Friday, May 15, 2026

Europe's Green Deal Is Unraveling


Europe's Green Deal Is Unraveling
 Mohamed Moutii via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)



Over the past decade, Europe has played a leading role in shaping global climate policy, highlighted by the launch of the European Green Deal in 2019—Ursula von der Leyen described it as a “man on the moon moment.” The initiative aims to make Europe the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050 while fostering innovation and strengthening its industrial base.

Yet several years later, the results are deeply disappointing. Instead of meeting its goals, the Green Deal is increasingly associated with higher energy costs, weakened competitiveness, and growing political backlash. It has deepened divisions within the EU, strained global relations, and increased pressure on households and businesses—raising serious doubts about its feasibility and long-term economic impact.


Europe’s economic stagnation points to a deeper structural problem in its energy and climate strategy—one closely tied to the direction set by the European Green Deal. Since its launch, competitiveness has eroded sharply, with soaring energy costs at its core. Electricity prices in Europe are now two to three times higher than in the United States and China, with taxes accounting for nearly a quarter of the total cost.

These outcomes largely stem from policy choices. The EU’s binding targets—net zero by 2050 and a 55-percent emissions reduction by 2030—have constrained energy supply, despite Europe accounting for only six percent of global emissions. At the same time, phasing out nuclearrestricting gas, and relying on intermittent renewables have weakened energy security and increased price volatility. For industry—where energy can account for up to 30 percent of total production costs—this, combined with carbon pricing, has become a critical constraint, driving firms to scale back, relocate, or shut down, accelerating deindustrialization across the continent.

The automotive industry clearly illustrates these pressures: representing over 7 percent of EU GDP and nearly 14 million jobs, the sector is under pressure from the 2035 ban on combustion engines, forcing a rapid shift to electric vehicles despite unresolved technological challenges and market constraints. As Mercedes-Benz CEO Ola Källenius warned, the policy risks driving the sector “full speed into a wall.” The consequences for the sector are already visible: declining production, mounting restructuring, and significant job losses—86,000 jobs since 2020, with up to 350,000 more at risk by 2035—while tightening regulations are set to reduce profits by seven to eight percent by 2030, pushing the sector toward losses and eroding Europe’s automotive leadership.


Agriculture has also become one of the Green Deal’s clearest casualties. Stricter rules on emissions, land use, pesticides, and fertilizers are raising costs and increasing yield volatility, hitting small farmers hardest and accelerating consolidation among large agribusinesses. Targets such as cutting pesticide use by 50 percent and expanding organic farming risk significant declines in output, threatening both rural livelihoods and food security. Rather than enabling farmers to innovate and improve productivity, these policies are constraining production—fueling widespread protests and weakening both competitiveness and sustainability.

Taken together, these pressures are not isolated—they reflect a broader economic burden. The European Commission estimates that the transition will require at least €260 billion in additional investment each year, with total costs reaching up to 12 percent of EU GDP—a burden that is increasingly difficult for the European economy to sustain.

The economic strain is now translating into political backlash. In recent years, opposition to the European Green Deal has surged across the continent—from farmers and industrial groups to voters and political parties. The 2024 EU elections confirmed what was already clear: the once-dominant green consensus is fracturing. In response, Brussels has begun quietly rolling back key elements of the policy—weakening regulations, introducing loopholes, and even avoiding the term “Green Deal” itself. What was presented as a historic transformation is now unraveling.

This backlash reflects a deeper failure. Although the EU allocated $680 billion from 2021 to 2027—over a third of its budget—the Green Deal has achieved only modest environmental improvements, while imposing a heavy economic burden on households and businesses, who now face higher energy prices, taxes, and regulatory pressure.






The Dark Symbolism Behind the “Fashion Art”


MET Gala 2026: The Dark Symbolism Behind the “Fashion Art”
Vigilant Citizen


While the media is in awe of the creativity of the outfits at the 2026 MET Gala, most miss the dark symbolism and references behind them, which often allude to the entertainment industry's darker side. Here's a look at the most symbolic outfits and those who parade in them. 

Covering the MET Gala has become a yearly tradition on Vigilant Citizen because, well, I just have to. In many ways, it sums up the contents of this site in one ridiculous yet deeply revealing event. Through a parade of industry slaves and powerful people seeking attention, symbolic outfits are used to celebrate the elite’s control, glorify its dogma, and fetishize its darkest impulses.

This year, more than ever, the outfits put on display by the world’s biggest celebrities were rife with symbolism and references to works of art from the past.

The theme of the 2026 MET Gala was “Costume Art,” which explores the relationship between clothing and the body. The corresponding dress code was “Fashion is Art,” encouraging attendees to treat the body as a canvas with artistic, over-the-top, and sculptural looks inspired by the new Costume Institute exhibition.

