As the world moves closer to The Matrix, China is moving closer to Star Wars. The country’s drive to gain autonomy in critical technologies has pushed it deeper into space, the deep sea and the Arctic, according to a new article from the South China Morning Post.

After the Yinhe incident and later exclusion from Europe’s Galileo programme, Beijing built the BeiDou navigation system, now a 64-satellite network used over a trillion times daily. This move from dependence to autonomy now defines its national strategy. Recent five-year plans highlight deep-sea, polar and aerospace projects as “forward-looking and strategic,” and aim to make China a “major space power,” including an “ice Silk Road” to strengthen its polar role.

Analysts say China’s capabilities now rival global leaders. Li Hanming says “China’s space technology is at the same level as other leading players, such as the European Union, United States or Russia.”

BeiDou sits alongside other global navigation systems, and Tiangong mirrors the ISS. Commercial progress is rapid as well: LandSpace is testing a reusable first-stage rocket, prompting US worries. Brigadier General Brian Sidari warned it would be “concerning once they figure out that reusable lift,” since it could enable large satellite constellations. China’s Qianfan system has about 90 satellites but aims for 15,000 by 2030.

SCMP writes that China’s Arctic footprint is also expanding. The Tan Suo San Hao recently completed another Arctic mission, with state media saying China is now the only country capable of continuous manned deep-sea dives in dense Arctic ice zones. New icebreakers, research stations and private cruise operations bolster its presence.

Europe fears it is losing ground; a Mercator Institute study warned that “China’s footprint in the Arctic and space demands urgent attention,” citing risks to security and access to key minerals and energy. Katja Bego notes Europe’s slow investment has “helped open the door to actors with fewer scruples, such as China.”

China’s growing cooperation with Russia heightens these concerns. The two plan a joint lunar base and a lunar nuclear power plant, with Russian Arctic expertise complementing China’s ambitions. As Merics observed, “Russia’s contributions in the Arctic and space are substantial, and in many cases complementary to China’s capabilities.”

Western confidence in its technological lead is starting to waver. Charles Austin Jordan said, “That sentiment is primed to turn very quickly … even moderate progress by China … could quickly ignite severe anxieties.” Chinese experts argue the fears are exaggerated. Shan Guangcun says China is focused on reducing vulnerability after repeated restrictions: “Breaking through in these areas means freeing Beijing from dependence on others in core technologies,” and “Ensuring technological autonomy … has become a cornerstone of national security.”

He attributes Western reactions to shifting power dynamics, ideology and real concerns, saying “Some of the West’s anxiety reflects a natural wariness … some stems from ideological bias … some is based on genuine security concerns.” Li Hanming adds the US sees threat partly because “historically they themselves used space technology as a tool of deterrence.”

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A damning study complete with an interactive map has revealed that UK police arrested nearly 10,000 people in 2024 for “grossly offensive” social media posts—equivalent to 30 arrests every single day—while knife crime, burglary, and sexual offences go unsolved.

This Orwellian crackdown, driven by vague “communications” laws, has turned Britain into an international embarrassment, with forces devoting more manpower to policing opinions than protecting citizens.

Compiled from Freedom of Information requests to 39 police forces, the data shows 9,700 arrests in 2024 alone under the Communications Act 2003 and Malicious Communications Act 1988.

🚨 SPEECH CRIME POSTCODE LOTTERY

A Daily Mail investigation has exposed the shocking number of people arrested for “offensive” social media posts.

Freedom of Information requests sent to all police forces in England and Wales revealed that 9,700 people were arrested last year… pic.twitter.com/DxPsD3HBOE

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) November 17, 2025

Britain’s police state unmasked: Map reveals shocking numbers clapped in handcuffs over ‘offensive’ social media posts https://t.co/oEMwjRK2Go

— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) November 15, 2025

Cumbria police topped the list with 42.5 arrests per 100,000 population—20 times higher than Staffordshire’s 2.1. Six forces refused to release figures, meaning the true total is likely far higher.

