Bill Maher conducted a two-hour interview with rapper Kanye West but will not air it as he is afraid it will spread the “idea that Israel and the Jews are like [sic] the worst people in the world.”
“I had Kanye right here at Club Random, we did an episode with him. I thought it was going to be a learning moment. I mean, we were here for two hours. By the way, we had an amazing, fun time. He’s a very charming anti-Semite,” Maher said in an interview with TMZ on Monday.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“The problem, I think, is that he appeals mostly — of course, he’s a rock star — to young people. They don’t know much and they surely don’t know much about the Middle East or Jews,” Maher said. “So the combination of, you know, Kanye out there — I feel like he sort of like was helpful for spreading the fertilizer, and I do mean fertilizer, for this idea that Israel and the Jews are like the worst people in the world,” he continued, adding: “And by the way, he’s not the only one in America who feels that way. It’s not like the Jews are universally loved except for Kanye West, okay?… That’s why I wouldn’t air that episode. Because I’m not going to contribute to this.”
West has faced continued accusations of anti-Semitism after a series of controversial remarks about Jews in 2022 and 2023 and a 2023 interview with Alex Jones in which the rapper praised Adolf Hitler.
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
More From The Pulse
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
Britain is on course for almost no improvement in living standards over an entire decade, according to the government’s fiscal watchdog. As taxation approaches historic highs, energy costs are hurting industry, and mass immigration is failing to deliver the supposed economic benefits long touted by experts, the country’s economic model may be following the path of Japan’s lost decades.
To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team bring you original, high-quality news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Britain is facing a lost decade of prosperity, with the average household expected to be barely better off in 2030 than it was before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new assessment. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts that real household disposable income per person will be just 1 percent higher in 2029–30 than before the pandemic. That represents average annual growth of less than 0.1 percent over the decade.
The OBR expects no real wage growth in 2027 or 2028, with wages growing by just 0.5 percent in 2030. Chancellor John Healey’s October 28 Budget offered little prospect of a turnaround. Economic growth is expected to slow to one percent in 2027, while the government’s fiscal headroom has shrunk to the equivalent of approximately $20 billion.
Healey announced winter energy payments equivalent to roughly $133 for approximately 20 million households, alongside higher taxes on banks, savings, and property income. The government’s tax burden is also projected to reach historically high levels.
The Economic Model That Failed Britain.
Britain’s economic stagnation did not begin with the current leftist Labour Party government. Much of the underlying problem developed during 14 years of Conservative Party government, when weak productivity growth, rising public spending, and increasing dependence on imported energy and low-skilled foreign workers became defining features of the economy.
Productivity growth has been persistently disappointing since the 2008 financial crisis. Without sustained improvements in output per worker, businesses struggle to deliver substantial real wage increases. The OBR has repeatedly identified weak productivity as the main factor determining Britain’s long-term economic performance.
Meanwhile, frozen income tax thresholds have shifted more workers into higher tax brackets as nominal wages increased. Labour has not only maintained much of this approach but is pursuing additional revenue from employers, investors, and other taxpayers.
Energy has become another major weakness. Britain’s industrial competitiveness is threatened by expensive electricity, with domestic energy policy costs adding to pressures from international gas markets.
The latest Budget’s energy assistance may provide temporary relief, but a $133 payment does very little to address the underlying reasons British households and manufacturers face persistently expensive power.
Housing shortages compound the problem. Restrictive planning, insufficient construction in high-demand areas, and elevated property costs leave workers spending more of their earnings simply to maintain a roof over their heads. Mass migration, including the infamous “Boriswave” started under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has only compounded the problem.
The Immigration Illusion: A Bigger Economy Does Not Necessarily Mean a Richer Country.
Under successive Conservative governments, particularly following Brexit, Britain experienced a major expansion in immigration despite repeated political promises to bring the numbers down. Higher immigration can increase overall GDP by expanding the workforce and consumer base. However, an increase in the total size of the economy does not automatically translate into higher GDP per capita, better living standards, or making things more affordable.
An economy can grow because it has more workers rather than because each worker is producing more. Rapid population growth increases demand for housing, transport, schools, healthcare, and infrastructure. Unless investment and construction keep pace, existing shortages can become even worse, and in Britain’s case, they have.
Britain’s political establishment has too often treated economic growth through overall GDP as clear evidence that the country is prospering, even when the OBR’s figures show barely any improvements in household income per person.
Japan.
Britain’s predicament bears similarities to Japan’s experience following the collapse of its financial and property bubbles in the early 1990s. Japan endured decades of sluggish economic growth, weak wage increases, and repeated government interventions intended to revive demand.
As the OECD’s economic research on Japan shows, the country has struggled with longstanding productivity challenges, demographic pressures, and weak wage growth.
Japan has experienced a shrinking population because it has so far rejected mass migration, preserving the distinct character of Japanese culture while avoiding the problems that come with mass migration, opting to rely on automation to rebalance the economy.
Japan shows that a wealthy, developed country can maintain advanced infrastructure, sophisticated businesses, and a high standard of living without embracing mass migration policies, even when wage growth is weak.
Britain risks following a comparable trajectory, with high property prices benefiting established homeowners while younger generations struggle to accumulate wealth, but without the well-maintained infrastructure and social cohesion of Japan.
Can Nigel Farage’s Reform UK Reverse Britain’s Decline?
Nigel Farage‘s Reform UK party is presenting an increasingly ambitious alternative to the economic policies pursued by both major parties. The party’s economic policy platform proposes raising the income tax-free personal allowance to the equivalent of around $20,007, which it claims would remove 2.9 million people from income tax altogether, and deliver the equivalent of roughly $650 in annual tax relief to most taxpayers.
Reform also promises to reduce household energy bills by $333 annually, eliminate government-imposed costs from electricity bills, expand domestic energy production, and abandon costly Net Zero policies.
For businesses, the party proposes reducing employer National Insurance contributions from 15 percent to 13.8 percent for British workers, increasing the VAT registration threshold to the equivalent of around $200,069, and exempting qualifying overtime earnings from income tax.
Reform would finance its proposed employer tax reduction through a new Migrant Labor Levy, designed to discourage businesses from relying on foreign labor. The party has also proposed apprenticeship incentives and a program to construct 50,000 affordable homes annually. The policies represent a clear departure from the prevailing approach of higher taxation, energy subsidies, and migration-supported workforce expansion.
Reform’s central argument, that Britain must prioritize cheaper energy, lower taxation, and greater domestic productive capacity, directly challenges the current economic consensus that is constantly chasing foreign labor and pushing down individual wages.
A Country That Has Forgotten How to Become Wealthier.
Britain’s latest Budget should serve as a warning that economic stagnation cannot be permanently disguised through additional public spending, temporary subsidies, or population growth.
The Conservatives presided over years of weak productivity, expensive housing, rising immigration, and growing fiscal instability. Labour has inherited those problems while pursuing a program that continues to rely heavily on taxation and state intervention.
External shocks, including the pandemic, the Ukraine war, and the conflict in Iran, have aggravated Britain’s difficulties, but they cannot be used as an excuse to wave away the structural rot that predate them. The OBR’s projection of virtually stagnant real household income over an entire decade raises serious questions about the economic mantras of the last 20 years and whether Britain can survive another decade of the same.
Reform believes that lower taxes, increasesd domestic energy production, and immigration restrictions can help restore prosperity, challenging an economic consensus that has delivered little to the average Briton.
Britain’s greatest danger may not be an immediate financial collapse. Instead, the country risks embracing the gradual normalization of national stagnation, in which future governments manage an increasingly expensive economy while ordinary families abandon the notion that their children will be better off than they were.
To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team give you the full story behind the headlines and soundbites, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
Britain is on course for almost no improvement in living standards over an entire decade, according to the government's fiscal watchdog. As taxation approaches historic highs, energy costs are hurting industry, and mass immigration is failing to deliver the supposed economic benefits long touted by experts, the country's economic model may be following the path of Japan's lost decades.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
Germany is prosecuting a former member of the Ukrainian armed forces over the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, despite attempts to have the case dismissed, in a move that could bring conflict between the two allies.
The National Pulse gives you deep dives into the issues that matter. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
A German court on October 27 rejected an attempt by lawyers representing Serhii Kuznietsov to halt proceedings over his alleged involvement in the September 2022 sabotage of the pipelines, which connected Russia directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea.
Kuznietsov’s defense argued that Ukrainian military secrecy obligations prevented him from adequately defending himself. The court rejected the argument, allowing the case to proceed. German prosecutors allege that Kuznietsov helped organize a team responsible for planting explosives on the pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm. He has not been convicted, and the government of Ukraine has repeatedly denied state involvement in the attack.
The proceedings raise an uncomfortable question for the German government and its people: if the German courts determine that the Ukrainian state was behind the attack on one of its greatest European supporters, how should Germans react?
Who is Really Behind the Destruction of Nord Stream?
On September 26, 2022, underwater explosions ruptured three of the four strings comprising the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. The blasts occurred in the Baltic Sea near Bornholm, with European investigators subsequently concluding that the damage resulted from deliberate sabotage.
German investigators developed a theory involving a small team of divers operating from a rented sailing yacht, reportedly named Andromeda, which allegedly transported explosives and diving equipment to the Baltic Sea.
A Washington Post investigation published in June 2023 revealed that American intelligence had received information about a Ukrainian plan to attack the pipelines months before the explosions. The report described intelligence concerning a proposed operation involving a small team of divers linked to Ukraine’s military establishment.
More recent reporting has raised further questions about Kuznietsov’s military status, including testimony reportedly indicating that he remained part of active duty military in Ukraine at the time of the sabotage itself. This raises the distinct possibility that it was not a rogue group of servicemen but a coordinated state-sponsored act of international sabotage.
Germany’s Cheap Energy Lifeline.
The original Nord Stream pipeline began delivering Russian natural gas to Germany in 2011, providing a direct route across the Baltic Sea that bypassed traditional transit countries, including Ukraine and Poland. Nord Stream 2 was completed in 2021, but Germany suspended its certification in February 2022, shortly before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Germany had long relied on cheap Russian natural gas, which became vital to the country’s energy-intensive industries, including chemicals, fertilizers, and manufacturing. The destruction of the pipelines permanently damaged a major potential route for restoring cheap Russian gas deliveries in the future, forcing Germany to reorient its energy strategy at a high cost.
Germany’s subsequent energy crisis was driven by multiple factors, including the collapse of Russian gas supplies, elevated wholesale prices, and the costs of replacing pipeline gas with alternative sources. The economic consequences extended beyond household energy bills. German industrial competitiveness came under pressure as businesses confronted higher energy costs, while Berlin accelerated construction of liquefied natural gas import facilities. Combined with net-zero policies and the Green Agenda, Germany has seen a wave of deindustrialization and corporate bankruptcies since 2022.
What Did Poland’s Current Foreign Minister Know?
On September 27, 2022, Radosław Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister who has since returned to that office, published a photograph of the Baltic Sea gas leak alongside the words “Thank you, USA.” The now-deleted post immediately generated controversy because it appeared to suggest American responsibility for the explosions.
Sikorski later attempted to walk back his remarks, calling them speculation rather than evidence of American involvement. While Poland had opposed Nord Stream for years, arguing that the pipelines strengthened Moscow’s geopolitical influence while undermining the energy security of Eastern European countries, it remains unclear if Sikorski knew who was actually behind the attack.
Ukraine’s History of Overseas Attacks and Assassinations.
The Nord Stream allegations are not the first time Ukrainian intelligence services have been linked to secretive attacks far beyond the borders of Ukraine.
In August 2022, Russian political commentator Daria Dugina, daughter of nationalist philosopher Alexander Dugin, was killed when a bomb exploded beneath her vehicle outside Moscow. Although Kiev denied responsibility, American intelligence officials subsequently assessed that elements of the Ukrainian government had authorized the assassination.
A major Washington Post investigation published in October 2023 examined Ukrainian intelligence operations inside Russia, including targeted killings and attacks on infrastructure. The report linked Ukrainian security services to the Dugina assassination and other covert activities, citing Ukrainian and Western intelligence sources.
Another high-profile attack occurred in April 2023, when Russian military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky was killed by a bomb at a St. Petersburg café. Dozens of other people were injured. Russian authorities blamed Ukrainian intelligence for the bombing, an accusation Kiev denied. Responsibility for the attack remains disputed.
Moscow has repeatedly accused Ukrainian intelligence of involvement in additional assassinations, bombings, and attempted sabotage operations. This includes the 2024 Crocus City Hall attack, which saw alleged Islamist terrorists kill 145 people, one of the worst terrorist attacks on Russian soil ever. Russia claimed the terrorists were aided by Ukraine, though the Islamic State terrorist group took responsibility officially.
The Nord Stream Bombing Could Be a War Crime.
The Hamburg case could also establish an important precedent concerning the limits of wartime sabotage. Kuznietsov faces charges including causing an explosion, property damage, disrupting public services, and complicity in war crimes arising from an alleged attack on civilian infrastructure.
The defense has questioned whether Nord Stream should be considered a legitimate military target because of its economic importance to Russia. Under international law, civilian infrastructure is generally protected from deliberate attack unless it qualifies as a military objective. A target’s economic importance to a country engaged in war does not, by itself, establish that it may lawfully be attacked.
The fact that Nord Stream was built primarily to transport natural gas to civilian and industrial consumers largely shows that it was not being used for any kind of direct war purpose. Even if the attack served a military purpose, that would not automatically exempt its participants from prosecution under German domestic laws.
A Trial That Could Split Germany and Ukraine.
German prosecutors have alleged that the suspected saboteurs were acting on behalf of Ukrainian state authorities. If this proves true, it could enrage a German public that has been told that Ukraine is their ally for years and strengthen support for the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), the party most skeptical of Ukraine and its leadership.
The current allegations go beyond the suggestion that a handful of Ukrainian nationals independently decided to destroy the pipelines.
Furthermore, statements from two former Ukrainian military superiors placed Kuznietsov under direct military command during the period of the explosions. One of the officers, Roman Chervinsky, reportedly argued that Nord Stream represented a legitimate target because of its financial importance to Russia.
While his testimony does not establish who authorized the attack, it raises the possibility that the operation involved an official military chain of command.
For German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the political implications are potentially catastrophic. Germany remains a major supplier of military and financial assistance to Ukraine. A conviction implicating Ukrainian military personnel could destroy what’s left of his popularity and credibility in Germany, as he has been one of the most vocal supporters of the Zelensky regime.
A guilty verdict could also generate demands for compensation, diplomatic explanations, and a wider investigation into whether senior Ukrainian officials approved the operation.
However, a conviction may not necessarily bring German military assistance to an end. Berlin could choose to pursue criminal accountability while maintaining its broader commitment to Ukraine’s defense.
The deeper political question is whether the German public would accept such a distinction if evidence emerged that Ukrainian state authorities had deliberately destroyed infrastructure connected to Germany’s own economy.
An Uncertain Future.
Four years after the explosions, the German trial over the Nord Stream sabotage could finally provide a judicial account of an operation that has generated years of competing accusations, intelligence leaks, and diplomatic speculation.
It could also expose a fundamental contradiction: Germany is prosecuting an alleged Ukrainian military operative over the destruction of infrastructure it helped finance, while continuing to provide immense assistance to Ukraine.
If the proceedings establish that the sabotage was authorized through Ukraine’s military command structure, Berlin may face a difficult choice between demanding accountability and preserving its strategic relationship with Kiev and the Zelensky government.
The question is no longer simply who destroyed Nord Stream. It is whether Germany is prepared to confront an ally if its own courts establish that the attack was carried out with the approval of Ukraine.
To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team give you the details and analysis behind the stories making the headlines, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
Germany is prosecuting a former member of the Ukrainian armed forces over the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, despite attempts to have the case dismissed, in a move that could bring conflict between the two allies.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
On Tuesday, Israelis went to the polls in the first general election since the October 7 attack, a revitalized Israel-Hamas War, and the outbreak of the Iran war.
The National Pulse covers the latest political news. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Context.
Israel held its 2026 elections for the Knesset, the country’s unicameral legislature, against the backdrop of three years of war following the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. As such, the election was widely seen as a referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of October 7 and the ensuing war.
In addition to Netanyahu’s record in government, the longstanding dispute over military service exemptions for ultra-orthodox Jews also became a particularly important dividing line, given manpower shortages and repeated reserve mobilizations. Netanyahu has defended the religious exemption system, while opposition leader and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot has promised broader conscription.
Netanyahu’s controversial judicial reforms, which involved subordinating the country’s supreme court to the Knesset, also remained a key issue, having triggered mass protests in 2023.
The election coincides with Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial, in which the premier denies any wrongdoing.
The Candidates.
The two main contenders for Prime Minister are the incumbent Netanyahu, leader of the Likud party, and Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party.
The major third parties include former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s Together party and Joint List, a left-wing Arab interests party led by academic Yousef Jabareen.
Other parties included the center-left Democrats led by Yair Golan, a reserve IDF Major General, and Ra’am, an Arab party led by Mansour Abbas.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, who serves as national security minister in Netanyahu’s coalition government, led his right-wing Otzma Yehudit party into the election. In the 2022 election, he ran a joint ticket with Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister and leader of the Religious Zionist Party (RZP). However, in this election, Smotrich instead ran a joint ticket with Zehut (RZP-Zehut), led by Moshe Feiglin.
Various smaller parties representing the interests of specific groups within Israeli society also contested the election, such as Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu, a right-wing party representing Russian speakers, United Torah Judaism, a party representing Haredi Jewish interests led by Ya’akov Asher, and Aryeh Deri’s Shas party, which represents Sephardic and Mizrahi background Jews.
The National Pulse relies on reader support, not government or corporate cash. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
The Results.
Netanyahu’s Likud is estimated to have secured 26 seats and 20.5 percent of the vote, making it the largest party. However, the party lost ten seats compared to the last election.
Eisenkot’s newly-created Yashar came a close second with 21 seats and 16.1 percent of the vote, gaining the most of any party during the election.
Bennett’s Together party won 12 seats and 9.2 percent, down 12 seats from the last election, while Jabareen’s Joint List also secured 12 seats on roughly nine percent of the vote, up seven seats.
Meanwhile, Golan’s Democrats secured eight seats and 6.5 percent of the vote, up four seats. Just behind, Ra’am won seven seats and six percent of the vote, as did Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu, which gained two seats and one seat, respectively.
Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit secured seven seats on roughly 5.6 percent, as did Asher’s United Torah Judaism. Both parties neither gained nor lost seats. Deri’s Shas party also won seven seats. securing 5.3 percent of the vote, down four seats.
The Smotrich-led RZP-Zehut alliance won six seats with five percent of the vote, down one seat from last time.
Overall, Likud and Together were the biggest losers of the night, while Yashar, the Democrats, and Israel’s “Arab Bloc” (the Joint List and Ra’am) stand out as the biggest winners.
Consequences.
Due to the nature of the Israeli electoral system, parties must form coalitions in order to govern. As a result, parties organize into blocs based on policy and ideological overlap. The leader of the largest party serves as the bloc’s figurehead and, if the bloc wins an election, typically becomes Prime Minister.
Netanyahu’s bloc includes his Likud party, Otzma Yehudit, United Torah Judaism, Shas, and RZP-Zehut, while Eisenkot’s bloc includes his Yashar party, Together, the Democrats, and Yisrael Beiteinu. Neither major bloc supports recognizing a Palestinian state, and both support the country’s security consensus, which includes sustaining Israel’s regional military campaigns, eliminating Hamas governance in the Gaza Strip, and neutralizing Iran.
As such, Netanyahu’s bloc has 53 seats, while Eisenkot’s bloc has 48, meaning both fall short of the 61 seats required to form a majority in the Knesset.
While the Arab bloc has a combined total of 19 seats, both Netanyahu and Eisenkot, along with leaders within their respective blocs, have ruled out working with the Arab parties. However, some figures within Eisenkot’s bloc, such as Yair Golan, have voiced support for working with the Arab parties, exposing the Eisenkot bloc’s internal divisions.
If a governing agreement is not reached, another election will be held early next year. In the meantime, Netanyahu remains Prime Minister, albeit as leader of a caretaker government.
The National Pulse strives to bring you high-quality reporting. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
On Tuesday, Israelis went to the polls in the first general election since the October 7 attack, a revitalized Israel-Hamas War, and the outbreak of the Iran war.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
France and Germany have offered to build attack submarines for Argentina following the Latin American country’s renewed demands to take over the Falkland Islands, despite their notional status as allies of the United Kingdom.
The National Pulse keeps you updated on British politics. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Background.
The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic. Argentina has long claimed sovereignty over the territory, even though the islands voted overwhelmingly (99.8 percent) to remain British in a 2013 referendum. Britain has administered the islands since 1833.
In 1982, Argentina invaded the islands, triggering the Falklands War, a 74-day conflict which ended with Argentine forces surrendering and British control being re-established. The conflict saw the deaths of 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel, and three Falkland Islanders.
Despite this, Argentina has continued to assert its claim, using diplomatic, economic, and legal pressure rather than military force in recent decades. For instance, earlier this year, Argentina announced its opposition to the Sea Lion Field, an oil drilling project off the coast of the Falklands. The Argentine government, led by President Javier Milei, has threatened companies involved in the project, while Britain maintains that the Falkland Islanders have the right to make use of their natural resources.
“An organisation that set out to defend the territorial sovereignty of its members decided to look the other way regarding the situation of the Malvinas Islands… Argentina is not going to sit around waiting for the UN and the international community to live up to their own mandate… We’re going to take matters into our own hands,” said Milei.
The Argentine government has also described sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as a “national objective.”
In late September, Argentina launched legal action against Britain over the Sea Lion oil project, arguing Britain is illegally exploiting Argentina’s continental shelf. Earlier this month, Argentina asked the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to urgently halt the project.
According to Admiral Marcelo Dalle Nogare, head of Argentina’s armed forces’ Joint Staff, French and German manufacturers have offered to build three new attack submarines for the country.
Specifically, France’s Naval Group has offered its Scorpène submarines, designed for long-range operations, while Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has offered its Type 209NG submarines, primarily used for coastal defense. Admiral Nogare described the proposed vessels as potentially being “among the best submarines in the world today.”
Admiral Nogare also claimed that both the French and German governments had offered to finance the purchase in full, with Argentina repaying the money through installments.
If a deal is made between the three countries, this would constitute the first major step to rebuilding Argentina’s submarine capabilities, having essentially closed its submarine force in 2017. It also complicates claims from President Milei that the Argentine government is not seeking to take the Falkland Islands through military means.
Implications for Britain.
The proposals coincide with ongoing efforts from British Prime Minister Andy Burnham to strengthen the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union (EU), including potentially restoring Freedom of Movement and reversing Brexit, the country’s democratic decision to leave the bloc in 2016. The Labour Party politician claims that Brexit had done “more harm than good” and has said that he would like to see Britain rejoin the EU within his lifetime.
Earlier this month, the Institute for Public Policy Research, a British left-wing think-tank with connections to the Prime Minister’s inner circle, published a report encouraging the government to prioritize overturning Brexit and working towards seeking public consent to rejoin the bloc in the medium term.
“When the options are presented, government should name membership of the European Union as its medium-term goal,” reads the report’s recommendations section.
However, given the proposals from France and Germany, the two largest countries and economies in the EU, to arm a country seeking to take territory from Britain, it seems the British government’s desire for a closer, mutually beneficial relationship is one-sided.
Going forward, the Prime Minister will have to justify the decision to move closer to the EU while the bloc is not only prepared to demand major concessions for rejoining, but is also willing to undermine the United Kingdom’s security and sovereignty.
The National Pulse is an independent publication. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
France and Germany have offered to build attack submarines for Argentina following the Latin American country's renewed demands to take over the Falkland Islands, despite their notional status as allies of the United Kingdom.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
For more than a decade, Ken Paxton has used the Texas Attorney General’s office as a battering ram against federal overreach, corporate data abuse, and medical interventions against minors that state law forbids. The results include multi-billion-dollar recoveries, blocked federal programs, and preserved state barriers that other offices left unchallenged.
The National Pulse brings you original news and analysis free of corporate influence every week. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Big Tech: Billion-Dollar Recoveries.
In July 2024, Paxton’s office extracted a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta for capturing biometric identifiers from Texans without the consent required by state law. Payments are spread over five years. The following year, Google signed a $1.375 billion agreement covering location tracking, Incognito mode activity, and biometric data collection—larger than any prior single-state recovery against the company for comparable claims. A later Meta settlement exceeding $1 billion added further restrictions on features used by minors. Texas pursued the cases alone or with limited coalitions rather than waiting for multistate settlements that produced far smaller per-state returns.
Thank you very much, President Trump. We won’t let you down.
Texas will remain Texas, and our country will be safe.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) August 29, 2026
The Border: Holding the Line.
Paxton convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to deny emergency applications seeking to stop Senate Bill 4, which authorizes state and local officers to arrest people for illegal entry, in 2024.
In July 2024, Paxton defeated the Biden government before the en banc Fifth Circuit, which vacated a preliminary injunction that had ordered Texas to remove floating buoys it placed in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass to deter migrant crossings, finding the district court abused its discretion under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act.
A federal district court in November 2024 permanently blocked the Biden government’s “parole in place” program after a multistate suit led by Paxton, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security lacked statutory authority to grant the benefit to people already inside the country. Separate orders preserved federal border-wall materials and barred their disposal before the incoming Trump administration took office.
Election Integrity: Protecting the Rolls.
In September 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court order that had restricted expanded use of the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system for citizenship checks on voter rolls. Paxton’s office had intervened to defend Texas’s access to the modified database.
Earlier, a Northern District of Texas court held that the $1.7 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Constitution’s Quorum Clause because a majority of House members were not physically present when it passed; the court enjoined enforcement of a specific provision against Texas.
The Trans Agenda: Sports, Records, and Medical Interventions.
Paxton’s office obtained injunctive relief blocking the Biden government’s Title IX guidance and rules that treated gender identity as a basis for access to sex-segregated facilities and sports.
In 2025, Dallas ISD entered an agreed order confirming it would comply with Texas law requiring athletic competition according to biological sex after the attorney general’s office obtained records and pursued depositions.
In May 2026, Texas Children’s Hospital agreed to a $10 million settlement resolving Medicaid billing claims involving unallowable gender-transition interventions for minors. The agreement requires the hospital to open a multidisciplinary clinic for patients who previously underwent transition procedures by late October 2026, revoke the privileges of five physicians, and amend its bylaws so that violations of the state ban trigger automatic loss of privileges.
A separate suit against the NCAA under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act—alleging that the organization marketed mixed-sex events as women’s competitions—remains active after a 2026 state court ruling rejected mandatory sex verification testing, but left the core claims intact.
Second Act in the Senate?
Earlier this year, Paxton defeated Republican-in-name-only incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the Republican primary runoff after receiving President Donald J. Trump’s endorsement. He is the Republican nominee against radical Democrat James Talarico in a race national forecasters have rated a toss-up.
Paxton’s cumulative record at the state level consists of large recoveries from tech giants, reinforced immigration protections, defeated federal programs, and the strengthening of Texas statutes protecting athletics and minors. Should he take that fighting spirit to the national capitol, is will prove a huge boon to the America First movement, particularly if the Democrats take control of Congress.
As featured by President @realDonaldTrump today, this is who James Talarico is.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
For more than a decade, Ken Paxton has used the Texas Attorney General’s office as a battering ram against federal overreach, corporate data abuse, and medical interventions against minors that state law forbids. The results include multi-billion-dollar recoveries, blocked federal programs, and preserved state barriers that other offices left unchallenged.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
The European Union is planning to expand its border agency. While framed as a solution to rising illegal immigration, there are concerns that the bloc’s leadership is attempting to supplant the authority of national border forces.
The National Pulse keeps you updated on global affairs. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
The Background.
The EU is proposing a major expansion of its border agency, Frontex, following years of illegalimmigration and concerns that the bloc is failing to control its external borders.
The Frontex proposal also comes amid a growing trend of member states temporarily imposing and extending internal border checks to address border security issues. As of late 2026, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden have reintroduced temporary internal border checks.
The Proposal.
The European Commission proposes to gradually increase Frontex’s personnel to 30,000 officers, including a new 17,000-person European Border and Return Reserve, which would remain available to member states. The agency would also receive more sophisticated equipment, including digital and artificial-intelligence (AI) technology.
The proposal also includes creating a Quick Reaction Force, which could be deployed to an external border emergency on very short notice, a Return Coordination Center, which would have a central role in organizing deportations, and an Online Monitoring Center, which would identify potential border threats and monitor digital media.
Frontex would also be granted powers to assist with returns outside the EU. This includes deporting migrants from one non-EU country to another non-EU country through returns agreements.
The European Commission has framed the expansion of Frontex as a means of making the bloc’s returns process faster and more coordinated.
“Today we propose that Frontex becomes the central EU actor on returns… It will be able to act faster, with a quick reaction force that can deploy within 24 hours and spot risks early, before an event becomes a crisis,” said Magnus Brunner, the EU’s Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, in a press conference on Tuesday.
In addition to increasing the efficacy of the bloc’s pre-existing border policies, the EU’s leadership emphasized the ability of an expanded Frontex to assist member states individually.
“Europe will always stand up for the protection of its borders. Europe decides who comes to our Union and under what circumstances. This is why today we propose to strengthen Frontex. So, it can support Member States whenever and wherever needed. Including on returns, with the mandate and capabilities that this new reality demands,” said Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission.
The Reality.
While the proposal does not formally abolish national border forces, it has the potential to centralize European border policy and supplant national border forces by having Frontex assume greater responsibility. This matters for countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Greece, which have taken particularly tough approaches to border control. For instance, despite replacing Viktor Orbán, Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar intends to maintain Orbán’s strict migration policy, which is still subject to a €1 million-a-day EU-imposed fine.
Consequently, by making Frontex “the central EU actor on returns,” the proposal could functionally constrain national governments from pursuing different, more hardline border policies, despite expanded personnel and resource pools.
The proposal could also facilitate the end of internal border checks, which are supposed to be temporary due to the Schengen Area, which abolishes internal border checks between member states. The Schengen Area encompasses the overwhelming majority of EU countries, with Ireland and Cyprus being the two exceptions, as well as a handful of non-EU European countries, including Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.
This means that the expansion of Frontex could accelerate the EU’s return to completely open borders between member states.
The National Pulse brings you the facts that matter. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
The European Union is planning to expand its border agency. While framed as a solution to rising illegal immigration, there are concerns that the bloc's leadership is attempting to supplant the authority of national border forces.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
The far-left Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have endorsed several Democrat candidates for the midterm elections. How many candidates has the DSA endorsed, where are they standing, and what does this mean for Congress?
The DSA and its local chapters have endorsed 131 candidates for the midterm elections, spanning 30 states and Washington, D.C. While most DSA-endorsed candidates are seeking state or local office, the organization has also endorsed candidates for the U.S. Congress.
The DSA has endorsed 69 candidates for local offices, including city councils and ten mayoral candidates, along with 52 candidates for statewide offices, including state senates and state assemblies. Most of the DSA-backed local candidates are running in California, while New York has the largest contingent of state candidates.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the DSA has endorsed ten candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. This includes three candidates in New York, two candidates in California, two candidates in Michigan, one candidate in Colorado, one candidate in Louisiana, and one candidate in Pennsylvania.
The Candidates.
Out of the ten House candidates, two are incumbents, two are running for open seats, two are challenging Democrat incumbents, three defeated Democrat incumbents in their primaries, and one is challenging a Republican incumbent.
In New York, the DSA had endorsed Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez,who are running in NY-13 and NY-7, respectively.
Eight of the ten DSA-endorsed House candidates are running in districts where Democrats are heavily favored.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Tlaib are expected to win re-election comfortably. Similarly, Avila Chevalier, Valdez, Kiros, and McKinney are strongly favored to win their respective congressional races, while Rabb is essentially guaranteed to win his race in Pennsylvania. Gonzales-Torres and Vang are both running against fellow Democrats, and while both are expected to win, polling suggests Gonzales-Torres’ district is more competitive than Vang’s.
In contrast, Jewett is highly likely to lose her race in Louisiana as her district strongly favors Republicans. She is challenging Republican incumbent Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader.
Nevertheless, pollsters indicate that the vast majority of the DSA-backed House candidates are likely to be elected or re-elected in November.
The Consequences.
If current projections hold, the DSA is set to gain approximately eight representatives in the House. As the DSA currently has only two representatives (Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib), this would quadruple the organization’s presence in the House.
This would prove especially important in the event that the Democrats secure a narrow majority in the House. According to polling conducted by the non-partisan Cook Political Report earlier this month, the Democrats are projected to win between 224 and 234 seats in the House. In order to secure a majority in the House, a party requires 218 seats. Therefore, if the Democrats secure a slimmer majority, close to the 220-seat mark, the DSA could have significant leverage in the subsequent election for Speaker of the House.
The DSA has already signaled its intention to use its leverage within the House to extract concessions from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D), the current House Minority leader, in his bid for the speakership. Specifically, the DSA aims to lower the thresholds for both discharge petitions and vacating the chair to make it easier to force votes on DSA-aligned objectives and topple the House leadership.
The National Pulse is independent. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
The far-left Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have endorsed several Democrat candidates for the midterm elections. How many candidates has the DSA endorsed, where are they standing, and what does this mean for Congress?
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
America’s artificial intelligence (AI) boom is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation’s economy, helping to sustain growth even as traditional manufacturing struggles to recover. However, many of the companies at the center of the so-called AI revolution are losing billions of dollars, raising questions about whether the technology boom represents a genuine economic transformation or an enormous investment bubble.
The National Pulse gives you original analysis of trends across the globe. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Economists estimate the underlying U.S. growth potential at approximately two percent, while the Congressional Budget Office expects longer-term growth potential to remain around 1.8 percent.
Despite President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to stimulate economic growth through tariffs, tax reductions, and deregulation, the promised manufacturing renaissance has yet to fully materialize as he approaches the midpoint of his second term. Meanwhile, the AI industry is consuming unprecedented capital, much of it based on expectations of future profits that remain uncertain.
The Rise of the AI Economy.
The modern AI revolution accelerated in 2020 with OpenAI’s introduction of GPT-3, a large language model capable of generating human-like text. The November 2022 release of ChatGPT brought the technology to millions of ordinary consumers, triggering an investment race involving Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, and other technology giants.
By 2025, the competition had evolved into an enormous infrastructure-building campaign involving specialized semiconductors, data centers, electricity generation, and advanced computing networks.
According to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index, the computing costs associated with developing and operating advanced AI systems have increased dramatically. OpenAI’s reported annual computing expenditure reached approximately $16.3 billion in 2025, compared with $5.8 billion in 2024. Anthropic’s equivalent spending reached approximately $6.8 billion in 2025.
The economic consequences are substantial. Unlike software development, building the physical infrastructure necessary to operate advanced AI systems requires enormous upfront investment.
Hundreds of Billions Pour Into AI Infrastructure.
Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Oracle are collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on infrastructure, much of it related to artificial intelligence.
A Morningstar analysis projected approximately $453 billion in combined capital expenditure for the five companies during 2026, up from $376 billion in 2025. These figures include spending beyond AI alone. Meanwhile, OpenAI was targeting approximately $600 billion in cumulative computing expenditure through 2030.
Anthropic has also entered enormous infrastructure agreements, including commitments involving Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Such arrangements raise questions about circular financing, as some of the same technology companies investing in AI developers also receive billions from them through cloud-computing contracts.
Government involvement includes federal AI research, procurement, and tax incentives. Trump’s tax legislation has encouraged capital investment, although government support should not be confused with direct public financing of the industry’s multitrillion-dollar infrastructure ambitions.
The AI Giants Are Burning Through Cash.
Few AI companies, however, appear to be turning any sort of profit, with many spending more and more each year. Anthropic generated $16.29 billion in revenue during the first six months of 2026, while recording an operating loss of $693 million. Its operating losses had reached approximately $8.06 billion in 2025.
OpenAI has also experienced huge revenue growth alongside enormous computing costs. The company reported $13 billion in revenue for 2025, while its plans involve hundreds of billions in future computing expenditure.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta remain highly profitable corporations, supported by established businesses in software, advertising, cloud computing, and e-commerce. Their individual AI divisions’ profitability, however, is generally not disclosed on its own.
OpenAI, Anthropic, and Elon Musk’s xAI face a different challenge: developing sustainable business models while competing against corporations capable of financing AI expansion using profits from other operations.
Manufacturing Struggles While Technology Investment Surges.
The AI boom has also complicated President Trump’s efforts to rebuild American manufacturing. Actual evidence of manufacturing reshoring remains mixed despite the administration’s tariff policies. Imports have continued rising, partly because American data center construction requires substantial quantities of foreign-produced equipment.
While AI-related construction and computing investment boost economic output, they do not necessarily translate into renewed employment in steelmaking, automobile production, machinery, or other traditional industries. The danger is that headline economic growth becomes increasingly dependent on a relatively narrow group of technology companies rather than a broad-based industrial recovery.
AI Is Already Being Blamed for Mass Layoffs.
The AI revolution also threatens to undermine employment in sectors previously considered relatively insulated from automation.
According to figures compiled from reports by employment consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas, American employers cited artificial intelligence as the reason for approximately 120,136 announced job cuts between January and September 2026, representing roughly 21 percent of all announced layoffs during that period. That compares with approximately 54,836 AI-cited job cuts throughout 2025.
Software development, customer service, administrative work, and content production are among the occupations facing pressure as businesses attempt to reduce labor costs.
Another Dot-Com Bubble?
The AI boom bears some similarities to the dot-com frenzy of the late 1990s, when investors poured enormous sums into Internet companies before many collapsed. The Internet ultimately transformed the global economy, but that did not prevent investors from losing fortunes on businesses that never became profitable.
Artificial intelligence could follow a similar trajectory, delivering substantial technological progress while leaving many investors with losses.
For now, the American economy faces an uncomfortable contradiction: AI investment is supporting economic growth even as traditional manufacturing struggles, AI developers absorb enormous amounts of capital, and employers increasingly cite the technology when announcing layoffs. The question is whether the gains will ultimately prove to outweigh the potential losses.
To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
America's artificial intelligence (AI) boom is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation's economy, helping to sustain growth even as traditional manufacturing struggles to recover. However, many of the companies at the center of the so-called AI revolution are losing billions of dollars, raising questions about whether the technology boom represents a genuine economic transformation or an enormous investment bubble.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, hit back at the anonymous leader writers at The Times after they used Britain’s de facto newspaper of record to smear him and attack Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party.
“The Times editorial today is about… me!” Kassam wrote on X, in response to a “leader” article branding him a racist for calling the Conservative Party leader a “Nigerian scammer” over her long history of misleading statements about her past and positions. His response shone a spotlight on “these ANONYMISED ‘leader’ columns and who exactly writes them, because they don’t have bylines on them. Because they are COWARDS.”
Kassam publicly identified three members of The Times’s leader team as follows:
Daniel Finkelstein, a sitting Conservative member of the House of Lords and former Conservative Party adviser. Kassam added that he was “the reason Chelsea FC was run into the ground following the big Russia focus after the invasion of Ukraine.”
Sebastian Payne, a former Spectator writer who previously ran the Conservative-aligned Onward think tank. Payne has repeatedly sought Conservative parliamentary nominations without success. Kassam noted he is “told today’s ‘leader’ is his desperate last bid to get in Kemi’s good books.”
Oliver Kamm, a former Oxford Labour Party Club chairman and anti-Brexit Blairite who has pushed neoconservative foreign policy. Kassam noted that Kamm was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and is “still unrepentant.”
“These are the people who set the tone for the Times’s leader column, and these are the people who hide behind the anonymity afforded to them by the paper,” Kassam said. “I say enough is enough. If you’re going to wantonly attack people in the paper of record, be brave enough to put your byline on the item. It’s time we started sending cameramen to these people’s houses, doorstepping them, and making them truly have to own the things they write.”
The Substance of the Editorial.
The Times editorial framed Kassam’s comments as a “racist attack on the opposition leader, who was, in fact, born here.” It claimed Kassam’s words reflect a “Nigeria strategy” by Reform outriders seeking to regain voters lost to Restore Britain and criticized Farage for calling the remark “not intentionally racist,” also taking aim at Reform lawmakers Robert Jenrick and Danny Kruger for declining to denounce Kassam and his remarks.
Kassam dismissed the piece as “risible.” The claim that calling Badenoch a “scammer” is racist because “she was born here” ignores that she was born in Britain to Nigerian parents who flew into the country to have her in a London hospital, but returned to Nigeria to raise her. She has previously stated she loves Nigeria “just as much as” Britain, only claiming more recently that she no longer identifies as Nigerian while remaining “Nigerian through ancestry.”
Significantly for the racism allegation, “Nigerian” is not a race, and in addition to her aforementioned contradictory remarks, Badenoch has said she does not identify with Nigeria but with her “specific ethnicity” as a Yoruba, adding that she does not like being “lumped in” with her “ethnic enemies” in Nigeria’s north.
Kassam has long argued that the “scammer” characterization refers to this selective invocation of heritage, alongside dubious claims about her background, including a seemingly invented offer of a Stanford scholarship and an at best highly exaggerated childhood chess championship.
The Times‘s assertion that Kassam is “not a journalist” is likewise dismissed; The National Pulse chief is more widely accredited in Washington than The Times writers criticizing him. As for the invention of a coordinated “Nigeria strategy,” he said it does not exist: “There’s just me tweeting my views.”
The Uniparty Playbook.
Kassam drew a parallel to 2015, when media figures attributed messaging on HIV and migrants messaging to him despite his opposition to it. He argued there is “something ACTUALLY deeply racist about the way Dan Hodges, Giles Dilnot, and people like Daniel Finkelstein treat me,” explaining: “They are all very very mad I don’t say ‘yes master’ to them. And this is their way of handling it. I know the uniparty is used to having their useful idiots. I’ll never be one of them.”
The substance of the piece is risible btw.
1. Claiming it’s “racist” to call Kemi a scammer because “she was born here.”
2. Saying I’m not a journalist (I’m accredited more widely here in DC than any of these guys)
3. Saying there’s a “Nigeria strategy.” No there’s not.…
Raheem J. Kassam and his team can bring you original news analysis free of government and corporate influence because of reader support. To help it that way, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, hit back at the anonymous leader writers at The Times after they used Britain's de facto newspaper of record to smear him and attack Nigel Farage's Reform UK party.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
British households could be facing another massive energy price shock, with some forecasts suggesting annual bills could climb to more than $3,200 by April 2027 as the Iran war drives international gas prices higher. The crisis is again exposing Britain’s dependence on imported energy, with successive Conservative and Labour governments having refused to encourage energy production at home and pursued net zero ideology.
The National Pulse brings you detailed analysis on global energy trends and many other topics. To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION. We are 100% reader-funded.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Forecasts from energy supplier EDF suggest the typical annual household energy bill could rise by 27 percent in January, from the equivalent of approximately $2,309 to $2,937, before climbing again to $3,201 in April. Wholesale gas prices have reached a four-year high, driven by disruptions to liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and concerns about European gas reserves.
Britain’s North Sea Retreat.
Britain was once an energy powerhouse, extracting enormous quantities of oil and natural gas from beneath the North Sea. However, domestic production has declined dramatically, leaving the country increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers.
According to the House of Commons Library, British North Sea oil and gas production peaked in 1999 and has subsequently fallen by more than 70 percent. In 2004, Britain became a net importer of natural gas, much of it from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
The decline has partly resulted from the natural depletion of mature offshore fields. However, government policy has repeatedly discouraged new exploration, with the leftist Labour Party going as far as committing to ending new oil and gas exploration and production licenses, while allowing limited developments around existing fields.
Ofgem’s analysis of Britain’s gas supplies indicates that approximately 47 percent of Britain’s gas comes through pipelines from Norway, compared with just 29 percent from domestic North Sea fields. Despite having domestic reserves, Britain is increasingly forced to rely on overseas suppliers to meet its energy requirements, driving up costs for consumers and businesses alike.
Britain’s Electricity Market Makes Everything Worse.
Britain’s energy problems extend far beyond the long-standing declining domestic gas production. The structure of its electricity market means international gas price increases can affect households even when their electricity is generated by renewable sources like wind and solar, or nuclear power.
Under Britain’s marginal pricing system, the wholesale electricity price is frequently determined by the most expensive generator needed to satisfy demand. That generator is often a gas-fired power station. A recent parliamentary Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report warned that Britain already had some of the highest domestic and industrial electricity costs among comparable countries before the current crisis in the Middle East. It also called for reforms to reduce the disproportionate influence of gas on electricity prices.
France, Norway, and America Invested in Energy Independence.
Other Western countries show how different energy strategies can reduce dependence on imported natural gas.
France has maintained its large nuclear power industry, with reactors generating approximately 68 percent of the country’s electricity in 2025, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear generation has helped limit France’s reliance on gas-fired electricity, although it still has some exposure to energy markets in Europe.
Norway pursued a different strategy, continuing to develop its North Sea oil resources while relying overwhelmingly on domestic hydropower for electricity. According to Norwegian government figures, hydropower accounted for approximately 90 percent of electricity production in 2025.
The United States, meanwhile, has benefited from the shale gas revolution, which dramatically expanded domestic production through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that American natural gas production reached a record 118.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2025, helping sustain a huge domestic energy supply.
All three countries show that prioritizing the cost of energy for their own residents over net zero and the green agenda has consistently left them more insulated to global energy market fluctuations and grants their own people cheaper energy at home.
Net Zero Has Made Britain Less Secure.
The contradiction in Britain’s energy strategy is that governments have sought to restrict domestic fossil-fuel development while the economy continues to rely heavily on natural gas.
According to the British government’s 2025 security of supply report, natural gas accounted for 35 percent of total British energy demand in 2024. The same report projects continued declines in North Sea production, although it argues that ending new exploration licenses will have only a marginal impact on future output.
Wind and solar alone cannot guarantee a continuous energy supply, leaving gas-fired generation important during periods of low renewable output. However, Conservative and Labour governments have moved away from domestic fossil fuel production without first establishing sufficient alternatives. With household energy bills potentially approaching $3,200 annually, that issue is becoming increasingly urgent.
To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
British households could be facing another massive energy price shock, with some forecasts suggesting annual bills could climb to more than $3,200 by April 2027 as the Iran war drives international gas prices higher. The crisis is again exposing Britain's dependence on imported energy, with successive Conservative and Labour governments having refused to encourage energy production at home and pursued net zero ideology.
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
