Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Tech companies are manipulating our elections and indoctrinating our children

The globalist agenda

A permanent, self-sustaining monitoring system such as America's Digital Shield is the answer to how we can stop Big Tech manipulation.

Published 11 October 2023
– By Robert Epstein
Photo: Pexels
7 minute read
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

Big Tech companies are deliberately manipulating the outcomes of our elections and the thinking and beliefs of our children. And they are having an enormous impact.

If you doubt that, consider this latest snippet of data from my lab, the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT).

Consider this: The GOP currently has a slim 10-seat majority in the House of Representatives. Without Google’s interference in 2022, it would likely now have a majority of more than three times that size.

The 2022 midterm elections that gave the Democrats a two-vote majority in the U.S. Senate had quite a bit of help from Google, and, to a lesser extent, from a couple of other major tech companies.

If Google had not interfered in the 2022 midterm elections, the GOP would likely have ended up with a Senate majority of at least two seats.

The Big Tech companies that exploded into existence over the past 20 years — as some of their prominent insiders have stated – have undermined our democracy, indoctrinated our children, and increasingly turned our freedom into an illusion.

Tristan Harris, a former “design ethicist” at Google, has warned that “the tech industry is creating the largest political actor in the world, influencing a billion people’s attention and thoughts every day.” Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist and one of the early investors in Google and Facebook, claims that Big Tech content has “morphed into continuous behavior modification on a mass basis.” Another early investor in these companies, the prominent author and venture capitalist Roger McNamee, has said that he now regrets having financed them, and asserts that they constitute “a menace to public health and to democracy.”

Rigorous Research

Such concerns are valid and the Senate numbers correct: we have been using rigorous, scientific methods to study Google and other tech companies for more than 10 years. During this time, we have discovered and quantified about a dozen powerful new forms of influence that the internet has made possible. We have also developed and deployed monitoring systems that track, record, and analyze the personalized content that Google and other tech companies send to voters and children 24 hours a day – in other words, we are monitoring their systems and doing to them what they do to us.

Our basic scientific, peer-reviewed studies clearly show the power that Google and other companies have to alter thinking and behavior. Our monitoring systems confirm that these companies are actually using these techniques, as confirmed by company whistleblowers, as well as by leaks of documents, emails, videos, and other materials from Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

The techniques we have discovered – the Search Engine Manipulation Effect, the Answer Bot Effect, the Targeted Messaging Effect, and others – can easily shift the opinions and voting preferences of undecided voters by between 20% and 80% after just one manipulation. Google can also repeat these manipulations many times over a period of months prior to an election.

Assuming the effects of these techniques are additive, Google can likely produce even larger shifts in opinions and voting preferences than the ones from a single manipulation used just once.

Google also knows exactly who is vulnerable to these manipulations – who is still undecided before Election Day, for example – so they can target and bombard just the right people on a massive scale 24 hours a day.

Our research has shown repeatedly that the manipulations used can make them invisible to people, and can often produce shifts of 40% or more in the voting preferences of undecided voters without anyone having the slightest idea they have been manipulated. They feel free, even while they are being strongly controlled. As one journalist wrote, “It really is the perfect crime.”

Finally, our research measures the influence of “ephemeral experiences” — their term — meaning content that is seen briefly, affects the user, and then disappears forever, leaving no paper trail for authorities to trace, Most online content – search results, newsfeeds, video sequence, and so on – are ephemeral.

Can Google deliberately use ephemeral content to manipulate people? You bet. If you doubt that, read this 2018 article from the Wall Street Journal about some leaked emails from the company. In that email exchange, Googlers are discussing how they might use “ephemeral experiences” to change people’s views about Trump’s temporary 2017 travel ban on visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries.

Rapidly Growing Monitoring Capabilities

In the days leading up to the 2022 midterms, the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology monitored Big Tech content through the computers of 2,742 registered voters in 10 swing states, and preserved more than 2.5 million ephemeral experiences – data that is normally lost forever – on Google and other platforms.

We preserved overwhelming evidence of Google’s manipulations on their search engine, on their video recommendations on YouTube (owned by Google), and even on their homepage on Election Day. On that day in Florida, for example, 100% of liberals received go-vote reminders on their version of Google’s homepage (Figure 1), but only 59% of conservatives did (Figure 2).

The Tried and Tested Solution: a Permanent, Self-Sustaining Monitoring System

Google can, overall, easily shift the votes of between 20-80% of undecided voters; right now, that is about 40% of the electorate. This could be enormously consequential. By mid-2024, 20% of voters will likely still not have made up their minds on who to support. At that point, Google will still be able to shift up to 80% of the votes of those individuals — or up to 16% percent of the electorate.

If, in 2024, 158 million people cast ballots, as they did in 2020, it means Google could likely shift the votes of between 6.4 and 25.5 million people, thereby easily controlling the outcome of any election in which the projected win margin is less than 4%. No laws or regulations are in place to stop them, but our monitoring can. We are monitoring their systems and doing to them what they do to us. When the Big Tech companies know that their manipulations are being watched, they back off. It has already worked to completely shut down manipulations in one important election.

On November 5, 2020, three U.S. Senators sent a strong warning letter to the CEO of Google expressing concern about the extreme political bias our monitoring system had detected in the days leading up to the presidential election – bias sufficient to have shifted at least 6 million votes to Joe Biden.

As a result, Google immediately shut down its election manipulations in the two upcoming Senate runoff elections in Georgia.

We were monitoring Google content through the computers of a politically-balanced group of more than 1,000 registered voters in that state. Go-vote reminders ceased, and so did bias in Google search results.

In other words, monitoring, combined with political pressure from our leaders and our public, can and will force Google and other tech companies to stay clear of our elections and our children. It will also give legislators, regulators, and litigants the ammunition they need to challenge both the company and its executives in court.

Since 2016, we set up six election monitoring systems, for only the weeks leading up to each election. After the 2022 midterms – with the results being so blatant and disturbing – we decided that the time had finally come to set up a permanent monitoring system in all 50 states – a $50 million project that we were able to launch with $3 million in donations from some patriotic Americans.

Without a permanent system like this in place, we will never know the extent to which Google-and-the-Gang are messing with our elections, our kids, or even with our own heads.

Yes, they do mess with us. As explained in “How Google Stopped the Red Wave,” whenever you see online content screaming about Democrats who have perpetrated widespread ballot harvesting or ballot box stuffing, you are being manipulated by Google-and-the-Gang. It is their algorithms – controlled very precisely by their employees – that decide what content goes viral and what content is suppressed. If stories about other election irregularities are spreading like wildfire online and then being echoed on the news, it is because Google-and-the-Gang want them to. Why?

So you will not look at them – at the tech companies themselves.

As of this writing, we are preserving and analyzing Big Tech content through the computers of a politically-balanced group of 9,838 registered voters in all 50 states, and we have met our minimum “representative sample” thresholds in 5 states. We are also now monitoring and preserving content – some of which is quite alarming – through the phones and mobile devices of children and teens.

Best of all, we have now preserved more than 25 million ephemeral experiences on Google and other platforms – content that is normally lost forever. Our goal is to make our findings available to the public in real time, 24 hours a day, through dashboards such as America’s Digital Shield.

The problem is: unless we can find additional major funding soon, we will have to start scaling down our effort in August and may have to shut it down completely soon after.

If this type of election interference continues unmonitored and unchallenged, could the GOP itself – and ultimately all of American democracy – become ephemeral experiences?

 

Dr. Robert Epstein

 


Note from the author: If you are concerned about the dangers the Big Tech companies pose to our democracy, our children, and our autonomy, please contribute at https://MyGoogleResearch.com. All donations are fully tax-deductible.

Robert Epstein earned his Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1981. He is currently Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. He has published 15 books and more than 300 articles in both mainstream media outlets and scientific journals, among them, Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. He is the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine and was a longtime contributing editor at Scientific American. His 2019 Congressional testimony about Google can be viewed at https://EpsteinTestimony.com. To support or learn about his work, visit https://MyGoogleResearch.com or https://TechWatchProject.org.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Shadowy globalist meeting in Stockholm – 19 Nordic power brokers attend

The globalist agenda

Published 13 June 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Jacob Wallenberg, Magdalena Andersson and Ebba Busch are three of the Swedes at the power conference.
3 minute read

When the world’s most powerful people gather in Stockholm, it happens without an audience, without the press, and without protocol. The Bilderberg meeting is back – and this time with more Swedish participants than ever before.

The infamous Bilderberg meeting – an annual and strictly closed power conference where the world’s most influential people from politics, business, and the media gather – is in full swing at the Grand Hôtel in Stockholm.

The meeting began on Thursday evening and will continue until Sunday. A total of 114 Western leaders are participating, including nine Swedes, four Finns, four Norwegians and two Danes.

Critics see Sweden’s greatly increased participation as a symptom of an increasingly isolated power culture, where crucial discussions are held behind closed doors – far from open debates and even further from public scrutiny.

The Bilderberg meeting has long been known for its secrecy.

Discussions take place in secret and under the so-called Chatham House rule, which means that participants may use the information they receive, but never reveal to outsiders who said what. This lack of transparency has attracted repeated criticism and fueled speculation about what is actually decided in this closed network, where the people have no opportunity to hear what is said.

Participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed”, it states.

Oligarchs and political leaders

The Swedish delegation consists of some of the most influential people in the country. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M), opposition leader Magdalena Andersson (S), and Minister of Energy and Business Ebba Busch (KD) represent the political elite. From the business world, the oligarch brothers Jacob and Marcus Wallenberg – two of the key figures in Sweden’s most powerful financial dynasty – are participating. In addition, Oscar Stenström, former NATO negotiator and now advisor to the Wallenberg sphere, is also involved in the event.

Other Swedish participants include Martin Lundstedt, CEO of the Volvo Group, Micael Johansson, CEO of arms manufacturer Saab, Spotify founder Daniel Ek, and EQT chairman Conni Jonsson.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson attends this year’s Bilderberg meeting. Photo: Ninni Andersson/Government Offices of Sweden

In addition to the Swedes, several international leaders are on the list of participants. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and former Prime Minister Sanna Marin are among the political figures. From the media and tech world, journalist Anne Applebaum, billionaire and Palantir founder Peter Thiel, and the company’s CEO Alex Karp – known for supplying surveillance technology to both intelligence agencies and the military – are participating.

The US dominates the meeting with 29 participants, followed by France with 12. Fifty-seven people, including Swedes Daniel Ek and Marcus Wallenberg, also attended last year’s meeting in Madrid. Among the 114 participants this year are 27 women.

No one knows what will be discussed

According to the organizers, this year’s agenda includes topics such as the war in Ukraine, the Middle East, the US economy, AI, national security, and defense innovation. The list also includes “depopulation and migration”, critical minerals, and geopolitics – topics with a direct impact on global politics, economics, and technology. But since no minutes are taken and no independent review takes place, it is impossible to know what is actually being discussed, what interests are at play, or whether any agreements are reached.

For decades, the Bilderberg meeting has been subject to harsh criticism because of its closed nature and total lack of democratic transparency. Critics argue that it serves as a forum where the world’s most powerful people can coordinate their agendas – without journalists, without accountability and far from the public eye.

However, the organization itself claims that it sees the event as a space for “informal discussions on major issues” and argues that its private nature allows for frank conversations:

Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights”, it claims.

Confirmed participants – full list:

Abrams, Stacey (USA), CEO, Sage Works Production
Albuquerque, Maria Luís (INT), European Commissioner Financial Services and the Savings and Investments Union
Alcázar Benjumea, Diego del (ESP), CEO, IE University
Alverà, Marco (ITA), Co-Founder, zhero.net; CEO TES
Andersson, Magdalena (SWE), Leader, Social Democratic Party
Applebaum, Anne (USA), Staff Writer, The Atlantic
Attal, Gabriel (FRA), Former Prime Minister
Auchincloss, Murray (CAN), CEO, BP plc
Baker, James H. (USA), Former Director, Office of Net Assessment, Department of Defense
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), Chair and CEO, Temaris & Associés SAS
Barroso, José Manuel (PRT), Chair International Advisors, Goldman Sachs International
Baudson, Valérie (FRA), CEO, Amundi SA
Beleza, Leonor (PRT), President, Champalimaud Foundation
Birol, Fatih (INT), Executive Director, International Energy Agency
Botín, Ana (ESP), Group Executive Chair, Banco Santander SA
Bourla, Albert (USA), Chair and CEO, Pfizer Inc.
Brende, Børge (NOR), President, World Economic Forum
Brunner, Magnus (INT), European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration
Brzoska, Rafal (POL), CEO, InPost SA
Busch, Ebba (SWE), Minister for Energy, Business and Industry
Caine, Patrice (FRA), Chair & CEO, Thales Group
Calviño, Nadia (INT), President, European Investment Bank
Castries, Henri de (FRA), President, Institut Montaigne
Chambers, Jack (IRL), Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Reform and Digitalisation
Champagne, François-Philippe (CAN), Minister of Finance and National Revenue
Clark, Jack (USA), Co-Founder & Head of Policy, Anthropic PBC
Crawford, Kate (USA), Professor and Senior Principal Researcher, USC and Microsoft Research
Donahue, Christopher (USA), Commander, US Army Europe and Africa
Donohoe, Paschal (INT), President, Eurogroup; Minister of Finance
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chair and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Eberstadt, Nicholas N. (USA), Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy, AEI
Ek, Daniel (SWE), CEO, Spotify SA
Ekholm, Börje (SWE), CEO, Ericsson Group
Eriksen, Øyvind (NOR), President and CEO, Aker ASA
Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Journalist
Fentener van Vlissingen, Annemiek (NLD), Chair, SHV Holdings NV
Fraser, Jane (USA), CEO, Citigroup
Freeland, Chrystia (CAN), Minister of Transport and Internal Trade
Friedman, Thomas L. (USA), Foreign Affairs Columnist, The New York Times
Gabuev, Alexander (INT), Director, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Hammer, Kristina (AUT), President, Salzburg Festival
Harrington, Kevin (USA), Senior Director for Strategic Planning, NSC
Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, Google DeepMind
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation
Heinrichs, Rebeccah (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Heraty, Anne (IRL), Chair, Sherry Fitzgerald ana IBEC
Herlin, Jussi (FIN), Vice Chair, KONE Corporation
Hernández de Cos, Pablo (ESP), General Manager Elect, Bank for International Settlements
Hobson, Mellody (USA), Co-CEO and President, Ariel Investments LLC
Hoekstra, Wopke (INT), European Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth
Hunt, Jeremy (GBR), Member of Parliament
Isla, Pablo (ESP), Vice-Chair, Nestlé SA
Johansson, Micael (SWE), President and CEO, Saab AB
Jonsson, Conni (SWE), Founder and Chair, EQT Group
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies Inc.
Klingbeil, Lars (DEU), Vice-Chancellor; Minister of Finance
Klöckner, Julia (DEU), President Bundestag
Kostrzewa, Wojciech (POL), President, Polish Business Roundtable
Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Kratsios, Michael (USA), Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chair, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chair and CEO, Kudelski Group SA
Kuleba, Dmytro (UKR), Adjunct Professor, Sciences Po
Leeuwen, Geoffrey van (INT), Director Private Office of the Secretary General, NATO
Lemierre, Jean (FRA), Chair, BNP Paribas
Letta, Enrico (ITA), Dean, IE School of Politics, Economics & Global Affairs
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chair, dsm-firmenich AG
Lighthizer, Robert (USA), Chair, Center for American Trade
Liikanen, Erkki (FIN), Chair, IFRS Foundation Trustees
Lundstedt, Martin (SWE), CEO, Volvo Group
Marin, Sanna (FIN), Strategic Counsellor, Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
McGrath, Michael (INT), European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law
Mensch, Arthur (FRA), Co-Founder and CEO, Mistral AI
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), Prime Minister
Monti, Mario (ITA), Senator for life
Moore, Richard (GBR), Chief, Secret Intelligence Service
Nadella, Satya (USA), CEO, Microsoft Corporation
Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD),
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), Group CEO, Ryanair Group
Ollongren, Kajsa (NLD), Fellow, Chatham House; Senior Fellow, GLOBSEC
Özyeğin, Murat (TUR), Chair, Fiba Group
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), Chair, TITAN S.A.
Paparo, Samuel (USA), Commander, US Indo-Pacific Command
Philippe, Édouard (FRA), Mayor, Le Havre
Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chair and CEO, TotalEnergies SE
Prokopenko, Alexandra (INT), Fellow, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, Financial Times
Rappard, Rolly van (NLD), Co-Founder and Chair, CVC Capital Partners
Reiche, Katherina (DEU), Minister of Economic Affairs and Energy
Ringstad Vartdal, Birgitte (NOR), CEO, Statkraft AS
Roche, Nicolas (FRA), Secretary General, General Secretariat for Defence and National Security
Rutte, Mark (INT), Secretary General, NATO
Salvi, Diogo (PRT), Co-Founder and CEO, TIMWE
Sawers, John (GBR), Executive Chair, Newbridge Advisory Ltd.
Scherf, Gundbert (DEU), Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Helsing GmbH
Schimpf, Brian (USA), Co-Founder & CEO, Anduril Industries
Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Executive Chair and CEO, Relativity Space Inc
Schmidt, Wolfgang (DEU), Former Federal Minister for Special Tasks, Head of the Chancellery
Šefčovič, Maroš (INT), European Commissioner Trade and Economic Security; Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency
Sewing, Christian (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Bank AG
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Minister of Foreign Affairs
Şimşek, Mehmet (TUR), Minister of Finance
Smith, Jason (USA), Member of Congress
Stoltenberg, Jens (NOR), Minister of Finance
Streeting, Wes (GBR), Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Stubb, Alexander (FIN), President of the Republic
Suleyman, Mustafa (USA), CEO, Microsoft AI
Summers, Lawrence (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital LLC
Toulemon, Laurent (FRA), Senior Researcher, INED
Uggla, Robert (DNK), Chair, A.P. Møller-Maersk A/S
Valentini, Valentino (ITA), Deputy Minister of Enterprise and Made in Italy
Vassy, Luis (FRA), Director, Sciences Po
Verhoeven, Karel (BEL), Editor-in-Chief, De Standaard
Wallenberg, Jacob (SWE), Chair, Investor AB
Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chair, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
Weder di Mauro, Beatrice (CHE), President, Centre for Economic Policy Research
Weel, David van (NLD), Minister of Justice and Security
Wilmès, Sophie (INT), Vice-President, European Parliament
Zakaria, Fareed (USA), Host, Fareed Zakaria GPS
Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Warner Bros. Discovery International

INT is used instead of the country code to indicate that a participant represents an international organization or has a cross-border role.

Orbán’s message to the French: Help us save Europe from the Brussels guillotine

The globalist agenda

Published 12 June 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Orbán believes that EU leaders are actively trying to harm the countries and peoples of Europe.
3 minute read

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán delivered a passionate speech on Monday at the Patriots for Europe meeting in Mormant-sur-Vernisson, France.

Before an enthusiastic audience, he called on French voters to support Marine Le Pen and patriotic forces in the fight against the Brussels establishment and the threat of cultural obliteration through mass migration and population replacement.

Orbán began by contrasting France’s superpower status with Hungary’s more limited resources.

– France is a great power and Hungary is a small country with 11 million people, modest GDP, and limited military strength. But what makes Hungary interesting is its politics.

– We are the black sheep of the European Union. Brussels’ nightmare. The hope of Europe’s patriots. And the last bastion of Christians, he continued.

Orbán returned to his own upbringing under communism:

– I was born in a communist dictatorship under Soviet occupation. We had to fight for freedom and democracy… The intellectual bureaucrats in Brussels who criticize Hungary have no idea what it means to fight for your country.

“Besieged” by the media and big business

The prime minister highlighted the historical distance between Hungary and France, but emphasized that the countries are now united in a common struggle. Referring to the authors Victor Hugo and Albert Camus, he portrayed Hungary as a nation shaped by resistance now once again fighting against ideological occupation.

A large part of the speech was devoted to the EU’s migration policy, with Orbán arguing that Brussels has pursued a line that undermines Europe’s cultural foundations.

He argued that the siege of Hungary began 20 years ago – not by armies, but by global corporations, progressive NGOs, and foreign-funded media that took over the country’s institutions.

– For them, the family, the nation, and Christianity were just a joke.

“Will not kneel”

He described Hungary’s response as clear and effective:

– In Hungary, the number of migrants is zero. There are no migrant hordes on our streets. No anti-Semitism. No violence. No riots. Hungary is the country of the Hungarians

Orbán attacked the EU’s migration policy, calling it part of a larger plan for a large-scale population exchange.

– This is not migration. It’s an organized population exchange meant to replace the cultural foundation of Europe.

– We will not kneel before Brussels, he continued.

“Don’t want to die for Ukraine”

He also expressed concern about the situation in Ukraine and argued that everyone loses if the war drags on.

– I come from a country that shares a border with Ukraine. Warmongering politicians want us to believe this war must go on. But I warn you: it cannot be won. On the battlefield, there are only the dead, suffering, and destruction.

The national conservative politician also rejected the idea of Hungary becoming involved militarily:

– We don’t want to die for Ukraine. We don’t want our sons coming home in coffins. We don’t want a new Afghanistan on our doorstep, he declared, criticizing the EU’s handling of the conflict.

– We don’t want Brussels using this war as a pretext for federalizing member states’ finances, taking on massive debt, and pushing us into an arms race. We must stop them.

“The weak fall”

According to Orbán, it is of utmost importance that European peoples work together in their quest for independence and freedom – and he believes that France has an important role to play here.

Orbán is a close ally of Marine Le Pen and is calling on the French to support her movement. Photo: Vox España

– We Hungarians need your victory. Without you, we cannot take Brussels. And without you, we cannot save Hungary from the Brussels guillotine

– The weak fall. The cowardly are humiliated. But the brave stand tall. Effort wins. If we unite, we will be strong – and we will win. Marine [Le Pen], lead us, he concluded.

Merz: Defiant EU nations could be hit with economic punishment

The globalist agenda

Published 28 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Merz at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year.
2 minute read

German Chancellor and former BlackRock executive Friedrich Merz is threatening to support a freeze on EU funding for Slovakia and Hungary if the countries continue to oppose EU leaders’ sanctions policy against Russia.

On Monday, Merz removed restrictions on Ukraine’s use of German long-range weapons deep inside Russia, a decision the Kremlin described as a “serious escalation”. Slovakia and Hungary have also taken a critical stance toward the West’s policy in the Ukraine war.

However, Merz does not appreciate the criticism and issued a clear warning to Bratislava and Budapest, stating that EU countries considered to be in breach of the rule of law could face infringement proceedings.

– Withdrawing European funds is always an option… If it is necessary, then we will deal with it, he added.

He also emphasized that “we cannot allow the decisions of the entire EU to depend on a small minority” and hinted that there could be “clearer words and possibly also harder conflicts” if the two countries do not change course.

“The end of democracy in Europe”

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have long criticized EU leaders for prolonging the war with military and economic support for Kiev without any visible progress.

Fico, who survived an assassination attempt in May 2024, has taken a more neutral stance than his predecessors since coming to power in 2023. Under his leadership, Slovakia has reduced its military support for Ukraine and promised to veto new EU sanctions that could damage the country’s economy. Fico has also visited Moscow twice since December to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has sparked anger and criticism from both the EU and NATO.

The Slovak prime minister rejected Merz’s threat to withdraw funding and called the attack unacceptable.

– If someone wants to push a policy where only one opinion is allowed, that’s the end of democracy in Europe, he told reporters during a visit to Armenia on Tuesday.

“Not the path to unity and cooperation”

He argued that a policy where only one opinion is allowed is as dangerous for Europe as a third world war, and that German leaders must accept that not everyone shares their views.

Slovakia is not a little schoolchild that needs to be lectured. Slovakia’s sovereign positions do not stem from vanity, but are based on our national interests“, Fico stated, continuing:

When you hear such aggressive remarks, it feels like we are not heading into good times. The words of the German Chancellor are absolutely unacceptable in modern Europe. If we don’t obey, are we to be punished? This is not the path toward cohesion and cooperation”.

Pro-NATO candidate wins dramatic re-election in Romania

The globalist agenda

Published 19 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Nicusor Dan celebrates the election victory with his supporters.
2 minute read

Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan, an outspoken supporter of the EU and NATO, has won the Romanian presidential election after an intense and polarized campaign. With just over 54 percent of the vote, he defeated his national conservative challenger George Simion.

The re-election was held after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the original election last fall. The independent candidate Calin Georgescu initially led by a large margin, but the election was later declared invalid due to alleged Russian interference, accusations that have not yet been proven.

The ensuing political crisis has been described as the deepest in Romania in decades. George Simion (AUR), who has spoken out against further military support for Ukraine and suggested appointing Georgescu as prime minister, won the first round of the re-election with a clear lead.

Nicusor Dan, an independent centrist liberal with a strong EU profile and advocate for NATO, has received support from, among others, Moldovan President Maia Sandu and a majority of pro-EU leaders.

According to preliminary official results, Nicusor Dan has won with approximately 54 percent of the vote. George Simion congratulated his opponent and commented that the election “reflects the will of the Romanian people”, even though he had previously questioned the election process.

Nicusor Dan thanked his supporters for their “outstanding mobilization” and promised to work for a “united and honest Romania” with respect for the law and citizens’ rights.

Allegations of interference from both East and West

Allegations of an illegitimate election process and influence campaigns from both the West and the East have characterized the election campaign, contributing to a sense of mistrust and uncertainty among voters.

George Simion has also accused Moldovan authorities and media of conducting an illegal campaign to favor Dan among voters with dual Moldovan and Romanian citizenship, something Moldova has denied. At the same time, Romania’s security services have warned of Russian influence, particularly in connection with the disqualified candidate Georgescu, allegations that Moscow has rejected.

 

 

Telegram founder Pavel Durov also recently claimed that France had attempted to silence conservative voices in Romania ahead of the re-election by pressuring the platform to block political channels. Durov stated that they had refused and called the attempt a threat to freedom of speech.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.