Month: April 2024

Authored by Tamás Klein via The Mises Institute,

In recent years, my homeland, Hungary, a small country in central-eastern Europe, has captured the attention of the American public, particularly those on the political Right. Led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s government has championed a somewhat “Pat Buchanan” style of conservatism, with a strong emphasis on putting the interests of Hungarian families first and resisting supranational political powers, such as the federalist bureaucrats of the European Union, globalist nongovernmental organizations like the Open Society Foundation backed by George Soros, mass immigration, and other threats to its national sovereignty. Viktor Orbán’s unapologetic embrace of right-wing sovereigntism and noninterventionist foreign policy offers valuable lessons and points of inspiration for the American Right. However, like all states, Hungary is far from being a perfect model; thus, Americans should be cautious when trying to learn from it.

Dispelling the Smears

First, it is unfortunately necessary to address and dispel at least some of the most common smears perpetuated by leftists in mainstream Western media. Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orbán, is often portrayed as a puppet of Russian president Vladimir Putin, a narrative that conveniently overlooks the geopolitical realities of the region. While Orbán does maintain good diplomatic relations with Russia—as do many other nations—insinuating that he is under Putin’s thumb is just as unfounded as was the Trump-Russia hoax.

The reality is that there is a historical minority of about one hundred twenty-five thousand Hungarians living in Transcarpathia, a territory that was unjustly taken away from Hungary after World War I and is currently being occupied by the Ukrainian regime. As any sober-thinking person would realize, Orbán is understandably making sure that the Russian artillery and Air Force do not target his people. Furthermore, Hungary has been dependent on Russian natural gas ever since the communist era, a fact Orbán has endeavored to change. Orbán, being the leader of Hungary and not Ukraine nor the European Union, is first and foremost responsible for the well-being of his people and is completely in the right when refusing to satisfy the absurd demands of the Western Left in Washington and Brussels about completely cutting its diplomatic relationships with Russia.

Moreover, even though Orbán could have refused to take in refugees from Ukraine, a country that has been terrorizing its Hungarian minority for decades, he decided to provide refuge for the innocent civilians trying to flee this war. But, of course, almost no one in the West gave him credit for his actions. As Paul Gottfried rightly pointed out,

The media have said little about the world’s “largest democracy,” India, also buying energy from Russia and remaining conspicuously neutral in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. There is a good reason for that lack of indignation. Since India is predominantly non-Christian, lies outside the West, and has a relatively dark-skinned population, the media is not going to hold that country to the same PC standard as a non-woke Western state.

But Viktor Orbán, as the leader of a white Christian country, is, of course, held to different standards; but what is this double standard if not antiwhite racism?

Orbán’s Success

Viktor Orbán’s success in winning elections through populism cannot be ignored. His ability to tap into the concerns and aspirations of ordinary people has been a driving force behind his political longevity. Moreover, after winning elections, he was able to institute meaningful reforms.

Since taking office in 2010, Orbán has quickly restored public order from the chaos that the social democrats created. He also instituted a more just and reasonable flat tax than the previous “progressive” tax policy that punished success. Orbán’s government also passed an income tax break for young people under twenty-five and tax relief that increases with the number of children raised by the family. Moreover, he built a fence on the southern border of the country to keep out the masses of invaders coming from the Middle East and Africa. Although receiving massive international attacks for doing so, Orbán has not shied away from confronting the agendas of powerful figures like George Soros, whose funding of leftist NGOs has been a toxic intrusion into Hungary’s domestic affairs. On the war question, Orbán consequently held a “Hungary first” position, advocating for peace and staying out of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, not sending soldiers, weapons, or ammunition. Also, in the European Union parliament, Hungary has been a frequent solo veto against economic sanctions that hurt its people. Orbán also banned LGBTQ propaganda from schools, putting an end to the “drag queen story hour” before it even really began.

Orbán’s government has effectively grabbed power by recognizing the concerns of ordinary people and unapologetically pointing out who the enemies are: leftists, socialists, the bureaucrats of the European Union, Soros-backed nongovernmental organizations, warmongers, and more. Thus, by not being afraid to use his political power against the Left, Orbán was able to implement policies that have positioned him as a champion of national sovereignty.

Proceed with Caution

While Hungary’s successes under Orbán cannot be understated, American right-wingers must proceed with caution before embracing it as a flawless model. Like any nation, Hungary has its share of challenges and imperfections, many of which are legacies of its communist past and the social democrats that came after it and before Orbán. Also, since Orbán must play by the rules of the game—that is, a democracy—he has to appeal to a population that grew up in socialism; thus, often, even though he most likely understands how some of his policies are detrimental to the economy, he has an election to win in order to make any reforms and thus has to embrace bad economic policies to please the Hungarian public. Nevertheless, high taxes, massive bureaucracies, inflation, economic regulations, price controls, subsidies, protectionist trade policies, and the promotion of green energy are all things that exist under Orbán and greatly hinder economic prosperity.

Moreover, the extreme regulations on gun ownership and the effective impossibility of obtaining permits to carry firearms for self-defense are not something that we, Hungarians, can be proud of either. Additionally, Orbán’s government sadly also passed a new Public Education Law that extensively regulates private schools, effectively bans homeschooling, and makes kindergarten mandatory from age four.

Learning from Each Other

In considering Hungary as a model, the American Right should recognize both its strengths and weaknesses. Orbán’s strategic approach to politics and his ability to enact meaningful policies that protect Hungary’s sovereignty and identity from global leftist hegemony offer valuable lessons. However, blindly adopting all aspects of Hungary’s governance would be shortsighted. Americans should be selective, taking inspiration from Orbán’s successes while remaining vigilant against policies that undermine liberty and prosperity.

Additionally, Hungary could benefit from observing the American Right, especially paleolibertarians, particularly in areas such as free-market economics, sound money, the importance of the right to bear arms, and the sovereignty of parents over their children’s education. By learning from each other, both Hungary and the American Right could greatly benefit. To ensure that both sides only learn from each other the good and not the bad, it is vital to keep in mind the words of Saint Basil the Great in his “Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature.” In it, Saint Basil the Great of Caesarea gave guidance to the Christian youth about whether they should read literature from pagan sources, such as the great Greek philosophers. St. Basil instructed them to do so but with caution, only taking the good and leaving the bad:

Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious.

In conclusion, Hungary under Viktor Orbán presents a compelling case study for the American Right, showcasing the power of right-sovereigntist populism. However, it is essential to approach the Hungarian model with wisdom. The relationship between Hungary and the American Right should mirror the wisdom of Saint Basil’s counsel on using Greek literature. Just as bees selectively gather nectar from flowers, Americans should selectively adopt elements from Hungary’s model that align with its principles and goals while guarding against those that may be detrimental. And we, as Austrians and paleolibertarians, must be ready to point out when fellow right-wingers are about to take “poison with honey.” By doing so, the American Right can continue advancing its vision for a better future, guided by wisdom and discernment.

