GhostofTruth

Politics_And_Law

In the struggle for narrative dominance and interpretive control, EU-Europe is pursuing a hard and consistent line. Dissenting voices and a growing opposition are met with narrowing discursive spaces. The new German government is also aligning with the Brussels chorus.

One thing cannot be said about Brussels and its national subsidiaries: inconsistency. Once a shared agenda is agreed upon and a procedural consensus is found, institutional and media-based defense mechanisms are built in parallel. These serve to immunize and narratively shield the actors, institutions, and beneficiaries involved in the machinery that transforms political will into reality.

SLAPP Lawsuits as Smokescreen

This is the context in which the German government is now operating. Chancellor Merz’s administration is preparing the national implementation of a largely underreported EU directive. It concerns so-called SLAPP lawsuits — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — legal intimidation tools used by powerful actors to silence critics, journalists, or whistleblowers through financially exhausting court proceedings. These lawsuits aim not at legal victory, but at creating pressure, fear, and ultimately bankrupting the opposing side. 

The EU directive, officially framed as a protection mechanism for critical voices, gives national legislators wide leeway in interpretation and application. While Brussels speaks of “protection against intimidation,” Berlin is using the blueprint to expand judicial intervention rights and grant courts the power to determine what constitutes an “obviously unfounded” case.

The real target isn’t mainstream disinformation, but rather effective disciplining of critics of the government and the EU.

As a wave of substantive opposition to Brussels’ centralism mounts, a legal early-warning system is being formed, disguised as a protection for press freedom.
The legislative process is currently in inter-ministerial coordination. After cabinet approval, it will move to the parliamentary stage. If the federal government has its way, the law will come into effect this year — a striking example of how efficiently politics can work when it curtails individual freedom.

Climate of Suppression

Let us condense the Brussels agenda into its core elements: centralized capital allocation in sectors like energy; the introduction of digital control currency; the erosion of national cultures through mass migration; and the suppression of secessionist tendencies. In short, further power is to be funneled quietly and systematically from the regions into the Brussels center. 

The symptoms of this centralism — economic and cultural decline, uncontrolled migration, and a looming debt crisis — are drawing public attention to foundational questions about the EU’s future.

Dissatisfaction with climate ideology and government overreach is also showing at the ballot box. A rising conservative right, embodied by figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, is finding common ground in opposition to EU centralism. A consolidation of this movement is likely, and it’s triggering defensive reflexes in Brussels and national capitals. 

This awakening opposition has exposed the various immune systems protecting the regime: NGOs, state-funded media, subsidized business leaders, and a captured academic class dominate public discourse. Together, they set the narrative, isolate dissenters, and — where these defenses fail — seek to sterilize political opposition through media mechanisms. Firewalls in party politics, climate hysteria, and the borderless migration policy are the most visible front lines in this battle for narrative control.

Vectors of Centralized Attack

A visible rupture appeared with Elon Musk’s takeover of X. His multi-billion-dollar investment could mark a turning point in the history of postmodern democracy. With around 600 million users and the spread of sovereignty-enabling technologies like VPNs, the decentralized author ecosystem of X has stabilized and expanded.

That success has triggered fierce retaliation. Brussels is now pushing measures like criminal liability reversal, mandatory identity verification, and invasive surveillance software — classic tools of a control regime blind to the growing public backlash it now faces. Free media have made the problem of centralized power visible, and people are quietly withdrawing their consent.

Yet the EU persists, levying grotesque multimillion-euro fines on U.S. media companies. The battle lines are drawn: the EU versus a rising domestic liberty movement, increasingly backed by America’s renewed push for sovereignty.

Mounting Costs, Dwindling Control

Alongside these attacks, EU member governments are scrambling to subsidize their collapsing media ecosystems with taxpayer money. But this is a doomed effort: once dissenters find safe harbor, they rarely return to the island of curated, state-managed thought. The exponential cost spiral of this asymmetric fight remains misunderstood by its protagonists.

In trying to keep a failing eco-socialist narrative alive, governments are burning public money — and revealing the political-media cartel defending it. This paternalistic overreach is backfiring, fueling public rejection.

Greta Thunberg’s endless moral performances — from climate marches to Palestinian solidarity rallies — have become a symbol of a system that proclaims its moral superiority more desperately the more it loses its grip on the public narrative. 

That the EU and its national arms are now rolling out their heavy guns in the information war — like the SLAPP directive — is deeply concerning. We learned from the COVID protests in Europe and Canada that the state is willing to use police force and underhanded methods to protect its power.

But this escalation reveals a deeper truth: the media consensus between rulers and ruled has broken down. Political messaging and its execution increasingly diverge from the people’s will, and manifest in polarized parliaments and a more unified opposition.

The debate space is heating up. And the battle lines are now crystal clear.



Battle for Free Speech: EU-Europe Deploys Its Artillery

econ

Germany’s Pension Ponzi on the Brink

France is caught in a debt spiral. Now the president of the French Court of Auditors is warning of the consequences of political inaction.

Pierre Moscovici has served as president of the French Court of Auditors for five years, overseeing regular audits of the nation's public finances. From 2012 to 2014, he was France’s finance minister and then spent five years as EU Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs. The man knows his way around empty coffers.

On Wednesday, Moscovici called on Prime Minister François Bayrou to take urgent steps to consolidate public finances. France’s budgetary situation, he said, has spun out of control, especially in 2023 and 2024. If a turnaround is not achieved soon, the capital markets will force one. “We can still act voluntarily,” he warned the government, “but tomorrow, the markets may impose austerity.”

For Now, Calm in the Bond Markets

Once the dominoes start falling, it goes fast. Investors dump French government bonds en masse. Yields spike, prices plummet, and refinancing the country’s massive debt becomes even more costly. Already, interest payments consume 10.6% of France’s state budget—roughly the same as education spending. As debt levels rise, fiscal maneuvering space shrinks.

With sovereign debt at 114% of GDP, the trap could snap shut unexpectedly. For now, European officials still point fingers at the U.S., whose debt ratios are similar. But no one can say how long that deflection tactic will work. Credit risk materializes suddenly—usually without warning.

Point of No Return

What we do know is this: historically, a debt ratio above 100% of GDP is already considered critical. At that point, even ambitious reform efforts are rarely enough to grow out of the mess. And unless the indebted country happens to issue the world’s reserve currency, capital markets will deliver their verdict—as we saw during the Eurozone debt crisis fifteen years ago.

What follows is familiar: central bank intervention to keep government finances liquid by running the printing presses—transferring the bill to citizens through inflation.

France has never been known for fiscal conservatism. Years of political stalemate, shifting majorities, and unstable coalitions have pushed annual deficits far beyond the Maastricht 3% threshold. In 2024, the deficit reached 5.8% of GDP. Even with early consolidation steps, it is expected to remain at 5.5% this year—far above the target.

No Economic Comeback in Sight

If French policymakers are banking on a comeback in economic growth, they may be disappointed. In May, the Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) for manufacturing came in at 48.1 and for services at 49.6—both in contraction territory. PMIs reflect business sentiment, with readings above 50 indicating growth and below 50 signaling decline. They are considered early indicators of economic and industrial trends.

In other words: despite—or perhaps because of—massive government spending, the French economy is stuck in recession.

Contagion Risk

France’s brewing fiscal crisis is more than a national tragedy. Alongside Germany and Italy, France is under close scrutiny from analysts and investors worldwide. Can Paris pull off fiscal consolidation? Confidence in France’s creditworthiness has been shaky for years. In 2023, Moody’s was the last major rating agency to downgrade France’s AAA status, assigning a negative outlook.

If capital markets further downgrade French debt, the consequences would spill across the Eurozone. Here, the old rule applies: hang together, or hang separately. Bond markets tend to move from one weak link to the next, rigorously reassessing creditworthiness in crisis situations. Those who falter pay higher interest—or lose market access altogether. Moscovici knows this.

The pressure is mounting on national governments: either push through tough budget reforms or increase the tax burden on citizens.

The French Exception

France is a special case. With a government spending ratio of 57.3% of GDP, it ranks among the top welfare states in the world. Accordingly, the overall tax burden has risen to 45.6%—well above the EU average of around 40%. Citizens are already surrendering nearly half their income to maintain Paris’s welfare illusions.

Social peace is being purchased with money that no longer exists—financed by debt and propped up by the illusion of fiscal sovereignty. When even the nation’s top auditor demands consolidation, one thing is clear: it’s about to get serious. The social budget—the bedrock of the political quiet pact keeping unrest in the banlieues at bay—is at stake.

History teaches us: when governments cut social programs in France, social peace crumbles. Then the suburbs—from Paris to Marseille to Lyon—go up in flames.

France's Fiscal Reckoning: Is The Eurozone's Second Giant Next In Line?

If you’ve ever wanted to witness the slow-motion collapse of a Ponzi scheme, you might want to keep an eye on Germany’s public pension system.

Rhetorically and politically sugar-coated as a “pay-as-you-go” system — where today’s workers finance the retirement of yesterday’s — this bureaucratic redistribution leviathan is utterly dependent on an ever-growing pool of contributors. Problem is: Germany is aging, shrinking, and losing its industrial base.

Just in time for this demographic crunch — declining birth rates, increasing life expectancy, and longer pension payout durations — policymakers have decided to torch what’s left of the country’s industrial foundation in a green frenzy. Year after year, around €70 billion in value creation is being sent up the chimney, while more than half a million jobs have disappeared in recent years. That’s half a million fewer contributors to the pension Ponzi.

Tax Payer´s Money To Maintain The Illusion

To keep the locomotive rolling — even as it barrels in the wrong direction — the federal government now plugs the pension system’s gaping cash hole with roughly €123 billion annually from the general budget. In other words: workers pay a second time, in the form of taxes, to support the same unsustainable system they already fund through record-high payroll deductions.

With a government spending ratio now exceeding 50% of GDP, Germany has erected a full-scale hyperstate. Attached to its bloated bureaucracy are ever-growing administrative tentacles: layers of social insurance agencies and subsidized institutions now serving as the domestic enforcement arm of Brussels’ self-destructive Green Deal.

The coming deep economic depression, which has been foreshadowed by three years of quasi-permanent recession, will test just how resilient — and solvent — the savings and wealth accumulation of past generations truly are. It may be their prudence that softens the blow of the present generation’s green delirium.

Trapped in the Logic of a Ponzi Scheme and Keynesian Voodoo Economics

Entirely captive to the logic of Ponzi finance and Keynesian voodoo economics, Germany’s new federal government now plans its grand escape from all woes. With a debt hammer of one trillion euros over the coming years, it aims to wipe away every problem while putting the economy back on track.

Broadly speaking, the money is supposed to raise the defense budget to 5% of GDP, as demanded by the latest NATO summit, pour into the country’s crumbling infrastructure, and plug countless holes in the overstrained welfare apparatus.

We don’t need to go into detail here to recall that such stimulus-fueled bonfires leave behind nothing but more debt and inflation, misallocating printed capital into sectors with little or no real demand. It would suffice if politicians had even a passing familiarity with recent economic history — they’d realize they are once again slamming their heads against the very same wall as in decades past.

Socialists Debate Higher Contribution

Meanwhile, the SPD — junior coalition partner to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU-led government — is currently debating raising the pension contribution ceiling by €500 to €8,050 monthly salary. This increase would translate to an additional yearly burden of over €1,116 for anyone earning that amount. In other words, those who already carry the lion’s share of the country’s fiscal load as the last remaining productive pillars of society would be hit with yet another surcharge. The welfare state and social peace, they argue, are worth this sacrifice.

The coalition partner CDU’s reaction was not long in coming. There was unanimous rejection of the SPD proposal to once again burden the country’s top earners. Wolfgang Steiger, Secretary General of the CDU’s Economic Council, stated:

“We strictly oppose the move to raise the contribution ceiling in statutory health insurance. It would further increase the cost of labor.”

That sounds good at first and has its merits. After all, it’s about time fiscal policy wielded the Milei chainsaw instead of continuing with the socialist cornucopia. Yet recent history has shown us that the CDU flips positions faster than expected.

It is, not least, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s fault that trust in his party has hit rock bottom. After multiple broken campaign promises — like cutting the electricity tax or securing the country’s external borders once and for all — no one believes his party anymore.

After all, the community, acting as a global social welfare office, also needs to provide compensatory payments across other social insurance branches — which, thanks to successful recruitment efforts related to illegal migration, are facing significant special financing needs.

Germany is the Victim of Its Own Success

Two successful postwar generations built the capital and economic foundation on which the neo-socialist aberration could flourish — manifesting itself in an overgrown welfare system.

At the root of the problem lies not only the crushing tax and contribution burden in Germany but also its stagnating productivity, which together make rapid private capital formation nearly impossible for large parts of the population.

Even though politicians occasionally flirt with the idea of introducing elements of a capital-funded pension system, such proposals are a suicide mission in light of the sheer weight of the public pay-as-you-go system. Germans hold almost exclusively cash-based savings, which makes them highly vulnerable whenever the state — in concert with the ECB — fires up the inflation engine. On top of that, they remain deeply risk-averse investors, culturally and historically allergic to equity markets or private pension schemes.

Powerful Voting Block

The pension insurance provides the perfect case study. With over 21 million pension recipients, every reform attempt at the expense of this group faces a homogeneous voting block. Germany could raise the retirement age, which it is attempting to do to 67 years. It could reduce benefits, which it does not. Pensions are tied to inflation and productivity growth in the economy.

Politicians could reject the green-socialist agenda and return to the economic rationality of the free market to expand the contributor base and attract investment. They do not. The bureaucracy — the political front organization — is simply too powerful. Regulation is its product, and additional welfare recipients are its customers.

The path of least resistance will be taken: further increasing contribution rates for the productive pillars. Federal subsidies from the tax pool will supplement this to ease the pressure. But due to demographic development and the destructive economic policies in the EU, especially in Germany, the Ponzi scheme is steering toward an abyss.

bitcoin

Poll 289: What's your take on the ECB's plan to redirect your savings for you?

bitcoinbreakdown

They operate like this: first its voluntarily. Then they start with a 'social' contribution of a small amount and grow it. Its a trap

EU-Europeans are a peculiar bunch. Despite repeated failures with centralist economic planning, they cling stubbornly—like children to a bowl of candy—to their ambition of transferring the most vital sectors of the economy into the hands of Brussels’ bureaucratic caste. Unpopular industries like automotive, chemicals, or aviation are smashed with a regulatory sledgehammer. The heart of the economy—the energy sector—is placed under direct state guardianship. The so-called Green Deal, a Keynesian-style centrally planned substitute economy, is meant to replace traditional energy sources. The results are predictable: deindustrialization and a massive exodus of investment to non-European countries.

Always involved in this process: the European Central Bank. It’s expected to grease the wheels of Brussels’ colossal subsidy machine with artificially cheap credit. The fact that the ECB, after its eighth rate cut in record time, has once again pushed its key interest rate down to 2%—deep into negative real territory—doesn’t trouble the central planners in the Frankfurt Tower. ECB board member Joachim Nagel even claimed today that the “neutral rate” had been reached. In a sense, he’s right: after years of zero interest policy, the Eurozone economy has grown so dependent on cheap credit—sometimes outright subsidies—that it can no longer function or service its debt under conditions of real positive interest rates. That’s what economists call a “zombie economy.” The wave of bankruptcies, such as the recent collapse of battery cell manufacturer Northvolt, is the logical outcome of centrally planned industrial policy.

Worse still for the central planners in Frankfurt and Brussels: their transatlantic counterpart, the Federal Reserve, is proving far more determined and resilient. It continues to hold its rates at 4.5%, embracing a real positive return on capital to allow market corrections to unfold. In the U.S., short-term pain is seen as the price of long-term health.

Europe, by contrast, has grown addicted to its subsidy habit. It is ensnared in a hyper-statist welfare model, doing everything it can to defer both economic and social pain. How long that can go on is anyone’s guess. But one thing is certain: tensions are rising across the markets. The day is drawing near when these pressures will erupt in a seismic shock—and the tectonic plates of the economy will violently shift into a new configuration.

Defiant and Unteachable: The ECB Is Trapped

Oil Price in a Tailspin – And With It, the Global Economy?

news

That was fast. Just days after announcing a punitive digital tax aimed squarely at U.S. tech giants—and being promptly met with a tariff whip from Donald Trump—Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has tucked tail and pulled the plan. What we’re witnessing in Ottawa resembles the chaos in Brussels: a globalist outpost in full panic mode, lurching without strategy, caught off guard by geopolitical gravity.

These erratic moves betray the same confusion spreading across the Western managerial class: they have no idea how to respond to America’s looming reshuffle of global trade. And more than that—they still don’t know what to do with the unruly figure of Donald Trump. His tariffs are real. As real as the quiet protectionism long practiced by the EU and Canada. Suddenly, the world isn't operating according to the neat prescriptions of the Eurocrat’s socialist playbook, where Brussels reigns without dissent.

Still, nothing changes in Europe. Faced with the coming trade talks, the continent doesn’t budge an inch. Except for provocations—like Germany’s own Canada-style digital tax proposal targeting U.S. firms—there’s little but strategic inertia. Heads are buried in the sand. They’re running down the clock.

Carney’s tax gambit was a second probe—a second attempt to goad Trump into a misstep. But Trump held the line. He knows exactly what he’s facing: a cartel of power that has never learned to lose. A bloc accustomed to issuing demands while giving no ground. The very hard nut Trump always said he would crack.

Whether they like it or not, America is preparing to smash the protectionist cartel with sweeping tax reform, deregulation, and a fully national trade doctrine. And Trump will make sure realism returns to the world stage. He’ll expose the Europeans for what they are: protectionists dependent on trade and imported energy—still clinging to a postcolonial defiance, unwilling to accept that the world has turned.

Canada Retreats on Digital Tax—Trump’s Tariff Whip Hits Its Mark

Neither trade wars, nor threats to blockade global shipping bottlenecks, nor even hot wars seem capable of jolting oil prices out of their catatonic slumber. Forget “Drill, baby, drill” – U.S. shale needs higher prices to justify capital expenditure.

Yes, the twelve-day conflict between Israel and Iran briefly pushed prices up by as much as 15%, but the rally quickly fizzled. Brent now wobbles well below the $67 per barrel mark. Dead calm, little motion. In the U.S., the rig count has dropped to just 432 – the lowest level since autumn 2021 and down 11% from last year. The message is loud and clear: prices are too low.

Meanwhile, OPEC+ has announced an output increase and delivers now 411,000 barrels per day. At the same time, U.S. producers are shutting down rigs because prices no longer cover costs.

So what’s keeping prices this low? A sluggish global economy? A flood of supply? Derivatives speculation? Likely a mix of all three.

But one thing is certain: the weakening world economy, shrinking trade flows between the U.S. and China amid tariff tensions, and declining maritime traffic are increasingly mirrored in oil markets. The price tells the story.

AskSN

Do you drink?

unschooled

Saludos (con una Águila grande) de Málaga

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

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