Author: Rexje

Barack Obama: The Illusion of Hope and the Reality of Power

17 April 2025

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, is often portrayed as a historic figure of change, grace, and eloquence. The first African-American to hold the presidency, he inspired millions with his message of hope and unity. Yet behind the carefully constructed image lay a presidency riddled with contradictions, covert authoritarianism, and geopolitical recklessness. A deeper analysis reveals that Obama may have presided over one of the most deceptively harmful administrations in modern American history.

Early Life and Political Rise

Born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, Barack Obama was raised in a culturally mixed environment, spending part of his childhood in Indonesia. He later attended Columbia University and graduated from Harvard Law School, where he served as the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review. His academic pedigree and articulate demeanor made him an appealing figure in Democratic circles.

Obama entered politics as a state senator in Illinois in 1997 and later became a U.S. Senator in 2005. His 2008 presidential campaign capitalized on the widespread disillusionment with the George W. Bush administration and the financial crisis. Promising to end wars, close Guantanamo Bay, and reform Wall Street, Obama positioned himself as the antidote to American imperial overreach and economic injustice.

The Noble Facade: Hope, Change, and Nothing New

Wall Street’s Favorite Candidate

Despite his populist rhetoric, Obama’s first major appointments raised eyebrows. His cabinet was stacked with figures from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and the Federal Reserve—many of the same institutions that helped engineer the 2008 collapse (Confidence Men, Ron Suskind). His Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, and economic adviser Larry Summers, both deeply embedded in the financial elite, ensured that Wall Street bailouts proceeded while homeowners were left to fend for themselves.

According to The Big Short by Michael Lewis, Obama’s administration funneled trillions into the banking system, but did little to prosecute the criminal malfeasance that caused the crisis. In effect, he saved the system, not the people.

Foreign Policy: Bush With a Smile

While campaigning as a peace candidate, Obama expanded the use of drone warfare dramatically. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia under Obama killed thousands, including hundreds of civilians and children (Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control, Medea Benjamin). The president personally approved many of these hits, often without due process.

His administration also oversaw the destruction of Libya in 2011, leaving the nation a failed state with open slave markets. The intervention, justified under humanitarian pretense, led to civil war and regional instability (The Libya Gamble, Jo Becker and Scott Shane).

Obama continued the war in Afghanistan and expanded U.S. military operations into at least seven countries, contradicting his Peace Prize status. As The Intercept noted, his administration developed a “kill list” and institutionalized extrajudicial assassination as a central tool of American foreign policy (The Assassination Complex, Jeremy Scahill).

The Surveillance State Architect

Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 uncovered a surveillance architecture that had grown exponentially under Obama’s watch. The NSA, in collaboration with tech giants, engaged in warrantless data collection, domestic spying, and secret courts (No Place to Hide, Glenn Greenwald). Far from reining in Bush-era overreach, Obama legitimized and expanded the surveillance state.

This included targeting whistleblowers with the Espionage Act more than all previous presidents combined. Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, and others faced draconian punishments for exposing crimes, while the criminals themselves remained untouched (The Obama Syndrome, Tariq Ali).

Domestic Policy: Illusion of Reform

Obamacare: A Corporate Giveaway

The Affordable Care Act, touted as Obama’s signature legislative achievement, mandated the purchase of private insurance under penalty of law. It did not introduce a public option, let alone universal healthcare. Instead, it guaranteed profits for the insurance industry and Big Pharma, whose stock prices soared post-passage (Sickening, John Abramson).

Even as premiums rose and coverage became more limited, the administration declared the law a success. The result was a more bureaucratic and expensive system, still leaving tens of millions uninsured or underinsured.

Race, Policing, and Double Standards

Despite his racial symbolism, Obama did little to address systemic racism. His response to the 2014 Ferguson uprising and the broader Black Lives Matter movement was one of pacification, not reform. The Justice Department released reports, but few structural changes followed.

Police militarization continued under his administration via the 1033 Program, which allowed local police departments to acquire military-grade weaponry—a policy dating back to Clinton but expanded under Obama (Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko).

Immigration and Deportations

Obama deported more people than any other president in U.S. history, earning him the nickname “Deporter-in-Chief” (Deportation Nation, Aviva Chomsky). While media narratives painted Trump as uniquely harsh, it was Obama who built much of the current deportation infrastructure and failed to pass comprehensive reform when Democrats held Congress.

Family separation and ICE raids were not Trumpian inventions—they were already in full force by 2014.

The Cult of Personality and Media Complicity

One of Obama’s most remarkable achievements was the consolidation of elite liberal media into a compliant echo chamber. Outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC rarely scrutinized his policies, focusing instead on his style, intellect, and family life.

This protective media bubble helped insulate Obama from accountability. As Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman suggests, the media’s role in shaping permissible narratives made it almost impossible to critique Obama without being labeled racist or reactionary.

The fawning press coverage stood in stark contrast to the reality of his actions. Obama helped kill due process, mass-surveil the world, and escalate multiple conflicts—but did it all with a calm demeanor and articulate language. For many, this was enough.

Obama’s Legacy: A Broken Mandate

By the end of Obama’s second term, many of the promises that brought him to power were shattered. The rich had grown richer, the middle class had stagnated, and geopolitical instability had worsened.

His inability—or unwillingness—to dismantle the security state or challenge Wall Street’s dominance paved the way for Donald Trump. Voters felt betrayed, not just by Obama but by the entire liberal establishment that enabled him.

In the words of political theorist Sheldon Wolin, Obama was a “managed democracy’s” ideal president—one who offered just enough rhetoric of change while maintaining the machinery of elite rule (Democracy Incorporated, Sheldon Wolin).

Conclusion: A President of Two Faces

Barack Obama remains a paradox—an inspiring orator who normalized assassination; a constitutional scholar who shredded civil liberties; a symbol of racial progress who upheld systemic injustice. His presidency was not the triumph of democracy, but its simulation.

He governed like a corporate technocrat and global strategist, not a reformer. The damage done by his administration—masked by media adulation and public relations wizardry—set dangerous precedents for executive overreach, surveillance, and militarism.

In historical hindsight, Barack Obama may be remembered not as a savior, but as one of the most effective protectors of the status quo in American history—an affable face on a brutal system.

Sources referenced:

  • Confidence Men, Ron Suskind
  • The Big Short, Michael Lewis
  • Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control, Medea Benjamin
  • The Libya Gamble, Jo Becker and Scott Shane
  • The Assassination Complex, Jeremy Scahill
  • No Place to Hide, Glenn Greenwald
  • The Obama Syndrome, Tariq Ali
  • Sickening, John Abramson
  • Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko
  • Deportation Nation, Aviva Chomsky
  • Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
  • Democracy Incorporated, Sheldon Wolin

The Recreation of the Dire Wolf: A Modern Scientific Feat

14 April 2025

A wolf from the past, reimagined for the present

The recent announcement that three genetically engineered wolf pups—Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—were born bearing the traits of the long-extinct dire wolf has stirred excitement, skepticism, and profound philosophical questions. Engineered by Colossal Biosciences, a Texas-based biotechnology company dedicated to the so-called “de-extinction” of lost species, these pups were created not by cloning, but by editing the genome of a modern gray wolf to reflect the physical characteristics of the dire wolf.

What makes this event extraordinary is not only the scientific complexity behind it, but also its implications for our understanding of extinction, nature, and biotechnology. Rather than a perfect replica, the pups are a genetic approximation—a recreation, not a resurrection. Yet they symbolize something larger: a human attempt to reclaim the biological past using tools of the future. As we stand on the threshold of being able to reintroduce ancient forms of life, we must ask ourselves whether this power is one we are prepared to wield, and for what purpose we intend to wield it.

The dire wolf: separating myth from biology

A prehistoric predator, not just a Game of Thrones myth

Popular culture has transformed the dire wolf into a mythical creature, thanks in part to Game of Thrones. However, the real dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) was very much a biological reality—an apex predator that once roamed the grasslands and forests of North America. Weighing around 60 to 70 kilograms and equipped with powerful jaws, dire wolves were likely pack hunters and formidable competitors in the Ice Age food chain.

Unlike gray wolves, dire wolves had broader skulls and more robust builds. Fossils from the La Brea Tar Pits and other sites reveal that they lived alongside saber-toothed cats, mammoths, and other now-extinct megafauna. Around 10,000 years ago, however, the dire wolf disappeared—part of a wider extinction wave that struck many large Ice Age mammals. Their extinction has been attributed to a mix of climate change, loss of prey, and competition with smaller and more adaptable species like the gray wolf (The Science Behind the Return of the Dire Wolf, Charlotte Hu).

Dire wolves and gray wolves: genetically distinct

One of the most crucial scientific insights into dire wolves came in 2021, when a landmark study published in Nature confirmed that dire wolves were not closely related to gray wolves, coyotes, or even jackals. Instead, they represented a unique evolutionary lineage that diverged from other canids more than five million years ago (Dire wolves were not wolves, Angela Perri). This finding crushed any lingering hope of finding surviving relatives of the species and underscored just how far removed modern wolves are from their extinct cousins.