It is no surprise that a new Gallup poll shows a growing number of Gen-Zers and millennials are becoming increasingly frustrated with the failure of ‘Bidenomics‘ as they struggle with the cost-of-living crisis. 

We didn’t need a poll to reveal the frustrations of youngsters working two or three jobs just to afford rent, auto payments, and avocado and toast. The writing has been on the wall, especially on social media feeds of TikTok and X: 

The struggle is real for the new generation, which is just now learning that working a 9-5 isn’t as easy as college. pic.twitter.com/FvAeYkTddt

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 25, 2023

A lot of people seem to think this mindset is unique to Gen Z. It’s not.

Every generation goes through this. Watch Reality Bites, where a group of 20-somethings in the early 90s deal with the exact same struggles and emotions as described in this video.

pic.twitter.com/7h1gAN3c7R

— Matthew Kobach 🍕 (@mkobach) October 20, 2023

The Gen-Z girl who complained about the 9-5 work schedule has a comment for Business Insider (which tried to find out where she works) about the stress of finding a job as a post-grad. She’s got a point. pic.twitter.com/4ExfWrELLF

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 27, 2023

Woman defends Gen-Z not wanting to work a 9-5 for the rest of their lives

“I don’t want to work my tail end off, wasting all of my life working, just to barely be able to pay my bills” pic.twitter.com/BxaTXjaxcd

— Unlimited L’s (@unlimited_ls) January 8, 2024

The new Gallup poll of 18-29-year-olds validates the Biden administration, which seemingly cares more about illegal aliens and the LGBTQQIP2SAA community (not sure what all those letters mean), is quickly losing the young vote. 

People in that age cohort are more than twice as likely to cite the economy as their top concern compared with older adults in recent Gallup data. And while all voters are more worried about the economy now than they were heading into the 2020 presidential election, the pessimism has spiked the most among those under 30. –Bloomberg 

It’s a wake-up call for the Biden administration. A recent Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll reveals a surprising trend: Former President Trump is leading President Biden 47% to 40% among voters 18-34 in swing states. This is a significant shift from the last presidential cycle when Biden won 61% of voters under 30. 

The Biden administration understands they desperately need Gen-Z and millennial support to win in November. They are trying everything in their power to buy votes by bailing out youngsters with student debt (despite the Supreme Court ruling). 

Youngsters are coming of age in one of the worst economic periods this nation has seen in a generation. Elevated inflation is crushing household finances.

With the election cycle well underway, there are mounting risks inflation could accelerate once again, and gas prices at the pump are rising.

Bidenomics has been a colossal failure, and young people are seeing that and are furious with the elderly, senile president who should be in a retirement home. Young people are beginning to understand they might never be able to afford the average American home as that dream died a long time ago. These frustrations are showing up in the polling data. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

There appears to be an obsession with turning the UK’s national flags pink and purple.

Following the England football team having the St George’s Cross turned purple on their kit, the British Olympic team has now unveiled a pink and purple Union Jack flag, prompting many to ask what the hell is going on here.

The Telegraph reports that “Team GB have been slammed for ‘defacing’ the Union flag,” ahead of the Olympics in Paris.

Here is the ‘new’ Union Jack:

What is this new push about to ‘transition’ the UK and England flags into pink and purple? Report 👇🏻https://t.co/VOaRLArsDC

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) April 2, 2024

Malcolm Farrow, president of the National Flag Institute, told the newspaper “I don’t approve of our national symbol of unity being defaced.”

“People have every right to be upset with Team GB. They need to remember brave men fought for this flag and died while protecting it,” Farrow further urged.

He added that “Changing it is bordering on an insult to them. To do something like this in places like India, Greece or Turkey would have serious consequences.”

The company that designed the flag for the British Olympic Association claimed that it made it pink and purple because while “red, white and blue is synonymous with Great Britain,… it’s far from unique, with nations such as France and USA also sporting the same colours.”

What? So you took it upon yourselves to change the national flag?

“We needed to find a way of refreshing Team GB’s colour palette in a way that is both flexible and ownable,” branding company ‘Thisaway’ added, spouting more nonsense.

Many have pointed out that this direct upending of tradition is deliberate and that the colours pink and purple are being used to push a specific agenda.

Very transy. https://t.co/Mpb1PbB4MP

— Gender Receipts (@GenderReceipts) April 2, 2024

Don’t tell me that there isn’t an agenda !

Team GB have now changed the Union Jack colours to again match the colours of many of the gender salad flags.

Trolling? pic.twitter.com/TcNe6ZLY00

— Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 (@EssexPR) April 1, 2024

They know exactly what they are doing @Nike @fa @England

Trying to sneak that Woke, Gay communist nonsense onto the England national team jersey.

It’ll be to appease all of the lesbians who play for the @Lionesses and in women’s football. Nothing ‘playful’ about it.

Another… pic.twitter.com/Z4yF3Sv5TL

— 👑 Joey Barton 👑 (@Joey7Barton) March 22, 2024

The real reason for Nike changing the England flag? pic.twitter.com/kWTm8Qm38b

— bazzflavell (@bazzaflavell1) March 27, 2024

WTF is this ⁦@TeamGB⁩ where is our flag, not this woke agenda nonsense https://t.co/vk9bqjbHfM

— whatsgoingon (@nownews247) April 2, 2024

Last week when the England football team played in the kit with the purple flag, supporters made their feelings clear by becoming a red and white St George’s Cross.

That’s what an England flag looks like, Nike! Fans display giant St George’s Cross amid row over ‘woke’ kit https://t.co/T3R53Pyqsl pic.twitter.com/davBnlo5Yi

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) March 24, 2024

There’s more at play here. As we have highlighted, British and English people are being made to constantly feel they should be ashamed of their own flags, as if they are some sort of hate symbols.

*  * *

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.

The lowest corporate tax rates are known to be found in smaller countries to attract investment from multinational corporations and foreign firms.

In fact, multinationals sheltered $1 trillion in profits in tax havens in 2022 alone. Many of these countries have corporate taxation rates of 0%, while others have rates falling around 5%. By comparison, the global average corporate tax rate stands at 23.5%.

The above graphic, from Pranav Gavali, via Visual Capitalist, shows where corporate taxation rates are the lowest as of 2023.

Ranked: The Top 10 Lowest Corporate Taxation Rates

Below, we rank the countries with the lowest taxation rates for corporations, based on data from the Tax Foundation. Countries with tax rates of 0% are not included:

Perhaps as no surprise, Barbados ranks top on the list, a tax haven where American corporations have transferred profits that exceed the country’s entire GDP.

Like the U.S., many big Canadian companies—from grocery giant Loblaws to Petro-Canada—shelter profits in the country thanks to a tax treaty signed in 1980. Overall, the Tax Justice Network estimates that $62 million in profits are shifted into the country across global multinational companies annually.

With the lowest rate in the Middle East, UAE ranks fourth on the list. For the first time ever in 2023, the country increased its corporate tax rate from 0% to 9% to better align with the international push in raising corporate tax rates. This also allows the country to diversify revenues, which are heavily concentrated in the energy sector.

Compared to 1980, tax rates have fallen across the board. We can see that in 1980, Hong Kong had the lowest rate, which stood at 17% to encourage business investment.

Overall, 91% of countries across 225 jurisdictions have corporate tax rates under 30% today.

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

This is the culmination of a process that began at least a decade ago.

One of the most important (albeit least reported) developments of 2023 was the launch of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full effect in late August and which we covered in the article, The EU’s Mass Censorship Regime Is Almost Fully Operational. Will It Go Global? The goal of the DSA is to combat — i.e., suppress — mis- and disinformation online, not just in Europe but potentially across the world and is part of a broader trend of Western governments actively pushing to censor information on the Internet as they gradually lose control over the narrative.

Here’s how it works: so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Search Engines (VLSEs) — those with more than 45 million active monthly users in the EU — are required to censor content hosted on their platforms deemed to be illegal by removing it, blocking it, or providing certain information to the authorities concerned. Platforms are also required to tackle hate speech, dis- or misinformation if it is deemed to have “actual or foreseeable negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security” and/or “actual or foreseeable negative effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being.”

Besides take-downs and outright suspensions, other familiar tools at the disposal of tech platforms include de-monetisation, content demotion, shadow-banning and account visibility filtering. The European Commission has primary, but not exclusive, regulatory responsibility for VLOPs and VLOSEs. The same requirements now also apply to all other online service providers, though responsibility for execution and enforcement lies not with the Commission but national authorities.

Staying Mum

So far, the platforms, including even Elon Musk’s X, appear to be adhering to the EU’s rules on disinformation. If they weren’t, they could face serious economic consequences, including fines of up to 6% of global turnover, as well as the looming threat of warrantless inspections of company premises. The X platform (formerly known as Twitter) may have left the EU’s voluntary code of practice last summer and in December was hit with a probe over disinformation related to Hamas’s October 7 attack, but its actions — or rather lack of actions — since then suggest it is indeed complying with the rules.

As Robert Kogon reports for Brownstone Institute, (granted, not the most popular source of information on NC, but this is another solid, well researched piece by Kogon on a topic virtually no one else is talking about), “while Musk and the Twitter Files are so verbose about alleged ‘US government censorship,’” they “have remained suitably mum about EU censorship demands”:

[I]t is strictly impossible that Twitter has not had and is not continuing to have contact – indeed extensive and regular contact – with EU officials about censoring content and accounts that the European Commission deems “mis-” or “disinformation.” But we have heard absolutely nothing about this in the “Twitter Files.”

Why? The answer is: because EU censorship really is government censorship, i.e. censorship that Twitter is required to carry out on pain of sanction. This is the difference between the EU censorship and what Elon Musk himself has denounced as “US government censorship.” The latter has amounted to nudges and requests, but was never obligatory and could never be obligatory, thanks to the First Amendment and the fact that there has never been any enforcement mechanism. Any law creating such an enforcement mechanism would be obviously unconstitutional. Hence, Twitter could always simply say no…

Far from any sign of defiance of the Code and the DSA, what we get from Elon Musk is repeated pledges of fealty: like the below tweet that he posted after meeting with EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton in January. (For an earlier such pledge in the form of a joint video message with Breton, see here.)

Now, the European Commission has its sights set on the EU’s parliamentary elections, to be held in June. “Integrity of election[s] is one of my top priorities for DSA enforcement, as we are entering a period of elections in Europe,” Breton the Enforcer told Politico last September.

Elections in Slovakia in September were supposed to offer a dummy run, but the results were underwhelming, at least as far as the Commission was concerned. The left-wing populist and social conservative party, Direction–Social Democracy (Smer-SD), led by former Prime Minister Robert Fico, took the largest number of votes and was able to form a coalition government with like-minded parties. Fico had promised to cut all aid to Ukraine, which he says is governed by neo-Nazis, as well as block its ascension to NATO.

The Commission is determined to up its game, however. Last week, it published a set of guidelines for Big Tech firms to help Brussels “secure” the upcoming elections from foreign interference and other threats. The guidelines recommend “mitigation measures and best practices to be undertaken by Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines before, during, and after electoral events,” and are explained as necessary in order to prevent things like fake news, turnout suppression, cyber threats and attacks, and, of course, Russia’s malign influence on European public opinion, particularly regarding Ukraine.

“In the European Union we speak about the Kremlin, which is very successful in creating narratives which can influence the voting preferences of the people,” said EU Vice-President for Values and Transparency, Věra Jourová, in a recent interview with the Atlantic Council, a neocon think tank that knows a thing or two about disinformation having played a leading role in the ProporNot fiasco that baselessly outed hundreds of alternative news websites as Russian propagandists including this one. “And lying, just lies… Disinformation in order to influence elections in a way that the people in Europe will stop to support (sic) Ukraine.”

List of Demands

Here is, word for word, the full list of the EU’s demands for the platforms, interspersed with a few observations and speculations of my own (italicised and in brackets). The platforms are instructed to:

“Reinforce their internal processes, including by setting up internal teams with adequate resources, using available analysis and information on local context-specific risks and on the use of their services by users to search and obtain information before, during and after elections, to improve their mitigation measures.”

(This may sound eerily familiar to the US government’s censorship efforts revealed by the Twitter files, but there is a key difference: the processes in the US were largely covert and informal, with nothing in the way of legal consequences in the case of non-compliance. By contrast, the EU’s DSA ensures that the processes are not just overt and legally authorised, they are backed up with the very real threat of substantial economic sanctions).

“Implement elections-specific risk mitigation measures tailored to each individual electoral period and local context. Among the mitigation measures included in the guidelines, Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines should promote official information on electoral processes, implement media literacy initiatives, and adapt their recommender systems to empower users and reduce the monetisation and virality of content that threatens the integrity of electoral processes. Moreover, political advertising should be clearly labelled as such, in anticipation of the new regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising.”

(The first sentence serves as a reminder that these processes will be applied not only to EU elections. As the Commission’s announcement on X makes clear, it also plans to “protect the integrity” of 17 national or local elections across Europe this year. What about elections in other regions of the world? For example, the US’ general election in November, on which so much rests, including quite possibly the future of NATO. Clearly, the European Commission and the national governments of many EU member states have a vested interest in trying to prevent another Trump triumph).

“Adopt specific mitigation measures linked to generative AI: Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines whose services could be used to create and/or disseminate generative AI content should assess and mitigate specific risks linked to AI, for example by clearly labelling content generated by AI (such as deepfakes), adapting their terms and conditions accordingly and enforcing them adequately.”

(The EU has just passed its AI Act, one of whose ostensible purposes is to tackle the threat posed by AI-generated videos and other recordings. As high-quality deep fakes are becoming harder to desire, this is a growing challenge. For the moment, the Commission is relying on the DSA to address these risks for the upcoming EU elections).

“Cooperate with EU level and national authorities, independent experts, and civil society organisations to foster an efficient exchange of information before, during and after the election and facilitate the use of adequate mitigation measures, including in the areas of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI), disinformation and cybersecurity.”

(As readers no doubt appreciate, this level of collusion between government and big tech platforms — the ultimate public-private partnership — aimed at controlling the message throughout an election period, is exceedingly dangerous. Even the EFF, which has praised many aspects of the DSA, warns that “Issues with government involvement in content moderation are pervasive and whilst trusted flaggers are not new, the DSA’s system could have a significant negative impact on the rights of users, in particular that of privacy and free speech.”)

“Adopt specific measures, including an incident response mechanism, during an electoral period to reduce the impact of incidents that could have a significant effect on the election outcome or turnout.”

“Assess the effectiveness of the measures through post-election reviews. Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines should publish a non-confidential version of such post-election review documents, providing opportunity for public feedback on the risk mitigation measures put in place.”

(This last point feels as though it is intended to give this vast entreprise a veneer of respectability through the use of expressions such as “non-confidential” and “public feedback,” presenting the illusion that these processes will all be happening out in the open and with the direct involvement of the public, which couldn’t be further from the truth).

Not everything about the DSA is bad, however. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for example, has praised many aspects of the regulation, including the protections it provides on user rights to privacy by prohibiting platforms from undertaking targeted advertising based on sensitive user information, such as sexual orientation or ethnicity. “More broadly, the DSA increases the transparency about the ads users see on their feeds as platforms must place a clear label on every ad, with information about the buyer of the ad and other details.” It also “reins in the powers of Big Tech” by forcing them to “comply with far-reaching obligations and responsibly tackle systemic risks and abuse on their platform.”

But the EFF says it also “gives way too much power to government agencies to flag and remove potentially illegal content and to uncover data about anonymous speakers”:

Democracies are in many ways like the internet. In both cases, it may take a thousand cuts to demolish their foundation, yet each cut contributes significantly to their erosion. One such cut exists in the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the form of drastic and overbroad government enforcement powers.

A Long Time Coming

The DSA is the culmination of a process that began at least a decade ago. Following the 2014 Maidan Square uprising, the US, NATO and the EU began attacking those who denounced it for what it was> a coup d’état. It was not long before the EU’s vast bureaucratic superstate was wheeled into place for a new propaganda war with Moscow.

At the start of 2015, Anne Applebaum (wife of the Polish ex-Minister for Defence, Radosław Sikorski, who famously thanked the US for the sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines), set up a unit within the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis called the Information Warfare Initiative. Its founding mission was to counter Russian information in Central and Eastern Europe.

Months later, the European Council tasked the EU’s then chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, with preparing a plan of “strategic communication” to denounce the Russian disinformation campaigns relating to Ukraine. The end result was the establishment of the EEAS Strategic Communication Division, whose functions include “leading the work on addressing foreign disinformation, information manipulation and interference” as well as “analys[ing] the information environment in order to enable EU foreign policy implementation and protect its values and interests.” That was in April 2015.

After 2016, the EU took its fight against disinformation to a whole new level following the triumph of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. In June 2018, the Commission launched its Code of Practice on Disinformation, which was “voluntarily” signed by all of the major online social media platforms and search engines. In June 2022, almost exactly four years later, the Digital Services Act became law. Just over a year after that, on August 25, 2023, the deadline by which all VLOPs and VLSEs had to begin fully complying with the DSA passed. On that date, the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation lost its voluntary nature.

According to Jourová, Brussels is only interested in helping to establish the “facts”, not censoring people’s “opinions”:

“We are not censoring anyone’s opinions,” says @VeraJourova at the Atlantic Council about AI regulation in the 🇪🇺 EU.

“We desperately need to increase the resilience of the society against disinformation,” she explains.

Watch more: ➡️ https://t.co/Ixvobwtu77 pic.twitter.com/QWqSE9AVYq

— Atlantic Council (@AtlanticCouncil) March 26, 2024

But who gets to decide what actually constitutes mis- or disinformation for the EU’s roughly 450 million citizens (as well as arguably untold millions of citizens far beyond Europe’s borders)?

The European Commission.

That’s right, the EU’s scandal-tarnished, power-hungry executive branch whose top jobs, including that of its current president, Ursula von der Leyen, will be indirectly determined by the upcoming EU elections. It is the 705 Members of the European Parliament chosen by EU citizens this June who will ultimately have the final say on who fills the Commission’s roles.

The performance of the current Commission and Parliament is hardly what you would describe as vote-winning. The current Commission President Von der Leyen is under investigation on multiple fronts, including by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, for her refusal to disclose the content of her whatsapp conversation with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during pre-negotiations for up to 1.8 billion Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccines. It was one of the biggest procurement contracts in EU history. VdL has also faced accusations of conflicts of interest over her husband’s role as scientific director at US biotech company Orgenesis, which received hundreds of millions of euros of EU subsidies on two separate occasions.

Von der Leyen now wants the Commission to take a central role coordinating EU weapons procurement. She even cited her office’s success in procuring COVID-19 vaccines as a model to follow. Her Commission has also provided unbridled support to Israel while the IDF commits genocidal war against the people of Gaza. It has sabotaged the EU’s economic future through its endless backfiring sanctions on Russia while consistently putting US interests first. As economic conditions have deteriorated, the response from both the EU Commission and many member governments is almost always the same, as Conor Gallagher reported recently:

More wage suppressions, more market-friendly reforms, more social spending cuts, and more privatization. It was only a few months ago that the New York-based private equity firm KKR, which includes former CIA director David Petraeus as a partner, reached a controversial agreement to buy the fixed-line network of Telecom Italia. Now the Italian daily La Repubblica is declaring that “Italy Is For Sale,” in which it describes plans for 20 billion euros worth of privatizations, including more of the state rail company Ferrovie dello Stato, Poste Italiane, Monte dei Paschi bank and energy giant Eni. The plan is reportedly necessitated by the country’s tax cuts. The roughly 100 billion euros Rome has burned through in order to address the energy crisis surely hasn’t helped either. And this was happening with the suspension of the EU debt brake.

Acceleration of a Long-Term Trend

In a recent op-ed in Berliner Zeitung, a retired German judge described the DSA as a “trojan horse that presents a façade of respecting democratic principles@ while doing the exact opposite. He concludes that the EU’s mass censorship regime poses an “existential threat” to freedom of speech and the freedom of press, which are the corner stones of any genuine liberal democracy.:

The EU Commission sets the standard by which disinformation is judged. However, this means that politically unsavoury opinions, even scientifically argued positions, can be deleted, and not only that: if it is classified as unlawful, there are social consequences.

One inevitable result is that citizens begin self-censoring to align their messages on the platforms with what is currently acceptable within the corridors of power…. The cornerstone of any free society — the perpetual exchange of intellectual and political ideas, even with opposing opinions — will therefore crumble.

This is all happening at the same time that both the Commission and some EU national governments are pushing the bloc toward direct conflict with Russia while calling for the establishment of an EU-wide war economy, all to be paid for no doubt by the EU’s hard-strapped citizens and businesses. All the while, Brussels is fast erecting its digital control system, first through the introduction of a bloc-wide digital identity program — which, like the digital vaccine passport system that preceded it, is being marketed as a purely voluntary scheme — followed some time later by a central bank digital currency.

The escalating war in Ukraine serves as a timely pretext for a brutal clampdown on basic democratic freedoms. But the EU would have probably reached this destination anyway, sooner or later. As a political project, the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic while its myriad failings have served as a convenient scapegoat to blame whenever national governments answerable to people have had to take unpopular decisions.

What Europe is now living through is an acceleration of a long-term trend, though this time the EU’s anti-democratic nature could have repercussions far beyond its own borders. Each crisis of this century has created a new opportunity for the Commission to tighten its grip while Europe itself grows weaker and weaker. As the veteran British journalist Peter Obourne once put it, “By a hideous paradox the European Union, set up as a way of avoiding a return to fascism in the post-war epoch, has since mutated into a way of avoiding democracy itself.”

Estonia has long been no friend of Russia, and a leading anti-Moscow hawkish voice within the Baltics, and that’s why a fresh interview by Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur in European media is raising eyebrows as he issued some very revealing statements.

The defense chief said in the interview with the Austrian newspaper Die Presse that all NATO countries already have NATO personnel stationed in Ukraine, but that they aren’t directly engaged in hostilities as they are there in advisory roles. He was responding to recent provocative statements by France’s Macron.

“The reality is that every NATO member country already has military personnel in Ukraine, such as military attaches or people who travel to Ukraine from time to time,” the Estonian defense chief said. “What [French] President [Emmanuel] Macron said mainly related to personnel training,” he added, according to a translation in Russian media.

Starting in late February Macron had told a gathering of top defense officials in Paris that Western boots on the ground in Ukraine should be an option as “we cannot exclude anything” in the pursuit of preventing Russia from winning the war.

Still, in the interview Pevkur emphasized that currently there’s no serious talk of NATO troops directly participating in fighting and that “this has already been ruled out.”

However, he did preview a very dangerous potential plan which would certainly lead to escalation: “Western defense officials are currently planning to set up training camps in Ukraine in a bid to avoid issues with border crossings and to speed up the preparation process,” Pevkur said to the Vienna-based publication.

Already, Moscow has accused France of having significant numbers of its Foreign Legion present on the front lines. Russia has said it has attacked their positions in places like Kharkiv.

Some European leaders have revealed information in the recent past which shows Defense Minister Pevkur’s words to be accurate.

For example in February British Prime Minister Sunak’s office said that the UK is not planning a “large-scale deployment of troops” in Ukraine… “Other than a small number of personnel who are in the country supporting the Ukrainian armed forces, we have no plans for a large-scale deployment.”

Dangerously, this shows that little by little, inch by inch, nuclear armed superpowers are at this rate continuously moving toward direct conflict in Ukraine. 

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

The African Sahel is revolting against western neocolonialism – ejecting foreign troops and bases, devising alternative currencies, and challenging the old multinationals. Multipolarity, after all, cannot flower without resistance paving its path…

The emergence of Axes of Resistance in various geographies is an inextricable byproduct of the long and winding process leading us toward a multipolar world. These two things – resistance to the Hegemon and the emergence of multipolarity – are absolutely complementary. 

The Axis of Resistance in West Asia – across Arab and Muslim states – now finds as its soul sister the Axis of Resistance spanning the Sahel in Africa, west to east, from Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger to Chad, Sudan, and Eritrea. 

Unlike Niger, where the change in power against neocolonialism was associated with a military coup, in Senegal, the power change comes straight from the polls. 

Senegal plunged itself into a new era with the landslide victory of Bassirou Diomaye Faye, 44, in nationwide elections on 24 March. A former tax inspector who had just spent a fortnight stint in jail, Faye emerged with the profile of an underdog pan-African leader to turn the ‘most stable democracy in Africa,’ under French puppet incumbent Macky Sall, upside down. 

The incoming Senegalese president now joins Ibrahim Traore, 36, in Burkina Faso, Aby Ahmed, 46, in Ethiopia, Andry Rajoelina, 48, in Madagascar, as well as future superstar Julius Malema, 44, in South Africa as part of the new, young pan-African generation focused on sovereignty. In his election manifesto, Faye pledged to reclaim Senegal’s sovereignty no less than eighteen times.  

Geoeconomics is key to these shifts. As Senegal becomes a substantial oil and gas producer, Faye will aim to renegotiate mining and energy contracts, including the largest ones with British Petroleum (BP) and UK gold mine operator, Endeavor Mining. 

Crucially, he plans to ditch the exploitative CFA franc – the French-controlled currency system used in 14 African states – even setting up a new currency as part of reshaping relations with neocolonial power France, Senegal’s top trading partner. Faye, echoing Comrade Xi Jinping, wants a “win-win” partnership. 

African Sahel states

Enter the Alliance of the Sahel States

Faye has not yet been clear on whether he intends to kick the French military out of Senegal. Were that to happen, the blow to Paris would be unprecedented, as embattled Petit Roi Emmanuel Macron and the French establishment consider Senegal the key player when it comes to blockading landlocked Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, which have already left Paris in the (Sahel) dust.  

The three latter states, which have just formed an Alliance of the Sahel States (Alliance des Etats du Sahel, AES, in the original French), are not only a major Paris nightmare after serial humiliations but also a big American headache – epitomized in the spectacular breakdown of military cooperation between Washington and Nigerien capital Niamey. 

The culprit, according to the US Deep State, is, of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Obviously, no one in the US Beltway has been paying due attention to the Russia–Africa diplomatic flurry since last year, involving all key players from the Sahel to the new African BRICS members Egypt and Ethiopia.

In sharp contrast to its prior regard of Niger as a staunch ally in the Sahel, Washington is now forced to present a calendar date to get its troops out of Niger – after a military cooperation deal was annulled. The Pentagon cannot be involved in military training in Nigerien territory anymore.

There are two key bases – in Agadez and Niamey – which the Pentagon spent over $150 million to build. Niamey was finished only in 2019 and is managed by the US military’s African Command, AFRICOM.

Operational objectives are, predictably, shrouded in mystery. The Niamey base is essentially an intel center, processing data collected by MQ-9 Reaper drones. The US Air Force also uses the Dirkou Aerodrome as a base for operations in the Sahel.

Now things get really exciting, because the presence of a de facto CIA drone base in Dirkou, manned by a handful of operatives, is not even acknowledged. This dark base allows intel collection everywhere in Central Africa, from west to north. Call it another classic example of former CIA director Mike Pompeo’s “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal.”

There are roughly 1,000 US troops in Niger who may soon face ejection. The Americans are trying everything to stem the bleeding. Only this month, US Undersecretary of State for Africa Molly Phee visited Niger twice. Losing bases in Niger will translate into Washington following Paris in losing control of the Sahel – as Niger gets closer to Russia and Iran. 

These bases are not essential to exercise surveillance over the Bab al-Mandeb; it’s all about the Sahel, with drones operating on their limit and violating every sovereign air space in sight. 

Incidentally, a hefty delegation from Niamey visited Moscow in January. Then, last week, Putin discussed security cooperation in phone calls with Mali’s interim President, Assimi Goita, and Niger’s military junta President Abdourahmane Tchiani before talking to the Republic of Congo’s President Denis Nguesso. 

Ivory Coast: The Empire turn-around

Pro-west puppet regimes are dwindling fast all across the African continent. The Alliance of the Sahel States – Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger – may be the vanguard of an African Axis of Resistance, but there’s more, in the form of South Africa, Ethiopia, and Egypt as full BRICS members – not to mention serious candidates for the next wave of BRICS+, such as Algeria and Nigeria.  

Russia, diplomatically, and China, commercially, plus the full weight of the Russia–China strategic partnership, are clearly focused on the long game – counting on Africa as a whole as a key multipolar player. Additional evidence was provided once again during the multipolar conference last month in Moscow, where charismatic pan-African leader Kemi Seba from Benin was one of the superstars. 

Pan-Eurasian diplomatic circles even allow themselves to joke about the recent hissy fits by Le Petit Roi in Paris. The utter humiliation of France in the Sahel is likely one of the drivers of Macron’s chest-thumping threats to send French troops to Ukraine – who would be turned into steak tartare by the Russians in record time – and his eagerness to support Armenia’s current Russophobic stunts.

Historically, the fact remains, that Africans considered the former USSR much more pliable and even supportive when it came to siphoning natural resources; that goodwill has now also been transferred to China. 

As a regional integration platform, the Alliance of the Sahel States has everything it takes to become a game-changer. Senegal under Faye may eventually join, but Guinea already offers the geographical capacity to provide the alliance with credible maritime access. That will lead to the progressive extinction of the western-controlled, Nigeria-based ECOWAS. 

Yet, never dismiss the Hegemon’s mighty tentacles. The Pentagon master plan does not entail abandoning Africa to a multipolar Russia–China–Iran sphere of influence. Yet no one across the Sahel’s Axis of Resistance buys the US ‘terror threat’ card anymore. There was virtually zero terror in Africa until 2011, when NATO turned Libya into a wasteland, then put boots on the ground and erected military bases across the continent.

So far, the Alliance of the Sahel States is winning the sovereignty-first information war, hands-down. But there’s no question the Empire will strike back. After all, the whole game is tied to the Beltway’s supreme paranoia of Russia taking over the Sahel and Central Africa. 

Enter the Ivory Coast, now that Senegal may be about to start flirting with the Alliance of the Sahel States. 

Ivory Coast is more strategic to Washington than, for instance, Chad because Ivorian territory is very close to the Sahel alliance. Still, Chad has already recalibrated its foreign policy, which is no longer Western-controlled and comes with a new emphasis on getting closer to Moscow. 

What lies ahead for Empire? Perhaps US ‘anti-terror’ drones shared with Paris at the French base in the Ivory Coast to keep the Sahel alliance in check. Call it the humiliated Gallic rooster embracing the Hegemon in West Africa without receiving even the crumbs of a stale croissant.  

Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A leaked video and documents exposing the inner workings of the organization responsible for setting the so-called “standards of care” for gender transition treatments and surgeries on children is a “shocking” and “horrific” admission, critics say.

The leaked files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health—better known as WPATH—reveal “widespread medical malpractice on children and vulnerable adults,” according to a 241-page report disclosing emails, documents, and an 82-minute video.

Environmental Progress, a nonprofit organization led by founder and president Michael Shellenberger that obtained the files, released them to the public in an exposé on March 4.

“The WPATH Files show that what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine,” Mr. Shellenberger said in a statement. “The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It’s not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent.”

The files are “a shocking admission” by WPATH doctors and other medical practitioners privately acknowledging they’re not getting proper informed consent from parents and children before proceeding with gender transition treatments and surgeries, prominent civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon told The Epoch Times.

Ms. Dhillon, the founder and CEO of the Center for American Liberty, which is representing several women who’ve allegedly suffered harm and irreversible damage as a result of WPATH’s recommendations of transgender surgery for gender dysphoric children and young adults, called the exposé “an important act of journalism.”

“These leaked files show that behind closed doors, WPATH members are admitting to the fact that they’re not getting informed consent for hormonal and surgical interventions from young patients, which is the very premise of our litigation for young women who’ve been mutilated by these doctors when they were children,” she said.

The Center for American Liberty has taken on three pro-bono cases representing detransitioners Chole Cole, Layla Jane, and Luka Hein, who are suing Kaiser Permanente and doctors who performed double mastectomies on these young women.

The Report

WPATH advocates for children to have access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to alter their body according to their gender identity, according to the report. This suggests that children should be able to understand the full ramifications of these drugs and procedures, and that their parents can provide informed consent.

“But while WPATH publicly supports minors and their families consenting to these hormonal and surgical treatments based on a nebulous inner sense of self, privately, some members admit that consent is not possible,” states the report. “Behind closed doors, WPATH-affiliated healthcare professionals confess that their practices are based on improvisation, that children cannot comprehend them, and that the consent process is not ethical.”

In video footage of an internal WPATH panel, Dianne Berg, a child psychologist, said experts wouldn’t expect children and youth to fully understand the effects of transgender procedures, because it is “out of their developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them,” according to the report.

“What really disturbs me is when the parents can’t tell me what they need to know about a medical intervention that apparently they signed off for,” said Ms. Berg. She suggested encouraging patients to ask questions and offering a “real informed consent process” rather than what was happening, which is “not what we need to be doing ethically.”

Jamison Green, an activist and former WPATH president, told the panel that sometimes patients avoid learning important information about procedures out of fear, saying, “People also are afraid many times about surgery, and so they can read other people’s descriptions about surgery, and they’ll miss details, or they’ll miss the most important piece of information for them simply because they’re afraid to read it.”

Dr. Daniel Metzger, a Canadian endocrinologist, said gender doctors are “often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven’t even had biology in high school yet,” adding that even adults have limited knowledge of many of these medical interventions.

WPATH guidance states that doctors must inform patients about “the potential loss of fertility and available options to preserve fertility.”

But Dr. Metzger told the panel that “it’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old, but I know I’m talking to a blank wall. … Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of a brain space to really talk about [fertility preservation] in a serious way.”

Less than week after Environmental Progress released the WPATH Files publicly, Britain’s National Health Service stopped the use of puberty blockers on children. NHS England said, “We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty suppressing hormones] to make the treatment routinely available at this time.”

Meanwhile, other European countries, such as Sweden, Finland, Norway, and France are also growing increasingly skeptical of what supporters call the “gender-affirmation model.”

‘They’re Doing It Anyway’

Informed consent is a well-known pre-requisite for ethical medical treatments and procedures, and yet “the so-called transgender medical community” in the U.S. continues to prescribe this “gender-affirming care” for children, Ms. Dhillon said.

“They’re doing it anyway,” she said. “The WPATH medical practitioners are fully aware that the gender-affirming care they’re pushing is based on shaky and inadequate medical research, but they continue to push it, ignoring the growing body of scientific evidence that is distancing mainstream medicine from these procedures.”

The leaked video also reveals that what WPATH is stating publicly is the opposite of what its members they’re saying privately, Ms. Dhillon said.

“They know what they’re doing is wrong and that’s what they say to each other behind closed doors. They’re not getting proper informed consent. It’s not working,” she said. “We’re enabling, through WPATH’s quack medicine ideology, 9-year-olds to decide that they’re able to change their gender.”

“Gender-affirming” doctors and politicians in California, for example, continue to push puberty blockers as a safe, effective and reversible treatments and the only way to prevent suicide among gender dysphoric youth, but the facts say otherwise, Ms. Dhillon said.

The Center for American Liberty litigation has shed the light on the fact that puberty blockers are “absolutely permanently damaging,” she said.

“Every day detransitioners come out and announce that they’ve been told by their doctors [they] can’t have children,” she said. “All of our clients who have this so-called ‘treatment’ have permanently altered voices. They can’t reverse that even though they stopped taking the hormones.”

A California law even enables 12-year-old children “to run away from home and seek refuge in LGBTQ homes to emancipate themselves” to pursue medical interventions such as the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone replacement therapy, and surgery without parental consent, she said.

“This is all being justified and underwritten by these pseudo-medical standards even when doctors privately and openly admit they don’t know all the long-term effects of “their radical procedures” or how to deal with them, she said.

The exposé reveals a WPATH member confirming fertility and sexual pleasure could be destroyed for young patients receiving gender-affirming care, Ms. Dhillon said.

In any other field of medicine, doctors cutting off body parts “and then saying they don’t really know what the long-term effects of that are” would be considered “completely outrageous,” but in “this sexual experimentation field,” the same standards of care don’t seem to apply, she said.

Every doctor who knowingly lied to patients should sued for medical malpractice and exposed to put an end to these practices, she said.

WPATH Statement

WPATH President Dr. Marci Bowers, issued the following statement on March 5:

“WPATH is and has always been a science- and evidence-based organization whose recommendations are widely endorsed by major medical organizations around the world. We are the professionals who best know the medical needs of trans and gender diverse individuals—and stand opposed to individuals who misrepresent and de-legitimize the diverse identities and complex needs of this population through scare tactics. The world is not flat. Gender, like genitalia, is represented by diversity. The small percentage of the population that is trans or gender diverse deserves healthcare and will never be a threat to the global gender binary.”

Blaine Vella, executive director for WPATH stated in a memo to association members on March 5:

“This is and will continue to be our response to any media outreach. If any of you receive inquiries from the media, we request that you do not respond, send the request to us … and our media partners will respond with the statement above.”

WPATH did not respond to an Epoch Times request for comment about the allegations.

A year ago, WPATH and its U.S affiliate USPATH, doubled down on gender-affirming care for minors, saying they “vehemently oppose” legislation outlawing access to gender-affirming health care to “transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people.”

‘A Giant Experiment’

Erin Friday, an attorney and co-leader of Our Duty, an international group that opposes gender ideology, especially for children and young adults, told the Epoch Times the WPATH Files are an admission that gender transition procedures are “a giant experiment.”

Ms. Friday referred to the case of a 16-year-old girl from the report who developed large tumors on her liver after taking testosterone and other medications, and an oncologist and surgeon both indicated the hormones were the likely reason for the cancer, according to the report. Many other known or potential complications and other related medical conditions were also discussed in the document, along with evidence of a lack of research.

“[T]here have never been any properly controlled trials in the wider field of gender medicine, which also consistently lacks long-term data,” states the report.

“Gender-affirming” doctors don’t question a patient’s comorbidities, especially in matters of mental health, even though WPATH’s recommendations state that the goal of “gender-affirming care” is to partner with transgender and gender diverse people “to holistically address their social, mental and medical health needs and well-being while respectfully affirming their gender identity,” said Ms. Friday.

“They push aside any patient mental health issue, regardless of whether its severe schizophrenia or a dissociative disorder,” she said. “They know that these people … have severe mental health issues and they transition them anyway.”

Ms. Friday, whose daughter formerly identified as transgender but has since accepted her female form, anticipates the WPATH Files will lead to congressional hearings.

The WPATH Files reveal much more than an organization that has overstepped its bounds, she said.

“They have admitted to medical malpractice. They have admitted to lying,” she claimed.

Hospital boards and medical societies, Ms. Friday said, would be “well-advised” to use the leaked WPATH Files as “an off-ramp,” to move away from such harmful practices.

Dr. Shannae Anderson, a licensed psychologist in California and Virginia who fled California nearly two years ago after her license was threatened, told The Epoch Times the WPATH Files have exposed the “horrific” agenda behind gender-affirming treatments.

In most states, the WPATH “standards of care” are the only treatment allowed, which means puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, social transitioning, and ultimately top and bottom surgeries, Dr. Anderson said.

“It is illegal in most states to actually offer another treatment avenue, which is crazy,” she said.

Another “absolutely horrifying” aspect of the leaked files is WPATH’s admission “they’re conducting these radical life-altering procedures on individuals with severe mental health disorders,” she stressed.

Dr. Anderson, now the director of psychology and co-director of ethics and advocacy for the American Association of Christian Counselors, which bills itself as the world’s largest faith-based mental health organization, said gender-affirming care policies have hamstrung therapists from being able to talk freely with patients about gender dysphoria and trampled free speech.

But, like other critics, she expects the WPATH Files exposé will lead to congressional hearings and more litigation to restore free speech so therapists can do their jobs.

“Psychotherapy is speech. That’s what we do. We talk,” she said. “And so when there is this ban against talking and exploring someone’s gender dysphoria, we’re not even allowed to ask questions about it or explore it.”

WPATH doctors admitting they know children cannot give informed consent is “a huge deal,” she said.

Dr. Anderson, a native of Thousand Oaks, Calif., confronted the board at a Conejo Valley Unified School District meeting in June, 2022, alleging that 8-year-olds were being exposed at school to sexual issues including abstract concepts like transgender ideology, which she said was beyond their level of comprehension.

“That is actually one of the reasons why I had my license threatened in California. I spoke before a school board about how teaching children about transgender ideology is inappropriate and dangerous because they can’t begin to comprehend all that goes into a transgender identity and transformation,” she said. “And, what the WPATH files expose is that I was right, essentially, that when they undergo these gender treatments, they cannot give informed consent.”

WPATH members acknowledged not only that children can’t grasp the scope of what’s going to happen to them with these treatments, but neither can parents, and that they’re not disclosing all the risks and dangers associated with them “because they don’t know what they are,” she said.

There isn’t enough research to determine the long-term effects of such treatments and procedures, and the research that does exist shows that a “watch and wait” treatment is best, because the vast majority of gender dysphoric minors outgrow the condition and accept their natural bodies, she said.

Worst Medical Scandal in History?

In a recent interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson, a well-known Canadian psychologist and author, Mr. Shellenberger said he was unfamiliar with WPATH at first.

“I thought maybe people were exaggerating what was happening,” he said.

Then, “a source or sources” gave him about 170 pages of the internal files from the discussion boards of WPATH, along with the video of WPATH leaders and members talking about some of the problems they were encountering.

“These files put to rest any doubts anybody should have that what is happening is one of the greatest medical mistreatment scandals in human history,” he said. “It might be the worst. It’s certainly up there with lobotomies. It’s up there with the Tuskegee experiments.”

Mr. Peterson responded, “It’s way worse than both of those.”

The WPATH Files show “without a shadow of a doubt” that the people who are are performing these “mistreatments” are not getting informed consent, Mr. Shellenberger said.

“And then they just sort of throw up their hands and they say, we don’t really know how to solve this problem. At no point in the video, does anybody say, ‘Hey, maybe we shouldn’t be doing this,’” he said. “There’s a basic horror to it, but then at the intellectual level, you can’t help but be slightly fascinated by these people. What is wrong with them that they’re so in the grip of an ideology that they’re doing these mistreatments and never questioning … that perhaps they shouldn’t be doing them at all.”

Mr. Peterson referenced Dr. Ken Zucker, a psychologist whose studies showed 88 percent of 2- to 12-year-olds in two separate studies of boys and girls clinically referred as experiencing gender dysphoria—who were not socially transitioned—later reported as adolescents and young adults they no longer suffered from the condition and were comfortable with their natal genders.

“Leave them the hell alone till they’re 18,” Mr. Peterson said. “The man who established that was Ken Zucker. He ran the best journal that dealt with childhood gender dysphoria for years up in Toronto. That was his recommendation for treatment, and the bloody radicals ran him out of business 10 years ago.”

Now doctors are doing the opposite and are recommending the “most extreme” treatments and surgical intervention possible and telling people “that if they don’t listen, their children are going to die, that they’re going to commit suicide, which is a complete bloody lie. There was never a bit of evidence for that, not even bad evidence. It was just a lie,” he said.

Then, they offer “this absolutely cataclysmic treatment with unimaginably dire consequences to people who don’t even understand and can’t understand what they’re agreeing to” and tell them “that’s how they’ll find their true self,” he said. “So that’s where we’re at. It’s so sickening.”

As many countries around the world scramble towards a green transition, a new era of electric cars is being ushered in and with it comes the need for batteries.

While these batteries – also needed for home, industrial and grid energy storage – are being newly manufactured, Statista’s Anna Fleck reports that the market for the recycling of lithium-ion batteries is growing too, especially since it “conserves the critical minerals and other valuable materials that are used in batteries and is a more sustainable approach than disposal”, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency writes.

Data from ACS Energy Lett cited in an article by Maria Virginia Olano on Canary Media shows how China was the leading country for this type of battery recycling in 2021, with 188,000 tons of existing and planned lithium-ion battery recycling capacity per year. It was followed by Germany and the United States, albeit with both countries lagging some way behind.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Since 2021, there have been even more plans for the expansion of lithium-ion battery recycling plants. According to researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, while the majority of lithium-ion battery recycling capacity is located in East Asia, Europe is also building capacity and could increase its recycling capacities to an estimated 400,000 tons per year by 2025.

The extent to which policy exists on battery recycling varies greatly by country and region. For example, the European Council has now agreed to set the target for lithium recovery from waste batteries to 50 percent by 2027 and 80 percent in 2031 and has said that there will be a new rule on mandatory minimum levels of recycled content for industrial, SLI batteries and EV batteries. Olano of Canary Media argues that it’s the comparative lack of policy supporting the growth of lithium-ion battery recycling in the U.S. in past years that has held the country back in this regard, falling behind markets in Asia and Europe.

One Bloomberg analysis says, however, that the recycling industry has “boomed too soon” in the U.S., as there are too many recycling plants and not enough discarded batteries to recycle, and “there won’t be for more than a decade”.

Commentary by South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem via RealClear Wire,

In 2022, the pro-life movement experienced a massive victory: For the first time in 50 years, the Supreme Court returned decision-making about abortion back to the states – to the people.

Immediately after, the left and their allies in the media eagerly continued their half-century-long disinformation campaign to confuse the American people about what the ruling actually meant. Democrats lied to the American people that abortion had now been banned entirely, that mothers receiving abortions would be prosecuted, or that back-alley abortions would suddenly become the norm.

None of that is true.

And in this election cycle, Democrats will once again purposefully deceive the American people on this issue. We cannot allow these blatant lies to spread and must talk about life issues with truth, compassion, and hope.

Every pregnancy involves two lives: a mom and an unborn baby. As South Dakota’s largest healthcare provider testified to our state legislature this past February, “We recognize that each time a mother walks through our doors, we’ve been entrusted with the health of two patients: the mother and the child.”

In my state, we showed moms we are here to help them – that they are never alone. We expanded Paid Family Leave access for state employees; provided pregnancy counseling, resources, and tips on parenting; pointed moms and families towards available financial assistance; and even offered help on adopting a child or giving a child up for adoption. We created Bright Start to match first-time moms to available nursing services during pregnancy and up until their child’s second birthday.

There’s more to do, but South Dakota stepped up and protected mothers and their babies with significant policy prescriptions designed to address many concerns. I’m a pro-life governor, and I’m proud of what we’ve done in my state. But what we support in South Dakota may not have support in South Carolina. That’s what the Supreme Court decision actually did – turn those issues back to the people in each state so they can decide.  

I realize many in my own party don’t want to talk about this issue. However, the national conversation about abortion will only increase as we approach the November elections. Republicans should not and cannot be afraid to defend our position to protect mothers and their babies, expose lies from the left, and go on offense to expose the radical left’s extreme position on abortion.

The radical left claims “abortion access is being restricted,” but more abortions took place in 2023 after the Supreme Court decision than in the years prior. The left says pro-life laws will lead to higher maternal mortality, but maternal mortality actually dropped by 60% in South Dakota in the first full year after the Court’s ruling. We have to expose that every Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to allow abortion at any time, for any reason, right up until the moment of birth, and they demanded that you pay for it. Polling by Rasmussen shows a vast majority, 86% of the American people, reject the Democratic Party’s position.

A majority of the people clearly agree with us on this issue and many others facing America.

It’s bad enough that Democrats can’t define what a “woman” is – they also continue to belittle us by portraying women as single-issue voters who only care about abortion. The fact is only 16% of women in Michigan – a key swing state in the upcoming election – are single-issue abortion voters. While abortion will undoubtedly be an issue in the 2024 elections, polls show women care more about how illegal immigration is making them less safe in their communities, how persistent high gas and food prices cause them to struggle to take care of their families, and how America’s decline on the world stage will shape their kids’ future.

Simply put, the America First Conservative policies are proven to be successful – and represent the best hope for a healthy, happy, and prosperous life for Americans who are born and unborn. This is the fight, and if we’re going to win hearts and minds, we can’t be afraid to enter the ring.