EX-CONSERVATIVE MP MATT JENEROUX CROSSES FLOOR TO JOIN CARNEY’S LIBERALS

“The Curious Developments in Canada’s Political Landscape”; and let’s start with the latest development in Canada. And as alluded to at the beginning of our discussion, Canada’s liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney has lured yet another Conservative MP across the floor, tightening his grip on Parliament and pushing his government to being within a single seat of a majority government.

This comes as, on the morning of the 18th of February, Carney announced that Matt Jeneroux, the longtime Conservative MP for Edmonton Riverbend, is joining the Liberal caucus. Effectively, this means that Jeneroux becomes the third Conservative MP to defect to Carney’s government, following Chris d’Entremont and Michael Ma. The back-to-back losses also leave the Conservatives down two seats in two days and the Liberals just one seat shy of a majority government.

Well, following Matt Jeneroux announcing defection to the Liberal caucus, Carney took to social media to frame the move as an act of national unity and economic necessity. Carney stated that (quote): “I am honoured to welcome Matt Jeneroux to our caucus as the newest member of Canada’s new government,”; adding that 

“Building a stronger, more resilient, and more independent country will require ambition, collaboration, and occasionally, sacrifice.” And, this is where I would ask whose sacrifice? In any case, Carney also immediately handed Jeneroux a new title, appointing him as a special advisor on economic and security partnerships.

Prior to this new appointment, Jeneroux has represented Edmonton Riverbend since 2015, after first being elected to Alberta’s legislature in 2012. He secured four consecutive mandates in Ottawa and held several high-profile critical roles under Conservative leadership, including supply chains, innovation, infrastructure, health, and housing. He also served internationally as Vice-Chair of the Canada-UK Interparliamentary Association and founded the Canada-ASEAN Parliamentary Group.

Well, against this backdrop of his time in public office, it would appear that the floor-crossing from Jeneroux also comes after announcing in November that he would be stepping down a series of conflicting public statements where he claimed he was NOT preparing to join the Liberals. Meanwhile, a statement initially provided to CTV News flatly denied the reports, stating that (quote): “Despite the rumours being circulated in Ottawa, MP Jeneroux is not crossing the floor and is remaining a member of the Conservative caucus.” Needless to say, that statement or that report did not age well.

POLITICAL CONSERVATIVES DO NOT HAVE AN ENTITLEMENT TO VICTORY, SAME AS LIBERALS

As concerning as this trajectory is for the Conservative Party in Canada, I believe it serves as a necessary indictment of Canada’s conservative party, while also giving a serious warning to conservatives in other political jurisdictions. And the warning is that political conservatives do not have an entitlement to victory, in the way we make this same argument for Liberals.

I raise this because of a number of frustrations with political conservatives. First, is that in an era where conservatives learnt the art of winning a narrative war, many of them thought it was enough to only hold the political conservative card, without doing much work to gain political legitimacy to increased influence in the political landscape; this is work like implementing policies for which they were voted, or devising strategies that gain the conservative caucus a majority, or even winning liberals to the conservative caucus. And so, in the absence of this work, conservatives lose their appeal in political office, rendering their politically conservative inclination as symbolic at best. In Canada, being  politically conservative is perhaps less than symbolically significant seeing as how easily Carney is winning conservatives to the liberal caucus in quick succession. 

Second, a number of conservatives seem to lack a perspective of who their opponent is. For instance in the status quo, we have observed liberals in various political jurisdictions abase themselves to the worst of politics. From weaponising institutions in an effort to keep their conservative opponents in court perpetually or even in prison, from demanding the creation of concentration camps for conservatives, from trying to block conservative parties from contesting in elections, and even outright calling for violence and the murder of conservatives. And yet, conservatives would hold investigative committee hearings, write strongly worded letters, and (in the case of the US) maybe pursue formal legal recourse through the courts until the supremacy clause was raised.

But, this lack of fighting instinct is most seen in elections. As an avid watcher of the Station, you’d recall that in covering the Canadian Election, where Mark Carney emerged as Prime Minister last year, on the Election Report, we highlighted the concern from many Canadians and spectators around the world that Pierre Poilievre did not run an aggressive or effective election campaign. Carney dominated the key points of contention in Canada, including on how to frame Canada;s relationship with Trump, despite the fact that conservative parties and figures were on the rise in other political jurisdictions like Europe (where conservative views get people arrested).

In the US, a similar concern arises as America gears toward the midterms. It has been jarring to me how much Trump is doing to help the Republican party win, in comparison to the actual individuals contending in the midterms. Liberals have incredibly visible, and viscous campaigns, while conservatives just capitalise on endorsement from Trump. That is good, but voters expect candidates to have direct message and engagement with them, beyond appeals to endorsement. For example, I know so much about the democrat candidate who contested in Tennessee’s 7th congressional district special election in December 2025, in comparison to Van Epps, the Republican candidate. And for a while I thought this was an issue on my part, until I would listen to conservative commentators and analysts in the state of Tennessee arguing the same. So much so that  Speaker Mike Johnson once even called President Trump and put his phone on speaker during a stop in Tennessee to assist with the campaign. And the result was that in Tennessee (which Trump won by a wide margin for the third time in a row in 2024, with him winning the state by 29.7%), the 7th congressional district special election was a tight race.

And so, I think what is happening in Canada should serve as a wake-up call to conservatives around the world. Being a political conservative is good, given our understanding that the left is led by the devil, but being a political conservative is not itself a metric for success of good leadership. It is your work, your track record that builds political legitimacy.

LIBERAL LEADERSHIP IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH PATRIOTIC SERVICE

Now, what we’ve just outlined is not to imply that conservatives are inherently bad. Emphatically no. But, it is to highlight that they have the potential to be strategic adversaries to a left that is headed by the devil, and therefore are too important not to act like it.

In essence, in a world where patriotic persons are not always in leadership, having liberal leaders is not in the best interests of people. For example, Carney himself appears to have joined liberals because he knew it would be easy to financially gain from the decision.

CARNEY HAS TAPPED EMERGENCIES ACT ADVISOR TO HEAD US TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

But, conservatives crossing over to the liberal caucus is not the end of the curious developments in Canada’s political landscape. And I say this because, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has chosen a former high-ranking official who advised the Liberal government to use the controversial Emergencies Act to crush peaceful protests, to now lead Canada’s turbulent trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico. And this is Janice Charette.

For some context, in February 2022, widespread demonstrations known as the Freedom Convoy converged on Ottawa and other border crossings to oppose COVID-19 vaccine mandates and related public health restrictions. The protests, largely peaceful but disruptive to commerce and daily life, prompted the Trudeau government to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history. This allowed extraordinary measures, including freezing bank accounts, towing vehicles, and arresting participants, to clear the blockades.

Well, Janice Charette, then serving as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet – which is Canada’s top public servant – played a key advisory role in those events. She recommended that the government meet the legal threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act, arguing that the situation constituted a national emergency warranting federal intervention. In testimony before the subsequent public inquiry, Charette defended the decision, noting a broader interpretation of threats to security and emphasizing the need to use the full powers of the federal government to address the crisis.

HOWEVER, the invocation of the Emergencies Act was actually unjustified and an overreach, especially given that courts later found aspects of it unlawful. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that the invocation was not justified in key respects, highlighting ongoing debates about government authority during protests.

And so, it is against this backdrop that Charette’s appointment, announced on February 16th, is concerning. Her new role positions her as a senior advisor to Prime Minister Carney and to Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who oversees Canada-US trade. She will also work closely with Canada’s Ambassador to the United States, Mark Wiseman, to lead negotiations ahead of the scheduled review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (or CUSMA, also known as USMCA). This agreement, which replaced NAFTA and came into force in 2020, includes a clause requiring a joint review six years after entry – meaning discussions must begin by July 1st this year.

Now, crucially, the review comes at a peculiar time for North American trade. Canada relies on the United States for about 70-75% of its exports, making the relationship vital to the economy. Recent tensions, including threats of tariffs from the US administration and uncertainties over the pact’s future, have heightened the stakes. Some US voices have suggested shifting to bilateral deals rather than maintaining the trilateral framework, though Canadian and Mexican officials, including LeBlanc following recent meetings in Mexico, have reaffirmed their commitment to preserving the integrated trilateral structure. Well, in all of this, Charette’s role will ideally involve advancing Canadian interests in sectors like automotive, agriculture, energy, and manufacturing, while seeking to strengthen investment ties and shield workers from potential disruptions.

But, her selection seems primarily to underscores Carney’s preference for seasoned Ottawa insiders to handle complex files amid economic pressures. However, to Canadians, the decision to point her is controversial, especially for those who see irony—or poor judgment—in entrusting someone associated with the Emergencies Act’s use against domestic protesters to now defend Canada’s sovereignty and economic interests on the international stage, particularly against a US counterpart known for aggressive bargaining.

A VIOLENT TRANS PERPETRATOR WAS LET OUT ON BAIL IN CALGARY

You’d recall that we recently discussed the horrific Tumbler Ridge mass shooting by yet another individual identifying as transgender. Well, while many have tried to argue that there is no pattern of transgender violence in Canada, a disturbing case has come to the surface, highlighting flaws in Canada’s justice system. And this case pertains to a transgender individual named Alice Michael Atwood, biologically male, who was released on bail in Calgary after committing a heinous act of violence against his own children. The incident, which occurred in February 2025 in Grande Prairie, Alberta, involved Atwood allegedly slashing the throats of his seven-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter during a violent episode. The daughter suffered catastrophic injuries, including a severed esophagus, necessitating an emergency airlift to Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton. She endured months on a feeding tube and extensive medical care, while the son also required hospitalization.

And yet, despite the severity of the assault – even charged as aggravated assault and assault – Atwood was granted bail after just two days in custody, which raises serious questions about public safety and judicial priorities in Canada. Meanwhile, upon release, Atwood returned to the family home, where he casually live-streamed video games on social media, seemingly indifferent to his daughter’s critical condition. Additionally, reports indicate no stringent bail conditions were imposed, allowing him to live in a van and travel freely between British Columbia and Alberta. And eyewitness accounts place him in Calgary, where he has been observed offering tarot card readings to young girls. What is going on in Canada? How is a biological male identifying as a woman out of bail after two years for gruesomely attacking his own children, and then just causally allowed to offer tarot card readings to young girls. 

Well, following this, a family member has actually attempted to file what is called a Form-8 application to revoke his bail, citing concerns over his mental instability and risk to the public, but no such action was pursued by authorities. Atwood’s sentencing, originally set for January 2026, was inexplicably postponed, leaving him at large as of February 2026.

Now, here’s the additional indictment on Canada’s justice system and mainstream media: Antwood’s case actually resurfaced recently when Atwood posted a bizarre video online, proclaiming he was “being safe and secure” and “just chilling” until his court date. In the footage, he displayed erratic behavior, avoided naming his children, and showed no remorse, further underscoring potential mental health issues that went unaddressed during his bail assessment. Media coverage has been scant, with local outlets like CTV Alberta and Global News providing minimal details, often under publication bans to protect the children’s identities. Meanwhile, mainstream national media has largely ignored the story, referring to Atwood vaguely as a “person” rather than acknowledging his biological sex or the gendered dynamics of the violence.

Honestly, this lenient treatment of transgender offenders exemplifies how the Canadian government, under progressive influences, fails to adequately protect citizens. The Liberal administration’s “catch and release” bail policies, enacted through reforms like Bill C-75, are notorious for prioritising offender rights over victim safety, especially as they often cite rehabilitation and equity. And in Atwood’s case, some have argued that his transgender identity afforded him undue leniency, influenced by diversity, equity, and inclusion (or DEI) mandates that permeate police, courts, and media, in a manner that suppresses critical, even when public endangerment is at stake. 

But, ultimately, this incident fuels broader debates on bail reform and ideological biases in justice. With violent crimes rising, many Canadians question if government priorities—shaped by social justice agendas—compromise safety. Releasing a perpetrator capable of such brutality without robust oversight erodes trust in institutions. Urgent calls for tougher bail standards and unbiased enforcement grow louder, as families like Atwood’s victims grapple with ongoing trauma. Until reforms address these “woke” blind spots, vulnerable Canadians remain at risk.

MEANWHILE, CANADA HAS A CONCERNING TRAJECTORY OF LGBT INDOCTRINATION

MEANWHILE, in all that we’ve discussed, for the fathers who do not try to kill their children, Canada has made it difficult, or even criminal for them to intervene against state sponsored LGBT indoctrination. You’d recall th twe highlighted here on The War Room the case in British Columbia, where a father – widely reported as Rob Hoogland – found himself fighting to halt his teenage daughter’s medical gender transition, leading to his imprisonment for defying court orders.

The case began around 2015–2016 when his daughter, then in elementary school, faced challenges and began seeing school counselors. By seventh grade (approximately age 12–13), she started identifying as a boy at school, coinciding with the introduction of gender identity education programs like SOGI 123 in British Columbia schools. The school socially transitioned her—using a male name and pronouns—without initially informing her parents, aligning with provincial policies allowing student privacy on gender matters.

Her mother supported the transition. The school further  referred her to psychologist Dr Wallace Wong, a registered psychologist specializing in gender dysphoria and youth mental health. Dr Wong, who has worked with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and claimed involvement with numerous transgender youth cases (including hundreds in care), recommended proceeding toward medical steps. He referred her to the endocrinology team at BC Children’s Hospital Gender Clinic.

There, clinicians assessed the daughter and determined she met criteria for puberty blockers followed by testosterone to affirm her male identity. The father strongly objected, citing concerns about her mental health history, potential long-term effects (such as infertility, bone density issues, or other risks associated with cross-sex hormones), and her age. He even  sought court intervention to stop the treatment.

But, in 2019 rulings by the British Columbia Supreme Court (and upheld on appeal), judges determined the child—deemed a “mature minor”—could apparently consent to her own treatment under Canadian law. The father lacked authority to veto it. One decision limited him to a supportive “friend and advisor” role regarding her medical decisions. Courts further imposed publication bans and gag orders prohibiting him from publicly discussing details, using her birth name, or referring to her with female pronouns, allegedly to protect her privacy and dignity amid heated online commentary.

But, the father violated these orders multiple times by giving interviews, speaking publicly about the case as “state-sponsored child abuse,” and sharing documents. In March 2021, he was arrested for contempt of court. In April 2021, he received a six-month prison sentence (later reduced on appeal in 2023 to time served, around 45 days). He served time in jail for breaching the gag order. And so, this case highlights judicial overreach in enabling irreversible interventions on minors; this father was (in actual fact) arrested for loving his daughter and fighting to protect her innocence and health. BUT, this is not even the only father who’s experienced this. This following excerpt shows Canadian veteran Jeff Evely describing the indoctrination of his daughter and how the Canadian Children’s Hospital of Ontario began contacting her at 16 – the age of consent for gender transition in Canada.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Nestle CEO Faces Mounting Scrutiny Amid Infant Formula Crisis

Nestlé CEO Philipp Navratil finds himself under intense scrutiny after the multinational conglomerate was forced into its largest recall ever, urgently removing infant formula from global supermarket chains due to contamination identified last month. This crisis is yet another example of the risks posed by giant corporations prioritising scale and profit over the safety of local communities. Shareholders have suffered, but the true cost has been passed onto families, as European prosecutors ramp up investigations. Navratil and the management, ensconced in corporate headquarters far from the consequences, are set to unveil a so-called turnaround plan for the Swiss behemoth, following January’s recall that exposed multiple production sites to cereulide—a toxin known to cause nausea and vomiting.

In France, eight families have lodged complaints after their children became ill with vomiting after consuming Nestlé’s baby formula, prompting Paris prosecutors to investigate. Similarly, in the UK, 36 suspected cases of food poisoning linked to this formula have surfaced. Rather than addressing the concerns of local parents, Nestlé and authorities rely on bureaucratic investigations to determine whether the corporate giant is responsible for distributing tainted products. Furthermore, these probes are coordinated with investigations into the tragic deaths of three babies in France, but Nestlé and the French health ministry swiftly claim there is “no evidence” of a direct connection—an all-too-familiar refrain from global corporations seeking to evade accountability.

In Switzerland, Nestlé’s shares remain stagnant, with the shadow of this corporate scandal continuing to cloud investor sentiment. Stepping back, the stock has fallen to levels not seen since 2018-19, signalling a lack of trust in the global food giant’s ability to manage crises and protect the interests of local communities over remote shareholders.

The Infant Formula Scandal: Corporate-Driven Depopulation?

But this isn’t the first time, is it? The most infamous chapter in Nestlé’s rap sheet began in the 1970s, when the company aggressively marketed baby formula in developing countries as superior to breast milk. Saleswomen dressed as nurses infiltrated hospitals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, handing out free samples to new mothers. Once breastfeeding stopped, mothers became dependent on expensive formula, often diluting it with contaminated water due to poverty—leading to malnutrition, disease, and infant deaths. A 1974 report titled The Baby Killer exposed this predatory tactic, sparking global outrage and a U.S.-led boycott starting in 1977. Nestlé’s marketing contributed to hundreds of thousands of preventable infant deaths annually in low- and middle-income countries.

Nestlé killed babies for profit.  This wasn’t just greed—it aligned with broader elite interests in curbing population growth in the developing world, echoing eugenics-tinged policies promoted by globalist institutions. Nestlé fought back fiercely, suing critics for libel, but eventually bowed to pressure with the 1981 WHO International Code on breast-milk substitutes. Yet violations persisted. In the 2010s and 2020s, reports emerged of Nestlé adding sugar to baby products sold in poor countries while marketing “no added sugar” versions in wealthier markets—a clear double standard exploiting regulatory weaknesses. And now, Nestlé has faced massive recalls of infant formula in over 60 countries due to bacterial contamination risks, further eroding trust. These aren’t anomalies; they’re symptoms of a profit-first model that views human lives as expendable.

Water Privatization: Controlling the Essence of Life

The Water Wars: Privatizing a Human Necessity

No Nestlé scandal better illustrates globalist resource control than its water exploitation. Former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe infamously declared in a 2005 documentary that water is not a human right but a “foodstuff” that should have a market value, implying privatization for profit.

Though Nestlé later spun this as a call for “responsible pricing” to prevent waste, the damage was done—revealing a worldview where corporations, not communities, dictate access to vital resources. Nestlé has extracted massive volumes of groundwater for bottling brands like Pure Life, often in drought-stricken areas. In California, Pakistan, and Michigan, communities accused the company of draining aquifers while paying pennies for permits, then selling the water back at markup in plastic bottles. This fits the Agenda 2030-style “sustainability” rhetoric masking corporate land and resource grabs, turning public commons into private profit streams. Brabeck’s involvement in elite forums like Davos underscores how such views permeate globalist circles, where water scarcity is framed as an opportunity rather than a crisis.

Nestle: Child Slavery and Forced Labor

Modern Imperialism in Supply Chains

Child Slavery and Forced Labor in the Nestle’s Cocoa Supply Chain

Nestlé dominates the global chocolate market through brands like KitKat and Smarties, sourcing much of its cocoa from West Africa, particularly Ivory Coast, which produces 70% of the world’s supply. For decades, investigations have exposed child labour, trafficking, and outright slavery on these farms. Children as young as 10 are forced into hazardous work—machete-wielding, pesticide exposure, no education—for little or no pay. In 2001, Nestlé and other giants signed the Harkin-Engel Protocol, pledging to eliminate child labour by 2005. That deadline passed, then 2008, 2010, and 2020—yet a 2019 Washington Post investigation found the practice rampant. Lawsuits by former child slaves against Nestlé reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2021 ruled in Nestlé’s favour on technical grounds, shielding them from liability. This isn’t incompetence; it’s structural.

Nestlé profits immensely while keeping cocoa prices low, trapping farmers in poverty that necessitates child labour. This is deliberate: global supply chains designed to exploit the Global South, ensuring cheap inputs for Northern consumers. Ties to modern slavery echo colonial extraction models. In 2015, Nestlé admitted forced labour in its Thai seafood supply chain for pet food brand Fancy Feast. Migrant workers from Myanmar and Cambodia were trafficked, beaten, and trapped on boats in slave-like conditions. This exposes the hypocrisy of globalist “sustainable supply chain” initiatives: cheap labour in deregulated zones fuels Western consumption, echoing colonial extraction.

Nestle’s Ties to the World Economic Forum and Globalist Agendas

Nestlé’s involvement with the WEF is extensive: executives speak at Davos, partner on initiatives like the Global Alliance for YOUth and regenerative agriculture, and former CEO Brabeck-Letmathe stepped in as interim WEF leader in 2025 amid scandals surrounding Klaus Schwab. The WEF promotes public-private partnerships that blur lines between governments and corporations, often prioritizing corporate interests in sustainability and food systems. Nestlé’s participation fits the pattern: a company plagued by exploitation scandals shaping global policy on food security and resources.  Nestlé isn’t just a profiteer but a player in broader agendas—controlling food and water aligns with narratives of depopulation or dependency creation. Whether through formula undermining fertility cycles or water privatization in crises, patterns emerge.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

According to Rothschilds’ media arm, The Economist—long a mouthpiece for elite interests—states encompassing a third of America’s population are on the brink of legalising assisted dying. The magazine lists 13 states along with Washington, DC, where doctor-assisted suicide is now either permitted or poised to be approved, painting this expansion as some kind of historic achievement.