This genetic distance means that scientists cannot simply extract dire wolf DNA and “clone” the species back into existence. There is no living genome to replicate, no template that can be reassembled in full. What Colossal Biosciences has done, then, is something different: they have selected a few key traits from what we do know about the dire wolf and edited them into a gray wolf genome. The result is not a dire wolf in the strict biological sense—but an engineered creature that walks and looks much like one.

The process behind the recreation

Partial DNA, selective editing

Because no full dire wolf genome exists, researchers worked with fragments obtained from fossilized remains. These fragments were analyzed to identify specific traits thought to be unique to the dire wolf—wider skulls, thicker coats, larger size, and robust limb structure. Fourteen genes believed to control these traits were identified and isolated. These genes were then edited into gray wolf embryos using the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a revolutionary gene-editing technique that allows precise changes to DNA sequences (Dire wolves have been extinct for over 10,000 years, Marianne Guenot).

The resulting embryos were implanted into domestic dog surrogates, chosen for their compatibility and manageability. When the three pups were born healthy, researchers hailed the process as a success. The pups displayed the anticipated physical characteristics: broader heads, heavier builds, and behavior patterns that appeared to align with dire wolf theories based on fossil studies. Still, they are genetically closer to gray wolves than to the extinct species they were designed to mimic.

Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi: symbolic and scientific

Naming the pups after figures of legend and pop culture was no accident. Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome, were raised by a she-wolf—an origin story resonating with themes of wildness and human ambition. Khaleesi, a nod to Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones, evokes the fantasy of commanding ancient beasts. These names reflect not just marketing savvy, but the symbolic nature of the project: it’s not merely about animals, but about the human fascination with power, history, and control over life itself.

Colossal Biosciences and the business of extinction

The company behind the wolves

Colossal Biosciences, co-founded by Harvard geneticist George Church and tech entrepreneur Ben Lamm, has positioned itself as a pioneer in the field of de-extinction. The dire wolf is only one of several species the company has targeted. Other projects include reviving the woolly mammoth, the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), and even the dodo. According to Colossal, these efforts are not just about spectacle or novelty—they are meant to restore ecological balance and offer new tools for conservation (Colossal Biosciences, Wikipedia).

Ben Lamm has stated that the long-term goal is “rewilding” ecosystems and reversing biodiversity loss. By creating ecological proxies for extinct animals, Colossal hopes to restore trophic chains disrupted by human activity. For example, bringing back a mammoth-like creature could, in theory, help restore the tundra by flattening snow and fertilizing soil with droppings. The dire wolf project is a proof-of-concept for this broader vision: engineered animals with targeted traits, designed to fill extinct ecological roles.

Ethical, legal, and ecological questions

Yet this vision is not without controversy. Critics argue that de-extinction diverts attention and resources away from more urgent environmental needs, like habitat preservation and combating climate change. Some bioethicists also warn about the risks of releasing genetically engineered creatures into ecosystems that have long since adapted to their absence. Dr. Evie Kendal points out that reintroducing extinct animals could disrupt existing food chains, spread disease, or create suffering for animals not suited to current environments (Back from the dead, Patrick Carlyon).

The U.S. Department of the Interior, under a former Trump administration official, even suggested that successful de-extinction projects might justify abolishing the Endangered Species Act—a position that caused alarm among conservationists. If species can be re-engineered at will, what obligation remains to protect those that still exist? (After Dire Wolves Are Resurrected, Tristan Balagtas)

Rewilding or rewriting nature?

Nature as laboratory

One of the deeper issues raised by this project is the redefinition of nature itself. Are these engineered wolves “natural”? Do they belong in the wild, or are they laboratory artifacts? By constructing animals from fragments of genetic data, we risk shifting from conservation to fabrication—replacing the intrinsic value of ecosystems with the engineered logic of the biotech industry.

This concern is amplified by the fact that engineered species, like the new dire wolves, may soon be patented or licensed. The transformation of life into intellectual property is not a new development, but its extension to entire species raises profound ethical questions. As synthetic biology advances, we may find ourselves living in a world where “wild” animals are owned by corporations and designed for specific ecological or commercial functions.

Function over form

Supporters of the dire wolf project argue that form matters less than function. If a genetically modified wolf can fulfill the same ecological role as a dire wolf—helping control deer populations, for example—then its value lies in its utility, not its genetic purity. George Church has often stressed that conservation biology must adapt to the realities of the Anthropocene. In his view, we should not aim to perfectly recreate extinct species, but to restore their ecological impact in any viable form.

But this utilitarian view clashes with more traditional conservation philosophies, which emphasize protecting existing biodiversity and maintaining the integrity of natural systems. If we begin replacing extinct species with engineered substitutes, are we truly preserving life—or merely mimicking it?

Conclusion: awe, ambition, and ambiguity

The recreation of Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi is a technological marvel, a biological puzzle, and a philosophical provocation all at once. It shows that the limits of extinction are more flexible than previously imagined—but also that the line between nature and artifice is becoming increasingly blurred. These animals are not dire wolves in the strict sense, but something new: creatures shaped by human knowledge, ambition, and selective memory of the past.

As we move further into the age of synthetic biology, we must ask not just whether such feats are possible, but what they mean. Do we pursue these projects for ecological healing, scientific curiosity, or the thrill of mastery over nature? Can engineered life truly replace lost biodiversity—or does it simply remind us of what we’ve lost? In trying to bring back the past, we may be creating an entirely different future—one in which life itself is no longer discovered, but designed.

References

  • The Science Behind the Return of the Dire Wolf, Charlotte Hu
  • Dire wolves have been extinct for over 10,000 years, Marianne Guenot
  • Back from the dead: Dire Aussie warning over resurrection of extinct species, Patrick Carlyon
  • After Dire Wolves Are Resurrected, Trump Administration Says U.S. Endangered Species List Should ‘Go Extinct’, Tristan Balagtas
  • Colossal Biosciences, Wikipedia
  • Dire wolves were not wolves, Angela Perri

Trump’s Tariffs: The Great Reset for the American Economy

11 April 2025

The tariff policies introduced under President Donald Trump sparked widespread controversy, especially among globalist economists, multinational corporations, and pro-China trade lobbies. But if we strip away the hysteria and examine the broader implications, these tariffs can be interpreted not as a blunder, but as a calculated “great reset”—a bold move to realign the American economy with national interests, industrial sovereignty, and long-term resilience.

Far from merely a short-term trade tactic, the Trump tariffs laid the groundwork for a revitalized industrial base, job creation at home, and reduced reliance on hostile foreign powers. Critics pointing to market jitters or temporary cost hikes ignore the more profound transformation underway: a shift from speculative globalization to productive nationalism.

Rethinking the Globalist Model

For decades, American policymakers embraced a doctrine of free trade that hollowed out domestic industry while enriching multinational corporations and adversarial nations. The Clinton-era normalization of trade with China catalyzed this decline. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. lost 3.7 million jobs to China between 2001 and 2018 (The China Toll, Scott).

This “China Shock,” as dubbed by economists David Autor and Gordon Hanson, devastated industrial heartlands, fueled income inequality, and eroded America’s productive capacity (The China Shock, Autor et al.). Trump’s tariffs directly targeted this imbalance, placing duties on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods to create a more level playing field.

A Strategic Reset: Restoring Manufacturing

Supporters of globalization dismissed America’s manufacturing losses as the inevitable result of progress. But the pandemic exposed the fragility of this offshored model. Critical supplies like masks, ventilators, and microchips were suddenly inaccessible. The Trump tariffs anticipated this vulnerability, incentivizing companies to return operations to U.S. soil.

In fact, reshoring has gained significant traction. According to the Reshoring Initiative, 2021 saw over 260,000 manufacturing jobs brought back to the U.S.—a record high (Reshoring Initiative 2021 Data Report, Moser). Tariffs were instrumental in this shift, offering predictability and protection to firms willing to reinvest domestically.

The aluminum industry is a key example. After Trump imposed tariffs on aluminum imports, U.S. production increased and idled plants restarted. The Aluminum Association reported that domestic production of primary aluminum rose by over 60% between 2017 and 2020 (Economic Impact of the U.S. Aluminum Industry, Aluminum Association).

Employment, Wages, and Industrial Strength

Job creation is perhaps the most overlooked success of the Trump tariffs. By reintroducing competition in favor of American producers, tariffs helped stabilize employment in key sectors. The manufacturing wage premium—the difference in pay between manufacturing and service jobs—re-emerged as domestic demand strengthened.

Moreover, research suggests that the tariffs’ impact on consumer prices was less than anticipated. According to a report by the Coalition for a Prosperous America, tariffs on Chinese goods had a negligible effect on inflation while generating $74 billion in additional government revenue (Tariffs Did Not Raise Prices, Shelton).