While every year has a different theme, the underlying theme is always the same: The occult elite controlling the industry. And celebrating its bizarre culture. This year’s theme was especially vague and open-ended, enabling creators to express their occult elite-ness brazenly.

Whether it’s through accessories that carry heavy symbolic meaning or outfits that are nothing less than “humiliation rituals,” the MET Galas are a yearly reminder that those who control the world are strange as hell.

Several outfits at the 2026 MET Gala were directly inspired by works of art, and when one understands the context and the references in these creations, one realizes that some dark, elite-sponsored messages are being communicated through “fashion art.”

More...


Israel prepares for renewed Iran fighting, builds target bank with US; possible Lebanon fallout


Israel prepares for renewed Iran fighting, builds target bank with US; possible Lebanon fallout


US President Trump to hold series of Iran discussions after returning to Washington, with renewed negotiations, pressure in Strait of Hormuz or fresh military action on the table; Israel updates target bank and may seek green light for renewed strikes in Beirut

After a short trip to China, U.S. President Donald Trump is set to return to Washington on Friday, where he is expected to hold a series of discussions on Iran.

The American president must now decide how to proceed with Tehran, with several options on the table: continuing negotiations in an effort to reach an interim agreement; renewing “Project Freedom” in the Strait of Hormuz while increasing military pressure on Iran; or resuming fighting, either through a limited, surgical strike or at high intensity.

Israel does not know what Trump will decide and understands that the decision could still take several days. Still, it is preparing for the possibility of renewed fighting, which would have direct implications for Israel.
Israeli officials are not certain the United States would ask Israel to join if it decides to resume combat. It is also possible that the Americans would prefer to ask Israel to stay on the sidelines. Washington understands that if Israel joins strikes on Iran, Tehran would fire missiles at Israel — creating a short path to high-intensity fighting on multiple fronts, potentially for a prolonged period, a scenario the Americans are not especially eager to see.

In any case, Israel’s political leadership has instructed the military to prepare for the possibility that the United States could renew fighting as early as this weekend.
In practice, since the start of the ceasefire, Military Intelligence and the Air Force have been working to renew the target bank, refresh operational capabilities and, above all, restore air superiority.
“This is not something that comes out of nowhere,” a security official said. “It is something that is built, and several actions are needed to achieve it. The enemy is learning.”
A range of possibilities is under discussion: from a broad resumption of fighting and strikes on energy facilities and critical infrastructure that Israel and the United States have so far avoided, to a more focused operation targeting high-value sites that would push the Iranians back to negotiations from a weaker position, to a renewed return to the Strait of Hormuz project.

In all these scenarios, Israel hopes to complete the mission — primarily removing Iran’s enriched nuclear material and also damaging its missile array, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described as an existential threat.

In recent weeks, representatives of the IDF and US Central Command have held discussions and worked on building a joint target bank in case fighting resumes.

Israel would like to see fighting renewed with a focus on infrastructure and energy targets, believing this would bring the regime closer to collapse. The Americans, however, are wary of that approach, understanding that Iran could respond by striking energy facilities in the Gulf, leading to another rise in oil prices.

For now, in any case, Trump appears to be giving negotiations with Iran another chance and wants to exhaust that option.
If American fighting against Iran is renewed, it would also have immediate implications for the war picture in Lebanon. In such a scenario, Israel would ask the United States for a “green light” to renew strikes in Beirut, amid Hezbollah’s increased use of explosive drones.

There is deep frustration in Israel that the United States is preventing operations in Beirut. Israel would like greater freedom of action, but at the same time it wants to give negotiations with the Lebanese government a chance.
The IDF is positioned deep inside southern Lebanon and is entrenching its presence between the border and the yellow line. Most villages in the first and second lines have been almost completely destroyed. If fighting resumes, the assessment is that Hezbollah, which has been pushed deeper into the territory, would act mainly against IDF forces in Lebanon and less toward deep Israeli territory.

Europe’s long memory problem: The EU sanctions Jews for living in Judea


Europe’s long memory problem: The EU sanctions Jews for living in Judea


The nations that herded Jews into ghettoes, expelled them from their cities, and handed them over to Nazi death camps have now found a new cause: sanctioning Jews for the crime of living in Judea and Samaria. On Monday, the foreign ministers of all 27 European Union member states convened in Brussels and reached a political agreement to impose sanctions on Israeli settler leaders and organizations, equating them, in the same diplomatic breath, with Hamas terrorists.

An asset freeze means any funds or economic resources owned or controlled by the sanctioned individuals or organizations within EU jurisdiction are locked; banks in EU member states cannot process transactions for them, and any property or holdings in Europe cannot be accessed or transferred.

A travel ban means the sanctioned individuals are barred from entering or transiting through any of the 27 EU member states. For someone like Daniella Weiss or Meir Deutsch, that means being stopped at the border or potentially detained in any European country.

