GhostofTruth

AskSN

Do you drink?

unschooled

Saludos (con una Águila grande) de Málaga

news

Spain will fine you €150,000 for withdrawing €3,000 in cash—unless you give 24h notice.
This is how it always starts: a bankrupt EU, creeping controls, and the quiet theft of your property.

![](https://m.stacker.news/91031)

EU: CAPITAL CONTROL PHASE BEGINS

Just a week after a massive blackout on the Iberian Peninsula, Brussels is once again turning its focus to energy policy. This time, it’s about a final break: a complete halt to Russian gas imports by 2027.

On Tuesday, the European Commission, under President Ursula von der Leyen, unveiled its roadmap for cutting off Russian gas supplies. The plan includes multiple measures: by the end of 2025, no new gas contracts with Russian providers can be signed within the EU. Existing contracts must expire or be terminated by the end of 2027. The aim is to force a total supply freeze from Russia. What will happen with deliveries routed through third countries — currently about a fifth of Russian gas supplies to the EU — remains unclear.

An Ambitious — and Possibly Blind — Exit Plan
Brussels’ exit strategy is ambitious, but it may also be dangerously shortsighted. The facts speak for themselves: Russian gas still accounts for 13 to 16 percent of the EU’s supply, including indirect routes through intermediaries. In a twist of irony, Russian gas imports in Q2 of this year — at 12.7 billion cubic meters — exceeded even those from the United States, which stood at 12.3 billion. 

Given the fragile state of Europe’s energy grid and its heavy import dependency, it’s unclear how this void will be filled. In fact, surging gas demand in Italy, the Czech Republic, and France caused Russian gas imports to increase by 18 percent in 2024. Workarounds via third countries remain embedded in the market. Europe’s industry is still deeply dependent on conventional energy sources.

The International Energy Agency estimates that by 2030, only about 50 percent of the EU’s gas demand can be met through non-Russian sources. Not even the most aggressive push for renewables will be able to close the looming gap.

A Centralized Procurement Monopoly to the Rescue?
Brussels’ answer: centralization. The EU plans to counter the complex energy market with a new supranational energy agency wielding centralized purchasing power. But whether this top-down approach can reconcile national interests with wildly varying energy needs remains highly doubtful.

The structural flaw is all too familiar — just look at the European Central Bank. Brussels’ bureaucratic ambitions regularly clash with member states’ priorities, sparking recurring tensions.

So, how exactly will Europe plug its energy deficit? For now, we’re offered the usual Brussels jargon: more renewables, more diversification, and expanded LNG imports from countries like the U.S. and Qatar. New LNG terminals and supply routes are in the works. Funding will likely flow through institutions like the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Germany’s KfW.

But Brussels also falls back on its go-to dogma: subsidized energy efficiency programs and enforced consumption cuts in industry and households. In short: everyone will have to tighten their belts.

Bleak Outlook for European Industry
None of this bodes well for Germany’s industrial base, which has borne the brunt of the EU’s sanctions regime since the start of the Ukraine war. Electricity prices for German manufacturers have doubled since then. Compared to their American competitors, the difference is stark: German firms without subsidies pay about €0.18 per kilowatt hour, and those with subsidies around €0.12. In the U.S., the same power costs just €0.03 to €0.04.

The cost pressure is now translating into cold, hard numbers. Factory closures at BASF and production halts at Volkswagen are wiping out tens of thousands of jobs. In 2023 alone, Germany lost around €65 billion in direct foreign investment. Much of that capital likely went to the United States, where the government is aggressively fueling a manufacturing revival — through deregulation, tax cuts, and strategic tariffs. 

On top of that, the U.S. is fast-tracking fossil fuel and nuclear energy projects, offering industries the kind of stability that is vanishing in Europe. America’s departure from ideological energy policy may prove to be a decisive competitive edge, while Brussels ties itself into moralistic knots over Russia and green virtue signaling.