The Economist claims that lawmakers are “catching up with public opinion,” referencing a Gallup poll stating just over half of Americans support assisted suicide in general, while two-thirds would approve if the patient is suffering and has no hope of recovery—a framing that conveniently serves the agenda of normalising state-sanctioned death. The magazine attempts to placate concerns that America might follow Canada’s deeply controversial path, where so-called “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAID) has ballooned to include vulnerable groups such as those with chronic pain, mental health struggles, or even the homeless, fuelling debates over organ harvesting and a chilling disregard for human life. With more than 42,000 MAID deaths reported in Canada since 2021—over 5% of all deaths in 2024—The Economist assures its readers that the US will enforce “stricter safeguards.” These supposed protections require a prognosis of six months or less to live, confirmation by two doctors, and the patient’s ability to self-administer the lethal drugs. Yet, the steady erosion of ethical boundaries and the growing influence of globalist eugenics ideology remain deeply troubling. Whitney Webb has characterized the spread of doctor-assisted suicide as a dark reboot of the fascistic eugenics programs of the 20s and 30s.

Canada’s Fast Track to Death: Euthanasia Approved Years in Advance

Organ harvesting & child murder

Canada’s euthanasia nightmare spirals

Canada has tragically become a global frontrunner in state-sanctioned euthanasia, with more than 15,000 lives ended through assisted suicide in 2023 alone—a staggering 15% rise from the previous year. This explosion in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) followed the passing of Bill C-7 in March 2021, which eliminated the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” requirement and drastically loosened restrictions. As a result, MAiD deaths have surged by a third annually. What was falsely presented as a supposedly compassionate, last-resort measure for terminally ill patients now extends to those suffering from chronic pain, autoimmune conditions, and even depression—ailments that can easily be alleviated with proper care and support. Instead, vulnerable Canadians are being pushed toward death rather than offered help, reflecting a chilling disregard for human dignity and echoing the dark legacy of eugenics policies.

Many so-called “assisted deaths” in Canada are immediately followed by rapid organ harvesting. Physicians prepare patients for organ donation mere hours after administering euthanasia drugs, turning the suffering and desperate into commodities. Let’s point out the bitter irony of this practice: instead of preserving life, the system transforms the vulnerable into sources of organs and money. Homeless and struggling Canadians are now routinely approved for euthanasia—not because of terminal illness, but due to the failure of social services. Canadian doctors, who once dedicated themselves to saving lives, now increasingly serve as facilitators of death, describing their euthanasia cases as “delivery of life out.” Over 99.9% of assisted suicides in Canada are carried out by physicians. The nation’s euthanasia crisis is descending even further, as discussions now broach the prospect of extending these deadly practices to infants with disabilities. In 2022, proposals surfaced to legalise euthanasia for babies under one year old, a horrifying step that raises serious moral questions and signals the relentless advance of a eugenics-driven ideology.

Countries that allow euthanasia

In 2002, the Netherlands and Belgium became the first countries in the world to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, followed by Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, most of Australia’s states, Austria, and most recently, Portugal and Ecuador. Switzerland has allowed passive assisted suicide since the 1940s, although active, doctor-assisted euthanasia is illegal. Assisted dying is not to be confused with passive euthanasia (i.e. refusal of treatment or withdrawal from life support), which is legal in most of Europe, North and South America, and a sprinkling of countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

How euthanasia laws become more liberal

Belgium’s 2002 Euthanasia Act originally allowed assisted suicide for adults facing “unbearable suffering.” In 2013, it was extended to terminally ill children with parental consent. In Colombia, the decriminalization of euthanasia for adults in 2014 led to the practice being approved for children as young as six – and without parental consent after age 14, in 2018. In 2022, Colombia decriminalized assisted suicide for non-terminally ill people suffering from “severe health conditions.” In Canada, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals passed doctor-assisted suicide legislation in 2016 for terminally ill mentally competent adults. It was expanded in 2021 to include incurable illnesses, and in 2023, plans to include mental illness were delayed until 2027.

In 2021, a story in New Zealand revealed that COVID-19 patients deemed terminally ill qualified for euthanasia under the 2019 End of Life Choice Act. Local anti-euthanasia campaigners said the story highlighted “the lax nature of the already existing qualifying criteria” for assisted suicide procedures.

Euthanasia is Lucrative business

In Switzerland and Belgium, assisted dying has apparently become a lucrative business, with foreigners traveling to the countries in droves. In 2020 alone, Dignitas, a non-profit Swiss clinic, counted 3,248 assisted suicide cases, most of them foreigners. Belgium, where assisted dying can only be performed by doctors, was dubbed the world’s “euthanasia capital” by Forbes in 2019, and allows qualified applicants to be euthanized for about $3,500.

In Canada, lobbying promoting assisted dying has taken an ugly turn, with a 2017 Canadian Medical Association Journal report touting how up to $136.8 million CAD could be saved annually on health care costs through euthanasia. The passage of the ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAiD) program has also resulted in a dramatic surge in assisted suicide deaths, from 1,018 in 2016 to 13,241 in 2022 – accounting for over 4% of all deaths in Canada that year. A year ago, Health Minister Mark Holland announced the government needed more time before it could expand “medical assistance in dying” to include people who are suffering from mental illnesses, but it’s still in the works. The government was originally planning to expand the euthanasia project on March 17, 2024.

In 2009 British psychotherapist and author Colin Feltham penned a shocking op-ed in The Guardian where he argued that “there are good reasons for arguing that a stabilization or gradual reduction in population would be the best way to address the carbon emissions problem,” and that assisted dying programs were one possible way to do so.

Who’s funding pro-euthanasia propaganda?

In 1998, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations published a ‘Project on Death in America’ report, detailing hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to Dartmouth College, Stanford, Staten Island University Hospital and other academic, medical and cultural institutions for research, education and public policy discussions about death, including physician-assisted suicide, which Soros hoped might “influence the culture of dying” in America. After shelling out $45 million in grants, the project closed in 2003 after being deemed to have “completed all grantmaking.” In March 2024, US lawmakers grilled Pfizer after discovering links between the pharmaceuticals giant and Dying with Dignity Canada, the lobbying group “owning the conversation around assisted deaths” in Canada, with media discovering that Pfizer makes three of the lethal drugs recommended by the MAiD program for assisted deaths. Other donors included Google, United Way, and the San Diego chapter of the Hemlock Society – a right-to-die advocacy group that George Soros’ mother Elizabeth was a member of. In the UK, the pro-euthanasia lobby has reportedly received a sympathetic ear from the publicly-funded BBC, and consists of a series of partisan nonprofits funded by little-known groups like the AB Charitable Trust – created in 1990 by former hedge fund manager Yves Bonavero and his wife, which seems to be involved in backing an array of assisted dying lobbying groups, including the Citizens Jury, Humanists UK and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Their goal is depopulation

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink explained how the real goal of depopulation (Covid19, Midazolam, Remdesivir, “vaccines”, euthanasia, abortion, Ukraine war, Gaza genocide, assisted dying) is to make it easier to substitute humans with machines.

Who promotes euthanasia and why?

The origins of the modern right-to-die movement can be traced back to the Club of Rome’s liberal humanist agenda and concerns about overpopulation and climate change began presenting assisted dying as a humane way to end suffering. More recently, the World Economic Forum has taken up the euthanasia agenda, actively discussing it since at least 2009.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The United Nations is finally staring down the barrel of its own incompetence: Secretary-General António Guterres just warned member states on January 28, 2026, that the UN risks “imminent financial collapse” due to unpaid dues hitting a record $1.57 billion by the end of 2025 – with the United States shouldering 95% of the arrears (around $2.2 billion). The Trump administration’s funding cuts and withholdings are accelerating this crisis, and I’ll say: let it burn. This isn’t a tragedy – it’s accountability catching up to a bloated, corrupt, sovereignty-erasing evil machine. Today I am making the case that the UN’s financial woes are self-inflicted and long overdue.

The UN’s “Imminent Financial Collapse”

Good Riddance to Globalist Tyranny

The UN’s Panic Button and Why America Is Right to Starve It

On January 30, 2026, Guterres sent a desperate letter to member states warning that without immediate action, the UN could run out of cash by July 2026 and might even have to shutter its New York headquarters. Outstanding dues doubled from 2024 to 2025, collections covered only 76.7% of assessed contributions, and liquidity is drying up fast. Who’s the main culprit? The United States – allegedly owing nearly $2.2 billion in current and overdue assessments. The Trump administration has ramped up pressure by slashing voluntary contributions and withholding mandatory dues over waste, bias, and ineffectiveness. This isn’t petty – it’s principled. The U.S. is assessed 22% of the regular budget and ~27% of peacekeeping, more than any other nation. Why keep bankrolling an organization that routinely bites the hand that feeds it? This crisis exposes the UN’s flawed model: it spends first, then begs later, with no real penalties for decadence. Good on America for finally saying “enough.”

How the UN Became a Black Hole for Taxpayer Dollars

The UN’s 2026 regular budget is $3.45 billion – down 7% after negotiations – but that’s still billions funnelled into a bureaucracy with zero accountability. The U.S. alone has historically covered over a quarter of the tab, yet gets constant lectures on “global responsibilities.” Remember history: Reagan withheld funds in the 1980s over anti-Israel bias and waste. Clinton paid some arrears but attached reforms. Trump 1.0 cut voluntary funding to agencies like UNRWA and WHO, exited Paris Accord and Human Rights Council. Now Trump 2.0 is finishing the job, and the UN is screaming in panic. The math is damning: End-2025 arrears hit $1.568 billion. U.S. dues for 2026 alone are ~$767 million, much of it unpaid on principle. Without U.S. cash, the UN can’t pay salaries, keep lights on in Geneva, or fund its endless conferences. This isn’t “collapse” from malice – it’s collapse from decades of entitlement. If the UN were a corporation, it’d have been bankrupt long ago.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

The Real Reason Taxpayers Should Cheer This Crisis

UN corruption cultureproves that it doesn’t deserve another dime

The UN isn’t poor – it’s wasteful. An example is the Oil-for-Food scandal (1990s-2000s): Billions were diverted to Saddam Hussein while UN officials took kickbacks. Don’t get me started on the Peacekeeper sexual abuse scandals. There are hundreds of documented cases in Congo, Haiti, Central African Republic – zero real accountability. Then there’s the bloat: Thousands of highly paid staff jetting to summits while producing zero measurable results. There is procurement fraud, nepotism, cover-ups. Whistleblowers are routinely silenced or fired.

