Is the European Union headed for another debt crisis?
With the European economy remaining relatively stagnant and government debt levels climbing to disturbing levels, it’s possible that some of these countries will see another debt crisis like we saw in Greece more than a decade ago.
Original Article: Is the European Union headed for another debt crisis?
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
JOHN MAC GHLIONN: The UK riots are playing into the hands of Big Brother
In the wake of the tragic events in Southport on July 29th, where a stabbing spree claimed the lives of three young girls, the United Kingdom has been thrown into turmoil. The unrest, fueled by a mix of fear and unfounded rumors, has ignited riots across the country. The justice secretary has warned that the repercussions of this civil unrest could persist for “months and years to come.” The riots, sparked by false claims that the suspect was an asylum seeker, have resulted in the arrest of 779 individuals, with 349 already facing charges. The government’s response has been swift and heavy-handed, with courts operating extended hours to process the surge in cases. However, the implications reach far beyond the immediate turmoil. The protesters, many of whom are angry and justifiably concerned, may unwittingly be advancing a government’s agenda to tighten its grip on society. This, in all likelihood, will lead to an expansion of state surveillance and a further erosion of civil liberties.
Not just in the UK, but far beyond.
The head of London’s Metropolitan Police has made it clear that the authorities will be intensifying their scrutiny not just of British citizens but also of American citizens who post content deemed “offensive” online. This unprecedented move to extend the reach of UK law beyond its borders signals a dangerous trend towards the weaponization of language and the criminalization of dissent. The message is clear: You can run, but you can’t hide—even in another country.
The more the protests continue, the more the government will feel justified in implementing stronger surveillance measures and more invasive responses, and the more Britain will resemble Beijing. The UK is not alone in this trend; similar patterns are emerging in Ireland, my country of birth, and the United States, where governments are increasingly using the pretext of public safety to clamp down on free speech and privacy.
The Irish government, as totalitarian as they come, has identified a surge of bigotry, misinformation, and falsehoods on social media platforms as a major threat. The new Prime Minister, Simon Harris, has vowed to hold social media executives personally liable for the content on their platforms. By the end of this year, Harris plans to implement binding regulations with penalties, marking Ireland as a global leader in combating “harmful” online content.
But, of course, this is not just about Ireland or the UK. The Biden administration, widely regarded as one of the most anti-free speech administrations in American history, may very well cooperate with the UK’s efforts to extradite American citizens who post “offensive” content online. The globalist trend towards suppressing dissent and controlling information is becoming increasingly apparent, and the implications for freedom are dire.
Should Kamala Harris become president—an idea that no longer seems as far-fetched as it did a few weeks ago—anticipate a growing number of once-innocuous acts being reclassified as hate speech.
As the UK government ramps up its surveillance and control measures, the ultimate goal becomes abundantly clear. It is not about protecting the public; it’s about consolidating power and neutralizing opposition. The justice secretary’s warning that the repercussions of the riots could last for years suggests that the government is preparing to use this crisis as a justification for long-term, possibly permanent, changes to the legal and social fabric of the nation.
In other words, Big Brother is about to get a whole lot bigger—and, one assumes, badder.
The irony here is as obvious as it is tragic. The very people who are protesting against what they perceive as the erosion of British values and the threats posed by immigration are inadvertently contributing to the acceleration of the state’s control over their lives. The more they riot, the more the government will argue that stronger measures are needed to maintain order, leading to a cycle of repression that could be difficult to break.
Language is a powerful tool, and in the hands of the state, it can be weaponized to stifle dissent and intimidate anyone who dares to speak out. The warnings from the Metropolitan Police and the government’s focus on prosecuting online “offenses” are clear indications that the UK is moving towards a society where free speech is increasingly under threat.
Elon Musk’s assertion that “civil war is inevitable” in Britain may seem hyperbolic, but it reflects a growing sense of unease about the direction in which the country is heading. The government’s response to the riots, with its focus on absolute control, suggests that they are more concerned with suffocating dissent than tackling the root causes of the unrest: rampant unemployment, uncontrolled immigration, rising living costs, and a deepening housing crisis.