Legal Roadblocks Ahead
But even Brussels’ plan isn’t legally watertight. To dissolve existing gas contracts with suppliers like Gazprom, the Commission must invoke “force majeure” or hardship clauses. Given that Russian suppliers — especially via TurkStream — have largely honored their contracts, legal challenges seem inevitable. Expensive, drawn-out lawsuits may soon follow — exactly what Brussels hoped to avoid.

Europe’s industry is gasping for air. While Brussels lectures about “strategic autonomy” and “climate responsibility,” industrial capacity is quietly drifting across the Atlantic. The price of ideological energy policy is steep: economic decline, a fragile energy infrastructure, and a slow erosion of prosperity.

Those who think steel can be forged and factories run on moral superiority are in for a rude awakening.

Europe’s Energy Suicide: Brussels Trades Industry for Ideology

econ

Falling Oil Prices: Record Output Meets Economic Slowdown

Germany Faces Potential AfD Ban: A Step Toward Greater Polarization

The oil price is a seismic signal. It points to geopolitical power shifts, weakening global demand, and the fragility of our debt-fueled economy.

The global economy is showing clear signs of cooling. One of the most telling indicators? Oil prices, which have been declining for months. Are we witnessing the dawn of a deflationary era after years of inflation?

The futures price of the benchmark WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude has fallen from around $79 per barrel in the spring to below $56, a drop of approximately 30 percent in a very short period. This drastic decline in the price of the world’s most important commodity reflects two fundamental trends: First, a geopolitical race among major oil-producing nations for market share is quietly unfolding. Despite repeated debates among OPEC members, production quotas remain high. National self-interest frequently undermines this cartel’s cohesion, eroding its ability to act as a price-setting oligopoly.

OPEC’s U-Turn
After years of coordinated production cuts, OPEC reversed course earlier this year, agreeing on moderate increases in output. Since April, average production from countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia has been ticking upwards. The group aims to expand daily production by up to 2.2 million barrels by September 2026. With current global daily output at around 104.8 million barrels, this would amount to a modest increase — one that could still exert downward pressure on prices.

The U.S., Iran, and Brazil have particularly ramped up production in recent years. Brazil is leveraging its critical commodity sector to counter domestic fiscal challenges. With some success — the country’s public debt has dropped from 90 percent to 76 percent of GDP. Iran, hampered by U.S. sanctions, has found ways to stay in the game, boosting exports to China and leveraging refining capacity in Venezuela. Malaysia and Oman play a key role in routing Iranian oil into Asian markets.

Oil as Geopolitical Leverage
Oil exports remain a geopolitical lever of the highest order. Despite all calls for transition, oil still accounts for 31 percent of global primary energy consumption. It is deeply integrated into the logistics and production systems of the global economy — too essential to be removed from the equation. Increased exports provide producer nations with bargaining power on the global stage.

The United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, now accounting for 13.5 percent of global output, with daily production of 13.6 million barrels. Roughly 7.5 percent of this volume is exported. The industry has already begun anticipating the energy policy of a new Trump administration, which signals continuity with past geopolitical strategies — likely reinforced by deregulation and fiscal incentives. It seems likely that oil policy will be tightly integrated into Washington’s newly assertive trade strategy, providing further leverage in upcoming negotiations.

There is no neutral zone anymore. The truth is, most nations are trapped in a dollar-centric debt regime they can’t escape — unless they crash their own economies. The Fed may not have fired the first shot, but make no mistake: the global credit war is underway, and the U.S. holds the trigger.

Demand Side Weakness Adds Pressure
On the demand side, things are equally telling. On Wednesday, the United States reported a quarterly GDP contraction of 0.3 percent compared to Q4 2024. While temporary factors — such as front-loaded imports due to tariffs and a massive inflow of European gold into the U.S. — are partially to blame, broader signs of a slowing economy are unmistakable.