The film producer Jennifer O’Mahony and whistleblower James Wasserstrom (UN Administration Mission in Kosovo) spoke during the 20th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) held in Washington, D.C. in December 2022.

The UN’s Globalist Agenda

Agenda 2030 and the Push for One-World Control

Beyond waste, the UN’s real danger is ideological. Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals sound noble – end poverty, save the planet – but it’s a blueprint for centralized control: wealth redistribution, migration mandates, climate lockdowns, erosion of national borders. It is a Trojan horse for global governance. The UN’s “Pact for the Future” (2024) and ongoing pushes give supranational bodies power over national policy. WHO pandemic treaty attempts? Same playbook. Angela Small talks about the UN’s Project 2020 vision and its mission to end private property among many other freedoms.

These aren’t fringe – they’re warnings from sovereignty defenders about unelected bureaucrats dictating your life.

UN’s sponsorship of Terror

The UN’s moral rot runs deepest in its agencies. UNRWA (Palestinian refugee agency) has repeatedly been exposed for staff ties to Hamas – including employees implicated in October 7, 2023 attacks. Yet billions keep flowing. The Human Rights Council? Dominated by rights abusers – while obsessively condemning Israel with more resolutions than against all other countries combined. Peacekeeping? Often ineffective or worse – enabling warlords while costing billions.

Let it sink in deeper—the United Nations, that sprawling, unaccountable globalist machine, is teetering on the edge because one nation finally turned off the tap. America, under President Trump, is withholding billions in dues and slashing voluntary funding, and suddenly the whole parasitic structure is gasping for air. Guterres’ panic letter to all 193 member states isn’t just a fundraising plea—it’s an admission that the UN’s entire model is unsustainable without the U.S. taxpayer as its unwilling ATM. The U.S. owes the bulk of the $1.57 billion+ in arrears, and the Trump administration is making it clear: no more blank checks for an organization that routinely undermines American interests while lecturing the world on “global responsibilities.” This isn’t a “humanitarian” outfit. It’s a sovereignty-erasing powerhouse that pushes, Open borders and mass migration mandates, Climate alarmism as a pretext for wealth redistribution and control, Censorship via “disinformation” initiatives, Endless bureaucratic expansion that tie to depopulation agendas through aggressive family-planning programs in the developing world

The United Nations isn’t some benevolent peacemaker

The UN is a vehicle for globalist manipulation

The United Nations isn’t some benevolent peacemaker; it’s a vehicle for globalist manipulation, pulling strings on nations while pretending to uphold “international cooperation.” And yes, its ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF), European Union (EU), and even NATO reveal a web of elite influence that prioritizes centralized control over true sovereignty. Look at this undeniable proof from 2019: UN Secretary-General António Guterres personally signed a Strategic Partnership Framework with WEF founder Klaus Schwab to “jointly accelerate” the implementation of Agenda 2030 (the Sustainable Development Goals). This wasn’t just a handshake—it publicized the already existing deeper coordination, giving WEF’s corporate elites “preferential access” to shape UN policy on everything from climate, health, finance, and digital governance. Hundreds of civil society organizations (over 400 groups and networks) immediately condemned it as corporate capture of the UN, warning it delegitimizes the organization, weakens state sovereignty, and shifts power toward privatized, multistakeholder global governance where billionaires and multinationals call the shots.

 The EU acts as a major UN donor and ideological ally, pushing the same supranational agendas (open borders, climate mandates, digital IDs). NATO coordinates closely with the UN on “peacekeeping” and security, but often in ways that align with interventionist policies benefiting the same elite networks. The UN postures as anti-war while it allow endless conflicts to rage—conflicts that enrich arms manufacturers, defense contractors, and the military-industrial complex deeply intertwined with WEF partners and Western elites. They “fight” wars on paper but ensure the profits flow upward. Agenda 2030 itself is the blueprint.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The Truth on the Current Situation in Gaza

Two years after Hamas’s barbaric October 7, 2023, attack that claimed 1,139 Israeli lives and triggered the war, Gaza stands at a crossroads. The Gaza Ministry of Health reports over 67,000 Palestinian deaths and 170,000 injuries since then, figures that underscore the war’s toll. Yet, as of October 14, 2025, the ceasefire has ushered in cautious optimism: humanitarian teams are accessing previously isolated areas, and aid distributions are scaling up rapidly. Economically, Gaza’s pre-ceasefire GDP per capita had plummeted amid widespread poverty and unemployment rates exceeding 50%, a direct fallout from Hamas’s prioritization of rockets over reconstruction. Infrastructure—hospitals, schools, and water systems—lies in ruins. While the ceasefire halts active hostilities, the real challenge remains governance: without dismantling Hamas’s stranglehold, Gaza risks perpetual stagnation.

Unmasking the Propaganda: How Myths Sustain a Terrorist Regime

Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and others, thrives on a web of disinformation that vilifies Israel while concealing its own abuses against Palestinians. This propaganda isn’t organic; it’s a calculated campaign amplified by social media and biased outlets, peddling myths that equate self-defense with aggression and whitewash Hamas’s atrocities. Take the enduring falsehood that Israel deliberately starves Gaza: In reality, restrictions stem from security checks to prevent weapons smuggling, yet Israel has consistently allowed aid far exceeding UN minimums—debunking claims of a “genocide” engineered through blockade. Another trope: Hamas doesn’t target civilians. Fact-checkers have exposed how the group embedded fighters in population centers, using schools and hospitals as shields, resulting in tragic but avoidable casualties. Viral videos falsely depicting “caged Israeli children” as hostages? Fabricated to inflame global outrage. Worse, this narrative ignores Hamas’s internal failures: Billions in Qatari and Iranian funds diverted to tunnels and missiles, leaving Gaza’s economy in tatters with 80% youth unemployment and crumbling services. Propaganda portrays Hamas as “resistance,” but it’s a regime that executes dissenters and hoards aid, perpetuating poverty to fuel endless conflict. Supporting such lies doesn’t liberate Palestinians—it entrenches their suffering under a terrorist yoke.

Exposing Hamas’s Propaganda Machine – A Terrorist Group Betraying Its Own

Hamas, enshrined on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list since 1997, has weaponized misinformation to shield its military agenda at the expense of Gazan civilians. The group’s propaganda apparatus, including figures like the eliminated spokesman Abu Obeida, has fabricated crises to vilify Israel, from staging hospital “bombings” to exploiting images of ill children for viral outrage.

On the second anniversary of the October 7, 2023, atrocities, U.S.-based activists echoed Hamas’s blame-shifting, ignoring how the group’s tunnel network—spanning over 500 kilometers—diverts cement and fuel from civilian infrastructure. This isn’t mere rhetoric; it’s a pattern of self-sabotage. Hamas’s governance has siphoned aid for rocket production and elite enrichment, leaving Gazans to bear the brunt. Senator Tom Cotton aptly summarized in July 2025: “Hamas wants the world to believe that Israel has undertaken a campaign of deliberate starvation,” when evidence shows the opposite—Hamas hoarding supplies amid its own failures. This internal predation stifles growth: Gaza’s unemployment hovers at 45%, not due to external pressures, but because Hamas prioritizes jihad over jobs. The ceasefire’s hostage releases—over 100 Palestinians freed from Israeli custody—further reveal Hamas’s duplicity, as reunited families report abuse not from Israel, but from their captors.

Gaza: The Current Humanitarian Landscape – Challenges from Within

There is food in Gaza. Its just not being distributed by the UN

Contrary to alarmist headlines, Gaza is not in the throes of deliberate starvation orchestrated by Israel. As of mid-October 2025, following the ceasefire, humanitarian aid has surged into the territory, with the United Nations reporting preparations to deliver over 170,000 metric tons of food, medicine, and supplies—enough to sustain 2.1 million residents for the initial phase. Israel’s coordination has facilitated this influx, including the safe return of displaced Palestinians to their homes and the dismantling of temporary aid sites like those operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), now obsolete due to normalized deliveries. Claims of a “famine” or Israeli-imposed starvation policy are not only unsubstantiated but represent a calculated distortion. An Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) investigation in August 2025 categorically rejected assertions of widespread malnutrition deaths attributable to policy, noting that isolated cases were exacerbated by Hamas’s diversion of resources rather than any blockade.

Independent analyses, including those from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, have labelled these narratives a “fraud,” pointing to inflated data from Hamas-controlled health authorities that the UN has uncritically amplified. Cam Higby was in Gaza and like many other exposed the lie. All food would pass every level of IDF inspection and cross the Karem Shalom border. It would now be the responsibility of the U.N. to distribute it, they didn’t.

According to the U.N. Only 7% of its distribution trucks inside of the strip have reached the population. More often than not, they’re raided by armed marauders or Hamas. The U.N. Has cited safety concerns as a reason for not distributing effectively but has also turned down offers to have IDF escorts. In economic terms, this propaganda has real costs: it deters investment and prolongs instability, keeping Gaza’s GDP per capita stagnant at around $1,000—levels that could double with secure aid channels and demilitarization.

The UN’s Complicity in Perpetuating the Crisis

While Israel facilitates aid, the United Nations—particularly The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East —has deliberately exacerbated Gaza’s woes through biased reporting and operational inefficiencies. UN-backed famine assessments in August 2025, which claimed over 500,000 in “catastrophic hunger,” relied on unverifiable Hamas data, later debunked as “fabricated” by watchdogs like UN Watch. The Institute for National Security Studies highlighted how these reports ignore Hamas’s aid looting, instead framing Israel as the sole villain—a narrative that delays real solutions. Financially, this dysfunction is glaring: UNRWA’s $1.6 billion annual budget yields fragmented relief, with audits revealing up to 10% lost to corruption—funds that could fund Gaza’s desalination upgrades. By amplifying propaganda, the UN discourages donor confidence, trapping aid in bureaucratic silos.

Israel’s Enduring Support in Palestinian Stability and Growth

Contrary to the one-sided portrayals, Israel has been a steadfast partner in Palestinian welfare, channelling billions in aid and infrastructure that foster long-term economic resilience. Since the war’s outset, Israel has facilitated the delivery of over 1.3 million tons of humanitarian supplies—food, medicine, fuel, and shelter materials—into Gaza, often in coordination with international allies. The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) meticulously tracks these efforts, ensuring safe passage through crossings like Kerem Shalom and Erez, even under the duress of ongoing threats. Beyond immediate relief, Israel’s contributions extend to foundational services that underpin prosperity. For decades, Israel has supplied Gaza with 80-90% of its electricity, desalinated over 20 million cubic meters of water annually (meeting 10-15% of needs), and enabled tens of thousands of Palestinians to work in Israel, injecting $500 million yearly into Gaza’s economy pre-war. Medical evacuations are another hallmark: since 2000, Israel has treated over 200,000 Palestinians in its hospitals, including complex cases from Gaza, free of charge. In 2024-2025 alone, amid the conflict, Israel approved aid convoys carrying 500,000 tons of flour and 300,000 tons of rice, countering famine risks despite Hamas’s diversion of supplies for military use.

Israel’s Enduring Positive Contributions to Palestinian Prosperity

Israel’s track record of goodwill toward Palestinians is a testament to its democratic ethos and strategic foresight—actions that foster long-term economic interdependence. Even amid conflict, Israel has enabled over 20,000 Gazans to access medical treatment in Israeli hospitals annually, a lifeline that saved thousands of lives pre-2023 escalation. Post-ceasefire, Israel has greenlit reconstruction phases under the Arab League’s March 2025 plan, committing to six months of unfettered aid and infrastructure rebuilding in Gaza City and Khan Yunis. Economically, Israel’s innovations have indirectly benefited Gaza: desalination plants supply 20% of the Strip’s water, while joint agricultural tech transfers have boosted Palestinian yields by 30% in the West Bank—initiatives ripe for Gaza replication. The January 2025 ceasefire phase allowed “sufficient” humanitarian flows, paving the way for private sector revival, including tech hubs that could employ 50,000 youth. These aren’t concessions; they’re investments in stability, aligning with values of self-reliance and mutual benefit. As President Trump’s involvement in the October deal demonstrates, strong U.S.-Israel ties yield dividends for all parties.

Written By tatenda Belle Panashe

]]> https://ln24international.com/2025/10/15/navigating-the-gaza-narrative-facts-aid-and-the-cost-of-misinformation/feed/ 0 https://ln24international.com/2025/08/21/japan-to-launch-first-yen-based-stablecoin/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=japan-to-launch-first-yen-based-stablecoin https://ln24international.com/2025/08/21/japan-to-launch-first-yen-based-stablecoin/#respond Thu, 21 Aug 2025 07:24:18 +0000 https://ln24international.com/?p=26826 Japan’s Financial Services Agency is poised to greenlight the country’s inaugural yen-denominated stablecoin as early as this fall, thrusting Japan into the global frenzy to issue stablecoins pegged to individual currencies. According to reports, fintech powerhouse JPYC is gearing up to register as a funds transfer service provider and kickstart sales of its “JPYC” stablecoin within mere weeks. Having already made waves with its prepaid payment instrument, “Prepaid JPYC”, the company is now revving up to launch “JPYC”, an electronic payment instrument interchangeable with Japanese yen, under the revamped Payment Services Act that took effect in 2023. The ambitious goal is to unleash a staggering 1 trillion yen ($6.81 billion) worth of JPYC stablecoins into the market over the next three years, a move that has already piqued the interest of heavyweight investors, including hedge funds and wealth management offices. The stablecoin is expected to be a game-changer for carry trades, which capitalize on interest rate disparities. While the spotlight has been trained on USD stablecoins, the impending approval of a yen-based stablecoin is likely to inject a much-needed boost into Japan’s digital currency ecosystem. What are stablecoins and how do they work?

In recent results briefings, fintech companies expressed optimism about the potential of domestic stablecoins, with Goldman Sachs predicting a windfall in fee income from services like custodial management and collateral administration. JPYC’s trust-type stablecoin is set to be issued on the Progmat Coin platform, courtesy of Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking. The Nikkei article highlights cross-border remittances, corporate payments, and asset management as potential use cases for the stablecoin. However, challenges persist, including the risk of fluctuation and a potential decoupling from the fundamental assumption that each stablecoin unit would trade at par with the yen. Although stablecoins typically exhibit lower volatility than cryptocurrencies, the value of one yen is always pegged to one yen in legal tender. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs forecasts that the debate will soon shift to anti-money laundering measures, such as remittances to recipients not subject to Know Your Customer (KYC) restrictions, in the event that stablecoins are used or traded by unspecified parties to be redeemed for legal tender or circulated on a blockchain.

The digital currency will be backed by liquid assets such as government bonds

JPYC to keep its value stable at 1JPYC=1 yen.

Let’s break it down. Tokyo-based startup JPYC just snagged a license from Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) to issue a stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the yen, with rollout expected this autumn 2025. They’re starting small, with a daily issuance cap of 1 million yen per client, but the plan is ambitious: potentially pumping out up to $7 billion worth over the next three years. This isn’t necessarily Japan’s central bank meddling; it’s a private entity stepping up to offer stability without the strings attached to fiat’s digital overlords. Why does this matter? CBDCs are the ultimate tool for the elite: programmable money that can track every transaction, expire your savings if you don’t spend fast enough, or even block you from buying “unapproved” goods like guns or fossil-guzzling trucks. They’re a globalist’s dream for enforcing compliance through financial tyranny. But Japan’s stablecoin? It’s the antithesis—a crypto asset that’s stable, yen-backed, and free from central bank whims, for now. It empowers individuals and businesses to transact globally without feeding the beast of government surveillance. This could reshape demand for JGBs (Japanese Government Bonds) in a positive way, keeping value in the real economy rather than funneling it into endless money-printing schemes.

It’s a private alternative that could undermine the Bank of Japan’s digital yen plans

Japan’s JPYC stablecoin is a game-changer because it offers a fiat-like experience without the CBDC surveillance state baggage. It’s a private alternative that could undermine the Bank of Japan’s digital yen plans, which are still in pilot mode. But don’t get too cozy—stablecoins can still be co-opted if regulators tighten the screws on issuers. Meanwhile, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin remain the purist’s choice: no pegs, no masters, just raw, untamed financial sovereignty. The globalist CBDC push—over 130 countries deep, wants to lock the people into trackable, programmable money. Stablecoins like JPYC can be a tactical counter, bridging the gap between crypto’s volatility and fiat’s usability. But for the long haul, stack those sats and keep your keys offline.

Threat of Retail CBDCs

As of mid-2025, over 130 countries are deep in CBDC research, with dozens piloting these digital shackles. It’s a coordinated assault on privacy and freedom, disguised as “innovation.” Here’s the latest on the worst offenders: The Bahamas, Jamaica, and Nigeria: These three have already fully launched their CBDCs—the Sand Dollar, JAM-DEX, and so forth respectively—and they’re seeing “growth” in adoption, which really means forced integration into everyday life. China is leading the pack with its e-CNY (digital yuan), now in massive pilots across the country and even testing cross-border uses.  It’s not “fully launched” in the strict sense, but with billions in transactions already, it’s a surveillance powerhouse. Tied to social credit scores? You bet—spend wrong, and your access gets throttled. This is the model the West envies. Europe and the Digital Euro: The ECB is in full prep mode, with pilots ramping up for a potential 2026 launch. They’re touting privacy features, but we know better—it’s about unifying control under Brussels’ thumb, tracking every euro spent to enforce green agendas or whatever the elites dream up next. In the United States no full CBDC yet, but the Fed’s pushing FedNow for instant payments as a gateway drug. Bills in Congress are trying to block it, but the pressure from global bodies like the IMF is intense.

India’s digital rupee is in advanced pilots, Brazil’s Drex is gearing up for 2025 tests, and Russia’s digital ruble is expanding amid sanctions. Even the UK is consulting on a “Britcoin.” Globally, 49 pilots are live, up from last year, showing the relentless march toward a world where your money is just data points in a government database. retail Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) aren’t just another tech gimmick; they’re the ultimate weapon in the globalist arsenal to enslave all. Unlike wholesale CBDCs, which are limited to banks and institutions, retail versions are designed for everyday folks. Issued directly by central banks, they’re programmable, trackable digital fiat that could replace cash entirely. As of 2025, over 130 countries are knee-deep in this nightmare, with pilots exploding and launches accelerating.  This isn’t innovation—it’s a surveillance state on steroids, threatening privacy, sovereignty, and economic stability.

Total Surveillance and Loss of Privacy: The End of Anonymous Transactions

Retail CBDCs turn every purchase into a data point for Big Brother. Unlike cash or even crypto, these digital dollars (or euros, yuan, whatever) are traceable by design. Governments could monitor your spending in real-time, linking it to digital IDs or social credit systems. Imagine: Buy too much ammo? Flagged. Donate to a “wrongthink” cause? Account frozen. China’s e-CNY is already doing this, tying money to behavior scores, and the ECB’s digital euro pilots are prepping the same for Europe by 2026. No more privacy; it’s a direct path to dystopia, where dissenters starve.

Programmable Money: Control Over What You Buy, When, and Where

CBDCs are programmable. Central banks can code in expiration dates, spending limits, or restrictions—e.g., no gas for your truck if you’ve hit your “carbon quota,” or funds that vanish if not spent on approved items. This isn’t sci-fi; Nigeria’s eNaira and the Bahamas’ Sand Dollar are live examples, forcing adoption by limiting cash withdrawals.

It’s centralized communism 2.0—enforcing agendas like green tyranny or wage controls without a vote. Trump’s recent CBDC ban pledge calls it out: a threat to “individual privacy and US sovereignty.”

Financial Instability and Bank Runs on Steroids

Retail CBDCs could gut traditional banks by pulling deposits into “safe” central bank accounts, sparking disintermediation and runs faster than 2008. No FDIC insurance here—just cyber vulnerabilities that could wipe out economies. The IMF’s own handbook admits CBDCs harden the zero lower bound, enabling negative interest rates to force spending. In the US, bills like the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act are fighting back, blocking Fed issuance without Congress, citing these risks.

Erosion of Cash and Sovereignty: Goodbye to True Freedom

Cash is king for anonymity and resilience—CBDCs aim to kill it off, making us dependent on glitchy, hackable systems. The EU’s digital euro, India’s rupee pilots, and Brazil’s Drex are all pushing this, with the US Fed exploring FedNow as a backdoor. Globally, 49 pilots are live, up from last year, per the Atlantic Council. Even the Bank of Canada is blueprinting a “privacy-focused” version—yeah, right, with compliance baked in. This cedes sovereignty to unelected bodies like the IMF or WEF, who push CBDCs as “the future.”