The EU has not yet released a formal list of targets, and a committee will still need to finalize the draft list before the sanctions are officially imposed. So at this stage, Monday’s decision is a political agreement, not yet an enforceable legal instrument.

It is also worth noting what the sanctions are not. They are not criminal charges. They carry no fines, no prison terms, and no legal proceedings. They do not restrict the sanctioned individuals from living in, building in, or advocating for Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Regavim can still file petitions in Israeli courts. Nachala can still organize. Daniella Weiss is still free to speak. The EU has essentially told a handful of Israeli citizens they cannot vacation in Paris or bank in Frankfurt and called it a landmark human rights decision.

Regavim’s head, Meir Deutsch, put it plainly: the sanctions are not really designed to change the behavior of the individuals named. Their real purpose, in his assessment, is to pressure the State of Israel into accepting the framework of a Palestinian state. The names on the list are instruments, not targets.


Monday’s agreement in Brussels is a political decision, not yet legally binding. A committee must still finalize the draft list, and technical and legal work remains to be done before the EU executive formally imposes the sanctions. The package targets three Israeli individuals and four settler organizations, though their identities have not yet been officially disclosed by the EU. According to Israel’s extreme left-wing Haaretz newspaper and the anti-Israel Peace Now movement, sanctions will be leveled against Regavim and its head, Meir Deutsch, HaShomer Yosh and its former chief, Avichai Suissa, Nachala and its head, Daniella Weiss, and the Amana settlement organization.

The practical consequences for those sanctioned are significant: the measures impose a travel ban and freeze the assets of the targeted settlers and organizations. For Deutsch, that could mean being detained upon arrival in any EU capital. He acknowledged as much, saying he may no longer be able to travel to European cities without facing some form of detention order, while noting the full practical implications remain unclear. He suggested it may be worth testing exactly what the sanctions mean on the ground.

The moral bankruptcy on display in Brussels was not lost on Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar. “Equally outrageous is the unacceptable comparison that the EU has chosen between Israeli citizens and Hamas terrorists,” Sa’ar posted on X. “This is a completely deviant moral commonality.” He called the sanctions “arbitrary and political,” and vowed that Israel “will continue to stand for the right of Jews to settle in the heart of our homeland.” Sa’ar added: “No other nation in the world has a documented and long-standing right to its land as the Jewish people have to the Land of Israel. This is a moral and historical right that has also been recognized by international law, and no actor can take it away from the Jews.”


More...


Xi Jinping's 'Thucydides Trap' Warning Is Really About American Decline


Xi Jinping's 'Thucydides Trap' Warning Is Really About American Decline
PNW STAFF



Google searches for the phrase "Thucydides Trap" surged after Chinese President Xi Jinping used the term during discussions surrounding his high-stakes meeting with President Donald Trump. For many Americans, it was likely the first time they had ever heard the phrase.

But in Beijing, it was not an obscure historical reference casually thrown into conversation.

In China's leadership circles, the phrase carries enormous strategic weight. It refers to the ancient idea, first written about by Greek historian Thucydides, that war often becomes likely when a rising power begins challenging an established one. In this case, the rising power is clearly China, and the established superpower is the United States.

But the most important part of Xi's warning may not be that China is rising. Rising powers have always existed throughout history. The deeper issue is this: China increasingly appears to believe America is vulnerable enough to challenge.

That should concern every American regardless of political party.

China No Longer Sees Itself As A Secondary Power

For decades, China carefully avoided directly confronting the United States on the world stage. Its leaders emphasized "peaceful rise," economic cooperation, and global trade integration. China became the factory of the world while America remained the unquestioned military and economic giant.

That tone has changed dramatically.


Today, Beijing openly speaks about reshaping the global order. China is rapidly expanding its military, increasing pressure on Taiwan, deepening alliances across Africa and the Middle East, and investing heavily in artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, and naval power.

Xi Jinping no longer speaks like the leader of a developing nation trying to find its place in the world. He speaks like the head of a civilization convinced its moment has arrived.

And perhaps more importantly, convinced America's best days may be fading.

Great Powers Are Usually Challenged When They Look Weak

Historically, rising powers rarely challenge nations that appear unified, economically dominant, culturally confident, and militarily overwhelming. They move when weakness becomes visible.


That is where this story stops being only about China and starts becoming about America itself.

The uncomfortable truth is that America increasingly projects instability to the outside world. China watches America's soaring debt, political paralysis, violent social division, border chaos, inflation struggles, and cultural fragmentation. It sees a nation deeply distracted by internal conflict.

America's national debt continues climbing toward levels once considered unimaginable. Trust in institutions has collapsed across much of the population. Military recruitment has struggled in recent years. Entire sectors of American manufacturing have become dependent on Chinese supply chains. Political tribalism has grown so intense that many Americans now view each other as enemies rather than fellow citizens.

From Beijing's perspective, this matters.