Purchasing Managers’ Indexes (PMIs) are painting a bleak picture. China’s index stands at 49, the Eurozone at 48 — both indicating contraction. The U.S. PMI is barely holding at 50.2, just above the stagnation threshold. Energy-intensive industrial production has been declining for some time, dragging down demand for both commodities and logistics services. Bond markets, particularly in China, are showing falling yields — signaling declining inflation expectations among investors.

Another red flag: copper prices. Often dubbed “Dr. Copper” for its reliability as a barometer of economic health, copper has lost about 20 percent of its value since its 2024 peak. The downward trend appears intact. Notably, even strong-arm warnings from President Trump — threatening to cut off countries doing business with Iran — only briefly interrupted the decline in oil prices. Structural weakness in global demand continues to dominate the narrative.

Historical and Monetary Context
Unlike politically engineered oil shocks of the past — such as the 1973 embargo that triggered car-free Sundays and speed limits — sudden price collapses are often early warnings of larger crises. The oil price crash of 1986, sparked by fierce internal competition among OPEC members, sent prices tumbling from $30 to $10 per barrel and ushered in an era of deflation and fiscal stress. In early 2020, oil collapsed in anticipation of the global COVID lockdowns, which led to a worldwide recession. Today, the signals are eerily similar: tariffs, currency turmoil (especially the weakening yuan), and recurring liquidity strains in credit markets all point to systemic fragility. The falling oil price reinforces that impression.

There’s a rarely discussed monetary aspect to this price decline. Our financial system is built on fractional-reserve banking and credit expansion. Not just states and corporations, but also consumers and financial institutions, rely on nominally fixed credit contracts. The system depends on a steady expansion of credit to cover interest and principal repayments. Deflationary price shocks are toxic in this setup.

While consumers benefit from lower prices, businesses struggle. As revenues fall in nominal terms, it becomes harder to service debts that were contracted under different assumptions. Insolvencies follow — and with them, systemic risks to the banking sector.

Credit Domino Effects Loom
Falling asset prices — real estate, government bonds, or leveraged stock portfolios — undermine collateral. Loans must be re-secured, or margin calls are triggered. These can set off liquidation cascades. A falling oil price not only reduces the fiscal breathing room of producing nations — it also undermines the foundation of many debt-based business models. Oil, as a core input, sets the tone for general price developments. The risk of a deflationary domino effect is real.

The oil price is more than just a market number. It’s a seismic signal. It points to geopolitical power shifts, weakening global demand, and the growing fragility of our debt-fueled financial architecture. Anyone focused only on cheap gas is missing the tectonic tensions building beneath the surface of the world economy.

In the weeks and months ahead, all eyes will be on whether oil continues its slide. If it does, policymakers may return to their standard playbook: pump up the money supply, unleash fiscal stimulus, and hope for the best.

If China’s credit contraction collides with Germany’s industrial anemia and the U.S. bond market buckles under the weight of its own debt binge, the world could be staring down the barrel of a deflationary supercycle — one that no central bank can paper over this time. The political fallout? It could make 2008 look like a warm-up act.



America’s Comeback vs. Germany’s Stagnation

We need to wait how the big players will move. The others follow. And I see a lot happening in China and India so far. 2 months left... he needs to crack their protectionism

I see it like this: Trump is improving the framework conditions for the American economy by deregulating the energy sector in particular. The tariffs will help to combat the protectionism of the EU and the Chinese. In my opinion, the other competitors are so weakly positioned that capital will clearly opt for the USA - that was my point.

The debate surrounding a potential ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has intensified in recent days. This follows the classification of the party by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) on May 2, 2025, as "securely far-right."

Since Friday, a state of emergency has swept through German media. The AfD, the largest opposition party in the Bundestag, faces the threat of a ban. 

The cause is the party's classification as "securely far-right" by the BfV, yet concrete evidence for this assessment has not been publicly presented. Even more conspicuous is the almost simultaneous surge of campaigns by journalists, left-wing political factions, prominent NGOs, and even the churches, which have increasingly embraced a strictly leftist ideological course in recent years. The media and political coordination appears orchestrated, raising questions about the independence and democratic culture in Germany.

The Alternative for Germany, originally born from an intellectual protest movement against the Euro, has evolved over the years into a right-wing conservative force in a political landscape that has drifted leftward under Angela Merkel’s era.

Key issues for the AfD include a controlled immigration policy, independence from the European Union, the abolition of the Euro, and a return to market-driven economic principles. It could be described as a libertarian-conservative party in the German context. Over the years, no overtly nationalist or ethnic tendencies have been manifested in its platform. The current debate surrounding a potential ban thus resembles a moral outcry from the left-green political elite, which is losing traction across Europe. More and more people are turning to right-wing conservative parties that address the central challenges of our time, not least the escalating migration crisis on the continent.

As in Romania, where the European Union pressured the annulment of an election victory for an unwanted party, or in the case of Marine Le Pen in France, Germany now follows a similar pattern: Instead of responding to the will of the people and making political course corrections, the establishment seeks to eliminate its political opposition. In Germany, there is in effect only one true opposition party – the AfD. The other parties, whether CDU, SPD, Greens, or the Left, fundamentally follow the same ideological line: a globalist-leaning statism with socialist tendencies.

Criticism of the AfD from the ranks of the political establishment is nothing new. But since the party surged to 26% in the latest poll, making it the strongest political force, alarm bells have likely been ringing in the corridors of power. What is hoped for from a potential party ban remains unclear. Is there a genuine desire to politically exclude millions of voters, or even "eliminate" them? Does Berlin truly believe that growing discontent will not find another outlet?

The coordinated action from media, NGOs, and political actors points to rising panic within the power structure. Free platforms like X are increasingly coming under the scrutiny of a pan-European censorship campaign, led by Berlin, Paris, London, and Brussels. However, one thing is certain: this cannot continue. Germany is in its third year of recession, and neither Berlin nor Brussels has shown any signs of reform that could lead the country out of its growth and productivity crisis. Public frustration is mounting, fueled by rising unemployment and diminishing economic prospects.
European Union states are responding to growing discontent by implementing larger state expenditure programs, expanding the public sector, and encouraging early retirement.

 A self-perpetuating debt spiral is gaining momentum. With an average national debt of around 95% of GDP, fiscal control is increasingly at risk, particularly in Southern Europe, where debt-to-GDP ratios exceed 120%. Germany itself is attempting to mask its internal political tensions and Europe's growth weakness with a new borrowing program amounting to one trillion euros over the next four years.

Simultaneously, the narrative of fear surrounding Vladimir Putin is being deliberately kept alive. The accelerated rearmament of European armies is intended to cloak the population's latent insecurity, suggesting that security can only be guaranteed by the existing power structures in Brussels and national capitals. But can this strategy succeed in the long run? Doubts are mounting. An increasing number of people are looking beyond the official state narratives and perceiving the European Union as an overbureaucratized structure, where too much power has been concentrated within the Brussels bureaucracy. The economic dirigisme of an eco-socialist agenda is driving capital and innovation out of Europe, preventing the much-needed reboot of the European industry.

A potential AfD ban would inevitably draw attention to the real issue: the failure of the established political order and its representatives. Such a move would not resolve any conflicts—it would only deepen them. Europe, and Germany with it, is heading further into societal division and a political crisis of trust.




You have no idea what You're talking about. Check the data and stop reading Your bullshit lefty media

While Germany’s incoming government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz scrambles to push a trillion-euro debt-fueled spending spree, the United States is charging toward an economic renaissance under President Donald Trump. The contrast couldn’t be starker.

In the first 100 days of his second term, President Trump has rolled out bold, game-changing policies. Topping the list is his aggressive tariff push, targeting protectionist players like the European Union and China. The outcry from Brussels and Beijing can’t hide the fact that their policies have increasingly obstructed free trade and the principles of a free market. Trump’s strategy is clear: restore America as the world’s production powerhouse, slash foreign dependencies, and secure long-term competitiveness for U.S. industry. This isn’t about turning America into another low-cost factory hub like China—it’s about building a modern, high-tech industrial base.

Trump’s tariff offensive aims to dismantle the imbalances caused by Chinese export subsidies and European protectionism while tackling domestic challenges head-on. The revenue from these tariffs will fuel tax cuts and a systematic reduction of the federal income tax, giving hardworking Americans more of their money back. At the same time, these funds will help stabilize the nation’s precarious fiscal situation, with a national debt at 120% of GDP. This year alone, the U.S. must refinance over $9 trillion—a Herculean task for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. These measures form a cohesive economic strategy, balancing growth with fiscal responsibility.

Complementing the fiscal reforms, the U.S. is unleashing massive deregulation efforts. The energy sector, in particular, is being freed up to move faster, with streamlined planning and permitting processes for critical projects like pipelines. The results are already undeniable: in April, private-sector investment surged by over 20% compared to last year. Industry giants like NVIDIA, with $500 billion in planned investments, and IBM, with $150 billion, are doubling down on America. 

The numbers are staggering—the administration reports $5 trillion in new investments, set to create roughly 450,000 jobs. Add to that a strategic embrace of cutting-edge technologies like robotics, AI, and data centers, backed by tax incentives for reindustrialization and a surge in energy system investments, and America’s future looks brighter than ever.

Meanwhile, Germany’s policies seem stuck in the past, clinging to a tired playbook. With a trillion-euro Keynesian stimulus package over the next four years, Berlin is trying to jumpstart its lifeless economy and give the Eurozone a boost. But it’s dodging fiscal discipline with accounting tricks—parking billions in defense and arms spending in so-called “special funds” to skirt its debt brake. This isn’t serious budgeting; it’s creative bookkeeping. And it’s anyone’s guess whether bond markets will tolerate Germany’s ballooning debt, projected to soar from 63% to 95% of GDP. Will the European Central Bank swoop in again to bail out a self-inflicted mess? Either way, consumers will foot the bill through higher prices, while the government rakes in more from inflated incomes and value-added taxes.

Germany desperately needs to match the U.S.’s reform momentum to escape its growth trap. That means admitting its bloated welfare state must be trimmed, abandoning the fantasy of steering the economy through the “Green Deal”, and giving businesses room to breathe. Germany’s statist model, fueled by ever-growing interventions from Brussels, has failed. Its stubborn recession should serve as a wake-up call.

The contrast is glaring: America is betting on private capital and free markets, while Berlin and Brussels double down on heavy-handed interventionism. Germany is entering its third year of a deepening recession, with public spending pushing the state’s share of the economy to 49.5%—calling this a free market is absurd. Even Germany’s small businesses and family firms are fed up with anti-business policies, leading to factory relocations and investment freezes. America, by contrast, could use a few more Elon Musks to keep bureaucracy in check—Germany’s miles away from that mindset.

Without a radical shift toward market-friendly policies, Chancellor Merz won’t turn the tide. Global capital will keep flashing a red card to Germany’s fiscal and economic missteps, choosing the U.S. as the gold standard. Last year alone, Germany lost a net €65 billion in foreign direct investment. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.



Liberation Day and the Double Standards of EU Trade Policy

Fact check - You have no idea how politics work in the EU and in what way indirect protectionism and harmonization attacks external competitors. The EU is the epicenter of hostile trade politics. It is time to dismantle how they are blocking trade via climate scam regulation and other bs. You should start here. 

Tariffs are bad for business. They harm the international division of labor and drive consumer prices upward. Their comeback signals that we are living in an era dominated by politics. A new age of power politics has begun.

Donald Trump communicates loudly, sometimes shrilly. Naming April 2—the start of an aggressive U.S. tariff program—“Liberation Day” fits the White House’s harsh strategy since he took office. Trading partners like the European Union react with shock, threatening countermeasures to the 10 percent base tariff meant to mirror others’ barriers. Leaders like Argentina’s Javier Milei and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum signal concessions, bowing to the threat. Yet Trump’s rhetoric hides a deeper issue: The U.S. faces a double deficit—trade and fiscal balances deep in the red, eroding its industrial base. Tariffs and tax cuts aim to end the “Triffin Dilemma,” where the world’s reserve currency issuer must run a trade deficit to supply global liquidity. That’s the core goal.

Trade Wars and EU Outrage

History warns that tariffs often spark trade wars, damaging economies. Free trade alone enables specialization for optimal market supply. But we’re not in a textbook economy—we’re at a geopolitical turning point with raw power politics. The EU’s reaction is predictably fierce. After trips by Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, the EU Commission vows retaliation. Welcome to the trade war! Yet their outrage raises eyebrows. The EU built itself on coal and farm subsidies, wielding a massive subsidy machine for industrial ambitions. Outsiders entering its market face regulatory barriers masked as “harmonization,” weakening competition and hiking prices.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) exemplifies this. Meat and dairy from third countries hit tariffs and standards—officially for consumer safety, but really to protect local producers. The OECD says non-tariff barriers account for 60 percent of EU protectionism, far beyond visible tariffs. In industry, like autos, 10 percent tariffs and tailored rules shield firms like Volkswagen, forcing U.S. or Asian rivals to bear high costs and compete at a disadvantage. The EU’s “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism” (CBAM), starting 2026, taxes imports from lax-climate nations—sold as climate action, but a clear protectionist tool. In tech, the GDPR curbs U.S. giants like Google while boosting European firms. This isn’t free trade—it’s calculated isolation.

U.S. Strategy vs. EU Hypocrisy

The U.S. seeks to shrink its trade deficit and rebuild industry, betting on tech, energy autonomy, and open markets to lure capital, even if consumers suffer short-term. Trump’s challenge should push Europe to rethink its ways. But the EU’s indignation rings hollow. It’s long used subtle barriers—standards, bureaucracy, and sectoral tariffs—to fend off rivals. The CAP, for instance, isn’t about safety but shielding farmers. CBAM’s CO2 penalties are less about climate and more about punishing outsiders, while GDPR tilts the digital field toward European players. The EU’s protectionism hides behind noble labels, but consumers pay with higher prices and less choice.

The U.S. accepts trade-offs to break its deficit trap, while the EU clings to a failing vision. Brussels’ green, deindustrialized dream crashes against reality: a growth crisis and stagnant productivity. Europe should see this as a wake-up call to return to market principles and open trade. Yet that requires a radical shift in Brussels and beyond—unlikely given entrenched habits. The U.S. holds advantages with its tech edge and energy independence, positioning it to weather this storm better. Europe, meanwhile, risks being exposed as its economic weaknesses glare under the spotlight of this clash.

We’ll see how this unfolds. The U.S. bets on reviving its base, accepting consumer pain for long-term gain. Europe must decide if it’ll keep posturing or face its own contradictions. For now, the trade war tests both sides, but the EU’s double standards—decrying tariffs while quietly wielding its own—undermine its moral stance.



The United States faces a threat of itd credit rating. Moody’s has sounded the alarm with fresh forecasts, spotlighting a ballooning deficit and rising interest rates that could erode the nation’s ability to manage its towering debt. The specter of customs risks only deepens the peril, potentially jeopardizing America’s coveted top-tier bond status.

What’s striking here is the paradox. The U.S. has slashed budgets and tightened belts, all while its economy chugs along with enviable resilience. Yet, the shadow of a downgrade looms large. Contrast this with Germany, the powerhouse of the European Union and Eurozone, which is mired in its third year of recession. Berlin’s piling on massive new debt—projected to swell its debt-to-GDP ratio by at least 25% over the next four years—yet there’s no whisper of a credit rating challenge. The disparity reeks of geopolitical maneuvering, where fiscal scrutiny seems selectively applied. It’s hard to shake the sense that this could be a calculated move to dampen capital flight from Europe to the U.S., steering investment flows under the guise of credit evaluations.



U.S. Teeters on the Edge of a Credit Downgrade as Fiscal Storm Looms

What we are seeing in the USA in terms of government debt dynamics is also happening in the eurozone. France, the eurozone's second-largest economy, ran up a government deficit of 5.8% last year, compared with 5.4% in the previous year. This year, the 6% mark is unlikely to be held! After several elections, the country is in a political lockdown and there is no sign of any political competence to stop the spiraling national debt. The same applies to the other major economies in the eurozone!

 The introduction of the cbdc announced by the European Central Bank for October indicates where the journey is heading: capital controls to bring about an orderly national bankruptcy. This can be done either by bail ins or by inflating government debt, which is of course doomed to failure. What the central planners do not understand is that complex economic processes cannot be controlled centrally! With its trillion-euro new debt program, Germany will join the league of highly indebted countries in Europe, and that is just to kick-start the economic engine of Europe's pseudo-economy. Once this Keynesian flash in the pan is over, things will quickly go downhill.

 

Debt crisis in the eurozone picks up speed

The USA is on the verge of raising the so-called debt cerling by 4 trillion dollars to 40 trillion to prevent a government shutdown. This would double the federal debt over the past eight years. It turns out that, despite all of DOGE's efforts, the attempt to consolidate public finances seems doomed to failure when the national debt-to-GDP ratio has reached over 80%, which in the US has shot far above that level.

In the end, as planned, the debt gap will probably have to be plugged with freshly imitated government bonds. If the bond market can no longer absorb these, the central bank will monetize them.



USA: Debt ceiling likely to rise to USD 40 trillion

The European Union has rolled out a razor-sharp, 30-point blueprint to steel its citizens against looming chaos. The directive? Stockpile food, water, and survival essentials for at least 72 hours as tensions simmer over Russian threat.  

The strategy doesn’t stop at pantry prep. It demands fortified telecom networks, safeguarded hospitals, and a centralized “EU crisis hub” to snap into gear when disaster strikes. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen minced no words: “The world’s shifted, and so must we. Our people, our nations, our industries—they need the tools to dodge crises or hit back hard when they land.”  

This isn’t just about survival kits; the EU’s betting big on our stupidity to finance any crap that's coming out of Brussels. Fear is a perfect power leverage.



EU Sounds Alarm: Stockpile Now or Face the Fallout (next level stupidity)

Germany’s Debt Spiral: Eurozone’s Fiat Lifeline or a Ticking Time Bomb?

It's 65% now. It will be rising up to 95% until 2030 IF there's no recession (which they're already in)

The case of Canada's new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, gives us an interesting insight into the workings of the globalist power machine. Firstly, figures are selected and appointed, in this case a former Governor of the Bank of England (sic!). This is strongly reminiscent of the European Union's personal roulette, where former bankers and central bankers like Mario Draghi can jump from post to post.

![](https://m.stacker.news/84198)

Secondly, it shows that the machine can select and reprice certain assets that, once monetized, help keep its credit scheme alive. If it is opportune, the climate change narrative is evoked and natural resources and energy are left in the ground (co2 kills...). If you need a cheap Eurodollar credit pump, the mineral resources and energy reserves in the ground are suddenly found, what a coincidence, and then materialized. This collateral is then used to create the new credit that this credit machine needs to implement the political goals and projects of the central planners. 

This is the background to the green transformation that we know from Europe: the destruction and displacement of the private sector in order to establish a new state economy and the consolidation of power in a form of corporatism.