Cybersecurity Nightmares and Operational Risks

These systems are hacker magnets— a breach could expose billions. Mastercard’s whitepaper admits retail CBDCs face massive challenges here, needing hybrid models to mitigate. But in a world of state-sponsored hacks, do you trust central banks with zero-downtime promises? Defense Credit Union Council testified against it, citing disruption and threats. In 2025, the push is relentless: ECB prepping launch, RBI expanding, and even ANZ piloting with Chainlink. But resistance is growing. We must fight back—reject CBDCs, demand cash, and reclaim our sovereignty before it’s too late. The globalists won’t hand it over willingly; it’s up to us to take it. Stay vigilant!

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

‘The Resolution of the Russia/NATO Proxy War in Ukraine’; and despite the seemingly incongruous tones from various actors on in the year, there certainly has been a tremendous amount of progress made in the past few days – and we ought to address this first looking at the Putin-Trump Summit in Alaska. First, this Summit has the historic markings of the second Trump presidency in that this Summit orchestrated an event where Russian president Vladimir Putin landed in the United States for the FIRST TIME IN YEARS, reinforcing not only Trump’s commitment to peace, but also refuting the claim from other sects in the West that have claimed Putin was unwilling to use diplomacy (even with Ukraine’s western backers) towards ending the war. Meanwhile, the location of the summit – like that of most diplomatic summits – is not just a random scenic location, but was rather a calculated choice.

But, this commitment to peace through dialogue was perhaps further highlighted by the sentiments shared by Russian president Vladimir Putin, in stating that dialogue between Russia and the US was overdue, especially as there has been a need to move away from confrontation. Putin further re-echoed Trump’s sentiments, stating that the Ukraine conflict would have NEVER happened if Trump had been president in 2022; and also that the current situation in Ukraine is a tragedy and a deep pain for Russia; while also Russia agrees that Ukraine’s security must be ensured and stands ready to work on this through constructive dialogue.

Now, these sentiments underscore Russia’s commitment to diplomacy because the Alaska Summit was not a debut of this diplomacy-inclined commitment, and if anything these sentiments follow a long history of Russia’s willingness to prioritise diplomacy. You’d recall that we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ the various times that Russia put diplomatic resolution of the conflict on the table. For instance, in June 2008, as the US prepared to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed a European Security Treaty, calling for collective security and an end to NATO’s unilateralism. Suffice it to say, the US government at the time showed no interest whatsoever in Russia’s proposals, and instead proceeded with its long-held plans for NATO enlargement.

The second Russian proposal for negotiations came from Putin following the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, with the active complicity if not outright leadership of the US government. In fact, the evidence of US complicity in the coup was almost overwhelming; as assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on a phone line in January 2014 plotting the change of government in Ukraine, meanwhile, US Senators went personally to Kiev to stir up the protests. But then on February 21 2014 the Europeans, the US, and Russia brokered a deal with Yanukovych in which Yanukovych agreed to early elections. Yet the coup leaders reneged on the deal the same day, took over government buildings, threatened more violence, and deposed Yanukovych the next day.

Then after the West reneged on that diplomatic resolution, in the course of 2014, Putin called repeatedly for a negotiated peace, and this led to the Minsk II Agreement in February 2015 based on autonomy of the Donbas and an end to violence by both sides. CRUCIAL TO NOTE is that Russia did not claim the Donbas as Russian territory, but instead called for autonomy and the protection of ethnic Russians within Ukraine. The UN Security Council endorsed the Minsk II agreement, but the US neocons privately subverted it. Years later, Chancellor Angela Merkel then blurted out the truth, which is that the Western side treated the agreement not as a solemn treaty but rather as a delaying tactic to “give Ukraine time” to build its military strength.

Following the definitive collapse of the Minsk II agreement, Putin again proposed negotiations with the US in December 2021. By that point, the issues went even beyond NATO enlargement to include fundamental issues of nuclear armaments. Step by step, the U.S. neocons had abandoned nuclear arms control with Russia, with the US unilaterally abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, placing Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania in 2010 onwards, and walking out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty in 2019.

Following this, the fourth offer of Putin to negotiate came in March 2022, when Russia and Ukraine nearly closed a peace deal just weeks after the start of Russia’s special military operation that began on February 24, 2022. Russia, once again, was after one big thing: Ukraine’s neutrality, i.e., no NATO membership and no hosting of US missiles on Russia’s border. Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky quickly accepted Ukraine’s neutrality, and Ukraine and Russia exchanged papers, with the mediation of the Foreign Ministry of Turkey. Then suddenly, at the end of March, Ukraine abandoned the negotiations. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson actually flew to Kiev to warn Zelensky against neutrality and the importance of Ukraine defeating Russia on the battlefield.

Then, we then saw Russia’s fifth offer of negotiations, explained clearly and cogently by Putin himself in his speech to diplomats at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14 2024. Putin laid out Russia’s proposed terms to end the war in Ukraine. Putin stated that “Ukraine should adopt a neutral, non-aligned status, be nuclear- free, and undergo demilitarization and de-nazification. He also added that “These parameters were broadly agreed upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, including specific details on demilitarisation such as the agreed numbers of tanks and other military equipment. And this tone and willingness to prioritise diplomacy has been consistent from Russia, even as we now see more meaningful engagement from the West (in particular the US), since president Trump’s re-entry into office.

THE COMPARATIVE GAIN THAT CAME WITH THE PUTIN-TRUMP ALASKA SUMMIT

Evidently, the Putin-Trump Alaska Summit was not a debut of Russia’s diplomacy-inclined commitment, INSTEAD the sentiments shared in that Summit follow a long history of Russia’s willingness to prioritise diplomacy.

Now someone might ask: What then of Russia’s war effort, seeing as they have not stopped military operations, while uttering a commitment to diplomacy? And the answer to this is fairly straightforward. First, Russia has always been open to diplomacy, but they have shown that they are also prepared for military confrontations – afterall, good leaders prepare for war in a time of peace, and Russia clearly has done that. Secondly, Russia is not the only fighting party in the war, and so, its military operations must never be viewed in isolation from those of NATO and Ukraine.

Therefore, while Russia has been engaged in military operations, it nevertheless stands that diplomacy has always been a possibility with Russia, and the significance of the Putin-Trump Summit is that Russia not only has an opportunity to highlight this to the West and the world at large – particularly in a joint summit with president Trump who has shown a willingness to prioritise diplomacy in resolving this conflict as well; BUT this is also being done in collaboration with the US, which in previous administrations had served a neo-con agenda on undermining diplomacy to pursue NATO’s expansionist goals. Which then means that the Putin-Trump Alaska Summit has presented a comparative gain or advantage in such a way that we are seeing parties with a considerable influence on the resolving of this conflict make a joint commitment to diplomacy – first because Russia has always committed to this, and second because Trump is discontinuing the war-inclined policy of previous US administrations with his commitment to peace. And this is why I found it quite crucial that Putin then highlighted a hope that mutual understanding with Trump will pave the way for peace in Ukraine, and thus urged Kiev and Europe not to hinder the emerging progress in resolving the conflict.

THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELENSKY 

Let’s proceed to discuss the meeting at the White House, between president Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky. And in a notable contrast to the meeting between Trump and Zelensky at the White House earlier this year, president Trump expressed a general tone of optimism in resolving the conflict. He emphasised good progress towards finally ending the conflict, as both Putin and Zelensky want to resolve it; and stating that European leaders also want peace.

Now, in terms of the specific details and the comparative analysis between this meeting and previous ones, a number of things stand out. First, president Trump articulated that NATO will cover the costs of US weapons for Ukraine. This is an incredibly strategic position as far as US involvement is concerned, because it builds on the principles that informed the minerals deal that was offered to Ukraine, in that the minerals deal is an agreement that would give the US access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth minerals, with the intention to help US taxpayers “get their money back” for aid sent to Ukraine throughout the war. And so, similarly, Trump is saying if the US will offer assistance in the form of weapons to Ukraine, someone has to pay for this immediate transaction, as opposed to keeping that burden on US taxpayers.

And – by the way – this is a message that Trump has promulgated since July; you’d recall that in his meeting with the NATO Secretary General, president Trump confirmed even then that NATO will be handling ALL OF THE COSTS of any defensive or offensive weapons being sent to Ukraine. And so, as US Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker put it: “The days of the United States sending unlimited taxpayer dollars to defend Ukraine are over. Europe and Canada will pay for the weapons; and the United States will manufacture them.”

Now, what also stood out in the meeting between presidents Trump and Zelensky is that much like was agreed between Putin and Trump, the subject of Ukraine’s security is deemed paramount. And so, in the meeting with Trump and Zelensky this was re-echoed, as Trump highlighted that Ukraine will get “good” protection, HOWEVER, this does not appear to be hinged on Ukraine joining the NATO, alliance as NATO aspirations were not discussed, and security guarantees will also be revealed later.

While seemingly inconclusive, this is actually a very strategic direction, because the one consistent point from Russia regarding the relationship between NATO and the West is that Ukraine cannot have NATO membership; that would be the final line crossed in NATO’s agreement not to expand eastward part Germany, enabling it to surround Russia’s naval fleet at Sevastopol. And so, not only is it plausible that the talks between Trump and Zelensky did not make Ukraine’s NATO membership central to a resolution, but this must actually be refuted going forward, because ironically, it would serve to fuel perpetual strife between the two nations. Again, the Cuban-missile crisis serves as the perfect case study.

But, ultimately, there is a concession on security guarantees, which will be discussed more in future, including the exchange of prisoners, and here’s more on this and the plan to set up a meeting between the US, Russia and Ukraine as president Trump gave Zelensky the opportunity to reveal what was discussed in their meeting.

THE QUESTION ON TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS RE-EMERGED

Then, the question on territorial concessions re-emerged once again. In particular, Zelensky gave no clear answer on territorial concessions. But, the consistent tone from the liberal side of this discourse has doubled down on the claim that territorial concessions cannot be part of a peaceful resolution. In fact, this sentiment dates back to the previous NATO regime under Jens Stoltenberg, where they very audaciously rejected a peace deal on behalf of Ukraine because they were not keen on territorial concessions.

Now, we’ve spoken extensively about this matter on territorial concession. On the one hand, I believe the Donbas and Crimea have a legal and democratically expressed claim to independence or session from Ukraine – based on the referendums that took place with majority votes in support of sessions or a Russian identity. Secondly, if you caught the Sunday Podcast with Tatenda Belle Panshe and myself, you would have caught her remarks on there generally being an understanding that territories that are lost in war tend to go to the victor, and so that principle stands even in the status quo. Which is quite fair because Russia is not stealing these territories, they successfully made military advancements and thus have broader control in those areas, especially the southern Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.