Free speech fightback against social media arrests mapped: 200,000 Brits sign petition against jailing people for ‘offensive’ social media posts – so how many are in YOUR area? https://t.co/6xLCrpr8XJ

— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) November 16, 2025

As we reported earlier this year, Britain now averages 30 speech arrests daily—Toby Young of the Free Speech Union described it as “a national scandal” and warned the UK is becoming “the North Korea of the North Sea.”

The map spotlights absurd prosecutions, like comedy writer Graham Linehan’s 2025 Heathrow arrest by five armed officers for three gender-critical tweets; a 71-year-old ex-cop detained eight hours for mocking a pro-Palestine activist, with officers mocking his “very Brexity” books; and parents raided at dawn over “sarcastic” school emails, held for 11 hours in front of their crying daughter, with eventually no charges filed.

These join a long list of horrors: women grilled at home over Facebook posts, men cuffed for WhatsApp gripes, and even a Telegraph journalist visited for a year-old tweet, as well as an endless list of other cases.

Maya Thomas of Big Brother Watch warns that “The UK is unfortunately gaining an international reputation as a country where online speech is policed with more enthusiasm than the types of crime causing people the most anxiety.”

🤐British police have made a huge number of CHILLING arrests over social media posts

“The government should immediately re-examine the laws that allow for this scale of arrest for online speech & rescue the UK’s worsening civil liberties reputation” – Maya Thomas, legal & policy… pic.twitter.com/5W5zeYThCu

— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch) November 17, 2025

David Spencer of Policy Exchange added, “When Chief Constables choose to use their finite resources on policing social media, it means they are not using that resource to tackle knife crime, sexual offences and shoplifting.”

LOOK AT THAT

UK tops the list for arrests for online comments.

We’re higher than China, Belarus, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And Keir Starmer has the nerve to tell the world we have freedom of speech.

Liar. pic.twitter.com/rF89bEQvM7

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) November 1, 2025

To accommodate this speech crackdown, the government began releasing violent criminals early—up to 1,700 by September 2024—while jailing people for “hurty words.” Officers have openly admitted on bodycam they’re too busy chasing online posts to investigate burglaries.

To make matters worse, schools in the UK now teach pupils to spot “extremist content and misinformation online,” turning British classrooms into training grounds for tomorrow’s thought police—straight out of Orwell’s 1984.

This curriculum risks stifling curiosity, fostering division, and weaponizing children against parents or peers for “offensive” views—eroding family bonds in a nation already jailing the outspoken.

As the UK polices pixels over predators, and Starmer’s speech gulag expands, President Trump has dispatched a free-speech squad to probe erosions, meeting jailed activists and tying trade deals to rights.

Trump Sent A ‘Free Speech Squad’ To The UK To Investigate Erosion Of Rights

Trump is now actively offering political asylum to persecuted Brits—from silent prayer protesters to gender-critical feminists.

This map is the smoking gun proving Britain no longer polices crime—it polices thought. While streets bleed, keyboards are handcuffed. The question is no longer if the UK is a police state, but how much longer the British people will tolerate it.

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

EU and NATO leaders are currently pointing the finger at Russia for what could be one of the single biggest acts of sabotage on European soil since the Ukraine war began.

A train track linking the Polish cities of Warsaw and Lublin was destroyed in an “unprecedented act of sabotage” on Sunday. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that the now damaged railway is “crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine.” In invoking Ukraine aid, he’s clearly letting suspicion fall on Moscow – though no arrests have been made in the early investigation. But photos suggest it’s only a very small section of track left missing and subject to damage. And yet this could indeed be enough to derail a train.

An “explosive device” blew up the rail track, Tusk stated X. He followed by decrying that the act “directly (targeted) the security of the Polish state and its civilians.” Apparently there was more damage even beyond this, with destruction located further down the line as well.

“Unfortunately, the worst suspicions were confirmed. An act of sabotage occurred on the Warsaw-Lublin line (in the village of Mika). An explosive device detonated and destroyed the railway track,” Tusk said.

While not directly naming Russia, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was quick to chime in, calling for greater European collective defense, also to ‘protect the skies’ amid alleged Russian-directed drone operations…

The threats to our security are real and growing.

Europe must urgently boost capacity to protect our skies and our infrastructure.

Poland is the largest defence spender in Europe. And it will be the biggest beneficiary of the SAFE instrument.