As the political class in Britain and beyond continues to tighten their grip on information and speech, the concept of privacy and freedom of expression is rapidly eroding. The UK government’s aggressive stance towards extraditing foreign nationals for online content is just the beginning. The broader story is one of a worldwide trend where there is increasingly nowhere to hide from the reach of the state.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
CALEB SHUMAKER: Kamala Harris has a California problem
In recent weeks, the political landscape has been rocked by a seismic shift. Vice President Kamala Harris, without a single vote cast in her favor by registered Democrats, has emerged as the new presumptive Democratic nominee. The mainstream media, ever eager to push their latest darling, have anointed her as the party’s savior this election cycle. But before we get swept up in this media-fueled frenzy, let’s pull back the curtain and examine the stark reality of Kamala Harris’s looming California Problem.
Let’s not kid ourselves: Kamala Harris’s meteoric rise isn’t just a quirky anomaly in American politics. It’s a troubling sign of what’s to come if we don’t scrutinize her track record and the disastrous policies she’s championed. Harris has attempted to distance herself from her 2019 GovTrack ranking as the ‘most liberal’ senator—a label she earned by out-lefting even Bernie Sanders. But what does it say about her leadership when she’s deeply connected to California politics, a state that has become a dystopian example of progressive policy gone awry?
We all remember Joe Biden’s promise to be the transition candidate, a bridge between the old and somewhat moderate guard of the Democratic Party and the new radical and progressive wing of the party. So, is it really a surprise to see the ‘most liberal’ senator finally get her shot at the nation’s top job? It’s safe to say this was the plan all along, and that her beloved and ultra-liberal state of California will be the model.
During Harris’s tenure as California Attorney General, the state didn’t just struggle with crime—it was overrun by it. From 2011 to 2016, California saw a staggering 23.7% increase in homicides and a 4.0% rise in violent crime rates. These statistics aren’t mere numbers; they represent real communities ravaged by a breakdown in public safety. Harris’s support for Proposition 47 and Proposition 57, which aimed to reduce incarceration rates, instead led to an alarming spike in criminal activity and a marked deterioration in safety.
The media’s portrayal of Harris as a beacon of hope overlooks a crucial fact: the Biden/Harris administration has already adopted and extended California’s troubled policies on a national scale. Under their leadership, we’ve seen a 7.3% rise in homicides, a 1.5% increase in violent crime, and a 0.9% uptick in property crimes. This isn’t just a statistical anomaly; it’s a reflection of failed policies that have only worsened under their watch.
And let’s not forget the impact of Harris’s California-inspired agenda. The state’s aggressive environmental regulations, such as bans on gas stoves and high-emission appliances, have led to skyrocketing consumer costs and daily life disruptions. Harris’s Senate tenure saw her support for similar radical environmental policies, including the Green New Deal, which would have exacerbated energy costs and economic pressures nationwide.
Harris’s California Problem extends to immigration and housing as well. California’s sanctuary city policies have created a chaotic and often dangerous environment, making it nearly impossible to address illegal immigration and related issues. As Vice President, Harris was appointed as the border czar—a role meant to address the escalating border crisis. However, her tenure in this position has been marked by a continued surge in illegal crossings and a chaotic handling of immigration issues. This failure to curb the crisis underscores a broader pattern of ineffective policy management that mirrors her approach in California.
On housing, California’s rent control measures have exacerbated the housing crisis, reducing rental property availability and driving up costs. Harris’s support for national rent control measures only promises to replicate these failures across the country.
The bottom line is clear: Kamala Harris’s policies are dangerous, and that is proven by simply looking at California. With only 41% of Americans viewing California favorably according to a recent Gallup poll, it’s evident that Harris’s alignment with the state’s failing policies should be a significant concern for her campaign.
For us, we must do everything in our power to win. The specter of California’s failed policies looms large over her candidacy, threatening to bring the same devastating consequences to the rest of the nation. If we’re not careful, Harris’s California Problem could become our national crisis.