Then on the other hand, here is the nuance that I think lies embedded in the discussion on territorial concessions: at the centre of this appears to be a means for the West to have a justification for their claims of Russian aggression or expansionism; because otherwise, Russia is not that villainous an actor, and they actually are not fighting Ukraine for land (like the West has claimed for the longest time); and are RATHER actually just fighting to keep NATO away from their border, while protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine. And so, the discourse on land concessions is not about Ukraine’s sovereignty, but about clinging to shreds of the political legitimacy they tried to stir for this proxy war they started.

This is why at the NATO Summit in 2024, then US president Joe Biden said that Russian President Vladimir Putin “wants nothing less than Ukraine’s total subjugation… and to wipe Ukraine off the map.” The Declaration goes further, saying that NATO is “determined to constrain and contest Russia’s aggressive actions and to counter its ability to conduct destabilising activities towards NATO and Allies.” HOWEVER, Putin has insisted that “this conflict is not about territory” but about security arrangements, a claim that is consistent not only with Russia’s stated war goals, but with the limited number of troops Russia committed to Ukraine. Those troops, according to Putin, “were there to push the Ukrainian side to negotiations,” and their numbers only grew after the West intervened to block those negotiations.

There is no evidence in the historical record that Russia intends to conquer all of Ukraine or to “wipe Ukraine off the map.” So much so that Ukrainian officials involved in the Istanbul negotiations with Russia confirm that Russia’s key demand in ending the war was a written promise that Ukraine would not join NATO. Not to mention, if Russia had wanted to conquer more Ukrainian land, they had the ability and the means in 2014 when Putin had a mandate from the Russian parliament to use military force in Ukraine, not just Crimea! Russia could have annexed the Donetsk and Lugansk regions that same year when they voted for autonomy, but Putin neither pre-maturely or abruptly recognised the results nor acted on requests to accept the regions as part of Russia. In addition, Russia could have, in 2008, incorporated Georgia when they had the opportunity to do so or even recognised the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and then annexed them. But, again, Putin did not. In fact, right up until the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, Putin remained committed to the Minsk II Accords and was still urging France and Germany to pressure Ukraine to implement them. That solution would have left an autonomous Donbass in Ukraine.

Therefore, we must not let people who are bent on sustaining this proxy war pretend that the lack of land concessions from Ukraine is the pinnacle of resistance to Russian expansionism – emphatically no. All this is is NATO needing a win, because they otherwise have to reckon with the fact that they lied about Russian aggression and also that Russia beat Ukraine despite their assistance. Which is precisely why this is a proxy war between NATO and Ukraine, and why Russia must focus on ending the war directly with NATO as well.

THE QUESTION ON UKRAINIAN ELECTIONS

Now, regarding elections in Ukraine – which are long overdue – Zelensky stated that elections would be possible only under security conditions. However, the presidential term of the head of Ukraine has run out, and Zelensky is no longer a legitimate President according to the Constitution of Ukraine. Secondly, a significant number of Ukrainians want a restoration of constitutional order and the implementation of their right to have elections. This is an important consideration – especially in light of what the reconstruction period will look like in Ukraine after the war has ended.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” on August 7, 2025, which actively prohibits financial institutions from denying or restricting access to banking services based on individuals’ or businesses’ political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities, a practice commonly known as “debanking.” This move directly addresses concerns surrounding past government-influenced programs, such as “Operation Chokepoint,” where regulators allegedly pressured banks to limit services to specific industries or groups without conducting objective risk assessments, targeting those associated with conservative views, firearms sales, or digital assets. The order explicitly highlights instances where banks, under the influence of federal regulators, have restricted services to law-abiding customers, including flagging transactions involving terms like “Trump” or “MAGA,” or purchases from retailers like Bass Pro Shop or Cabela’s, without any evidence of wrongdoing. It asserts that such practices actively violate principles of free expression, erode trust in the banking system, and potentially contravene laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The order mandates that banking decisions must be based solely on individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses, rather than political or ideological biases, to ensure fair and unbiased access to banking services for all Americans.

The Executive Order titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,”

The administration is taking decisive action to combat financial discrimination, building on previous initiatives such as dismantling “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” and launching task forces like the DOJ-Virginia Equal Access to Banking Task Force. Citing concrete examples of banks unfairly denying services to Republican events, conservative groups, and cryptocurrency firms – including those owned by former President Trump – the order sends a clear message. Regulators, including the OCC and FDIC, are actively affirming their commitment to ensuring fair access to financial services, leaving financial institutions on notice that they will face intense scrutiny. Institutions that have engaged in debanking practices may now face investigations, penalties, or referrals to the DOJ, and will be required to prioritize reinstating services to previously denied clients. This move is poised to benefit industries such as cryptocurrencies, firearms, and conservative causes by reducing discriminatory practices, although some critics argue that it may limit the ability of financial institutions to manage risk. Conservatives and crypto enthusiasts are widely hailing the order as a major victory against censorship and “woke” banking practices, with many noting its potential to curb the ability of payment processors like Visa and Mastercard to pressure platforms over content. Alliance Defending Freedom’s Ryan Bangert discussed the new executive order on debanking.

Main Directives of Executive Order Banning Political Debanking

Federal agencies are now required to eradicate debanking practices

Federal agencies are now required to take immediate action to eradicate debanking practices, and they must do so in a swift and efficient manner. All federal banking regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are ordered to take the following steps within 180 days: remove any language related to “reputation risk” from their guidance, manuals, and materials, excluding regulations that require notice and comment, as this could be used to justify debanking practices. They must also issue formal guidance to examiners and consider rescinding or amending existing regulations to ensure that assessments are based on risk and are apolitical in nature.

Marc Andreesen spoke on Elizabeth Warrens agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has spent the last 4 years terrorizing people via debanking. Consumer Complaints to CFPB from 2023–2024 were over 8,000. Complaints documented improper account closures without explanation.

The Small Business Administration has been given a deadline of 60 days to provide notice and 120 days to take action, and during this time, they must notify all institutions under their jurisdiction to identify and reinstate any clients who were debanked unlawfully, notify potential clients who were previously denied services and offer them renewed access, and specifically address any instances of payment processing denials.

All federal banking regulators have been given 120 days to review financial institutions for any past or current policies that may have promoted debanking, and if any violations of laws such as the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Consumer Financial Protection Act are found, they must impose remedies, including fines, consent decrees, or disciplinary actions. Within 180 days, all federal banking regulators must examine supervisory and complaint data to identify any instances of debanking based on religion, and if any violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act are found, they must refer these cases to the Attorney General for potential civil action. The Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the Economic Policy Advisor, has been given 180 days to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat debanking, including exploring legislative or regulatory options to prevent this practice from occurring in the future.

Debanking: a form of lawfare and censorship

Some notable recent examples from 2023–2025 highlight patterns involving major banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, as well as crypto-related cases. In 2024, Marc Andreessen, a Billionaire Investor, prominent venture capitalist and Trump supporter involved in crypto, was debanked by an unspecified bank. He described it as a form of “lawfare and censorship” targeting those exposing corruption or opposing narratives, making it a rallying cry among crypto advocates. 30 Tech Founders were secretly debanked in late 2024 with no warning, explanation, or appeals, described as “pure, silent government power” destroying companies. Cryptocurrency Companies were also targeted. In early 2023, federal regulators (Fed, FDIC, OCC) issued a joint statement on heightened risks from crypto, leading to debanking of related firms. This built on a 2022 FDIC memo pausing services, with ongoing impacts into 2025. Additionally, in May 2025, Montana’s DOJ demanded answers from Wells Fargo for debanking practices tied to Biden-era net-zero goals.

The despicable workings of Operation Chokepoint

Marc Andreessen introduced the topic of Operation Chokepoint. Let’s delve into it. Back in 2013, under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched this thing called Operation Chokepoint. Officially, it was sold as a crackdown on fraud and money laundering by going after “high-risk” businesses that banks were servicing. The idea? Pressure banks and payment processors to cut off accounts for industries the feds didn’t like, effectively “choking” them out of the financial system without ever proving any wrongdoing in court. The DOJ teamed up with regulators like the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to label these businesses as “reputational risks” for banks. If a bank kept serving them, they’d face extra scrutiny, audits, or even threats to their own operations. No due process, no trials—just backroom arm-twisting. It was classic big government overreach, using the financial system as a weapon to enforce policy without Congress’s say-so. Small businesses got crushed, jobs lost, all while the feds played judge and jury. By 2014, Congress caught wind and investigated. House reports slammed it as an abuse of power, saying it “choked out” companies the administration just didn’t favor. Lawsuits piled up, and in 2017, under President Trump, the DOJ officially shut it down, calling it unfair and ineffective. Good riddance, right? But like a zombie, it never really died—it just morphed. Enter Chokepoint 2.0 in the Biden years, and this time aimed at the crypto industry.

Regulators like the FDIC and OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) started whispering to banks about “risks” in digital assets, leading to mass debanking of crypto firms. Accounts closed overnight, no explanations, just because they dealt in Bitcoin or blockchain tech. It was the same playbook: Use vague “reputational risk” to scare banks away from innovative sectors that threaten the status quo.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

So, let’s talk about online safety, es for young children. Online safety for young children is a critical issue, given the predatory risks and harmful content they can encounter on the web. Social media platforms, while offering connectivity and creativity, have indeed exposed kids to dangers like grooming, cyberbullying, and inappropriate content. There are monsters that are lurking the web looking for who to prance on. The question now; is an Online Safety Act—like Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 or the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023—the solution? Well, a quick look shows that there are even bigger monsters lurking within.

Countries have been gradually introducing “Online Safety Laws”

The Trojan Horse: Online safety legislation

Let’s start with the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 specific to Australia, where it was passed on November 29, 2024. It sets a minimum age of 16 for social media use, effective by December 2025. No other country has an The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 bans children under 16 from holding social media accounts, with platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X required to enforce age restrictions. Non-compliance can result in fines up to AUD 49.5 million. The law emphasizes privacy protections and places the onus on platforms, not parents or children.

The United Kingdom Online Safety Act 2023, effective from 2025, mandates social media platforms to enforce age limits consistently and protect children from harmful content. It does not set a specific minimum age but requires platforms to assess risks to children and implement age-appropriate restrictions. There is discussion about a potential Australia-style ban for under-16s, but no such law has been enacted yet.

Since June 2023, French law requires social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users under 15 to create accounts. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also mandates parental consent for processing personal data of children under 16, though France lowered this to 15. Technical challenges have delayed enforcement, and proposals exist to ban smartphones for under-11s and internet-enabled phones for under-13s, but these are not yet law. In Germany under GDPR, children aged 13–15 need parental consent to use social media. No stricter national age limit exists, and there are no plans to increase it. Italian children under 14 require parental consent to sign up for social media accounts under GDPR and national laws. In 2024, Norway proposed amending its Personal Data Act to raise the minimum age for social media use from 13 to 15, though parents can still consent for younger users. Legislation is under development, with no clear timeline for enactment. GDPR-based national laws in require social media users to be at least 13, with no additional national restrictions mentioned.