This revenue, unlike income taxes or inflationary borrowing, does not burden the middle class. In effect, tariffs act as a user fee for access to the American market—a market built by American taxpayers and workers.

Cutting Costs, Not Raising Them

Mainstream economists often argue that tariffs raise prices and hurt consumers. But this simplistic view omits key context. Yes, some imported goods became more expensive. But the tariffs also forced importers to find cheaper alternatives or to manufacture domestically.

More importantly, the long-term costs of not having a domestic industrial base are far greater. Depending on adversarial nations for steel, energy technologies, and pharmaceuticals is not only economically risky—it’s a threat to national security. As Trump repeatedly stated, “If you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.”

Addressing Trade Deficits and Currency Manipulation

The Trump administration also used tariffs to address trade imbalances—especially with China, which had long manipulated its currency and used non-tariff barriers to dominate global markets. By 2018, the U.S. trade deficit in goods with China had ballooned to $419 billion (U.S. Census Bureau).

Tariffs served as leverage in negotiations, culminating in the U.S.-China Phase One deal, which included commitments from China to increase purchases of American goods and services (U.S.-China Economic and Trade Agreement, USTR). Though enforcement was imperfect, the deal marked a shift in tone and expectations.

Markets React, But Do Not Dictate

Critics often pointed to stock market dips following tariff announcements. But short-term market reactions are not synonymous with economic health. Stocks often fall on uncertainty, not on substance. As noted by economist Michael Pettis, “markets dislike change, even change for the better” (Avoiding the Middle-Income Trap, Pettis).

The markets’ initial fear of tariffs did not prevent U.S. unemployment from falling to record lows before COVID-19. Nor did it stop GDP growth from accelerating in key quarters. The tariffs disrupted the status quo but laid the foundation for a more balanced and sustainable economy.

Reclaiming Economic Sovereignty

Tariffs, unlike income taxes, are also an expression of sovereignty. By taxing foreign products rather than domestic labor, the U.S. regains control over its fiscal base. Moreover, tariffs incentivize companies to produce in jurisdictions with higher labor and environmental standards—making global trade more ethical and aligned with national values.

They are also tools for fighting tax evasion. A 2012 study by economist James Henry estimated that over $21 trillion in private wealth was hidden in offshore tax havens (The Price of Offshore Revisited, Henry). Tariffs ensure that foreign producers and multinational corporations contribute to the public good when accessing American consumers.

Not Isolationism, But Selective Engagement

Critics claim tariffs represent protectionism or economic nationalism. But what Trump proposed was not autarky, but reciprocal trade. As he famously declared: “Free trade is great, but only if it’s fair.”

The U.S. has long accepted lopsided trade deals under the guise of international cooperation. But such cooperation has often served the interests of global institutions and foreign governments, not American workers. Trump’s tariffs aimed to rebalance this dynamic and restore dignity to labor and production.

A Foundation for the Future

With the rise of AI, automation, and decentralized manufacturing, the logic of local production is only growing stronger. Trump’s tariffs, in hindsight, may be viewed as the first step in a broader shift toward economic realism.

Even as the Biden administration has kept many Trump-era tariffs intact, it is clear that a new consensus is forming: national security, industrial strength, and economic independence matter.

Conclusion: Not Just Policy, But Paradigm Shift

The Trump tariffs were not a one-off policy, but a declaration of intent—a refusal to continue down the road of deindustrialization, dependence, and decline. They signaled that the American economy must serve the American people first.

Yes, there were disruptions. Yes, there was pushback from entrenched interests. But as with any true reset, discomfort was the price of transformation.

Trump’s tariffs, properly understood, were the opening salvo in a longer war to reclaim sovereignty, rebuild industry, and re-center the economy around production rather than speculation. As history has often shown, those who control their supply chains control their future. The tariffs were a first step in taking that control back.

Sources referenced:

  • The China Toll, Robert Scott (Economic Policy Institute)
  • The China Shock, David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson
  • Reshoring Initiative 2021 Data Report, Harry Moser
  • Economic Impact of the U.S. Aluminum Industry, Aluminum Association
  • Tariffs Did Not Raise Prices, Jeff Ferry (Coalition for a Prosperous America)
  • Avoiding the Middle-Income Trap, Michael Pettis
  • The Price of Offshore Revisited, James Henry
  • U.S.-China Economic and Trade Agreement, United States Trade Representative (USTR)
  • U.S. Trade Deficit Data, U.S. Census Bureau

The Great Green Failure: How The EU’s Climate Transition Made Europe Poorer, Weaker and More Corrupt

10 April 2025

The promise of a green utopia

The European Union’s “green transition” was marketed as a revolution in energy, economics, and ethics. With grand promises of carbon neutrality, sustainable innovation, and energy independence, EU officials embarked on an ambitious plan to decarbonize Europe by 2050.

But after more than a decade of policies, subsidies, and regulation, the outcome is unmistakable: the transition has failed. It is neither green, nor economically viable, nor socially just. It has instead drained public resources, increased dependency, and facilitated mass-scale corruption.

This transition, initially presented as a path toward modernity and environmental responsibility, has turned into an ideological project detached from practical realities. The rhetoric was full of idealism — “saving the planet,” “green jobs,” “energy justice” — yet the policy implementation was riddled with inconsistencies, market distortions, and unintended consequences.

Not green at all

Dirty supply chains and imported destruction

Despite being labeled as “clean,” many so-called green technologies are dependent on destructive and polluting processes. The rare earth minerals required for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles are mined in countries with poor environmental regulations and appalling labor conditions. In particular, cobalt and lithium extraction in the Democratic Republic of Congo and South America have led to environmental destruction, water shortages, and child labor (The Hidden Cost of the Green Energy Transition, Heinberg).

Europe may have reduced emissions domestically, but only by outsourcing its environmental impact to the Global South. The illusion of “green” is sustained only because the most damaging aspects of production are hidden from European consumers. In the name of ethics, the EU turns a blind eye to African child labor and poisoned Andean rivers.

Moreover, decommissioned wind turbines and solar panels create toxic waste with limited recycling options. As Green Tech’s Dirty Secrets by Vries explains, “the clean energy industry has no real plan for end-of-life disposal — it simply hopes future generations will solve that problem.”

Inefficient and wasteful technologies

Wind and solar energy suffer from low energy density and intermittency. As a result, they require massive land use, backup systems (often fossil-based), and costly storage. Germany’s “Energiewende” alone has consumed over €500 billion, yet coal power was reactivated in 2022 due to grid instability and gas shortages (Germany’s Green Energy Meltdown, Mills).

Instead of replacing fossil fuels, renewables have supplemented them — at a higher total cost to citizens and the environment. Solar panels produce nothing at night; wind turbines often generate too much or too little energy depending on weather patterns. To maintain grid balance, fossil plants must be kept online anyway.

In addition, the raw material requirements for green infrastructure dwarf those of conventional energy. According to the International Energy Agency, a wind plant requires up to nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. This makes the transition not only expensive but also physically unsustainable at global scale.

Not economically viable

Soaring costs, broken promises

The EU’s climate policies have led to skyrocketing electricity prices across the continent. Households and businesses now pay more for less reliable energy. Manufacturing sectors in countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy face deindustrialization as production relocates to regions with cheaper and more stable energy.

According to The Cost of Net Zero, published by Civitas, the UK alone is expected to spend over £4.5 trillion on decarbonization — costs which will ultimately fall on taxpayers and consumers (The Cost of Net Zero, Lilley). France and Germany follow close behind in per capita burden, yet show no corresponding gains in energy security or emissions stability.

The economic logic of net zero collapses under scrutiny: productivity falls while costs rise. Investment that could have gone into innovation or industry is diverted into politically favored green projects — often unproven, inefficient, and speculative.

A tax on the poor, a subsidy for the rich

Green subsidies disproportionately benefit wealthy citizens and multinational companies. The upper class can afford solar panels, electric cars, and tax credits, while lower-income households pay for the inflated energy bills, green taxes, and carbon pricing mechanisms.

This regressive dynamic deepens inequality under the guise of “climate justice” (Green Inequality, Jenkins). Wealthy urbanites get the perks; rural working-class citizens get restrictions, levies, and unaffordable fuel. Dutch farmers, for instance, are being pushed off their land in the name of nitrogen reduction, while tech executives cash in on green bonds.

The injustice is structural. Carbon pricing and emissions trading do not change elite consumption — they merely monetize it. The poor are not allowed to drive old diesel cars; the rich are allowed to pollute if they buy credits.

More dependent, not more independent

The gas trap and the Russian fallout

Ironically, as the EU decommissioned coal and nuclear plants, it increased reliance on imported natural gas — much of it from Russia. When the Ukraine conflict began, the EU found itself strategically vulnerable and energy-starved.