Caleb Shumaker is a Republican political strategist and the President of Mammoth Strategy Group, where he helps shape effective strategies for Republican campaigns. You can find Caleb on X at @CalebCShumaker
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
JACK POSOBIEC: ‘Take the blackpillers out like the trash’
Jack Posobiec addressed “blackpillers” on Monday’s episode of Human Events Daily, stating that they need to be pushed “to the curb” and “taken out like the trash.”
The host began by applauding Donald Trump’s decision to return to X after a 3-year hiatus. “The Return of the King,” Posobiec called it. The President was initially barred from the platform, then Twitter, after the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021. His account was reinstated by Elon Musk after he bought the platform in November of 2022. Trump has remained inactive despite this up to this point.
Trump and Musk sat down for an X Spaces interview on Monday evening, something that irked the European Commission which posted a letter to the platform demanding Trump be censored. Posobiec read the letter on his show, emphasizing the fact that it states “you will comply” with the European Digital Services Act.
“And by the way, please try to arrest Elon Musk over this. Please try. Look, we all know the back door censorship is going to come in, the FBI censorship is going to come in later … But folks, keep your eyes on the prize,” urged Posobeic. “We are 85 days away from victory. We are going to win. Post through the ops, post through the psyoping. I don’t want to see any black pilling out there. All right. You got any blackpillers in your life? You got to push them to the curb, take them out like the trash. Take them out and wait for the trash truck to come pick up the blackpillers.”
Watch the full episode below.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
What Ludwig von Mises Meant by “Democracy”
“Democracy” is one of those terms that is essentially useless unless the one using the word first defines his terms. After all, the term “democratic” can mean anything from small-scale direct democracy to the mega-elections we see in today’s huge constitutional states. Among the modern social-democratic Left, the term often just means “something I like.”
The meaning of the term can also vary significantly from time to time and from place to place. During the Jacksonian period, the Democratic party—which at the time was the decentralist, free-market, Jeffersonian party—was called “the Democracy.” By the mid twentieth century, the term meant something else entirely. In Europe, the term came to take on a variety of different meanings from place to place.
For our purposes here, I want to focus on how one particular European—Ludwig von Mises—used the term.
Although many modern students of Mises are often highly skeptical of democracy of various types, it is clear that Mises himself used the term with approval. But, Mises used the word in a way that was quite different from how most use it today. The Misesian view contrasts with modern conceptions of a “democracy” in which majority rule is forcibly imposed upon the whole population. Because modern democratic states exercise monopolistic power over their populations, there is then no escape from this “will of the majority.”
Misesian democracy is something else altogether.
Mises’s vision of democracy must be understood in light of his support for unlimited secession as a tool against majoritarian rule. For Mises, “democracy” means the free exercise of a right of exit, by which the alleged “will of the majority” is rendered unenforceable against those who seek to leave.
Moreover, we can only understand Mises’s idea of democracy if we note that Mises’s conception of a liberal “state” is not really a state at all; it contradicts the common definition of a state as an organization with a monopoly on the means of coercion. For Mises, membership within a “free” state is ultimately voluntary since secession remains always an option.
Mises’s View of Self-Determination and Secession
Mises supported the idea of a polity he called a “free national state.” However, Mises’s national state is not a monopolistic state because Mises maintained that “[n]o people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.”
For Mises, the people of any portion of a national state are free to exercise their right of self-determination and by exiting the state via secession. As Mises put it:
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. …If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.
Mises contrasts this type of free association with the “princely state” which is essentially the modern state as we have come to know it. The princely state, Mises writes, “strives restlessly for expansion of its territory and for increase in the number of its subjects. …The more land and the more subjects, the more revenues and the more soldiers.” When this type of state is not expanding, it is busy maintaining its borders, and thus, once within the borders of this state, all populations are denied any right of self-determination. After all, to tolerate self-determination—and the right of secession that naturally follows—would be to tolerate the dismemberment of the state.
Mises presents an alternative:
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations … the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of a state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so.
Only if we consider the context presented by Mises here can we understand Mises when he presents his definition of democracy: “Democracy is self-determination, self-government, self-rule.” Put another way, “democracy” means groups of people—including even very small groups of people—can freely chose either to remain within a certain state, or to leave. Thus, we see that this idea of democracy is incompatible with the very idea of the modern state.
For Mises, democracy definitely does not mean what it has come to mean in modern usage: that all citizens within a specific state territory are bound to submit themselves to the laws approved by that territory’s ruling majority coalition, no matter what.
The Problem of Majority Rule
Indeed, Mises was thoroughly acquainted with the problem of majoritarian rule and how it is used to strip individuals of their rights. This process is especially dangerous in diverse societies where the overall population contains many cultural groups with incompatible values.
Mises writes that in culturally diverse territories,
the application of the majority principle leads not to the freedom of all but to the rule of the majority over the minority. … Majority rule signifies something quite different here than in nationally uniform territories; here, for a part of the people, it is not popular rule but foreign rule.
Mises notes that for those on the losing side—that is, those within the out-of-power minority cultural group—majority rule essentially means a permanent loss of any ability to meaningfully affect the policies adopted by the state. Those groups that have little hope of competing with the majority coalition have essentially been conquered and are subject to a type of “foreign rule.”
Mises understood that the only sustainable solution to this problem is to respect the right of self-determination secured by secession.
Without this right of self-determination and unlimited secession every state is, in practice, a monopolistic state that can impose its own values and agenda on the entire population. The presence of elections and “democratic” institutions—democratic in the common, modern sense—does little or nothing to mitigate the state’s power over those who would prefer to leave or govern themselves differently.
Read More: “Mises on Nationalism, the Right of Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration“ by Joseph Salerno.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Walter Williams and the Race Hustlers
In his book, Race & Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? Walter Williams argues that socioeconomic outcomes are not determined by race.
Williams’ argument has infuriated race hustlers — traders in identity politics — who promote the theory that all socioeconomic outcomes are determined by race. According to race hustlers, the only way for black people to advance is by seizing power and using it to wreak some form of revenge on white people as reflected in the nostrums of critical race theory: The only remedy for past discrimination is present and future discrimination. Race hustlers view the institutions of America as “whiteness” and therefore as obstacles to the racial equality they seek. This is what they mean by their “abolish whiteness” slogans. Jude Russo argues that race hustlers view American institutions not as part of a shared American heritage but as the source of racial oppression; paradoxically, the race hustlers are “treating the characteristics of the American nation, from the Constitution to the English language, as manifestations of ‘whiteness,’ and the consequent direction of institutional power inward against the institutions themselves.”
According to the race hustlers, no amount of freedom is significant unless it comes with full political domination and control over others. They are wont to dismiss any progress as “not enough.” Nothing will ever be enough until they are lords over all they survey. Thus, we hear race hustlers saying that conditions today are worse than during Jim Crow, that blacks do not enjoy civil rights and therefore the civil rights acts of 1866 and 1964 achieved nothing, and similar claims. To race hustlers, all the evidence amassed by Walter Williams in support of his arguments would therefore be irrelevant.
Williams emphasizes the analytical distinction between whether a phenomenon (such as racial discrimination) exists and whether that phenomenon is the cause (or a significant cause) of life outcomes. He is not simply making a general abstract observation that correlation does not prove causation but embarks on a specific inquiry into whether poverty can be blamed on racism. Thus, Williams does not argue that racism (or even significant racism) “doesn’t exist” as claimed by race hustlers. Williams explains: “This is not to say discrimination does not exist. Nor is it to say discrimination has no adverse effects. For policy purposes, however, the issue is not whether or not racial discrimination exists but the extent to which it explains what we see today“ (emphasis added).
Williams’ main premise is that,
…people will not engage in activities — including racial discrimination — no matter what the cost. Although racial discrimination imposes costs on those discriminated against, the person or entity doing the discriminating also bears costs. Recognizing that, along with the generalization that people instinctively seek to reduce costs, suggests that one of the contributions economics can make is to analyze methods a discriminator uses to reduce them.
Williams highlights the material progress made by black Americans, observing that “as a group, black Americans include many of the world’s richest and most famous personalities.” Yet nobody argues that black millionaires are only rich and famous because they never experienced racism. On the contrary, the billionaire Oprah Winfrey says she too has experienced racism: “The higher up you go in the chain of capitalism,” she said, “people don’t expect you to be sitting at certain board tables. I sense it, and you know it.”
Williams also points out that black Americans are not the only people who have historically experienced racism:
In addition to black Americans, the Irish, Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Poles, Chinese, Japanese, Swedish, and most other ethnic groups have shared the experience of being discriminated against by one means or another. … Contrary to what is often thought, no racial or ethnic group has a monopoly on racial oppression and discrimination.
Of particular interest is Williams’ analysis of early black economic achievement. This is instructive because it cannot be argued that there was no racism in America’s early years. He describes the practice of self-hire, in which “slaves turned over a portion of their earnings to their owners in exchange for de facto freedom.” Williams’ point is not that this means slaves were free or that it did not matter if they were slaves, as race hustlers claim, but that it shows the level of skill, economic productivity and entrepreneurialism achieved even in conditions of slavery and servitude.
Nor were these merely exceptional cases — it was a widespread phenomenon that benefited both slaves and slave owners: “As early as 1733-34, a Charles Town, South Carolina, grand jury criticized slaveholders for allowing their slaves ‘to work out by the Week,’ and ‘bring in a certain Hire.’” In 1831, in North Carolina, a law was passed to prohibit masters from allowing their slaves to go free on penalty of a fine — a law made necessary by the fact that this was widespread practice. Williams observes that “similar statutes were enacted in most slave states.”
Indeed, Williams observes that “so common was the practice of self-hire that historians have described the people so employed as ‘Quasi-Free Negroes’ or ‘Slaves Without Masters.’” Moreover, the increasing restrictions on these arrangements between slaves and slave owners had limited effect: “Despite all the legal prohibitions, the self-hire and quasi-free practices prospered and expanded. … Even owners with a strong ideological commitment to the institution of slavery found it profitable to permit self-hire, particularly for the most talented and trusted bondsmen.”
Race hustlers who fail to grasp the point of Williams’ analysis claim that capitalists say slavery was good because it allowed the practice of self-hire. But Williams’ point is not that enslaving people is good as long as you allow them to self-hire; his point is that even during slavery, it was beneficial to both sides to allow free economic participation: “Slaves, although obligated to pay their masters a monthly or yearly fee, could keep for themselves what they earned above that amount.”
Similarly, Williams’ point about quasi-free slaves and slaves without masters is not, as race hustlers assert, that being quasi-free is sufficient or that it is fine to be a slave if you have a good master. His point is that even in conditions of slavery, many slaves carved out such a significant scope of economic freedom and progress that it would be reasonable to expect even more economic progress today from people who are actually free and not merely quasi-free.
Williams also gives many examples of the economic gains made by free blacks who could not vote but nevertheless “dominated skilled crafts like bricklaying, cigar making, carpentry and shoe making.” The point he makes here is not that this shows that blacks should be confined to such trades, as many race hustlers seem to think, but that even in conditions of political disenfranchisement, blacks amassed millions of dollars’ worth of property and established thriving businesses. Prosperous blacks “also created privately supported benevolent societies, schools, and orphanages to assist their impoverished brethren.” The argument here, which Williams substantiates by reference to many other races in America and around the world, is that political power is not a necessary path to economic progress. On the contrary, political power often paradoxically impedes progress because the prospect of political advancement tends to attract the types of race hustlers who will happily destroy their own people in order to promote their own egos.
Prosperous blacks are not simply exceptional or isolated cases. Race hustlers often argue that successful blacks are exceptions, and therefore no significance should be attached to their existence — they are simply the exceptional case that managed to buck the trend. After all, we can’t all be Oprah Winfrey. From Williams’ examples, it is clear that the race hustlers are wrong on this point. The reason why so many laws were enacted in this era to prevent blacks from participating in trades — for example, licensing laws and minimum wage laws — was precisely because it was a widespread phenomenon in which significant numbers of blacks participated. Moreover, no matter the race of a billionaire, it is always true that not everyone of his race will be a billionaire. In a general sense, it could be said that great wealth is exceptional, but wealth distribution cannot be explained by reference to racial discrimination.
Williams therefore argues that “gross racial discrimination alone has never been sufficient to prevent blacks from earning a living and bettering themselves.” His point is that if it did not prevent them from doing so in the years of slavery and Jim Crow, there is no reason why it would prevent them from doing so today.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Teens majority of ISIS-linked arrests in Europe, rise in concerns over extremists targeting minors
The vast majority of ISIS-related arrests in Europe have involved teens. A new study indicates that two-thirds of those arrests over the past nine months were teenagers, The New York Post reports. The thwarted suicide bomb attack on a Vienna Taylor Swift concert is evidence that terrorists are focusing on children.
There have been 58 arrests relating to ISIS activity in Europe this year: 38 involved teenagers, according to a new King’s College study covered by CNN. The 38 has risen to 41 after three teenagers influenced by ISIS were apprehended before a plot to drive an explosive laden vehicle into one or more of Swift’s shows could be implemented.
ISIS contacts teens, grooms them into radical politics and dares them to prove their loyalty by committing acts of terrorism, according to King’s College professor Peter Neumann — who says teen terrorism has risen sharply since 2022.
The US has been affected too. “There’s no doubt in anybody’s mind that’s the preferred means and mechanisms for recruitment in the west, meaning Europe, but also in the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere,” director of research at Syracuse University’s Institute for Security Policy and Law, Dr. Corri Zoli, told The Post.
Recruiters reportedly use a range of social media to target teens but focus on youth-orientated TikTok and Telegram, while also using the more traditional X, and Facebook. ISIS usually finds its message resonates better with males than females but the message is always the same: joining ISIS will make them important, Zoli told The Post.
“Everybody loves to recruit young people, especially young men, because there’s developmental issues,” she said.
Talking about planning a terrorist bomb attack would certainly be flagged and removed on TikTok or Facebook, so the recruiters reportedly try a softer approach, talking about Islamic culture or how the war in Gaza is affecting the lives of Palestinians.
Even US lawmakers have become aware of the issue. This month, Congressmen August Plfuger (R-TX) and Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) introduced a bi-partisan bill calling on the Department of Homeland Security to assess social media for potential terrorist recruitment.
The teens accused of plotting to take out a Taylor Swift concert were believed by Austrian law enforcement to be heavily under the influence of ISIS as a result of online propaganda and wanted to kill “as many people as possible” with their car bomb. The concerts were canceled.
Austrian police arrested the trio on Wednesday and alleged that they found chemicals and materials to make bombs in the house of the 19-year-old gang leader.
Adults are still being recruited for terrorism, as the recent arrest of a radical Islamic preacher demonstrates.This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Two 12-year-old boys convicted over involvement in UK mass migration protests
Two 12-year-old boys have been convicted in relation to the mass migration protests and riots that have broken out across the UK over the past few weeks after three young school girls were killed in a knife attack in Southport. The boys are the youngest to admit to violent disorder in separate instances amid the riots. Neither can be named due to their age.
The first boy pleaded guilty at Liverpool Youth Court on Monday after he participated in the initial riot in Southport where almost 1,000 people protested outside a mosque, Sky News reports. He is among 30 who have been charged from that incident.
The second boy pleaded guilty to two counts of violent disorder at Manchester City Magistrates Court on Monday for his involvement in two other instances in Manchester. Per BBC, he admitted to throwing a missile at a police van at one of the sites of disorder. In a separate riot, he had kicked a bus and was “seen in footage handing a rock to another youth during the disorder” outside a Holiday Inn hotel housing migrants on July 31. The prosecutor in his case also said he was “filmed by police kicking the front window of a vape shop” on August 3.
The judge presiding over the case stated that although the child said he was “sorry” and “very ashamed,” “He’s more involved in the violence and disorder than any other defendant I’ve seen coming through these courts, adult or child.”
Thus far, 975 people have been arrested and 546 have been charged in relation to the protests across the UK beginning on July 29.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Man arrested for stabbing woman, 11-year-old daughter in Leicester Square, London
London Metropolitan Police have arrested a 32-year-old man accused of stabbing a 34-year-old mother and her 11-year-old daughter Monday, BBC reports.
The knifing occurred at London’s busy Leicester Square and a local worker reportedly intervened to minimize the damage. The child was struck several times near the right eye and the woman sustained less serious injuries. Both were taken to the hospital where they were assessed as having “serious” but not life-threatening injuries according to the BBC.
A man who identified himself as Abdullah, 29, said he saw the attack and physically pulled the assailant away from the mother and child and then proceeded to give first aid. Metropolitan police said they are “not looking for anyone else” and don’t believe the incident was terror related. The attacker was described by one eye witness as “mentally disturbed” based on the spontaneous nature of the assault.
Abdullah told the PA news agency, according to the Guardian: “I heard a scream. At that moment I saw there was one person, roughly [in their] mid-30s or early 30s, and he was like stabbing a kid – I jumped on him, held the hand in which he was [carrying] a knife, and just put him down on the floor and just held him and took the knife away from him.
“Then a couple of more people joined as well, and we just held him until the police came, it took maybe three to four minutes for the police to arrive and then they just took him into custody.”
Ezat Katerzis, who manages a local bus tour company, told the Guardian that the attacker appeared to be “mentally disturbed.”
“It looked like he had something missing. He just stabbed the girl out of the blue. She was with her family.”
Violence has been widespread throughout the UK since the stabbing death of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed yoga and dance class on July 29 in Southport.
The riots have resulted in almost 1,000 arrests, many for social media “crimes”. London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley has even threatened American citizens with legal action for their social media posts that violate UK laws, suggesting they could be extradited to the UK to stand trial for social media crimes.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Immigrant streamer faked being attacked by the far right during last week hoax ‘100 riots’ night
Dimitri Stoica has been sentenced to prison for three months because he falsely posted on his TikTok last Wednesday that he was running for his life from enraged rioters in Derbyshire, UK. Stoica has about 700 followers.
The night that Stoica issued his false plea for help, police were anticipating riots to erupt all across the UK – but none actually transpired. Stoica decided to create his own drama and took to the streets around 10 p.m. and explained to his audience that he was being pursued by hostile rioters.
“I am running bro because they are running after me. They’re coming. Everyone get back,” he said. Police also saw Stoica’s post and went to see if he was really in danger. They arrived at his house to discover it was all a “joke.”
But officers did not see the funny side, and promptly arrested him for an internet crime, namely for sending a false communication with intent to cause harm contrary to Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023. Prosecutor Seema Mistry said he was “trying to stir up racial hatred by implying he was being chased.”
Stoic was incarcerated Friday for three months and will also have to pay £154 in compensation.
UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer raised the profile of social media “crimes” since the riots began after the murder of three young girls in Southport on July 29. Rioters and opponents of his Labour government have accused Starmer of ignoring the crimes of migrant gangs and punishing indigenous Britons who are critical of the effects of mass immigration in their country.
London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley has even threatened American citizens with legal action for their social media posts that violate UK laws, suggesting they could be extradited to the UK to stand trial for social media crimes.
In a news release, Derbyshire Constabulary’s assistant chief constable Michelle Shooter stated:
“We have seen the extraordinary power of social media over the last two weeks. And with that power comes even greater responsibility.
“As a force we absolutely respect and protect the rights of individuals to legally express their views.
“However, the right to freedom can be limited – in particular where it is required to prevent crime and disorder.
“As has been made clear by forces across the country any criminal actions relating to the disorder, whether they be in person or online, will be dealt with quickly and robustly.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers: