Latest news with #FreeWorld
Telegraph
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
A sinister Left-wing cabal is turning Britain into a dystopia
Who would have thought that a generation after the collapse of communism, freedom of speech would become controversial? Surely we had definitively settled this question of whether governments should prohibit or limit the expression of opinions. The Free World, as it was then known, had won the argument without even having to take up arms. Those peoples who had been subjected to the official suppression of ideas and information had repudiated that tyranny of their own accord. In East Germany, they simply walked out from under it. In Soviet Russia, Gorbachev's attempt at a more open, liberalised regime ended in ignominious collapse because a little bit of freedom just increased the longing for more. So surely there can be no doubt: liberty of thought and expression is what modern peoples demand. Yet here we are. A democratically elected government in a nation which gave the world Magna Carta has apparently installed a dedicated bureau to monitor all opinions put forward in public discourse. Further, it proposes legislation which would compel any forum that gave a platform to opinions considered to be unacceptable, to remove them. This is, prima facie, outrageous: a betrayal not only of the historic principles of open democracy but of the victories of freedom over totalitarianism that marked the last century. So how on earth could anyone – any political party or governing class – in the Western world possibly think that such a move was necessary or desirable? It would be easy (indeed it is easy) simply to condemn it as the arrogant imposition of what a smug elite considers the limits of morally acceptable opinion. Any statement or assertion that appears to be encouraging or condoning racism, or even prejudice against an approved social minority, must be policed out of existence. It is scarcely necessary to warn where this policy could lead – or what it implies about the attitude of the current Government to its own population. But perhaps this is a more complex and confusing situation than it appears and paradoxically, some of the factors that contribute to it may be the result of precisely the ideological successes of which the West is most proud. What is it exactly that has produced this panic over unlimited public expression? It is the unbridled, unchecked and irresponsible dissemination of supposed 'information', or opinions based on deliberately deceptive information, on publicly accessible platforms often augmented by fake videos, AI doctored photographs and false 'evidence'. This is a new thing for which traditional democratic societies have no previous experience. We have become aware quite suddenly of the possible consequences in terms of civil disorder and mortal risk that the dissemination of such material can produce – and that it now spreads remarkably, and terrifyingly, quickly. Suspicion, distrust and their anarchic effects can be ignited and propelled at a speed that those responsible for keeping order in the streets have not previously encountered. So yes, as you will have gathered, I do believe that the rise of social media – which has no enforced codes of practice or legal liability – is presenting civil authority with an unprecedented set of problems. That observation, of course, is not original. It is, in fact, the official justification used by the government for its repressive measures. The added element in this toxic mix which has received less attention is the use that these media serve in the infiltration by professional activists of any convenient social cause. As a youthful Trotskyite, I was tutored in the techniques of exploiting any social discontent as a force for undermining trust in capitalism and what was considered to be the sham of democratic freedom. At the end of every meeting of what was then called International Socialism (IS), now known as the Socialist Workers Party, a list was recited of the latest venues at which we were expected to appear, brandishing pre-printed posters and demonstrating solidarity with whatever protest group was currently disrupting the functions of an industry, government department or public agency. When I see all those disparate agitator groups now, whether they are demonstrating on behalf of the environment or against racism – carrying identical placards (generally with the words 'Socialist Workers Party' emblazoned at the top), I can guess what instructions they have been given. Make as much noise and monopolise as much of the television news coverage as you possibly can. Try to make the story about you and your message, even if you have been bussed in to compete with a genuine spontaneous protest over a local issue. I thought of this again when the police got into big trouble for apparently offering protection to, or even escorting, 'Stand Up to Racism' counter protestors at the site of a migrant hotel demonstration. Their presence appeared to be endorsed by the police who seemed to be shielding them from the anger of unworthy locals. But what should be done if, say, an anti-racist group's planned arrival makes it necessary for the police to prevent any potential violent confrontation and breakdown of public order? That would be, in my experience, a classic professional activists' technique. They would exploit the fact that it is the first responsibility of the police to maintain order in the streets whatever the issue. The ultimate irony may be that this phenomenon has been given extra propulsion by the collapse of communism. Back in the dark days of the Cold War, infiltration by the Left was a serious business run by serious people. The Communist party loathed what they considered to be juvenile, undisciplined Trotskyist messing around. My friends and I were regularly warned that our indiscriminate, ill-thought out negativism was going to discredit the sacred Marxist cause. While IS (now the SWP) handed out copies of the Socialist Worker newspaper on street corners, the Communist Party members maintained their terrifying diligence, their 'cover' identities and their dedicated take over of trade unions and nuclear disarmament campaigns. That's all gone now. Anti-capitalism in its most inchoate, incoherent and irresponsible form is running the show and it is making use of all the opportunities modern technology offers to spread dangerous lies and inflammatory messages. There is no easy answer to this.
New York Post
28-07-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Trump's trade wins shock the experts — who are blind to business reality
If America is in the midst of a trade war, the question we have to ask is: Are we tired of winning yet? President 'Donald Trump reaps $50bn tariff haul as world 'chickens out,'' reads the Financial Times headline. 'Only China and Canada have retaliated against US president's tariff war,' its subhead adds. 'In the Trump-dominated global economy, the US gets plenty but gives nothing in return,' reads a rueful post on X from Axios — another publication with an upmarket readership — promoting an article titled, 'Trump trade deals prove access to the US still matters above all else.' Populist publications have a different take on Trump's spate of trade victories. 'Trump's trade deal bloc — let's call it The Free World — now encompasses 57% of global GDP . . . 40% of total global trade in goods,' and '18% of the world's population,' according to Breitbart's John Carney. The president has only been in office six months, and his tariffs haven't even been in place that long, but already the results are undeniable. At a time when there otherwise seems to be no end to federal deficits, Trump's trade policy put the federal government in the black for the month of June, with a $27 billion surplus — and, as it happens, about $27 billion in tariff revenue. It's one thing that Trump so often surprises political opponents who underestimate him at election time and can't understand the root of his appeal. What's more remarkable is Trump seems to defy the very laws of economics — or rather, the law as laid down by economists. Other social sciences have lately lost credibility thanks to a 'republication crisis' that shows how the results reported in leading journals of psychology and other fields all too often fail to be repeated when experiments are conducted anew and data are re-examined. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Will the economics profession — whose mainstream is fervently in favor of free trade and is convinced tariffs are madness — face a similar reckoning for getting this test wrong? Trump can do things the economists say can't be done because he approaches trade the way he conducts his real-estate business: It's a negotiation, and leverage is what counts. Precisely because the United States has such an enormous trade deficit with the rest of the world — amounting to more than $918 billion in 2024 — other nations depend on access to our market as an outlet for their goods. The size and wealth of the American consumer base is unmatchable, and countries that get cut off from it can't easily make up the difference by selling more goods and services somewhere else. Whole industries in Europe and Asia would collapse without access to the American consumer. Trump is willing to give them access — for a price. Instead of using punitive tariffs to exclude foreign goods altogether, Trump is willing to strike a deal with anyone to allow goods to be sold in America at a price that makes the trade worthwhile for Americans and foreign companies alike. The hitch: The deal must be on terms favorable for American workers and industry. The president's arrangement with the European Union levies a 15% tariff on most EU goods — but that's peanuts compared to the 30% Trump was threatening if Europe didn't cooperate. The deal calls for new European investments of $600 billion in America, as well as for EU members to buy more energy and military equipment from us. The 15% tariff is higher than what European producers were paying before Trump returned to the White House — high enough that American producers will get some protective advantage, but not so high that foreign companies won't be able to compete. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters That's crucial because competition is what keeps prices down for American consumers. Foreign firms can't easily 'pass on' a tax on their goods — which is what a tariff is — to the Americans who buy their products when those same Americans can choose from domestic producers instead. The modest protection a 15% tariff affords gives more investors at home a reason to put their capital into American companies — which is good for our workforce and consumers alike. It means more jobs and more goods; more money in Americans' pockets and more stock on the shelves, which keeps prices down. There's risk in all this, but the upside opportunity is much greater, as entrepreneurs here and abroad recognize. For the Europeans, it's a no-brainer: The American market is so rife with profit possibilities that a 15% access fee is a very modest cost of doing business. American businesses should recognize their opportunity as well — they're native to a market the entire world is desperate to be in, and they should use that advantage to the fullest, investing at home and making the sales that foreign firms are so eager to make here. In this trade war, all Americans are winning — except, perhaps, the overeducated prisoners of the Ivory Tower. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
Fox News
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Exiled crown prince says Iranian people have 'tremendous opportunity' to topple weakened regime
The Iranian regime is weaker now than ever, and it's only a "matter of time" before it's toppled, exiled crown prince HRH Reza Pahlavi said Sunday on Fox News. Speaking on "Sunday Morning Futures," Pahlavi said the people of Iran are exactly the "boots on the ground" needed to overthrow the terrorism-sponsoring regime that has been in place for decades, and they now have a "tremendous opportunity" to make it happen. "It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when…" he told Maria Bartiromo, responding to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that Iranian senior leaders are "packing their bags" in light of his country's military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, military infrastructure and more. "The last time we spoke, I mentioned that the regime is at its weakest. As of the last three days, the regime was ten times weaker than it was two weeks ago," he added. At this stage, Pahlavi said, the Iranian people realize the "playing field" has been more equalized for them to take action and put power back into their own hands — but they need support from the outside world. "What they need… is solidarity from the free world to, once and for all, get rid of the problem, help Iranians overcome this regime and put an end to all the threats that this regime has been the root cause of for decades now in the region and beyond." Pahlavi warned the free world that eliminating the regime is the only way to secure a better tomorrow, thereby abolishing the threat of nuclear terror, reducing the stress of global economic instability and lessening the loss of innocent victims. "The Iranian people are willing to do their part. In fact, they've done this so many times with no help whatsoever, but they're willing to risk life and limb in order to finally overcome [this regime]," he said. "Last night, people on the streets were angry, chanting death to the dictator yet again. They know who the enemy is. The regime has been giving them the slogans of 'death to America' and 'death to Israel' for the past four decades, and Iranians have been responding, 'They lie to us when they say it's America. Our enemy is right here,' meaning the regime." "Fortunately, I see that more and more people, public opinion, media [outlets] and foreign governments, are finally making a clear distinction between the people of Iran and the regime, and that's key. That tells you right there that the solution is in front of your eyes. The Iranian people are your solution. Not negotiating with a regime that cannot be trusted."
eNCA
06-06-2025
- Politics
- eNCA
Renowned Mars expert says Trump-Musk axis risks dooming mission
WASHINGTON - Robert Zubrin quite literally wrote the book on why humanity should go to Mars -- so why has the renowned aerospace engineer soured on Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur leading the charge? In an interview, the 73-year-old founder of the Mars Society delivered a blistering critique, accusing the world's richest person of undermining the mission through divisive politics and a bleak vision of the Red Planet as an escape from Earth rather than a journey of hope. "On one level, he's absolutely instrumental in opening up this opportunity to get humans to Mars, both through the development of Starship and also the inspiration that has been caused," Zubrin told AFP, referring to Musk's prototype rocket. "But for it to succeed, it has to go beyond these -- this initiative cannot be seen as a Musk hobbyhorse or a Trump hobbyhorse -- it must be seen, at a minimum, as America's program, or preferably the Free World's program." Zubrin's 1996 book "The Case for Mars," since updated numerous times, laid out a practical blueprint for reaching and settling the Red Planet using existing technologies and local resources -- with the ultimate goal of transforming the atmosphere for long-term human habitation. - Supporter turned critic - The book won praise from Musk himself, who once posed with Zubrin at SpaceX's Starship facility in Texas and called it "worth reading." But today, Zubrin -- who co-authored the Mars Direct plan in 1990, has published hundreds of papers, and invented several advanced propulsion concepts -- sees troubling signs. While he described Musk as a "tremendously talented and forceful person," he said his success has bred "hubris and arrogance," comparing him to Napoleon as he thumped his fist for emphasis. He was especially critical of Musk's embrace of Donald Trump during the 2024 election and his role as the administration's chainsaw-wielding cost slasher. "This combination of Trump and Musk is not going to persist forever," Zubrin warned, in an interview conducted before the pair's relationship imploded Thursday in a spectacular public row. "And if this program is identified as their deal, it will be crushed as soon as opposing forces have sufficient power." During their fight on Thursday, Trump called Musk "crazy" and threatened to terminate his government contracts worth billions of dollars. Zubrin also condemned Trump's efforts to gut NASA's space science budget -- a move he sees as fundamentally at odds with the exploratory spirit of the Mars endeavour. The Mars Sample Return mission -- aimed at retrieving specimens collected by the Perseverance rover -- is among the biggest science projects on the chopping block. Although the mission, developed with the European Space Agency, has suffered delays and budget overruns, Zubrin said eliminating it entirely rather than reforming it would be a mistake. "This threatens to brand this program with the mark of Cain of original sin -- that this program is born with the blood of the murder of Space Science on it." - Creative outpost - Where Zubrin still sees promise is in Starship -- Musk's massive prototype rocket aimed at making life multiplanetary, though the vessel's repeated test explosions show there's a long way to go. He diverges with Musk over how it should be used. Starship is far too large to serve as a Mars ascent vehicle, Zubrin said. The Mars expert has proposed a vessel he calls Starboat -- a compact lander that could shuttle between planetary surfaces and orbit, using a fraction of the propellant and surface power. But his sharpest critiques are philosophical. He rejects Musk's portrayal of Mars as a refuge from a dying Earth -- a vision that echoes the works of science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. "We're not going to Mars out of despair," Zubrin said. "We're going to Mars out of hope... to establish new branches of human civilisation which will add their creative capacity to that of humanity as a whole." He sees Mars not as a refuge but renewal, where a campaign beginning with robotic missions in the late 2020s and culminating in human landings by 2033 could inspire bipartisan support, showcase American ingenuity and restore national purpose. "If we do the kind of program that I advocated... we will once again, as we did in Apollo, astonish the world with what free people can do," he said. "We'll make it clear that freedom, not authoritarianism, is the future of the human race." by Issam Ahmed
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Renowned Mars expert says Trump-Musk axis risks dooming mission
Robert Zubrin quite literally wrote the book on why humanity should go to Mars -- so why has the renowned aerospace engineer soured on Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur leading the charge? In an interview, the 73-year-old founder of the Mars Society delivered a blistering critique, accusing the world's richest person of undermining the mission through divisive politics and a bleak vision of the Red Planet as an escape from Earth rather than a journey of hope. "On one level, he's absolutely instrumental in opening up this opportunity to get humans to Mars, both through the development of Starship and also the inspiration that has caused," Zubrin told AFP, referring to Musk's prototype rocket. "But for it to succeed, it has to go beyond these -- this initiative cannot be seen as a Musk hobbyhorse or a Trump hobbyhorse -- it must be seen, at a minimum, as America's program, or preferably the Free World's program." Zubrin's 1996 book "The Case for Mars," since updated numerous times, laid out a practical blueprint for reaching and settling the Red Planet using existing technologies and local resources -- with the ultimate goal of transforming the atmosphere for long-term human habitation. - Supporter turned critic - The book won praise from Musk himself, who once posed with Zubrin at SpaceX's Starship facility in Texas and called it "worth reading." But today, Zubrin -- who co-authored the Mars Direct plan in 1990, has published hundreds of papers, and invented several advanced propulsion concepts -- sees troubling signs. While he described Musk as a "tremendously talented and forceful person," he said his success has bred "hubris and arrogance," comparing him to Napoleon as he thumped his fist for emphasis. He was especially critical of Musk's embrace of Donald Trump during the 2024 election and his role as the administration's chainsaw-wielding cost slasher. "This combination of Trump and Musk is not going to persist forever," Zubrin warned, in an interview conducted before the pair's relationship imploded Thursday in a spectacular public row. "And if this program is identified as their deal, it will be crushed as soon as opposing forces have sufficient power." During their fight Thursday, Trump called Musk "crazy" threatened to terminate his government contracts worth billions of dollars. Zubrin also condemned Trump's efforts to gut NASA's space science budget -- a move he sees as fundamentally at odds with the exploratory spirit of the Mars endeavor. The Mars Sample Return mission -- aimed at retrieving specimens collected by the Perseverance rover -- is among the biggest science projects on the chopping block. Although the mission, developed with the European Space Agency, has suffered delays and budget overruns, Zubrin said eliminating it entirely rather than reforming it would be a mistake. "This threatens to brand this program with the mark of Cain of original sin -- that this program is born with the blood of the murder of Space Science on it." - Creative outpost - Where Zubrin still sees promise is in Starship -- Musk's massive prototype rocket aimed at making life multiplanetary, though the vessel's repeated test explosions show there's a long way to go. He diverges with Musk over how it should be used. Starship is far too large to serve as a Mars ascent vehicle, Zubrin said. The Mars expert has proposed a vessel he calls Starboat -- a compact lander that could shuttle between planetary surfaces and orbit, using a fraction of the propellant and surface power. But his sharpest critiques are philosophical. He rejects Musk's portrayal of Mars as a refuge from a dying Earth -- a vision that echoes the works of science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. "We're not going to Mars out of despair," Zubrin said. "We're going to Mars out of hope... to establish new branches of human civilization which will add their creative capacity to that of humanity as a whole." He sees Mars not as refuge but renewal, where a campaign beginning with robotic missions in the late 2020s and culminating in human landings by 2033 could inspire bipartisan support, showcase American ingenuity and restore national purpose. "If we do the kind of program that I advocated... we will once again, as we did in Apollo, astonish the world with what free people can do," he said. "We'll make it clear that freedom, not authoritarianism, is the future of the human race." ia/jgc/acb