In the United States the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires parental consent for children under 13 to use social media. The proposed Protecting Kids on Social Media Act would mandate age verification for account holders, but it is not yet law. At the state level, California passed a 2024 law, effective 2027, to prevent platforms like TikTok from tailoring content to children based on their data. Indonesia In January 2025, the Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs expressed interest in introducing social media age restrictions similar to Australia’s, but no legislation has been enacted or proposed yet.

How Parental Responsibility has been subverted by Government

So according to the Australian government, it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. Any child in Australia without a parental lock can access a pornographic website that does not require an account by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. If this bill accomplished anything good, it should have been to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.

Online Safety Laws for Censorship, Surveillance and Control

Online safety Bill wants young people to be protected against hideous content, they will need to prove they are 16 to access websites. But they can change their gender and take a covid fake vaccine at any age, without parental consent. Jokes on us if we let it. Ursula Von Der Leyen made the connection.

The proposed online safety bill is taking a drastic measure to shield young people from explicit content, requiring them to verify their age as 16 to access certain websites. Meanwhile, it’s astonishing that minors can alter their gender identity and receive a COVID-19 vaccine without needing parental consent. It’s a disturbing reality that we’re allowing to unfold.

Isn’t it intriguing that the blame for corrupting kids is being placed on the internet, rather than the adults who are actually controlling it? Let’s set the record straight: yes, the online world is plagued by vile and disturbing content. However, what’s not being disclosed is that major online platforms such as YouTube, Meta, and TikTok have had the technological capability to detect and filter out objectionable content instantly for years. If a user hums just three notes of a copyrighted song, their video is immediately flagged – a feature that Shazam has been utilizing since 2008. It’s astounding that these platforms can identify a bassline but claim they’re unable to detect a beheading. This is not a matter of technological limitations, but rather a lack of willingness to use their capabilities for the greater good, unless it aligns with their interests. Once you grant Big Tech the power to filter content, you’re just one algorithm tweak away from censorship – not just of explicit material, but of any content that doesn’t suit their brand. This is exactly what they used during COVID, anyone who spoke against what they dictated was blocked and disallowed. Trust me, they are coming there. Gradually.

They’re essentially placing a digital ankle bracelet on every 15-year-old

So, what’s the response of governments? Instead of regulating these platforms and demanding transparency in their algorithms, they’re opting for a more invasive approach. They’re essentially placing a digital ankle bracelet on every 15-year-old, requiring IDs, biometrics, voice scans, and face scans. This is a prime example of lazy policy-making, a nightmare for privacy, and a blatant con. The technology to address this issue exists, and it’s possible to do so without treating every individual like a criminal. It’s time to stop pretending that this is about safety and acknowledge the truth: this is just a new excuse to monitor, monetize, and manipulate the entire population, starting with the most vulnerable – our children. But it goes further, something called function creep. This is a tool for censorship and surveillance. Not only for 15-year-olds, but for everyone.

U.K Online Safety Act comes into Effect

Let’s zoom into the U.K now. The British Labour Government is considering the option of banning VPNs, due to a surge in VPN usage in the UK, following the passing of the controversial Online Safety Act. For years, politicians from across the political spectrum insisted the Online Safety Act would focus solely on illegal content – shielding children from pornography, criminal exploitation, and material encouraging or assisting suicide – without threatening free expression. But from the moment its age-verification duties took effect on 25 July, that reassurance began to unravel. Social media sites, search engines, and video-sharing services are now legally required to shield under-18s from content deemed harmful to their mental or physical well-being. Failure to comply risks fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater. At the heart of the regime is a requirement to implement “highly effective” age checks. If a platform cannot establish with high confidence that a user is over 18, it must restrict access to a wide category of ‘sensitive’ content, even when that content is entirely lawful.

This has major implications for platforms where news footage, protest clips or political commentary appear in real time. Ofcom’s guidance makes clear that simple box-ticking exercises – like declaring your age or agreeing to terms of service – will no longer suffice. Instead, platforms are expected to use tools like facial age estimation, ID scans, open banking credentials, or digital identity wallets. The Act also pushes companies to filter harmful material before it appears in users’ feeds. Ofcom’s broader regulatory guidance warns that recommender systems can steer young users toward material they didn’t ask for. In response, platforms may now be expected to reconfigure their algorithms to filter out entire categories of lawful expression before it reaches underage or unverified users. One platform already moving in this direction is X. Its approach offers a revealing – and potentially sobering – glimpse of where things may be heading. The company uses internal signals, including when an account was created, any prior verification, and behavioural data, to estimate a user’s age. If that process fails to confirm the user is over 18, they are automatically placed into a sensitive content filtering mode. As the platform’s Help Centre explains: “Until we are able to determine if a user is 18 or over, they may be defaulted into sensitive media settings and may not be able to access sensitive media.” Listen to Zia Yusuf, Head of DOGE for Reform UK and Former Co-founder & CEO Velocity Black.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

First, let’s talk potential. Africa is sitting on a goldmine—60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land. That’s right, 60%! Agriculture is already 35% of our GDP, employing more Africans than any other sector. Our agricultural market is worth $280 billion today, and with the right moves, it could hit $1 trillion by 2030. Look at Ethiopia: they expanded wheat production from 50,000 hectares in 2018 to 650,000 by 2022, wiping out wheat imports and exporting to Kenya and Djibouti. That’s the Africa we all want—a continent that feeds itself and the world! But here’s the reality check. Despite this potential, one in five Africans goes to bed hungry. 140 million of us face acute food insecurity. Why? It’s systemic barriers, some homegrown, some imposed from outside.

Barriers to Food Security in Africa 

Number one: underinvestment. In 2003, African governments signed the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme agreement, promising 10% of their budgets to agriculture. In 2021, the average was a measly 4.1%. Senegal’s excelling at 11%, and their sector’s thriving, but most countries are falling short. Number two: a financing gap. Africa needs $27 to $65 billion a year to transform agriculture, but banks lend just 3% of their portfolios to farming, even though it’s 29% of our GDP. High interest rates—often over 20%—and demands for collateral worth five times the loan lock out smallholder farmers, who produce 80% of our food. Mila Aziablé, Togo’s Minister of Water and Sanitation.

Then there’s the supply chain mess. Poor roads, outdated ports, and bad storage mean they lose 30% of our food imports before they even reach the market. Mechanization? Only 4-5% of our farms use modern equipment, compared to 95% in the US. Irrigation? Just 6% of our arable land, versus 70% in Asia. Add weather shocks—droughts, floods—and external disruptions like the Russia-Ukraine war, which cut 30 million metric tons from global food supplies, spiking prices. It’s a stacked deck.

The globalists and their corporations holding Africa back

Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: globalists and their corporations. Are they holding Africa back? You bet they are, and the numbers don’t lie. Let’s start with land grabs. Since 2000, foreign companies—mostly from the West and Asia—have snatched up 30 million hectares of African land. That’s the size of Italy. In Mozambique, 2.7 million hectares went to agribusiness for cash crops like palm oil, not food for Africans. These deals, often backed by global institutions like the World Bank, push smallholder farmers off their land, undermining the very people feeding the nations.

Then there’s trade. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries pump $250 billion a year into agricultural subsidies, letting them flood African markets with cheap goods. Take EU poultry exports—$1.2 billion annually. They’ve crushed Ghana’s poultry industry, where local production dropped 40% between 2010 and 2020. Or US cotton subsidies, $20 billion a year, which tank global prices and hurt farmers in Mali, where cotton is 15% of GDP. These globalist trade rules, pushed by the WTO and EU agreements, keep them dependent on imports while intra-African trade—only 15% of our exports—languishes.

Seed Monopolies: 60% Controlled by Multinationals

And don’t sleep on the seed game. Global agribusiness giants like Monsanto, now Bayer, control 60% of commercial seeds in sub-Saharan Africa. Their GMO and hybrid seeds force farmers to buy new ones every year, jacking up costs.

 In Nigeria, Bt maize raised input costs by 30% for smallholders, with no guaranteed yield boost. Compare that to Vietnam, which tripled cereal yields since 1980 by investing in local inputs. We’re locked into a system that profits corporations, not farmers.

Africa has been overshadowed by colonial legacies and donor-driven policies

Willis Ochieng, Executive Director of the Centre for Rural Empowerment and Agricultural Transformation for Sustainability says reviving indigenous knowledge is key to addressing food insecurity and climate change in Africa, I don’t agree with his sentiments on Climate Change because we know it’s a hoax but Ochieng argued that Africa already possesses deep-rooted, sustainable practices, but these have been overshadowed by colonial legacies and donor-driven policies.

Then there’s debt. The IMF and World Bank’s structural adjustment programs in the ‘80s and ‘90s forced countries like Zambia to slash agricultural subsidies by 50%, leading to a 20% drop in maize production by 2000. Today, African countries spend 25% of their budgets servicing debt, starving investments in irrigation and mechanization. And let’s not forget illicit financial flows—$89 billion a year, or 3.7% of our GDP, siphoned off by multinationals through tax evasion. In the DRC, mining firms alone cost the country $1.5 billion in 2019. That’s money we could use to cut our 30% post-harvest losses.

Africa can feed itself: how to break free

So, how do we break free and feed ourselves? First, governments must invest in roads, storage, irrigation—basics that work. Senegal’s doing it; all can. Second, close the $240 billion financing gap. The African Development Bank’s $1.3 billion food production facility is a start, supporting 20 million farmers with seeds. Prof. Pascal K.T. Angui, Director General of Production and Food Security in Côte d’Ivoire’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Third, lean into fintech. Mobile money accounts exploded from 30 million in 2012 to 560 million in 2021, with 95% loan repayment rates. Fourth, stop the $89 billion in illicit financial flows. Tax evasion by multinationals has to end—imagine that money building storage to save our harvests. Fifth, supercharge intra-African trade through the AfCFTA and alliances that favour the African Agenda. South Africa’s Deputy Director for Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Peter Ramolotja

Only 5% of our cereal imports come from within Africa—let’s change that. And finally, Ditch the Climate Change Hoax! Africa can feed itself. We’ve got the land, the people, the potential. Our yield gap is 90%—we could nearly double output with the right tools. By 2030, we could turn a $280 billion market into $1 trillion. But it starts with us—demanding accountability, redirecting capital, and telling globalists: Africa’s table is set by Africans.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe