The EU, Like Socialist-Fascists Before Them, Drifts Toward Censorship (edited by ChatGPT)

Like American Democrats who increasingly assert an inherent right to censor politically incorrect language on social media—particularly speech deemed offensive or constituting hate speech against their constituents—the European Union has followed a similar trajectory. The EU is moving toward formalized censorship, repression, and the establishment of AI-mediated editorial systems, alongside hate-speech laws that criminalize pejorative or politically disfavored language and concepts.

To live in Europe and publicly characterize pro-war leadership in government as fascist may now involve real personal or legal risk. One cannot write effective witness history if one must constantly guard against censorship, professional sanction, or criminal exposure imposed by partisan insiders policing language. When the words used to describe power are themselves constrained, historical truth is pre-shaped before it can be recorded.

In some respects, the EU is on a trajectory toward becoming another China, with military and economic priorities increasingly defined at the supranational level. It would be a mistake for U.S. political leaders to ignore the possibility that the post–Cold War EU will emerge in history not merely as an ally, but as a frenemy of the United States—at times a partner, at times a rival. The EU does not share the traditional free-speech absolutism or political assumptions embedded in the American founding.

The comparison to China is not intended as a claim about internal political structures or forms of governance. It is not a being-for-itself comparison. Rather, it concerns how the EU functions as a political entity for external observers and pragmatic actors on the world stage. As a consolidated bloc, the EU is increasingly acting in ways that render it functionally equivalent to China in several military and economic respects. Whatever internal pluralism exists within Europe, the EU increasingly presents itself outwardly as a unified actor, much like a nation-state. Even democracies, in moments of conflict, present a single sovereign face. Regardless of how a political entity arrives at its international posture, it ultimately speaks with one voice when acting in a sovereign capacity.

This matters because sovereignty, in practice, is defined less by internal debate than by the capacity to act coherently and impose outcomes externally. As the EU centralizes regulatory authority, coordinates military and economic policy, and asserts normative demands—including speech governance—it becomes a peer power bloc rather than a merely pluralistic association of states. In such a context, internal democratic diversity does little to mitigate external rivalry. A unified EU will pursue its own strategic interests, sometimes aligned with those of the United States and sometimes not, and American policy that assumes permanent alignment risks strategic miscalculation.

In a tripartite or multipolar world, Russia and the BRICS nations are likely to function as a swing bloc with considerable influence. If Russia were to move closer to the United States, that could offset European efforts to pressure the U.S. into following EU-led global economic or military policy, particularly as a nation increasingly reliant on NATO for security. Recent Democratic leadership has shown a willingness to defer to European consensus in these domains, a posture that may ultimately constrain American strategic autonomy.

EU Chooses War Against Russia in Ukraine for 2026; Pres Trump Eyeballs Conflict With the Maduro Regime

 EU leaders meeting in Germany decided to fight with Russia in Ukraine with Ukrainians and agreed to provide billions more in weapons to the corrupt Ukrainian Government. Germany alone said it will send 11 billion dollars in weapons next year. Canada too-  chose to up the ante for World War Three and will send 30 million dollars in arms.

The borderlands known as Ukraine have been a bone of contention  with sekect Western European nations for centuries, Russia normally owns or administrates the region and many Russians live there. For Europe to own the borderlands in for Russia, and unacceptable hegemony presenting an avalanche level potential military, existentialist threat.

European belligerence is a normal consequence of EU and N.A.T.O. expansion after the end of the Cold War 1.0. Europe has already annexed N.A.T.O. to be its military force for the EU and is presently throwing it's weight around. It is possible to consider a future USA vs European NATO as a theoretical future possibility. As nuclear war is no longer unthinkable thanks to Europe, neither is that. The United States under the pragmatic Trump administration is withdrawing from support for the European driven war and has sought to bring peace to the senseless violence.

  Instead of making a meaningful effort for peace in Ukraine and in effect sharing the borderlands with Russia along the Dnepro River with an end to sanctions and Ukraine made into a free trade enterprise zone along environmental economic lines with the EU administering the Ukrainian half until a capable, non-corrupt government can be found for it, and Russia the Russian half that becomes part of Russia as long as the rivers run and radiation levels are below that which precludes the existence of human life, European war leaders have decided to make the year 2026 one of escalation for the crumbling Ukrainian shill. The EU has emerged as the main obstacle to peace and threat to incite World War Three.

The United States apparently will be busy engaged in some sort of conflict with the inimical, yippish government of Venezuela under the power of the Maduro regime that I suppose, the Trump administration wants to change if it cannot persuade the Maduro regime to return assets seized by the socialist-communist evolution of Hugo Chavez. President Trump for some reason likes oil companies and feels that as executive he need go  about recovering lost oil company assets taken forcibly by socialists . Maduro does seem as uninterested in alternative energy as President Trump. In regard to fuel preference the coming conflict is dino vs dino rather than mano y mano.

European Leadership Has a 'Mine, Mine!' Approach to Stealing Russian Cash and Taking All of the Borderland from Russia

 The European Union has decided to freeze indefinitely Russia's funds in a European Clearing House that enabled pre-war financial transactions. They hope to use the resource to finance the war and perhaps rebuild the Ukraine (the borderlands) when the war is concluded in their favor. The plan may be known as the have their cake and eat it too approach to Eastward European military and political expansion into the borderlands with Russia. That was always a bad idea of course and may return post war adverse consequences for Europe's financial trust.

China and Russia each may develop a skeptical eye about placing finances with reach of Europeans in case some possible conflict breaks out. On the other hand, if China decides some day about military takeover of Taiwan it would know that Europe would freeze its assets held in Europe, unless perhaps, the sum is so large that Europeans would be afraid of making China unhappy and losing business and they might therefor choose to abstain from substantial adverse response to an invasion of Taiwan by China.

Russia has brought litigation against the EU for freezing its resources in a Russian court knowing that a European Court like the World Court would probably make a finding in Europe's favor. Even the world court is partisan realistically. The United States might appear as a safer place to invest for nations with politics antipathetic to Europe. If the Trump administration would unfreeze the assets of Russia it has and end sanctions, China and Russia might decide to invest more in the United States than Europe in the long term; perhaps China could build an intercity high speed rail service, or infrastructure for electric platforms around city grids that are free public transit platforms that would surpass present bus formats.

Russia is pragmatic as space development and might work with the private American sector to expedite lunar base infrastructure. Russians understand cold weather better than many Americans and that knowledge can work well even in the very cold and hot extremes of the Earth's moon. Certainly one cannot look to Europe for intelligent or pragmatic politics when they have the scent of land conquest in their nostrils. They cannot allow sharing of the borderlands (the Ukraine) under any circumstance. Europe's attitude is 'mine, mine!'

EU Expansion into Ukraine is H.I.V. for U.S. and Global Security

 The European Union is seeking a way to bring Ukraine into the European Union as a non-voting member in order to continue Europe’s eastward economic expansion even as President Trump is seeking to wind down the war in Ukraine. As was understood in the 1990s increasing the size and power of N.A.T.O. would become a threat to RUssia and the United States too as Europe in the absence of the Soviet Union worked at cross- purposes to peace.

Europe does not have a history of peace- quite the opposite. Those living in generations after the Second World War have recently forgotten the lesson that a peaceful Europe was only a response to it's massive destruction eighty years ago. Europe had little choice besides being peaceful as the Soviet Union/Russia and the U.S.A. were victors with massive nuclear weapons stockpiles. Removing the eastward threat and putting N.A.T.O. on steroids elicited a return of the European proclivity for power through force.

The EU quest for power and wealth through war and economic leverage was bound to become in conflict with the United States eventually. When European interests of expansion and escalating to the mythical state of global thermonuclear war run into conflict with American and Russian interests, conflict ensues. Creating a monster size European centered N.A.T.O. was simply organizing a large scale potential future adversary for the United States. It was not good or intelligent policy.

Europe still relies on the United States for nuclear weapons and some defenses against very unlikely military threats from Russia and China. It is very improbable that in a normal circumstance of positive economic and political relations without the Ukraine conflict that Russia or China would think of moving toward an adversarial military posture with Europe. Taiwan is a potential conflict area yet the scale of economic damage to China in that event might be as great as the scale of damage in Ukraine, so China would probably opt for peaceable cooperation with Taiwan and the West as a practical affair. Attacking Europe in the event of an attack on Taiwan is also less than a rational choice for Chinese leadership to make.

Europe though is leveraging the N.A.T.O. relationship to the maximum extent to drift mine its way eastward. The EU and European N.A.T.O. members generally are fanatics about eastward expansion into the former Russian Ukraine and using the power of the UNited States to guarantee the war. Because that war is not in U.S. interests, nor in the interests of global peace and economic progress, in addition to undermining global food, environmental and nuclear security, the EU is like H.I.V. attacking the United States security and economic status globally. Building up that monster E.U. and N.A.T.O nearly inevitably assured that European and American interests eventually would be at loggerheads.

Put Zelensky and Starmer on the No Fly List

 British P.M. Starmer and Ukrainian President Zelensky are each harmful to U.S. interests and security and should not be allowed travel to the United States. The British P.M. is continuing the war in Ukraine thereby directly threatening the national security of the west. The United States should make an exemption for defense of Europe from nuclear attack in this case since there is plenty of time before nuclear war to register dissent.

Britain’s mindless fanaticism for war and eastward expansion is fueled by their lunatic puppet Zelensky’s rabid desire to have sovereignty over historically Russian land Ukraine. The Britain-Poland-French-German axis of evil to expand eastward militarily and ploy to negotiate a fake peace where Ukraine is armed with Axis weapons during a cease fire and Axis troops are deployed as ostensible peacekeepers on the line of combat contact in Ukraine perpetuates policy unacceptable to Russia and Russian security. The Axis powers count on the N.A.T.O. defense treaty to draw in the United States to defend the Axis countries if they get the hot conventional war going.

President Trump should renegotiate the N.A.T.O. treaty as he did N.A.F.T.A. in order to exclude lunatic policy selections from being acceptable grounds for American participation in mutual defense to be invoked. The Axis 2 lunatics are in effect weaponizing the N.A.T.O. treaty to exploit the U.S.A. as the blaster in the master-blaster Thunderdome paradigm.