefeller allegedly referred to the mass of the global population as “serfs” or “slaves” who must be controlled, and he questioned why Russo would even want to care about the fate of such people.
Rockefeller was also alleged to have told Russo (to Russo’s surprise) that the feminist movement was funded by the Rockefellers to get women into the workforce to tax them and to weaken the authority of the family so that the state could boost its control over future citizens by moulding children at an earlier age.
These claims are unverified, but a quarter of a century on from when the conversation is said to have occurred, it would be wise to consider just how much closer we have moved towards the world revealed by Russo.
A massive drop in sperm counts, the destabilisation and invasion of countries and the curbing of individual rights under the guise of the ‘war on terror’, the pushing of cash to the margins, a climate emergency narrative, talk about climate lockdowns and restricted movement, programmable digital currencies possibly linked to carbon footprints etc.
But we do not have to rely on a conversation that perhaps took place a quarter of a century ago to evaluate the motives and machinations of this elite. An elite that in 2012 was claimed to have had up to 32 trillion dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe. Who could say what the figure might be now, 13 years later, as the flow of wealth from ordinary people to multi-billionaires accelerated during the COVID episode.
These so-called ‘wealth creators’, who have for centuries been appropriating ordinary people’s wealth, who have stashed it away in tax havens, who have bankrupted economies because of their reckless gambling and greed and who have imposed a form of globalisation that has resulted in devastating destruction and war for those who attempt to remain independent from them or structurally adjusted violence via privatisation and economic neo-liberalism for millions in countries that have acquiesced.
Attempts to redress the balance have been brutally suppressed over the decades. From democratic leftist organisations or governments pursuing alternatives or just displaying independent tendencies, this elite class has used intelligence agencies, front groups, threats, co-opted leaders or military might to attempt to subvert or annihilate any threat to its global hegemony.
Anyone familiar with the work of the late historian William Blum will be aware of the human cost in terms of lives lost since 1945 alone, thanks to his book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II.
First published in 1995, the book examines US military actions and covert operations, presenting a critical view of US foreign policy and its imperialist motives. Blum documents more than 50 instances of US interference in foreign governments, many of which were democratically elected and provides a thorough analysis of the consequences of these actions.
The WEF and its enablers in national governments talk about ‘food transitions’, ‘energy transitions’, ‘digital transitions’ and countless other ‘transitions’. But these benign-sounding terms mask a profound restructuring of our societies — the WEF’s much-promoted great reset that is anything but innocuous.
At its core, this restructuring represents an intense effort to further concentrate wealth, power and control in the hands of the world’s self-appointed masters. They aim to once and for all fully subjugate the masses, who will incrementally find themselves being (digitally) hammered into complete subservience.
Huxley’s critique of modern society suggests that an elite can govern more efficiently by using psychological methods, such as conditioning and propaganda, rather than traditional forms of coercion: a “painless concentration camp” where true control could be achieved by making people love their servitude.
So, each step of the way, populations across the world (in the BRICS countries too) will continue to be psychologically manipulated (‘nudged’) in to believing that being tracked and traced, implanted with chips, injected with nanoparticles, censored, stripped of individual liberties, criminalised for displaying an opinion that does not conform with the official narrative or digitally ID’d will be for their convenience, their safety or to protect ‘free speech’ or ‘democracy’.
Democracy in name only — long ago hollowed out by government creditors, subverted and controlled opposition and corporate capture.
What we are seeing is a fundamental reset that aims to determine not only our relationship with power but the very nature of our existence and even the right to exist as a human.
So, what’s the solution? There is no simple answer. Articles like this are often read by individuals who already recognise the importance of education, organisation, activism and non-compliance. The key challenge lies in mobilising a critical mass of people to bring about the necessary pushback and change.
While some might scoff, many are actively working towards this goal. And we should never forget — We Are Human, We Are Free.
Visualizing Drug-Use Trends In Young American Adults
Today, the three most common substances used among Americans aged 19 to 30 are alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine vapes.
In particular, cannabis use is approaching record levels, while nicotine vaping among young adults has surged, with one in four reporting use over a 12-month period. By contrast, binge drinking and nonmedical prescription use are at record lows. Cigarette smoking has also dropped by two-thirds since 2004.
Below, we show the share of Americans aged 19 to 30 who have used the following substances at least once in the past 30 days, based on a survey of 4,810 respondents:
*Other drugs are nonmedical drugs other than cannabis, including hallucinogens (including LSD), cocaine, amphetamines, sedatives (barbiturates), tranquilizers, and narcotics/opioids (including heroin). Data as of 2023.
While alcohol is the most prevalent substance overall, use has declined from 74% of young adults in 1988 to 64.9% in 2023.
Moreover, daily drinking habits sank to 3.6% of young adults, the lowest share ever recorded. In line with this trend, binge drinking, represented as more than five drinks in a row during a two-week period, fell to 27.2%. Binge drinking has broadly trended downward since the 2008 peak of 37.3%.
Meanwhile, cigarette smoking has declined dramatically—from 29.4% of young adults in 1988 to just 8.8% in 2023—although vaping nicotine is on the rise. In response to its increasing prevalence, 15 states have enacted laws on flavored vapes and online sales amid healthcare risks. Most recently, flavored vapes were banned in California in January 2025.
Despite the ongoing opiod epidemic, drug use (other than cannabis) has fallen slightly from 9.4% of young adults in 1988 to 6.6% in 2023. Overall, hallucinogenics are among the most commonly-used drugs, reaching a record high of 8.5% of young adults over a 12-month period.
Meanwhile, the share of young adults that have used cannabis at least once in the past 30 days has risen from 17.5% in 1988 to 28.7% in 2023. For those using cannabis on a daily basis, this figure stands at one in 10 young adults. As cannabis legalization has spread across nearly half of all U.S. states, use has also risen among adults aged 35 to 50 over the past five years.
To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on alcohol consumption by region.
Several Democrat lawmakers said on Feb. 2 that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should commit to avoiding all decisions related to vaccines if he becomes the next U.S. health secretary.
“Given the breadth of your involvement in vaccine litigation, such a recusal would help ensure that you and your family do not benefit financially from official government actions that you will oversee and control,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), wrote in a letter to Kennedy.
President Donald Trump has selected Kennedy, a lawyer, to take over the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The department includes the Food and Drug Administration, which clears vaccines, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issues vaccine guidance that is widely adopted by states.
The Senate Finance Committee is scheduled this week to vote on Kennedy’s nomination. If a majority approves, the nomination will be sent to the full Senate.
Kennedy said in an ethics agreement that, if he is confirmed, he would resign from a consulting arrangement with the Wisner Baum law firm that involves referring cases to the firm.
“Pursuant to the referral agreement, I am entitled to receive 10% of fees awarded in contingency fee cases referred to the firm. I am not trying these cases, I am not an attorney of record for the cases, and I will not provide representational services in connection with the cases during my appointment to the position of Secretary,” Kennedy wrote.
The Finance Committee identified at least five cases related to litigation over the Gardasil human papillomavirus vaccine in which Kennedy is still listed as the attorney of record.
“When questioned by the Committee, you did not directly acknowledge this omission or provide clarity about any financial compensation you might receive related to these cases,” Wyden and Warren said.
While Kennedy agreed to divest from those cases, Kennedy declined to recuse himself from decisions related to Gardasil in written communication with the panel, the senators said. He also disclosed that he was divesting his interest in cases referred to Wisner Baum to his adult son, which would let an immediate family member benefit from Kennedy’s secretary role if Kennedy is confirmed, they added.
Recusing from vaccine-related decisions and communications will “ensure vaccine-related policymaking and communications are not inappropriately skewed by your personal views at the expense of scientific evidence,” they wrote.
A spokesperson for Kennedy did not answer the phone or return a voicemail.
It takes strength to be free. That is why they want us to be weak.
When we are weak, we are much more likely to become dependent upon the system to survive, and that makes us much easier to control. So they give us junk to eat, they put poisons into our air and water, they “dumb us down” from a very early age, they feed us a steady stream of “programming” that makes us depressed and afraid, they get us hooked on legal and illegal drugs, and they constantly try to get us into as much debt as possible.
Something that a rapper known as Zuby posted on Twitter sums this up perfectly…
He really nailed it.
We were created to be independent beings, but the elite are constantly attempting to make us as dependent as possible.
Here in the United States, we are supposed to be the most prosperous nation on the entire planet.
And yet most of us are living like servants.
When I was growing up, $80,000 sounded like an enormous mountain of money. And it actually was a very significant amount of money in those days. But in 2025 it just doesn’t go that far. Today, the median household income in the U.S. is approximately $80,000 a year. Approximately half of all U.S. households make more than that, and approximately half of all U.S. households make less than that. So if your family earns $80,000 in 2025 that would put you about right in the middle.
So can a typical family of four survive on $80,000 in America today?
The answer might surprise you.
Over the past four years, the cost of living has been rising much faster than our paychecks have.
As a result, our standard of living has been steadily going down.
$80,000 breaks down to about $6,666 a month. So how far will $6,666 a month stretch for a family of four in today’s economy?….
First of all, our hypothetical family of four needs a place to live. As I discussed the other day, the household income required to purchase a typical home in the U.S. has more than tripled since January 2012. At this point, the average mortgage payment in the U.S. is about $2,200.
So after paying the mortgage, we only have $4,466 left.
Next, our family of four has to pay for utilities for their home. According to Google AI, the average U.S. household spends $600 a month on their utilities bills.
So now we only have $3,866 left.
Our family is also going to need phone and Internet service. Cell phone bills for a family of four can balloon to ridiculous proportions, but let’s assume that our family of four is extremely budget conscious and has found a package where they can get basic phone service for 50 dollars a month and Internet service for 50 dollars a month.
Now we are down to $3,766.
In our hypothetical household, both parents are also going to need vehicles to get to work. Let’s assume that both vehicles were purchased used, so the payments will only total about $600 a month. If the vehicles were purchased new this number could potentially be much higher.
Suddenly we only have $3,166 remaining.
If our family has two vehicles that means that they will also be paying for automobile insurance. Let’s assume that they both have exemplary driving records and so they are only spending about $100 a month.
Now our total is just $3,066.
Our hypothetical family of four is also going to need health insurance. According to Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, a typical family of four will spend $1,437 a month on health insurance.
Ouch.
Now we only have $1,629 left.
Our hypothetical family is also going to have to eat. Let’s assume that our family clips coupons and cuts corners any way that it can and only spends about $50 for each member of the family on food and toiletries each week. That works out to a total of $800 a month for the entire family.
I know that number may seem way too low to many of you, but let’s go with it.
That brings our remaining cash down to just $829.
Needless to say, our hypothetical family will also need to buy gasoline to get to and from work each week. Let’s assume that they don’t live too far from work and only need to fill up both vehicles about once per week. That would give them a gasoline bill of about $50 a week or $200 a month. Of course if either of them has a long commute to work or if a lot of extra driving is required for other reasons this expense could be far, far higher.
After everything that we have gone through so far, we actually have $629 left.
That is a reason to celebrate, right?
Wrong.
We haven’t taken federal, state and local taxes out of the paycheck yet.
Federal, state and local taxes will reduce your paycheck by about one-fourth.
So after taxes, we are now $1,371 in the hole.
Up to this point we have assumed that our family does not have any credit card debt or student loan debt at all. If they do, those payments will have to be made as well.
In addition, the budget above includes no money for clothing, no money for dining out, no money for additional entertainment, no money for medications, no money for pets, no money for hobbies, no money for life insurance, no money for vacations, no money for vehicle repairs and maintenance, no money for child care, no money for birthday or holiday gifts, and no money for retirement.
On top of everything else, if our family of four has a catastrophic health expense that health insurance will not pay for, then our hypothetical family of four is suddenly facing a complete and utter financial catastrophe.
Are you starting to get the picture?
Most of us are just desperately trying to find a way to scrape by from month to month, and that is the way that the elite like it.
Do you feel like you are a hamster on a wheel that is never really getting anywhere?
Well, the truth is that what you are feeling is very real, because the entire system has been designed to keep us all trapped for as long as possible.
USAF Spy Plane Runs SIGINT Operation Near Cabo As US Preps For Potential Cartel Fight
After what may be the shortest trade war in history, Mexico and Canada have each committed 10,000 troops to their respective borders, while the US has reinforced its southern border with thousands of troops. These developments suggest the US military may be gearing up for potential action against out-of-control Mexican drug cartels, with the first step involving the collection of signals intelligence (SIGINT) through surveillance flights over cartel-controlled territories in Mexico.
Several open-source intelligence X accounts have posted flight tracking data of a US Air Force RC-135V/W Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft, indicating it may have conducted a SIGINT operation over the southern half of Baja California, a region home to heavily armed Tijuana Cartel and Sinaloa Cartel members.
“Wow, for the first time I have ever seen, a U.S. Air Force RC-135V “Rivet Joint” Signals Intelligence Platform from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, is operating within Mexican Airspace, over the Gulf of California between Baja California Sur, Sonora, and Sinaloa,” OSINTdefender wrote on X.
Wow, for the first time I have ever seen, a U.S. Air Force RC-135V “Rivet Joint” Signals Intelligence Platform from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, is operating within Mexican Airspace, over the Gulf of California between Baja California Sur, Sonora, and Sinaloa. pic.twitter.com/ucEDSc4Zxj
WarMonitor wrote on X, “American military RC-135V Rivet Joint surveillance plane has been taking a good look at cartel positions all over the western coast of Mexico today including in Sinaloa.”
American military RC-135V Rivet Joint surveillance plane has been taking a good look at cartel positions all over the western coast of Mexico today including in Sinaloa.
OSINTdefender wrote in another post, “One of the first concrete signs of new US military activity within Mexico.”
A USAF RC-135V Rivet Joint signals reconnaissance aircraft is currently loitering over the Gulf of California, hoovering up signals intelligence from Mexico.
“This may be part of the new US-Mexico (Trump-Sheinbaum) cooperation against the drug cartels,” former USAF lieutenant colonel Rick Francona wrote on X.
This is something I haven’t seen before – a US Air Force RC-135V Rivet Joint SIGINT platform operating in Mexican airspace. I’ve got a few hours on 845….
This may be part of the new US-Mexico (Trump-Sheinbaum) cooperation against the drug cartels.
The RC-135V/W Rivet Joint is the USAF’s premier SIGINT aircraft, designed to intercept, identify, and analyze enemy communications and electronic signals. Operated primarily by the 55th Wing at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, the spy plane will be a critical air asset for the Trump administration and the Department of Defense for real-time intelligence collection, surveillance, and even electronic warfare against cartels. The purpose of this flight is likely to be strategic planning and threat assessment.
Recall that President Trump recently designated Mexican cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” When reporters asked Trump whether he would consider deploying US special forces operators to Mexico, he responded, “Could happen” and added, “Stranger things have happened.”
BREAKING: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just confirmed that the United States could now conduct special operations against Mexican cartels now that President Trump has declared them foreign terrorist organizations.
Trump’s shock weekend tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China were mainly to get neighboring countries on board with operations to “disrupt and dismantle” Mexican drug cartels, as well as prepare for the busting of command and control centers operated by Chinese transnational organized crime networks.
We noted this before Canada bowed a knee to Trump…
US & Canada Unveil Blueprint For Post-Tariff Partnership To ‘Disrupt & Dismantle’ CCP-Fueled Fentanyl Crisis https://t.co/bjGL1VG6aH
What’s important to note is that China’s “reverse opium wars” on America, think of it as hybrid warfare, is coming to an abrupt end under Trump. The drug death catastrophe of 100,00 Americans per year was unacceptable and somehow allowed to happen by the Biden-Haris regime and rogue Democrats who pushed open southern borders.
Dismantling Mexican drug cartels could be a very messy operation, which is why the Trump administration fortified the border with the military. The challenge, however, is that if US special forces operators kill cartel leaders, retaliatory attacks by cartel members could occur at Mexican beach resorts or, worse, on the streets of US cities.