The idea that green energy would bring autonomy was a myth. In reality, Europe merely swapped one form of dependency (coal and oil) for another (Russian gas and Chinese solar panels). Germany, once energy independent, became hostage to Gazprom.

The fallout has been severe: energy rationing, factory closures, and inflation across the eurozone. In 2022 and 2023, entire sectors of industry — from chemicals to aluminum — scaled back or shut down operations due to unaffordable energy prices.

China’s control of the green supply chain

China dominates global production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and rare earth metals. The EU’s transition has thus empowered a geopolitical rival and undermined its own strategic resilience. In 2022, over 80% of solar panels installed in Europe were made in China (Europe’s Green Dependency, CRU Group).

Moreover, green infrastructure imports are paid for in euros and dollars — increasing trade deficits and enriching authoritarian regimes that do not share European values. Europe’s “green future” is being built in Chinese factories using African cobalt and Middle Eastern rare earths.

Green corruption and elite enrichment

A feeding trough for lobbyists and consultants

The Green Deal and other climate programs have become vast financial machines benefiting a narrow class of insiders: NGO networks, climate consultants, green investors, and renewable lobbyists. Billions of euros in subsidies are distributed with limited transparency, questionable results, and political favoritism.

Scandals have already emerged. In France, a €1 billion hydrogen investment fund was discovered to be funneled into shell companies tied to political allies. In Brussels, green lobbying groups have received EU grants while simultaneously lobbying for more grants (The Great Green Grift, Gabbard).

Climate bureaucracies — national and EU-level — now employ thousands of people whose careers depend on the perception of crisis. They are not incentivized to solve problems, only to manage them.

Carbon markets and climate profiteers

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) was intended to reduce emissions via market mechanisms. Instead, it created a speculative playground for banks and traders, driving up costs while failing to lower total emissions.

Large corporations now buy “carbon offsets” to greenwash their image, while emitting as much — or more — than before. The system rewards appearance, not outcome (Smoke and Mirrors: Carbon Offsets Explained, MacKay). Airlines, for instance, emit more CO₂ than ever — but advertise carbon neutrality thanks to reforestation offsets in faraway countries.

ETS permits are also hoarded and manipulated for financial gain, turning climate policy into a derivatives market.

Citizens poorer, colder, and angrier

Energy poverty on the rise

Across Europe, citizens are being asked to consume less, heat less, and travel less — not because of scarcity, but because of ideology-driven planning. Energy poverty has become a major issue, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe.

In 2023, over 50 million Europeans reported being unable to adequately heat their homes in winter (Europe’s Energy Divide, Eurostat). Meanwhile, green transition executives receive multi-million euro bonuses.

The working class has been priced out of modern life under the moral pretense of “saving the planet.” The climate agenda is becoming a civilizational downgrading project, where economic hardship is reframed as ethical virtue.

Protests and political backlash

Public anger is rising. Farmers in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany have protested anti-nitrogen policies that threaten food production in the name of emissions targets. French citizens rejected punitive fuel taxes under the Yellow Vests movement. These are not isolated incidents — they are signs of deep democratic disconnect.

The green agenda, as imposed by unelected EU technocrats, is meeting its limit. Citizens are beginning to realize that this is not about nature — it’s about control.

Conclusion: the climate scam of the century

The EU’s green transition was sold as a path to sustainability, prosperity, and sovereignty. In practice, it has delivered pollution exported abroad, unaffordable energy, weakened strategic autonomy, and a goldmine for green profiteers. The entire scheme has served as a vehicle for ideological control and elite enrichment — with citizens footing the bill.

Europeans deserve real environmental stewardship — not technocratic schemes designed by lobbyists, enforced by bureaucrats, and funded by taxpayers without consent.

It’s time to call the green transition what it really is: a monumental failure built on lies, corruption, and the erosion of common sense.

The EU’s march toward authoritarianism: Cancelling elections and silencing dissent

9 April 2025

The erosion of democracy in the European Union

The European Union, which claims to uphold democracy, human rights, and political freedom, is increasingly behaving like the authoritarian regimes it claims to oppose. Recent developments show a clear pattern: elections are being manipulated or outright canceled, “far-right” candidates are being excluded from political participation, and dissenting voices are silenced through media control and legal repression.

These actions mirror the tactics of communist regimes, where power is centralized, opposition is suppressed, and elections serve as mere formalities rather than genuine democratic processes. Despite presenting itself as a beacon of democracy, the EU is moving toward a system where only approved, pro-EU candidates and policies are permitted.

Cancelling elections: A warning sign of authoritarian rule

The case of Romania: Nullifying democratic votes

One of the most blatant examples of the EU’s anti-democratic tendencies occurred in Romania. In early 2024, the Romanian government, under strong pressure from Brussels, announced it would merge local and European elections, effectively overriding previous votes and reshaping the electoral process to favor pro-EU parties. Officially, this was justified as a way to “streamline” voting, but critics argue it was a deliberate move to prevent nationalist and euroskeptic parties from gaining power (EU pressures Romania to merge elections, Politico).

This type of election manipulation is a hallmark of authoritarian rule. Communist regimes frequently altered electoral laws to maintain their grip on power, ensuring that opposition forces never had a fair chance at governance. By interfering with Romania’s electoral process, the EU demonstrated that its commitment to democracy is conditional—valid only when elections produce results that align with Brussels’ interests.

Spain and Germany: Disqualifying opposition candidates

The EU’s campaign against nationalist movements extends beyond Romania. In both Spain and Germany, nationalist candidates have been disqualified from running for office under dubious legal pretexts. In Germany, the government has taken steps to potentially ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, labeling them as “extremists” despite the fact that they operate legally within the democratic system (German authorities consider banning AfD, Deutsche Welle).

In Spain, right-wing nationalist candidates have been removed from ballots using vague accusations of hate speech and extremism, even in the absence of criminal convictions (Spain moves to ban nationalist candidates, El País). This selective enforcement of political restrictions highlights the EU’s growing authoritarianism. Rather than allowing voters to decide, Brussels and its allied governments ensure that only pro-EU candidates are allowed to compete.

The EU’s ideological control and suppression of dissent

Media censorship and political persecution

A key feature of totalitarian regimes is control over information. The EU has been expanding its ability to suppress dissent through laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA), which gives Brussels the power to fine or shut down online platforms accused of spreading “disinformation” (Digital Services Act: Controlling Online Speech, European Commission). In practice, this means that critical voices, particularly those opposed to EU policies on migration, climate change, and sovereignty, can be silenced at will.

At the same time, independent journalists and political activists who challenge the EU’s narratives face increasing persecution. In Hungary and Poland, independent media outlets critical of the EU have been heavily fined or shut down (EU cracks down on Polish independent media, Reuters). These actions resemble the Soviet Union’s methods of suppressing dissent by labeling opposition media as dangerous or subversive.

Criminalizing opposition under “hate speech” laws

Several EU member states have introduced strict “hate speech” laws that disproportionately target right-wing and nationalist figures. France and Belgium have prosecuted individuals for questioning EU migration policies, while Germany has arrested political activists under broad interpretations of hate speech (Germany’s new hate speech laws target right-wing figures, Der Spiegel).

Notably, these laws are not applied equally. Left-wing activists and politicians who engage in violent protests or make inflammatory statements rarely face legal consequences. This selective enforcement serves one purpose: eliminating political opposition while maintaining the illusion of democratic governance.

The EU’s double standard: Marine Le Pen vs. Christine Lagarde

Targeting Le Pen for political reasons

One of the clearest examples of the EU’s selective justice system is its treatment of Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally. Le Pen has been repeatedly targeted by EU institutions and the French government, facing legal investigations and attempts to disqualify her from running for office.

The latest attack on Le Pen involves allegations of financial misconduct related to the use of EU parliamentary funds, despite the fact that many pro-EU politicians have engaged in similar practices without consequences (France targets Le Pen with financial investigation, Le Monde). This politically motivated prosecution is clearly intended to weaken her electoral prospects ahead of upcoming elections.

Christine Lagarde: A convicted criminal protected by the EU

In contrast, Christine Lagarde, the current President of the European Central Bank (ECB), was found guilty of criminal negligence in a financial scandal in 2016. Despite her conviction, she faced no punishment and was allowed to continue in high-profile EU positions (Christine Lagarde guilty of negligence but escapes penalty, BBC News).

Lagarde was responsible for approving a massive state payout to a politically connected businessman while serving as France’s finance minister. Unlike Le Pen, who has been relentlessly pursued over minor financial allegations, Lagarde enjoys full protection from Brussels, highlighting the EU’s double standard: pro-EU officials are above the law, while nationalist politicians are treated as criminals for far lesser infractions.

The road to centralized power: A planned superstate

Undermining national sovereignty

The EU’s authoritarian drift is not limited to election interference and censorship. The long-term goal appears to be the transformation of the EU into a centralized superstate, where member states lose their sovereignty. The recent push to remove veto powers from nations like Hungary and Poland illustrates this ambition (EU plans to strip Hungary of veto rights, The Guardian).

If successful, this move would mean that smaller or dissenting countries could no longer block harmful EU policies. Instead, all decisions would be made by Brussels, regardless of public opinion in individual member states.

Military and economic control

Another crucial aspect of the EU’s power grab is its increasing control over military and economic policy. The European Defence Fund and discussions of an EU army show a move toward a centralized military structure, reducing member states’ ability to control their own defense strategies (EU defence plans: Toward a single army?, Financial Times). Similarly, the push for a digital euro would allow Brussels to monitor and control financial transactions, limiting economic freedom (The digital euro: A tool for control, Bloomberg).

These developments resemble the centralized control mechanisms of communist regimes, where the state dictated all aspects of economic and military policy. The EU is following a similar path, eroding national independence and consolidating power in the hands of unelected officials.

Conclusion: The EU’s authoritarian trajectory

The European Union has abandoned its original purpose as an economic alliance and is transforming into an increasingly authoritarian system. By canceling elections, disqualifying opposition candidates, controlling the media, and using the legal system to target political opponents, the EU is adopting the tactics of communist regimes.

The double standard in how figures like Marine Le Pen and Christine Lagarde are treated exposes the EU’s true priorities: punishing those who challenge Brussels’ power while protecting those who serve its interests.

If these trends continue, the EU will cease to be a democratic entity in any meaningful sense. Instead, it will become an ideological dictatorship, where political dissent is punished, national sovereignty is eroded, and elections are manipulated to maintain the rule of an unelected elite.

The warning signs are clear. The question remains: Will European citizens resist, or will they allow Brussels to consolidate its grip on power unchecked?

Volt Europa: A Pan-European Façade with a Global Agenda

8 April 2025

Volt Europa presents itself as a fresh, progressive, pan-European movement aiming to transcend the borders of the nation-state. Transparency, sustainability, human rights, and European cooperation are the core themes in their messaging. But behind this idealistic façade lies a political project with strong ties to globalist institutions, technocratic networks, and dubious financial channels. Volt is not merely a party, but a vehicle for an ideological shift that undermines democratic oversight.

The funding: transparency or smokescreen?

Foreign donors and NGO networks

Although Volt claims all its donations are transparently listed, public records reveal that a significant portion of their funding comes from networks surrounding private foundations, progressive American donors, and EU-funded NGOs. According to investigative journalism by Follow the Money, Volt candidates are often supported through a web of subsidies, civil society projects, and “civic tech” platforms—many of which are themselves financed by entities such as the Open Society Foundations, the European Endowment for Democracy, and similar institutions (De nieuwe pan-Europese partijen: idealisme of invloedsspel?, FTM).

While these funds may appear to operate with noble intentions, their central role in bankrolling political parties like Volt raises serious questions about democratic legitimacy. Those who fund, influence—if not control—outcomes. The role of such transnational actors in national elections is both politically and legally controversial.

Smart detours: campaigning via foundations

Like other new parties, Volt uses legal structures such as foundations and civic platforms to campaign without being subject to the same financial oversight as traditional parties. Under the guise of “citizen participation,” events, media campaigns, and youth programs are sponsored that in effect amount to party propaganda.

According to political finance professor David Farrell, this is “a clever but dangerous way of conducting party politics without accountability” (Shadow Parties and Political Foundations, Farrell).

Pan-European but ideologically uniform

A uniform agenda under the flag of diversity

Although Volt claims to be pluralistic and representative of a new generation of Europeans, their ideological agenda is remarkably uniform. In nearly every country where Volt is active, the party promotes a pro-EU, pro-globalist agenda: more Europe, more migration, more digital control (such as through European digital IDs and central bank currencies), more climate restrictions, and a marginalization of national sovereignty.

Volt’s programs in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Belgium are almost identical. The rhetoric of “diversity” and “solidarity” goes hand-in-hand with a technocratic faith in data, algorithms, and supranational solutions. National culture, tradition, and identity are not defended—they are ignored or treated as problematic.

As sociologist Wolfgang Streeck notes: “Volt is not a popular movement but an elite project with an Instagram filter” (European Federalism as Oligarchic Technocracy, Streeck).

The globalist signature

Volt’s positions align perfectly with the policies proposed by institutions such as the European Commission, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the United Nations. This is no coincidence. Several Volt members have links to WEF partners, NGOs that cooperate with the IMF, or EU programs that blur the lines between politics, commerce, and ideology.

Volt’s views on migration, climate, economics, and digital governance neatly fit the mold of globalist “solutions” that require citizens to submit to powers beyond their reach.

Control through digital instruments

Digital identity and social surveillance

Volt advocates, in multiple countries, for the implementation of an EU-wide digital identity. According to the party, this would provide citizens with access to healthcare, education, and public services. In reality, it opens the door to centralized control of behavior, medical records, travel movements, and consumption patterns.

The digital euro, also supported by Volt, is a next step in the ability to track and steer individual behavior, as demonstrated by economist Richard Werner in his analysis of monetary centralization (CBDCs and the Control Grid, Werner).

Volt promotes these projects in the name of efficiency and justice, but avoids fundamental questions about freedom, privacy, and the concentration of power.

Censorship in the name of inclusion

Like many globalist-inspired parties, Volt supports “anti-discrimination” legislation that in practice leads to the suppression of dissent. They support hate speech laws, cooperate with fact-checkers, and call for tighter online regulation. Free speech is subordinated to subjective definitions of “safety” or “inclusion.”

As political scientist Eric Kaufmann observes: “Leftist globalist parties shift from liberty to control the moment they gain cultural dominance” (Whiteshift, Kaufmann).

Volt as a symptom of post-democracy

The illusion of choice

Volt presents itself as an alternative to established parties, but essentially parrots the rhetoric of the EU bureaucracy and its allies. By organizing itself across borders, Volt bypasses national representation and folds it into a swamp of centralized policymaking.

Volt is therefore not a counterpower, but a reinforcement of the existing technocratic model that sees citizens primarily as consumers, data points, and obstacles to “transition.”

Citizen, consumer, or subject?

The core question is what Volt teaches us about the future of democracy. When parties are formed by NGOs, financed through transnational networks, and aligned ideologically with economic elites, we are witnessing a shift in power.

Volt does not represent a grassroots movement but an elite project in purple wrapping—attractive, young, modern, but lacking accountability, roots, or real dialogue. Under slogans of progress and unity lies a system that is increasingly intolerant of dissent and concentrates more power in opaque networks.

Conclusion: a European project without European peoples

Volt is the prototype of the post-democratic party: seemingly inclusive, but practically exclusive; pan-European in name, technocratic in nature. Funded by powerful networks and driven by an ideology that distances itself from national communities, traditional values, and individual freedoms.

For those who look behind the façade, Volt does not show a hopeful future—but a harbinger of centralization, control, and cultural alienation. It is time to judge the project not just by its words, but by its actions and its structure.

Why People Like Flowers: Beauty, Biology, and Emotion

6 April 2025

Flowers have held a unique place in human life for millennia. They are not merely decorative or ornamental – they evoke emotion, communicate meaning, and serve as bridges between nature and culture. Across cultures, time periods, and continents, people have cultivated, gifted, painted, and even worshipped flowers. But what lies behind this universal affection? The answer lies in a mixture of evolutionary biology, psychology, aesthetics, and symbolism.

The evolutionary roots of floral attraction

Nature’s color signals and human perception

One of the most basic reasons humans are drawn to flowers is their color. The human eye evolved to detect a wide range of colors, especially those in the visible light spectrum that align with ripe fruits, healthy plants, and water sources. Flowers often display vivid hues that signal life, fertility, and abundance.

According to Dr. Anya Hurlbert, a neuroscientist and expert in visual perception, humans evolved to associate certain colors with nourishment and safety (Color vision and human perception, Hurlbert). Bright colors like red, yellow, and violet stimulate neural pathways related to attention and reward.

Flowers, with their contrast-rich palettes, tap directly into this evolutionary mechanism, capturing our gaze and generating a subtle sense of delight and curiosity.

The link with reproductive success

From a biological standpoint, flowers are reproductive structures. Their role in plant reproduction – through pollination – has evolved to attract pollinators such as bees and butterflies. But human beings, although not pollinators in the same sense, may have developed a psychological affinity for floral forms because they signify fertility and growth.

Some scholars argue that our ancestors may have subconsciously associated blooming flowers with environmental conditions favorable to survival – fertile land, good weather, and food availability (The Adaptive Significance of Flowers in Human Evolution, Dutton).

Emotional and psychological resonance

Flowers as emotional triggers

Flowers have a remarkable power to stir emotion. From weddings to funerals, celebrations to condolences, they are ever-present in rituals of human emotion. Studies show that receiving flowers significantly improves mood and increases feelings of happiness and gratitude.

A 10-month study by Rutgers University found that people who received flowers experienced an immediate and long-term mood boost, regardless of age or gender (An Environmental Approach to Positive Emotion: Flowers, Haviland-Jones). Flowers were shown to reduce depression and anxiety, increase social interaction, and create a stronger connection between individuals.

These findings suggest that flowers serve as a kind of emotional bridge – connecting individuals not just to each other, but also to a broader, more comforting sense of life and continuity.

Symbolism and meaning

Different flowers carry different symbolic meanings – often tied to cultural, historical, or religious contexts. A red rose symbolizes romantic love in many Western cultures. In Japan, the cherry blossom is a symbol of ephemeral beauty and the fleeting nature of life. In India, the lotus represents spiritual awakening and purity.

This symbolic depth gives flowers a communicative power that few other natural objects possess. We don’t just look at flowers; we read them.

According to Dr. Beverly Seaton in her cultural analysis of floral meaning, “flowers act as condensed symbols for social values, personal sentiments, and shared cultural memories” (The Language of Flowers: A History, Seaton). This multi-layered meaning adds richness to our interaction with them.

Aesthetic form and sensory appeal

Symmetry and visual harmony

Flowers often possess natural symmetry – either radial or bilateral – which is inherently pleasing to the human eye. Psychological studies show that symmetry is consistently rated as more attractive, likely because it suggests health and balance (The Role of Symmetry in Perceived Beauty, Little & Jones).

Moreover, the fractal patterns present in many flower forms mirror those found elsewhere in nature, such as in seashells, snowflakes, and even galaxies. These patterns create a sense of harmony and continuity that humans instinctively appreciate.

Scent and memory

Beyond visual beauty, flowers often carry aromatic compounds that stimulate memory and emotional response. Scents like lavender, jasmine, and rose are widely used in aromatherapy due to their calming effects. The olfactory system is closely linked to the limbic system – the brain’s emotional center – which is why floral smells can instantly evoke nostalgia, comfort, or even longing (Scent and Emotion: A Biological Basis, Herz).

Flowers thus offer a multi-sensory experience: they are seen, smelled, touched – and in some cases even tasted – giving them a tactile intimacy that deepens human attachment.

Social and cultural functions

Flowers as gifts and gestures

Gifting flowers is one of the most universal human practices. From ancient Egypt to contemporary Europe, flowers have been offered to gods, lovers, and strangers. They serve as silent messengers, expressing what words often cannot: affection, apology, celebration, or mourning.

The act of giving flowers triggers not just gratitude but also empathy and connection. In a world increasingly dominated by digital communication, flowers provide a tangible and heartfelt medium of expression.

According to psychologist Jeannette Haviland-Jones, “flowers evolved in culture as a nonverbal communication device… a safe way to navigate social emotion” (Emotional Responses to Flowers, Haviland-Jones).

Religious and spiritual significance

Many religious traditions regard flowers as sacred or divine. In Buddhism, offerings of lotus flowers symbolize detachment from the material world. In Christianity, lilies represent purity and resurrection. In Hinduism, marigolds are offered to deities during prayers and rituals.

This spiritual dimension elevates flowers beyond physical beauty, turning them into metaphors for transformation, enlightenment, and inner growth.

The urban yearning for nature

A floral remedy for concrete lives

In an era where most people live in cities, contact with nature has diminished drastically. Flowers provide a piece of the natural world in an artificial environment. Window boxes, park gardens, and indoor bouquets all serve as small rebellions against the sterility of modern life.

The presence of flowers in urban spaces is not just decorative but restorative. According to studies in environmental psychology, exposure to green spaces and floral biodiversity reduces stress, improves cognitive function, and increases life satisfaction (Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective, Bratman et al.).

Flowers reconnect us to rhythms of growth and decay, reminding us of cycles beyond human control – of seasons, lifespans, and the natural passage of time.

Conclusion: beauty rooted in biology and soul

People like flowers not simply because they are “pretty.” They like them because flowers speak to deep layers of the human experience: evolutionary recognition, emotional expression, aesthetic pleasure, and cultural meaning. In every petal, there is a trace of memory, biology, and symbolism – a blend of nature and nurture.

Flowers remind us of joy and mortality, connection and silence. They bloom without demand, yet say more than many words. They are not essential to survival, but perhaps essential to being fully human.

Fact-checkers: The Modern Weapon of Totalitarianism

5 April 2025

In a healthy democracy, debate is free, diverse, and open. Contradictions are not suppressed but discussed. Yet in the modern European Union – and more broadly the entire Western establishment – a new phenomenon has emerged that stands in direct opposition to that principle: the “fact-checker.” These self-appointed gatekeepers of truth present themselves as objective guardians of facts but in reality serve as ideological agents for powerful institutions.

With terms like “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “conspiracy theory,” and “dangerous content,” legitimate opinions and criticisms are dismissed as immoral, ignorant, or even criminal. Instead of engaging in open discussion, dissent is preemptively silenced. This is not a new tactic, but one drawn directly from the playbook of totalitarian regimes.

Governments now say: “You can say anything, as long as it’s true.” But then the government defines what is “true.” In doing so, the essence of free speech is lost. The idea that opinions can be wrong, that discussion leads to correction and growth, is replaced by the technocratic illusion of “verified truth.”

The role of fact-checkers as ideological watchdogs

Selected facts, selective truths

Fact-checkers pose as neutral arbiters of truth, but in reality, they choose which narratives are allowed to exist. Who decides which claims get checked? Who decides what is “true”? In practice, major fact-checking organizations – such as Facebook-funded Correctiv, U.S.-based Snopes, the Dutch NUcheckt, or the “independent fact-checking network” of Poynter – almost always side with governments, pharmaceutical companies, climate institutions, or supranational bodies like the EU and WHO (Who watches the fact-checkers?, Brownstone Institute).

Rarely are official government claims scrutinized. Instead, it is often citizens, journalists, or scientists offering alternative analyses who are censored with the push of an algorithm. Professor John Ioannidis experienced this firsthand when his critical studies on COVID were removed from YouTube, despite his global recognition as a top scientist (Censorship and the suppression of scientific debate, Nature).

In 2020, journalists and scientists who suggested COVID might have originated from a lab in Wuhan were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Years later, the same hypothesis was quietly admitted to be “plausible” by mainstream media – without apology to those previously censored (How the Lab Leak Became Plausible, Wall Street Journal).

The unity of government, media, and tech

In classic totalitarian systems, there is no separation between the state, media, and information dissemination. That is exactly what we are seeing today. Governments fund fact-checking organizations, while tech giants like Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter) work closely with state institutions to remove “harmful content” (Twitter Files: Government colluded with platforms, Taibbi).

The EU actively pushes policies to strengthen cooperation between tech companies and fact-checkers. Under the Digital Services Act, platforms are obligated to proactively remove “disinformation” – using broad and politically biased definitions (Digital Services Act and the Censorship Regime, European Commission).

The EU also directly funds media outlets and so-called “independent” fact-check networks to secure its narrative. Whoever pays, decides – and in this case, the EU decides what “truth” is.

Disinformation as a pretext for censorship

A flexible term, unfairly applied

The term “disinformation” is extremely elastic. What is considered true today may be “fact-checked” as false tomorrow – and vice versa. Those who express criticism about climate models, migration policy, vaccine effectiveness, or lockdown measures risk being labeled as “disinformation spreaders.”

Some journalists lose their platforms, others are excluded from algorithmic visibility. Censorship no longer takes the form of bans or arrests, but of social and digital exclusion.

In Germany and France, citizens have even been prosecuted for voicing criticism online of vaccination campaigns or migration (Criminalizing Dissent: Germany’s Online Hate Speech Laws, Der Spiegel). In the Netherlands, state criticism is often neutralized not by rebuttal, but by being branded as disinformation.

The similarity with communist regimes

The Soviet Union had Glavlit, the institute that controlled and censored all publications. East Germany had the Stasi, which spied on citizens and reported ideological deviance. In these regimes, truth was defined by the Party – all other opinions were “enemy propaganda.”

Today we call it “fact-checking,” but the principle is the same. Truth is centrally defined, deviation is a violation, and non-conformity leads to exclusion.

In totalitarian regimes, the goal was never to convince the people, but to enforce obedience. “We know you don’t believe it, but you will say it – or else.” That is the psychological effect of today’s truth-policing.

The moral intimidation of “truth control”

Conspiracy theorist as modern-day heretic

The term “conspiracy theorist” today functions as a moral judgment, not a descriptor. It is not used to analyze but to ridicule. Like “far-right,” “anti-vaxxer,” or “climate denier,” the label is designed to push people outside public discourse – not to challenge their arguments.

Those who ask critical questions about the origins of a virus, digital currency, climate policy, or the motives behind mass migration are lumped in with flat-earthers or antisemitic fantasists. This is not debate – this is moral intimidation.

Fact-checking has become the new inquisition: you hold the wrong opinion, therefore you are wrong. The result is not better information, but more conformity.

Self-censorship as the ultimate goal

The most effective tool of totalitarianism is not prison or punishment, but fear. The fear of losing your job, your friends, or being publicly shamed online creates a culture of self-censorship. More and more people say nothing, afraid of being labeled a “disinformation spreader.”

In that sense, fact-checkers and disinformation campaigns are not just instruments of repression but also psychological weapons. They control citizens without needing physical coercion.

According to George Orwell, the ultimate goal of totalitarianism is not just to enforce obedience, but to destroy the ability to think independently. That is precisely what modern truth-enforcers seek to achieve – in the name of the “greater good.”

The perverse logic of centralized truth

Power that verifies itself

Whoever determines what truth is, gains power. But whoever holds the power to define truth is never held accountable themselves. Fact-checkers scrutinize citizens, journalists, and independent thinkers – but who checks the fact-checkers? Who checks the EU, the UN, the CDC, the public broadcasters, or the European Parliament?

The answer is clear: no one. As in any centralized pyramid of power, they validate each other’s authority. A government claim is supported by a government-funded institute, which is cited by a government-subsidized fact-checker, which is promoted by a platform that cooperates with that same government.

The citizen, without money or media reach, stands powerless.

Erasing nuance and grey thinking

Ultimately, the idea of “truth control” leads to the deadly simplification of complex issues. Vaccines are not simply “good” or “bad.” Migration is not simply “right” or “wrong.” Climate change is not “true” or “false.” These subjects demand debate, balance, and pluralism.

But fact-checkers need black and white. Their existence depends on binary answers. So doubts are stigmatized, alternatives are filtered out, and nuance is erased. The result is a digital reality that increasingly resembles state propaganda.

Conclusion: truth is no longer free

The rise of fact-checkers and the obsession with “disinformation” reveals a society that has lost faith in freedom. What began as a noble effort to combat lies has evolved into a system where only state-sanctioned “truths” are permitted.

Those who question this system – whether about climate policy, medical freedom, geopolitical conflicts, or migration – are not refuted, but excluded. This trend is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

The battle over truth is always a battle over power. And in the European Union today, it is clear who is claiming that power – and who loses it when they dare to ask questions.

The Corrupt State of Ukraine: Not a Democracy

2 April 2025

Ukraine is often portrayed in Western media as a struggling democracy fighting against Russian aggression, a nation seeking to align itself with the liberal democratic values of Europe. However, this narrative obscures a more complex and troubling reality. Ukraine is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. It is an oligarch-controlled kleptocracy where corruption, political persecution, and media manipulation dominate public life.

Despite the rhetoric of reform and European integration, Ukraine’s political system remains deeply flawed. The rule of law is applied selectively, opposition voices are silenced, and the country’s institutions are controlled by oligarchs and political elites who prioritize personal gain over national well-being. Even before the war with Russia, Ukraine consistently ranked among the most corrupt countries in Europe, with a judiciary, military, and economy riddled with graft (Ukraine: A Corrupt State, Walker). The war has only exacerbated these problems, as billions of dollars in foreign aid flow through an unaccountable system that continues to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

Political corruption and oligarchic control

The rise of Ukraine’s oligarchs

Since Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, power has largely been in the hands of a small group of oligarchs who control major industries, financial institutions, and the media. These individuals, many of whom amassed their fortunes during the chaotic privatization of the 1990s, wield enormous influence over political parties and government officials. They do not simply support political candidates—they own them.

According to Ukraine’s Oligarch Problem (Walker), nearly every major Ukrainian political figure has been financially backed by an oligarch, ensuring that policies and legislation are crafted to serve elite interests rather than the general population. These oligarchs dictate economic policy, control Ukraine’s natural resources, and determine who rises to power within the country’s political system. This is not democracy; it is a feudalistic system where power and wealth are tightly interwoven.

The illusion of reform

Ukraine has repeatedly promised to crack down on corruption, especially when seeking financial aid and military support from the West. However, these efforts have been largely performative. Former President Petro Poroshenko campaigned on an anti-corruption platform but maintained close ties with oligarchs and shielded corrupt officials from prosecution (Poroshenko’s Oligarch Problem, Harding).

President Volodymyr Zelensky, who came to power in 2019 promising to dismantle oligarchic influence, has instead consolidated power in a way that benefits his own circle of allies. Despite enacting a so-called “de-oligarchization” law in 2021, many of the same figures who dominated Ukraine’s economy and politics before his presidency remain firmly in control (Ukraine’s Fake Reform Agenda, Kramer).

Suppression of political opposition

Banning opposition parties

One of the clearest indications that Ukraine is not a democracy is the government’s systematic suppression of opposition parties. In March 2022, under the pretext of national security, Zelensky banned multiple political parties, including the Opposition Platform—For Life, the second-largest party in Ukraine’s parliament (Ukraine’s Opposition Crackdown, Walker). This was not an isolated decision made in the heat of war but part of a broader pattern of political suppression.

Since then, the government has continued to target opposition figures, often using accusations of “pro-Russian” sentiment as a justification. In reality, these bans have little to do with security concerns and everything to do with eliminating political competition. In a true democracy, opposition voices are allowed to exist—even in times of war.

Media censorship and propaganda

Ukraine’s government has also engaged in widespread media censorship, ensuring that only state-approved narratives reach the public. In 2021, Zelensky’s administration shut down multiple television channels critical of his government, citing alleged ties to Russia (Ukraine’s Media Crackdown, Sweeney). However, these channels were not pro-Russian propaganda outlets but rather independent news stations that often reported on government corruption and mismanagement.

The Ukrainian government has since taken control of all major television networks, merging them into a single, state-run information platform. This move effectively eliminated independent journalism and transformed Ukraine’s media landscape into one of state-controlled propaganda (Ukraine’s Information Control, Harding).

Judicial corruption and selective enforcement

Politicization of the courts

Ukraine’s judiciary remains one of the most corrupt institutions in the country. Judges are frequently appointed based on political loyalty rather than qualifications, and court rulings are often determined by bribery and political pressure.

According to Ukraine’s Judicial Corruption Problem (Kramer), efforts to establish an independent judiciary have consistently failed because powerful elites rely on a compromised legal system to maintain control. Reform attempts, often driven by Western pressure, have been deliberately undermined or watered down, ensuring that the courts remain an instrument of political repression rather than justice.

The weaponization of the legal system

One of the most disturbing aspects of Ukraine’s political landscape is the way in which legal institutions are used to target opposition figures while shielding allies of the government. Corruption investigations rarely touch those in power, while opposition politicians and business rivals frequently find themselves facing politically motivated charges.

Viktor Medvedchuk, an opposition leader and critic of the Ukrainian government, was placed under house arrest on charges of treason in 2021, just as his political party was gaining traction (Ukraine’s Opposition Crackdown, Walker). Similar tactics have been used against other opposition figures, reinforcing the reality that Ukraine’s legal system is a tool of political suppression rather than an impartial institution.

Corruption in the military and foreign aid mismanagement

The theft of military aid

Since the war with Russia escalated, Ukraine has received billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid from Western nations. However, much of this aid has been lost to corruption. Reports have surfaced of weapons and supplies being stolen and sold on the black market, often with the involvement of senior military officials (Ukraine’s Military Corruption Scandal, Walker).

The lack of oversight on aid distribution has led to massive financial fraud. In one high-profile case, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense was found to have paid double the market rate for food supplies intended for soldiers (Defense Procurement Scandal, Kramer). Rather than ensuring that military aid reaches the front lines, corrupt officials have used the war as an opportunity for personal enrichment.

A war economy built on fraud

The war has also provided a convenient excuse for the Ukrainian government to bypass normal procurement processes, creating an environment ripe for corruption. Emergency spending measures and reduced oversight have enabled well-connected individuals to secure inflated contracts and siphon off foreign aid.

According to Ukraine’s War Profiteers (Harding), many of the country’s wealthiest elites have grown richer since the start of the war, profiting from weapons contracts, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction efforts. Instead of rebuilding Ukraine, much of the international assistance is ending up in private bank accounts.

Western complicity in Ukraine’s corruption

Geopolitical interests over democratic principles

Despite clear evidence of corruption and authoritarian practices, Western governments continue to provide Ukraine with financial and military support. The reason is simple: Ukraine is strategically valuable as a counterweight to Russia.

According to The West’s Blind Spot on Ukraine (Harding), Western nations have consistently turned a blind eye to Ukraine’s democratic failures because acknowledging them would undermine their broader geopolitical agenda. Instead, Ukraine is framed as a democracy under siege, even as its government suppresses opposition, censors the press, and engages in rampant corruption.

Hypocrisy in foreign policy

The West’s support for Ukraine stands in stark contrast to how it treats other corrupt or authoritarian regimes. Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that engage in similar practices are often sanctioned and condemned, yet Ukraine is rewarded with billions of dollars in aid.

This double standard exposes the reality that Western support for Ukraine is not about defending democracy—it is about advancing strategic interests.

Conclusion

Ukraine is not a democracy. It is an oligarchic, corrupt state where power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite that suppresses opposition, controls the media, and manipulates elections. Western governments have chosen to ignore these realities, prioritizing geopolitical objectives over genuine democratic principles. If Ukraine were held to the same standards as other nations, it would be recognized for what it truly is: a deeply corrupt state masquerading as a democracy.

From Coca and Sugar To Chemicals: The Transformation of Coca-Cola

31 March 2025

Coca-Cola is one of the most recognized and consumed products in the world, with over 1.9 billion servings sold daily across more than 200 countries. Its red and white logo, distinct bottle shape, and sugary taste have made it a cultural icon. However, the Coca-Cola sold today bears little resemblance to the original beverage created by John Stith Pemberton in 1886. Initially marketed as a medicinal tonic containing coca leaf extract and kola nut, Coca-Cola’s recipe has undergone profound changes over the past century.

What began as a relatively simple mixture of natural ingredients — coca, sugar, caffeine, and carbonated water — has been transformed into a complex cocktail of high-fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, phosphoric acid, caramel color, and chemical preservatives. These changes were not driven by health concerns or consumer demand but by cost-cutting measures, efforts to improve shelf life, and the desire to create a globally standardized product. The consequences have been substantial, contributing to rising obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other metabolic disorders worldwide.

⸻

The original Coca-Cola formula

The birth of Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola was invented in 1886 by John Stith Pemberton, a pharmacist based in Atlanta, Georgia. Pemberton was inspired by the popularity of Vin Mariani, a French tonic that combined wine with coca leaves — a source of cocaine. Cocaine was not yet illegal and was widely regarded as a medicinal substance with stimulant and pain-relieving properties. Pemberton aimed to create a non-alcoholic version of Vin Mariani after Atlanta passed a temperance law banning alcohol sales.

The original Coca-Cola formula combined the following ingredients:

  • Coca leaf extract – Provided a small dose of cocaine, which produced stimulating and euphoric effects.
  • Kola nut extract – Sourced from the seeds of the kola tree, providing caffeine and enhancing alertness and energy.
  • Sugar – Added sweetness and served as a quick source of energy.
  • Carbonated water – Created a refreshing sensation and improved taste delivery.
  • Essential oils – Including citrus oils (like lemon and orange) and spices, which added depth and complexity to the flavor.

Pemberton’s partner and marketer, Frank Robinson, named the drink “Coca-Cola” and designed the iconic script logo. The product was initially marketed as a medicinal tonic that could cure headaches, fatigue, and digestive issues. Early advertisements promoted it as a “brain tonic” that could boost mental and physical health.

Cocaine removal and recipe changes

By the early 20th century, attitudes toward cocaine were shifting. Concerns about addiction and social problems linked to cocaine use led to increased regulatory pressure. In 1904, Coca-Cola began using “spent” coca leaves — leaves that had been stripped of cocaine alkaloids — instead of raw coca leaves. This effectively removed the psychoactive properties of cocaine while preserving the flavor profile.

By 1929, the company had refined its process to remove any trace of cocaine, though Coca-Cola continued to source coca leaves from Peru and Bolivia through a special arrangement with the U.S. government. The Stepan Company remains the only company in the United States licensed to import coca leaves, which are decocainized for use in Coca-Cola (title For God, Country and Coca-Cola, Pendergrast).

Despite the removal of cocaine, Coca-Cola retained its stimulating effect through the continued use of caffeine from kola nuts and its high sugar content, which provided a quick spike in energy and dopamine levels.

⸻

The shift to chemicals and artificial ingredients

The transition to high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)

In the 1980s, Coca-Cola made a significant cost-cutting decision to replace cane sugar with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the U.S. market. HFCS is derived from corn starch and contains a mixture of glucose and fructose, with a higher fructose content than regular sugar.

HFCS became popular due to its lower cost and greater stability in processed foods. The shift was driven by several factors:

  • Government subsidies – The U.S. government heavily subsidized corn production, making HFCS significantly cheaper than cane sugar.
  • Trade barriers – U.S. tariffs on imported sugar protected domestic corn producers and increased the price of cane sugar.
  • Sweetness profile – HFCS has a higher sweetness intensity than cane sugar, reducing the amount needed per serving.

Studies have shown that HFCS consumption is linked to obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes (title Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity, Bray et al.). Unlike glucose, fructose is metabolized in the liver, where it can be converted into fat, contributing to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The high fructose load also increases triglyceride levels, raising the risk of heart disease.

Artificial sweeteners and “diet” products

In 1982, Coca-Cola introduced Diet Coke, replacing sugar and HFCS with artificial sweeteners like aspartame. Aspartame is about 200 times sweeter than sugar and allows the company to produce a calorie-free product that mimics the taste of regular Coke.

Other artificial sweeteners used in Coca-Cola products include:

  • Sucralose – A chlorinated derivative of sugar, which is up to 600 times sweeter than sugar.
  • Acesulfame potassium – A calorie-free sweetener that enhances sweetness and stability.

Studies have linked artificial sweeteners to metabolic disruption, increased cravings for sugary foods, and insulin resistance (title Artificial sweeteners and metabolic health, Swithers). Even though diet sodas have zero calories, they may still contribute to weight gain and increased risk of type 2 diabetes by altering the body’s natural satiety signals.

Phosphoric acid and caramel color

Phosphoric acid is added to Coca-Cola to create its distinctive tart taste and extend shelf life. However, high phosphoric acid consumption has been linked to lower bone density and increased risk of osteoporosis by interfering with calcium absorption (title Cola consumption and bone mineral density, Tucker et al.).

Caramel color is produced through the heating of sugar with acids or alkalis. This process generates 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), which has been shown to cause cancer in animal studies (title Caramel color in soft drinks and exposure to 4-MEI, Smith et al.).

Caffeine

Caffeine remains a core ingredient in Coca-Cola due to its stimulant properties. It increases dopamine production and enhances mood, contributing to Coca-Cola’s addictive qualities. However, excessive caffeine consumption has been linked to anxiety, heart palpitations, and sleep disorders (title Caffeine and health, Nehlig).

Health consequences of modern Coca-Cola consumption

Obesity and metabolic disorders

The high sugar content in Coca-Cola has been directly linked to rising obesity rates. A single 330 ml can of Coca-Cola contains about 35 grams of sugar — nearly nine teaspoons — which exceeds the World Health Organization’s recommended daily intake of added sugars (title Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children, WHO). Regular consumption of sugary beverages increases the risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes.

Tooth decay and dental health

The combination of sugar and acidity in Coca-Cola creates a highly erosive environment for teeth. Phosphoric acid and sugar contribute to enamel erosion and tooth decay, which have become widespread problems among children and adults who consume soft drinks regularly (title Dental erosion and soft drinks, Lussi and Jaeggi).

Addiction and mental health impact

The combination of caffeine, sugar, and artificial flavorings creates a rewarding and potentially addictive experience. Studies have shown that sugar activates the brain’s reward system in a manner similar to addictive drugs (title Sugar addiction: from evolution to revolution, Avena et al.). This reinforces the cycle of consumption, contributing to weight gain and mental health issues like depression and anxiety.

Cardiovascular health

High sugar intake is associated with increased blood pressure, inflammation, and higher triglyceride levels, all of which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease (title Sugar-sweetened beverages and cardiovascular disease risk, Malik et al.). Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to increased risk of stroke and heart attack (title Artificial sweeteners and cardiovascular disease, Mossavar-Rahmani et al.).

Why Coca-Cola changed its formula

Cost reduction and profit maximization

The shift from natural sugars to HFCS was primarily driven by cost considerations. HFCS is cheaper than cane sugar due to government subsidies for corn production in the United States. Artificial sweeteners are even more cost-effective since they are far sweeter than sugar by weight, allowing manufacturers to use less product while maintaining sweetness.

Shelf life and product consistency

Artificial ingredients and preservatives help stabilize the product, extending shelf life and ensuring consistent flavor across different markets. Phosphoric acid and caramel color are used to create a uniform taste and appearance, ensuring that every bottle of Coca-Cola tastes the same regardless of where it is produced.

Conclusion

Coca-Cola has undergone a profound transformation since its inception, moving from a simple tonic made with coca leaf extract and sugar to a chemically engineered product designed for maximum shelf life and profitability. The shift toward high-fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and synthetic additives has contributed to the global rise in obesity, metabolic disorders, and other health issues. While Coca-Cola continues to market itself as a refreshing and nostalgic beverage, the health consequences of its modern formula are difficult to ignore. As consumers become more aware of the health risks associated with sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, Coca-Cola faces increasing pressure to reformulate its products — a challenge it may struggle to address without sacrificing its signature flavor and cost advantages.

2025 Rexje.. All rights reserved.
X