Razem jesteśmy silniejsi. https://t.co/bzHulLpnys

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) November 17, 2025

Estonia’s Prime Minister Kristen Michal additionally condemned the apparent sabotage op, writing on X that he and his country stand with Poland. “Those behind hostile acts against (European Union) and NATO members must be exposed. Our response must be united,” Michal said.

Estonia is one among several Balkan and Eastern European countries which have lately been alleging EU airspace is being widely sabotaged by Russian drones or at times military aircraft incursions.

United Media/Dyspozytura Trakcji via X: Damaged railway track with shattered concrete sleepers and a deformed steel rail section near Warsaw, Poland — suspected sabotage site under investigation.

As for the location of the alleged train track sabotage, Mika is located a little over 60 miles from Warsaw. It could indeed be part of an ongoing tit-for-tat sabotaging of both Russian and European infrastructure, in a long-running chain of mystery events.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The United Kingdom’s public health service is reportedly refusing to release data on the potential relationship between the COVID vaccine and excess deaths.

The reason?

It would upset people to know the truth.

The question is whether British citizens have become so passive and yielding that they will support their government, keeping them from learning the facts about vaccines and allowing them to reach their own conclusions.

The UK has long embraced speech controls and censorship to protect citizens from unacceptable views or what one criminal defendant was told were “toxic ideologies.”

Social media companies assisted governments in censoring opposing scientific views during the pandemic, including those regarding the potential dangers of the vaccines.

Over the years, dissenting faculty members have been forced out of scientific and academic organizations for challenging preferred conclusions on subjects ranging from transgender transitions to COVID-19 protections to climate change. Some were barred from speaking at universities or blacklisted for their opposing views.

Many of the exiled experts were ultimately proven correct in challenging the efficacy of surgical masks or the need to shut down our schools and businesses. Scientists moved like a herd of lemmings on the origin of the virus, crushing those who suggested that the most likely explanation is a lab leak (a position that federal agencies would later embrace).

Scientists have worked with the government in suppressing dissenting views. For example, The Wall Street Journal released a report on how the Biden administration suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab leak theory, as dissenting scientists were blacklisted and targeted.

When experts within the Biden Administration found that the lab theory was the most likely explanation for COVID-19, they were told not to share their data publicly and were warned about being “off the reservation.”

Universities and associations joined the crackdown. Scientists questioning the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and the six-foot rule were suppressed. So were those arguing that we should, as in Europe, keep schools open. These experts were also later vindicated, but few were rehired or reestablished in universities or associations.

It was all done in the name of protecting the public from opposing views or data.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) shows that little has changed. 

According to the Telegraph, the agency declared that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.

It also suggested that the data might stress or undermine the mental health of the families and friends of people who died.

The story has received little attention in the media, which previously joined efforts to suppress opposing views during the pandemic.

We have no idea what the data actually says, but there should be uniform agreement that the public has a right to know.

The controversy is reminiscent of the position of the British courts on sharing information with patients. In the United States, there is a strong common law in favor of disclosing to patients any risks or complications associated with possible treatments or surgeries. In the UK, the courts took a more deferential view of doctors. As with the agency’s position, the rationale was hard for many in the United States to comprehend, let alone accept.

For example, in Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital (1985), the court rejected the need for a surgeon to inform a patient of a low risk of nerve damage from a laminectomy, writing:

“I confess that I reach this conclusion with no regret. The evidence in this case showed that a contrary result would be damaging to the relationship of trust and confidence between doctor and patient, and might well have an adverse effect on the practice of medicine.  It is doubtful whether it would be of any significant benefit to patients, most of whom prefer to put themselves unreservedly in the hands of their doctors.”

The decision to withhold the data on vaccines shows the same arrogant assumptions.

If I had a loved one who died from the vaccine, I would like to know about it.

The government is essentially arguing a Jessup rule that “you can’t handle the truth.”

We will now see if the British people have lost all self-respect and separation from their government in yielding to this decision.

In the past, climate change has been consistently ranked as a “top concern” for people all over the world. However, that priority has shifted in recent years according to a revealing study published in October by global research firm Ipsos.   

The change has been dramatic. In 2025, public concern over climate change has fallen sharply behind concerns of war and economic instability, with geopolitical turmoil and the cost of living crisis.  Ipsos’ 2025 Global Consumer Awareness Survey, which was published in collaboration with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), covers 50 countries and surveyed more than 40,000 respondents.  It found that war and the economy now dominate public worries at 52%, while climate change trails at just 31%.

Climate scientists say this drop in public concern over global warming is disturbing.  They claim 2024 was the “hottest year on record” (which is a lie), and that the populace should be more worried, not less.

The public is, of course, more concerned about the immediate dangers to their standard of living and such threats have easily supplanted climate change:  A threat which we have been browbeaten with over the course of decades even though it never seems to materialize.  

However, education on the facts surrounding climate change has also given the public perspective and people are beginning to realize that climate science might just be one of the biggest scams of the 21st Century.  In other words, the indoctrination is failing and less and less people are buying into the hysteria.

Climate science is an industry that us built like a labyrinthine bureaucracy.  Various governments worldwide spend around $10 billion annually on direct funding for climate research.  The scam is lucrative, and so the scam must continue.  But what happens when climate predictions turn out consistently false and the public gets wise?

Time to switch gears and fabricate new fears… 

Popular Mechanics is on the case (yet again), promoting a new climate science theory that global warming is going to get so bad it will trigger a new ice age.  Yes, it’s the complete opposite of what global warming theorists have been positing for years, but let’s ignore that fact for a moment.

A new study suggests that biological and oceanic process—supercharged by anthropogenic climate change—could eventually lead the Earth to overcorrect and send the planet into a deep freeze. 

Popular Mechanic’s claims:

“Today, the Earth is experiencing a warming period unlike any other. The Jurassic, which was warm due to high levels of atmospheric carbon, reached its sweltering temperatures gradually, whereas anthropogenic climate change has caused much more rapid shifts – so rapid, in fact, that certain climactic changes have been discernible even within the average human lifespan…”

None of this is true.  They continue:

“Typically, one way the Earth regulates its temperature is through the slow weathering of silicate rocks—a process sometimes referred to as Earth’s “natural thermostat.” But a new study, led by scientists at the University of Bremen in German and the University of California (UC) Riverside, shows that a combination of biological and oceanic feedback loops (particularly those involving algae, phosphorus, and oxygen) could outpace this long-standing moderation strategy. This would paradoxically lead Earth to a premature deep freeze hundreds of thousands of years in the future…”

So, even if this theory was accurate, we’ve got plenty of time to figure it out.  If you are familiar with the history of climate change propaganda dating back to the 1970’s, then this idea might sound very familiar to you.  Some of the first claims of impending climate doom were not about global warming, they were about global cooling.  This was back when the narrative was not solidified and consensus had not yet been paid for.

In reality, today’s “warming period” is actually one of the coldest periods in the history of the Earth.  When climate scientists say that a particular year was the “hottest on record”, what they omit is the length of the record they are referring to.  Climate scientists base all of their claims of global warming on a 140 year record going back to the 1880s.  This is a tiny sliver of time in the Earth’s overall climate history.  If you look at a record going back millions of years, you will find that our planet has had warming cycles far hotter than today.

Not only do they consistently lie about comparative temperatures and the climate record, they also lie about carbon emissions being the cause of warming trends.  A graph of atmospheric carbon content over the same time frame shows no correlation or causation between carbon and warming.

One thing that is true is that global cooling would be more dangerous to the Earth than global warming.  The most recent Ice Age was a devastating event that is projected to have killed up to 150,000 non-microbe species.  On a grand scale of Earth-time, we have barely exited that disaster which ended 11,000 years ago.

In all likelihood the climate change industry is rushing to find a new narrative as the populace drifts away from global warming fear.  Carbon taxation, population control, centralized government dominance of energy and industry all rely on people blindly accepting man-made climate change as real. Global cooling might make a comeback as the premier bogeyman of the future if global warming doesn’t stick.  

In the past, climate change has been consistently ranked as a “top concern” for people all over the world. However, that priority has shifted in recent years according to a revealing study published in October by global research firm Ipsos.   

The change has been dramatic. In 2025, public concern over climate change has fallen sharply behind concerns of war and economic instability, with geopolitical turmoil and the cost of living crisis.  Ipsos’ 2025 Global Consumer Awareness Survey, which was published in collaboration with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), covers 50 countries and surveyed more than 40,000 respondents.  It found that war and the economy now dominate public worries at 52%, while climate change trails at just 31%.

Climate scientists say this drop in public concern over global warming is disturbing.  They claim 2024 was the “hottest year on record” (which is a lie), and that the populace should be more worried, not less.

The public is, of course, more concerned about the immediate dangers to their standard of living and such threats have easily supplanted climate change:  A threat which we have been browbeaten with over the course of decades even though it never seems to materialize.  

However, education on the facts surrounding climate change has also given the public perspective and people are beginning to realize that climate science might just be one of the biggest scams of the 21st Century.  In other words, the indoctrination is failing and less and less people are buying into the hysteria.

Climate science is an industry that us built like a labyrinthine bureaucracy.  Various governments worldwide spend around $10 billion annually on direct funding for climate research.  The scam is lucrative, and so the scam must continue.  But what happens when climate predictions turn out consistently false and the public gets wise?

Time to switch gears and fabricate new fears… 

Popular Mechanics is on the case (yet again), promoting a new climate science theory that global warming is going to get so bad it will trigger a new ice age.  Yes, it’s the complete opposite of what global warming theorists have been positing for years, but let’s ignore that fact for a moment.

A new study suggests that biological and oceanic process—supercharged by anthropogenic climate change—could eventually lead the Earth to overcorrect and send the planet into a deep freeze. 

Popular Mechanic’s claims:

“Today, the Earth is experiencing a warming period unlike any other. The Jurassic, which was warm due to high levels of atmospheric carbon, reached its sweltering temperatures gradually, whereas anthropogenic climate change has caused much more rapid shifts – so rapid, in fact, that certain climactic changes have been discernible even within the average human lifespan…”

None of this is true.  They continue:

“Typically, one way the Earth regulates its temperature is through the slow weathering of silicate rocks—a process sometimes referred to as Earth’s “natural thermostat.” But a new study, led by scientists at the University of Bremen in German and the University of California (UC) Riverside, shows that a combination of biological and oceanic feedback loops (particularly those involving algae, phosphorus, and oxygen) could outpace this long-standing moderation strategy. This would paradoxically lead Earth to a premature deep freeze hundreds of thousands of years in the future…”

So, even if this theory was accurate, we’ve got plenty of time to figure it out.  If you are familiar with the history of climate change propaganda dating back to the 1970’s, then this idea might sound very familiar to you.  Some of the first claims of impending climate doom were not about global warming, they were about global cooling.  This was back when the narrative was not solidified and consensus had not yet been paid for.

In reality, today’s “warming period” is actually one of the coldest periods in the history of the Earth.  When climate scientists say that a particular year was the “hottest on record”, what they omit is the length of the record they are referring to.  Climate scientists base all of their claims of global warming on a 140 year record going back to the 1880s.  This is a tiny sliver of time in the Earth’s overall climate history.  If you look at a record going back millions of years, you will find that our planet has had warming cycles far hotter than today.

Not only do they consistently lie about comparative temperatures and the climate record, they also lie about carbon emissions being the cause of warming trends.  A graph of atmospheric carbon content over the same time frame shows no correlation or causation between carbon and warming.

One thing that is true is that global cooling would be more dangerous to the Earth than global warming.  The most recent Ice Age was a devastating event that is projected to have killed up to 150,000 non-microbe species.  On a grand scale of Earth-time, we have barely exited that disaster which ended 11,000 years ago.

In all likelihood the climate change industry is rushing to find a new narrative as the populace drifts away from global warming fear.  Carbon taxation, population control, centralized government dominance of energy and industry all rely on people blindly accepting man-made climate change as real. Global cooling might make a comeback as the premier bogeyman of the future if global warming doesn’t stick.  

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera scandalously refused to publish in full the exclusive written interview with Sergey Lavrov that the Russian Foreign Ministry offered them in order to clarify Russia’s positions and with which they were eager to cooperate until they received the answers from him. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry then condemned their decision as “a blatant case of censorship.”

What follows are highlights from his interview so that readers can make up their own minds about it.

Lavrov began by relating how Trump agreed with Putin in Anchorage that Ukraine should be kept out of NATO and that the new ground reality should be recognized

Ukraine, the EU, and the UK immediately tried to manipulate him right after during their White House meeting. The Financial Times then played a complementary role after the next Trump-Putin call in October by speculating that Lavrov’s follow-up call with Rubio ruined their Budapest Summit plans. Putin is still ready to meet with Trump there though.

The next point that Lavrov made was that the special operation isn’t about territory but saving the Russian minority’s lives and ensuring his country’s security.

The restraint that Russia has exercised thus far is to spare civilian and military lives. He also reaffirmed Russia’s goals in the special operation and defended wearing a sweatshirt with USSR written on the front during the Anchorage Summit, which he said doesn’t imply a desire to recreate the Soviet Union and was just a display of patriotism.

Moving along, Lavrov said that the Europeans want to indefinitely perpetuate the Ukrainian Conflict because “they have no other way of distracting their voters from sharply deteriorating domestic socioeconomic problems…they are openly preparing Europe for a new big war against Russia and are trying to talk Washington into rejecting an honest and fair settlement.”

He then referenced Russia’s pre-2022 proposal for reforming the European security architecture, which NATO and the EU rejected.

When asked about Russia’s “isolation”, he listed Russia’s wide array of partners across the Global South and some of the high-level events in which his fellow diplomats participated, while dismissing the interviewer’s suggestion that Russia is in an alliance with China and dependent on it. He clarified that they coordinate their positions on key issues and regard one another as equals. Lavrov then ended by saying that a Russian-Italian rapprochement is only possible if Rome abandons its hostile policies.

Lavrov did indeed inject some predictable polemics into his answers, which is his style as anyone who follows him knows, but those aren’t legitimate grounds not to publish his interview. Corriere della Sera has the right to withhold publication of whatever it wants or only release an edited version, but their decision not to publish this interview in full reeks of censorship carried out on the pretext of their editorial standards. They probably didn’t want folks to read his polemics against Ukraine and the West.

In any case, all that they did was inadvertently draw more attention to the same polemics that they presumably wanted to censor after the Russian Foreign Ministry shined a spotlight on this scandal. Corriere della Sera is considered one of Europe’s newspapers of record so this reflects very poorly on them and the continent’s journalism industry as a whole. That’s not surprising for astute observers, but it might make an impression among casual ones who naively assumed that censorship doesn’t exist there.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera scandalously refused to publish in full the exclusive written interview with Sergey Lavrov that the Russian Foreign Ministry offered them in order to clarify Russia’s positions and with which they were eager to cooperate until they received the answers from him. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry then condemned their decision as “a blatant case of censorship.”

What follows are highlights from his interview so that readers can make up their own minds about it.

Lavrov began by relating how Trump agreed with Putin in Anchorage that Ukraine should be kept out of NATO and that the new ground reality should be recognized

Ukraine, the EU, and the UK immediately tried to manipulate him right after during their White House meeting. The Financial Times then played a complementary role after the next Trump-Putin call in October by speculating that Lavrov’s follow-up call with Rubio ruined their Budapest Summit plans. Putin is still ready to meet with Trump there though.

The next point that Lavrov made was that the special operation isn’t about territory but saving the Russian minority’s lives and ensuring his country’s security.

The restraint that Russia has exercised thus far is to spare civilian and military lives. He also reaffirmed Russia’s goals in the special operation and defended wearing a sweatshirt with USSR written on the front during the Anchorage Summit, which he said doesn’t imply a desire to recreate the Soviet Union and was just a display of patriotism.

Moving along, Lavrov said that the Europeans want to indefinitely perpetuate the Ukrainian Conflict because “they have no other way of distracting their voters from sharply deteriorating domestic socioeconomic problems…they are openly preparing Europe for a new big war against Russia and are trying to talk Washington into rejecting an honest and fair settlement.”

He then referenced Russia’s pre-2022 proposal for reforming the European security architecture, which NATO and the EU rejected.

When asked about Russia’s “isolation”, he listed Russia’s wide array of partners across the Global South and some of the high-level events in which his fellow diplomats participated, while dismissing the interviewer’s suggestion that Russia is in an alliance with China and dependent on it. He clarified that they coordinate their positions on key issues and regard one another as equals. Lavrov then ended by saying that a Russian-Italian rapprochement is only possible if Rome abandons its hostile policies.

Lavrov did indeed inject some predictable polemics into his answers, which is his style as anyone who follows him knows, but those aren’t legitimate grounds not to publish his interview. Corriere della Sera has the right to withhold publication of whatever it wants or only release an edited version, but their decision not to publish this interview in full reeks of censorship carried out on the pretext of their editorial standards. They probably didn’t want folks to read his polemics against Ukraine and the West.

In any case, all that they did was inadvertently draw more attention to the same polemics that they presumably wanted to censor after the Russian Foreign Ministry shined a spotlight on this scandal. Corriere della Sera is considered one of Europe’s newspapers of record so this reflects very poorly on them and the continent’s journalism industry as a whole. That’s not surprising for astute observers, but it might make an impression among casual ones who naively assumed that censorship doesn’t exist there.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

For decades, the monolithic and sacrosanct international climate change hierarchy went unquestioned.

Western nations in particular spent trillions of dollars over the past half-century to subsidize expensive but erratic wind and solar energy while demonizing carbon fuels as toxic threats to the planet.

Like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion dogma, climate change orthodoxy was embedded into every aspect of Western culture, from the corporate boardroom to the university campus.

Question whether man-made global warming was truly responsible for increased temperatures rather than natural, often centuries-long cycles of heating and cooling of the planet, and one was labeled a climate crank.

Everything from declining fertility to forest fires was ridiculously attributed to climate change.

But the causes of both demographic crises and charred landscapes were more likely the result of new affluent lifestyles that saw child-rearing as too expensive and time-consuming, and misguided forest policies or underfunded firefighting.

Yet reality has caught up with the near-religious climate change cult.

One, the left-wing tech billionaires—exemplified by former climate change zealot Bill Gates—have become apostates of the green movement.

Now they do not warn of a planet threatened by too much man-made heat but rather by too little man-made kilowattage.

They believe artificial intelligence will prove as transformative as the Industrial Revolution. But to win the AI revolution will require vast increases in electricity production, of up to a staggering 100 gigawatts a year of additional capacity.

Such enormous demand—to build the equivalent of a hundred huge power plants per year—is far beyond the ability of “renewables” alone.

Instead, the only solution is an “all of the above” strategy of building more nuclear, natural gas, clean-coal, wind, and solar generation plants.

Two, ascendant China’s massive arms buildup and its bullying Belt and Road imperialism have finally put international “climate accords” into question.

Even the environmentalist King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has recently let it slip that he is troubled by why Europe sandbagged its own economy by shutting down its formerly efficient nuclear and fossil fuel plants. He reminded the world that the European Union nations contribute only six percent of the planet’s carbon emissions.

The West finally realizes that a cynical China has been playing it for years by funding green propaganda abroad.

Indeed, Beijing guilt-tripped Europe and the U.S. on global warming while it exported billions of dollars of cheap wind and solar generation products—often below its own cost of production.

Meanwhile, China plows ahead, building two to three coal and nuclear generation plants per month.

Under the propagandistic banner of “climate change,” China hopes that its Western competitors invest in inefficient and high-priced renewable energy. Meanwhile, its own expanding fossil fuel and nuclear industries ensure it will enjoy global price advantages in both trade and armament.

Three, the global climate crisis shakedown has become shameless.

Formerly third-world nations now demand from the West hundreds of billions of dollars in “climate reparations” for carbon emissions released decades ago.

Yes, the West burned more oil and gas. But it also provided the rest of the world with carbon-fueled cars, factories, and modern consumer goods.

Green critics fail to concede that almost all global technology and modern industrial products come from either the West or westernizing copycats.

Four, energy production is at the nexus of conflict and can mean life or death for nations.

To the degree the United States and its allies produce lots of natural gas and oil, they can protect the West from crippling embargoes and cutoffs from anti-Western energy producers.

During the Ukraine War, America exported liquefied natural gas to Europe, not solar panels or turbine blades. And it will be increasingly essential to keep Europe afloat as Russia turns off its export spigot.

When oil and natural gas are affordable, thanks to the fossil fuel production of Western nations, then illiberal and bellicose oil-exporting countries like Iran and Russia have less money to spend on aggressive wars or subsidizing their global terrorists.

Five, science is not fossilized in amber but dynamic and changing.

Increasingly, climatologists are no longer afraid of being bullied by global green scolds.

They point out that while accurate temperature recording is only a couple of centuries old, the planet has been here for over 4 billion years. And it reveals plenty of evidence of natural climate volatility.

Extreme heat and cold spells lasted in nature for centuries—and did so long before humans appeared, little more than 300,000 years ago.

So, the public is sick of pseudoscientific activists peddling their doom-and-gloom wares for their own particular and profitable agendas.

Elite green gurus often buy seaside estates while warning of devastating tidal waves to come. They fly in carbon-spewing private jets while ordering the poor to turn down their air conditioners.

In sum, carbon is dead, long live carbon!

The consensus out of a closely watched presidential race in Chile is that the Right is rising and holds the upper hand, after a Sunday vote produced no clear winner between Jeannette Jara of the Communist Party, and José Antonio Kast, an ultraconservative lawyer who has expressed admiration for Donald Trump.

A run-off is now scheduled for December 14. Sunday’s election, in which neither secured the necessary majority to be declared winner, saw the left-wing Jara finish slightly ahead in the initial round.

However, Kast is favored in the run-off election given that the vote on the right was divided among several candidates, while Jara was the only one on the far Left. But now the lone contender representing the Right, Kast is expected to sweep up these additional votes in December.

The supporters of the now eliminated center-right Senator Evelyn Matthei and libertarian Congressman Johannes Kaiser are expected to get behind former lawmaker Kast for president. In total the three right-wing candidates got over 50% of the vote compared to results in the low 30% range for the left.

This would mark yet another rightward turn in Latin American politics generally, which could also suggest the broader regional influence of Trump messaging.

Kast declared on election night Chile must avoid continuing what he lambasted as “a very bad government – perhaps the worst in Chile’s democratic history.”

The Associated Press describes his staunch conservative platform as follows:

José Antonio Kast, an ultraconservative lawyer opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, appears to be in pole position after nearly 70% of votes went to right-wing candidates in Sunday’s first round, as many Chileans worry about organized crime, illegal immigration and unemployment in one of Latin America’s safest and most prosperous nations.

Kast is a surprise front-runner who speaks fondly of aspects of the country’s period of dictatorship and broke with the traditional conservative party to found his own Republican Party.

And The New York Times talks about Kast’s ‘Trump-style’ approach:

José Antonio Kast, the main conservative contender in Chile’s presidential election and a candidate who has borrowed liberally from President Trump’s playbook, secured second place in voting Sunday, advancing to a runoff that polls predict he will win.

If the polls prove correct, Chile will join a series of Latin American countries, including Argentina and Bolivia, that have shifted to the right in recent years.

As for Jara, she has declared Kast as a ‘threat’ to the country. “Democracy in our country must be protected and valued. We worked hard to regain it, and today it is under threat.”

The “Javier Milei” trend continues…

Chile’s Presidential Election:

🔴Jara 26.7% (Far Left)
🔵Kast 24.1% (Right Wing)
🟡Parisi 19.5% (Right Wing)
🟣Kaiser 13.9% (Right Wing)
🟢Matthei 12.6% (Right Wing)

70%+ went right wing.
Kast is a huge favorite vs. Jara in the runoff. pic.twitter.com/mlJuCpr3Nx

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) November 17, 2025

The question of rising crime on Chilean streets alongside increased immigration has been high on the agenda and featured heavily in public debate. Like with the US, Venezuela has been a name front and center in the immigration discourse.

Of Chile’s nearly 20 million people, at least 1.9 million are foreign nationals. International outlets have calculated this marks an increase of over 46% since 2018. And many of the some 330,000 estimated undocumented migrants are from Venezuela. This has sparked anger and uncertainty among Chileans, especially those in the center and which lean right.