Zero Hedge

CNN Slams Keir Starmer's "Atrocious" Ratings, 'Makes Trump Look Like Abraham Lincoln'

CNN Slams Keir Starmer's "Atrocious" Ratings, 'Makes Trump Look Like Abraham Lincoln'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have plunged to historic lows, with even CNN calling them “absolutely ATROCIOUS” and noting that President Trump appears “downright like Abraham Lincoln” by comparison. This brutal takedown highlights how Starmer’s globalist policies are alienating Brits across the board.

As the Labour leader clings to power, his war on free speech and commitment to protecting illegal immigration is fueling a backlash that could spell the end for his regime. With polls showing just 20% approval, Starmer’s grip on Number 10 looks increasingly tenuous.

The Overton News clip, which has gone viral on X, captures CNN’s scathing assessment of Starmer’s popularity nosedive.

In the segment, analyst Harry Enten declares, “These numbers are absolutely ATROCIOUS! I mean, you never see numbers like this in the United States of America.”

Focusing on the dire stats, Enten points out, “Britons who like Keir Starmer, look at this — overall it’s just 1 in 5! It’s just 1 in 5, 20%!”

Even within his own ranks, support is crumbling:

“His OWN party, Labour, he’s just at 52% there.”

The commentary escalates, revealing, “I’ve even seen numbers with satisfaction in the TEENS — and this is actually HIGHER than the lowest.”

The most striking line compares Starmer unfavorably to Trump:

“You know, we always talk about Donald Trump being unpopular in this country — but Donald Trump looks downright like Abraham Lincoln compared to Keir Starmer’s numbers at this point!”

The latest YouGov survey from February 2026 shows Starmer’s net favourability at -47, with only 22% viewing him positively against 69% unfavorably. That’s an improvement from January’s -57, but still abysmal for a sitting PM.

Other trackers paint an even grimmer picture. Ipsos reported satisfaction in the teens late last year, aligning with CNN’s observations. Opinium’s February poll pegs his net approval at -44, with over half the public calling for his resignation.

Starmer’s woes stem from policies that prioritize globalist agendas over British interests. Mass immigration continues unchecked, straining public services while borders remain porous. Economic missteps, like burdensome regulations on businesses, echo the failures of socialist experiments.

Recall our earlier coverage where a former aide to Starmer revealed how a “stakeholder state” – an unelected network of insiders, NGOs, and civil servants – effectively controls the UK government.

Paul Ovenden described this “political perma-class” as diverting power from voters to elite priorities, wasting resources on fringe issues while ignoring secure borders and sovereignty.

This shadowy influence explains Starmer’s disconnect from the public, leading to approval ratings that rival the worst in postwar history. Historical comparisons show that every UK PM with similar low ratings either lost big or resigned before the next election.

Adding fuel to the fire is Starmer’s aggressive stance against free expression. Threats to ban platforms like X over AI-generated content have drawn international condemnation.

As we reported previously, the US under Trump vowed to deploy its “full arsenal of tools” against such censorship, equating the UK to regimes like Iran. Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that nothing is off the table to defend free speech, including facilitating uncensored access via Starlink.

This transatlantic tension underscores how Starmer’s surveillance-state ambitions, like cradle-to-grave digital IDs, threaten core freedoms. Brits are waking up to the hypocrisy: cracking down on online speech while turning a blind eye to real threats like grooming gangs.

Bloomberg notes Starmer’s ratings bounced slightly after a leadership scare but remain deeply negative compared to rivals like Kemi Badenoch (-23) and Nigel Farage (-37). Reform UK, with its America First-style populism, has surged ahead, capitalizing on Labour’s failures.

Even among Labour members, Starmer ranks near the bottom in internal favorability, with a net +5. A gender divide shows women more supportive, but overall, the party is fracturing.

Starmer’s trajectory mirrors the downfall of other left-wing leaders who embraced globalism over national sovereignty. As approval lingers in the doldrums, calls for his ouster grow louder.

The message is clear: Brits demand leaders who put their country first, not puppets of unelected elites. If Starmer doesn’t suddenly reverse course on open borders, economic strangulation, and speech suppression, his tenure could end much sooner than expected.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 11:55

Could The War In Ukraine Go Nuclear?

Could The War In Ukraine Go Nuclear?

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Too many influential voices are contemplating how to ‘win’ a nuclear war...

With all eyes on the U.S. military buildup around Iran right now, the Russia-Ukraine War has been temporarily upstaged.  It will not play second fiddle for long.  The recent trilateral talks in Geneva involving the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States have been unable to resolve a principal issue of disagreement: Ukraine’s martial-law-president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s refusal to cede any land and Russia’s insistence that the Donbas region — specifically the four eastern territories that have already held a referendum in support of becoming part of the Russian Federation — be acknowledged as sovereign Russian territory.

As the war heads into its fifth year, dangers mount for Europe.  While President Trump wants to end the bloodshed before the violent conflict transforms into something even more catastrophic, too many parties seem committed to ratcheting up the butcher’s bill a while longer.  Unfortunately, there are numerous reasons for prolonging the war that have nothing to do with protecting civilian lives or securing Ukrainian territory.

There is the political reality that a growing embezzlement scandal is taking down high-ranking Ukrainian officials with close relationships to Zelenskyy and the prospect that general peace would mean not only an end to the hold-over-president’s power but also an end to his legal immunity.  There is the dogged determination of the European Commission and certain European nations — particularly the United Kingdom and its Ukraine-obsessed MI6 — to drag the fighting out as long as possible as part of a larger effort to weaken President Vladimir Putin’s control over the Russian Federation.  There is the long-term European Union goal of absorbing Ukraine into the continental federation and eventually welcoming it into NATO — or at least to use the present war as an excuse for positioning European troops close enough to Ukraine’s current battle lines to trigger a U.S. military response once the lives of NATO-allied soldiers are threatened.  There is the dire financial need for the European Central Bank and discrete national Treasuries to use the war as a publicly digestible excuse for fabricating new war bonds, cutting welfare programs, further integrating Europe’s separate national economies, subsidizing Europe’s defense industries, and printing enormous sums of money.  There is the relentless goal of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (selected by the elite members of the European Council and elected not by the European people but rather the European Parliament) to use the War in Ukraine as a justification for expanded powers for her office and the formation of a European-wide military under her putative authority.

For many reasons that have nothing to do with saving lives or resisting invasion, Europe seems committed to prolonging war and forestalling peace.

At the same time, there is a growing sentiment among Russians that a larger war in Europe has become inevitable.  While European political leaders have spent more than a decade publicly framing (1) Russia’s annexation of Crimea, (2) its military assistance to Russian separatist groups in the Donbas region, and (3) its “special military operation” in Ukraine as completely unprovoked instances of “Russian aggression,” most Russian citizens view them as legitimate responses to (1) the U.S.- and E.U.-led coup d’état of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 (an event that the West euphemistically calls the “Maidan Revolution” or “Revolution of Dignity”), (2) the Ukrainian military’s attacks on ethnic Russians, and (3) NATO’s decades-long advance right up to the Russian Federation’s borders.

If European and American leaders intended to weaken President Putin’s domestic support so severely that he would be removed, betrayed, or killed, those efforts have failed.  Instead, a rally-around-the-flag patriotism for “Mother Russia” has swept across the world’s largest nation state.  As European sports leagues banned Russian athletes from competing under their own flag, anger in Russia grew.  As Russians living abroad found their bank accounts frozen for the actions of their government, anger in Russia grew.  As Western news corporations increasingly dismissed politically inconvenient stories as “Russian disinformation,” anger in Russia grew.  Whereas once the prospect of Russian integration with continental Europe seemed likely, Russia now looks East and toward a future with other Asian powers.

A prospect even more unsettling than the current War in Ukraine now takes shape: the quickening drumbeat toward nuclear confrontation.  What U.S. and former Soviet Union leaders spent half a century working to avoid is now discussed too openly for comfort.  American senators, such as Lindsey Graham, have occasionally suggested that effective nuclear deterrence requires U.S. willingness to use the nuclear weapons in its arsenal.  France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Fiedrich Merz have held not-so-secret talks on creating a European-managed “continental nuclear shield.”  Turkish President Recep Erdogan wants nuclear weapons of his own.  Polish President Karol Nawrocki says that his country needs nukes in order to defend against the “Russian threat.”  Meanwhile, one of the most influential intellectuals in the Russian Federation believes that President Putin must be willing to utilize “limited but decisive nuclear strikes using operational-strategic weapons” should European Union powers refuse to retreat.

Russian political scientist Sergey Karaganov says that the E.U. is playing with nuclear fire and must be taught a lesson.  Karaganov is no ordinary academic.  He holds a reputation in Russia similar to Henry Kissinger’s in the United States.  Karaganov is a founding member of Moscow’s prestigious Valdai Discussion Club, the honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, and a personal confidant of both Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Putin.  When Professor Karaganov suggests that the time is approaching when his country must contemplate using nuclear weapons against strategically important areas of Europe, people should listen.

In a lengthy and polemical essay for the foreign-policy journal Russia in Global Affairs, Karaganov argues that Europe’s political “elites” are pushing the continent toward a nuclear confrontation.  He says the War in Ukraine has “dragged on longer than necessary” because of a “lack of determination to employ active nuclear deterrence.”  He argues that nuclear weapons represent the “only mechanism capable of resolving” the “European problem,” a problem that he describes as, “an existential threat to our country.”  Furthermore, “Targets should include places where elites gather, including in nuclear states.  Governments must feel personal risk.”

Professor Karaganov then takes the Russian people through a sympathetic history lesson.  He claims to have had a conversation with a group of European leaders back in 2013 during which he warned that “dragging Ukraine into the E.U. and NATO would lead to war and mass casualties.”  He says they “looked down at their shoes” and mumbled about “democracy,” “human rights,” and “containing Russia.”  Karaganov argues that years of Russian “appeasement” has come at the “terrible cost” of tens of thousands of “brave soldiers” who “lost their lives” in Ukraine.  Describing Russia’s fallen warriors as heroes whose sacrifice cannot be forgotten, he insists that Russia not make the same mistakes of the last two decades.

Striking Ukrainian targets, Karaganov argues, is not a “strategic solution” because “E.U. elites” represent the real threat.  “The conflict will continue until its true source is addressed: Western Europe’s degenerated ruling classes, intellectually, morally, and materially exhausted, who cling to power by fueling war.”  He insists that Russia must “break” Europe’s “will” to keep fighting.  He argues that effective nuclear deterrence is the only way to prevent a larger U.S.-Russia war.  Furthermore, he believes that France and the United Kingdom must be deprived of nuclear weapons because “they have forfeited the moral right to possess them.  Any Western European move toward nuclear proliferation must be treated as grounds for preemptive action.”

Too many influential voices are contemplating how to “win” a nuclear war.  Say a prayer for peace.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 10:45

Non-Woke Game Of Thrones Spinoff Explodes In Popularity

Non-Woke Game Of Thrones Spinoff Explodes In Popularity

It is true that woke content in entertainment media has been in steady decline.  Some production studios continue to fight against reality in a vain effort to force their insane ideology on the public, but compared to five or ten years ago, far left-activism in film and TV is crumbling.

The number of film productions are plummeting.  New movies and shows are becoming thinner in budget and frequency.  Hollywood is gasping for oxygen.  Many people consider this a good thing, and it is.  Hollywood deserves to die.  That said, there's almost nothing available to replace it, and this is becoming a problem. 

Storytelling is integral to the human condition; it's how we pass on ideas, principles and history.  Hollywood has devolved to the point that they no longer know how to do this.  Wokeness is all they understand and without it they are lost.

Only a few years ago it would have been a miracle to find a streaming series with a nearly all white cast set in a European-style environment featuring a straight white male hero with a heart of gold and a dream of serving as a protector of the innocent.  It would have been even more of a miracle to find a show in which good people with pure intentions are exemplified as the ideal.  And, for that show to also be a Game of Thrones spinoff would require divine intervention.

Today, it would seem that miracles are now possible.

The recent release of HBO's "A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms" set in the world of Game Of Thrones has caused a stir - The good kind of stir.  Audiences initially approached the series with extreme caution, given the incredible woke failure the original GOT series turned out to be, not to mention the insipid gayness of House Of The Dragon.  However, the complete absence of woke propaganda in the series has come as a pleasant shock to audiences and the show is exploding in popularity.

The first season is not officially ended and there is, of course, always the chance that writers will attempt to ambush the audience after luring them into a false comfort.  But this does not seem to be the case with KSK.

Our main character, Duncan the Tall (played by Irish actor and rugby player Peter Claffey) is an endearing hero in a way that we have not seen in film or TV for a very long time.  His sidekick "Egg", played by 11-year-old Dexter Sol Ansell, is one of the best child actors to grace a series since the first season of Stranger Things (another show that fell part under the low IQ weight of woke ideology).  The duo is incredible to watch and their friendship feels real. 

The underlying theme, though, is the real draw. 

Chivalry and honor codes are center stage here.  No hint of feminism.  No hint of progressive moral relativism.  No moronic preaching about racism.  It's hard to believe, but the focus of this series is the necessity and value of good men.

Fans have taken to social media to rave about the production, citing the refreshing depiction of western culture in fantasy.  It's a genre that was supported by white nerds well before it was considered "cool", and it's nice that they're being welcomed back here.   

A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms is now bring in around 13 million viewers within the first three days of the premier of each new episode.  Compare this to the majority of woke series, which receive an average of 2 million to 5 million viewers per episode, usually in a pattern of steep decline.  Streaming services like Disney or Paramount tend to refuse to release full official data on such content because it performs so badly.    

It should not be surprising that entertainment media draws a much larger crowd when it avoids political preaching, especially when the content is set in a fantastical world where modern politics would not exist.  The inability of Hollywood to accept defeat and move on with more relatable content is leading to their complete destruction.  Maybe with the success of A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms they might finally learn something.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 09:55

"Potentially Worst Blizzard In Decade" Set To Hammer Mid-Atlantic And Northeast

"Potentially Worst Blizzard In Decade" Set To Hammer Mid-Atlantic And Northeast

A potentially historic winter storm is set to slam the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast beginning Sunday, bringing heavy snow, damaging winds, and coastal flooding.

As of Sunday morning, 35 million people are under Blizzard Warning alerts from the Mid-Atlantic through New England, according to a post on X from the National Weather Service Prediction Center.

Meteorologists are already labeling the nor'easter as potentially historic and warn it could be the most intense blizzard to hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast in a decade.

Snowfall forecasts are already pointing to a high-impact setup along large stretches of the I-95 corridor, from the Washington, D.C., area to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, where significant accumulations are possible.

In the Tri-State region, some forecasts suggest localized totals could reach upwards of 2 feet, likely sparking major travel disruptions from the I-95 corridor to air travel.

"DHS suspends TSA PreCheck & Global Entry over shutdown. Millions who paid for faster security now stuck in regular lines—while a historic blizzard cancels 7,000+ flights in the Northeast," Fox News reporter Lucas Tomlinson wrote on X.

Related:

The storm's setup is similar to the 2016 blizzard that blanketed Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and New York City with up to 2 feet of snow in some areas.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 08:10

Preparation For Martial Law? Europe To Recruit Migrants For "National Defense"

Preparation For Martial Law? Europe To Recruit Migrants For "National Defense"

Europe's lack of military readiness has become painfully obvious in recent years, due largely to the war in Ukraine as well as the Trump Administration's efforts to force NATO members to fulfill their basic obligations. 

Specifically, Russia's successful use of attrition tactics against NATO supported forces in Ukraine has exposed a significant weakness in western military doctrine.

New and cheap technologies (including drone technologies) are making large scale maneuver warfare obsolete.  The era of super-weapons dominating the battlefield with minimal manpower is over.  As was the case in WWI and WWII, troop strength and boots on the ground are once again the key to victory.  

A Washington DC-based defense think-tank, Center For A New American Century (CNAS), has come to the same realization and suggests a novel (as well as predictable) solution:  Exploit mass immigration from Ukraine and third world countries to the west as a resource to fill the persistent void in military recruitment numbers.  

Writing for Foreign Policy, the CNAS notes:

"Closing manpower gaps may prove harder than writing bigger checks. The continent’s demographic crisis compounds the problem: Births in the European Union fell below 4 million in 2022 for the first time since 1960, shrinking the pool of potential recruits as geopolitical threats—chief among them, Russian aggression—demand larger, more capable forces..."

The argument, of course, presupposes that Russia has any intention of invading greater Europe.  There is no evidence that this is Vladimir Putin's goal.  However, the Russian bogeyman does make for a useful excuse to justify the development of a unified EU military force.  

The threat of war can also be exploited by European officials as a way to justify open borders and mass immigration from the third world.  Immigration from Ukraine makes some sense - It is a legitimate war torn country and Ukrainians are close to the rest of Europeans in terms of cultural attitude.  But, EU elites need a rationale for flooding the region with third worlders and war with Russia seems to be their ticket.  The CNAS uses the "demographic collapse" claim as a catalyst.

"Ukraine’s grinding war of attrition has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Emerging capabilities in the form of high-tech weaponry cannot substitute for boots on the ground. Soldiers, sailors, marines, coast guardsmen, and airmen are the backbone of national defense. Yet the European Commission estimates a 43 million reduction in the bloc’s working-age population by 2070..."

"...Meanwhile, Europe continues to grapple with significant migration flows from Africa, the Middle East, and other regions. These arrivals, often young, male, and seeking better opportunities, represent exactly the demographic cohort European militaries desperately need. Many migrants arrive with valuable skills: language abilities, cultural knowledge of strategic regions, technical expertise, and, most importantly, motivation to prove themselves and build new lives."

It should be noted that these kind of articles from think-tanks are not so much "suggestions" for future policy initiatives.  Rather, they are propaganda pieces designed to promote policies that governments already intend to implement in the near future.

A number of European countries have already begun the groundwork for recruiting migrants for national defense. 

Ireland just recently announced that their are reviewing a possible program to give fast-track citizenship to immigrants who volunteer to join the military.  Irish leaders assert that this is necessary to boost defense capabilities, but they also argue that it is need to increase Ireland's "diversity."    

Several other European governments are looking at similar programs, including Germany, France and Spain. 

The real question is, would third world migrants actually fight on the front lines for Europe?  Furthermore, is this really the true agenda behind mass immigration?  To boost western demographics to defend against invasion, or to support the economy?

It is clear that third worlders are a net negative on the economic health of the countries they migrate to.  The majority represent a drain on social welfare systems.  Europe is on a downward spiral in terms of economic health and crime over the past decade.  In fact, the more European leaders embrace mass immigration, the more the economy declines and the worse their native demographic crisis becomes.  

It makes more sense if one considers the possibility that mass immigration and military recruitment are designed to keep European citizens in line, not Russia or Putin.  As we mentioned in our recent article on Canada's new program to recruit military trained foreign nationals for their own armed forces, left-wing governments are not really worried about invasion from Russia or China, they are worried about opposition from their own conservative and nationalist populations. 

It is much easier to control native Europeans using immigrant mercenaries with no loyalty to the culture.  The CNAS specifically mentions the use of military service as a way to sooth the concerns of "xenophobic" conservatives.

"The political center regarding migration has collapsed in the face of far-right xenophobic approaches to the migration file, such that few policy initiatives other than hardening land and maritime borders and cutting deals to send migrants away see the light of day..."

"The promise of citizenship provides powerful motivation, and military service demonstrates commitment to the nation in the most tangible way possible. The United States demonstrates that national identity is forged through shared sacrifice, not shared ancestry..."

In other words, sell Europeans on the idea that they have no shared ancestry and that migrants going to war for them is proof enough that they are loyal and should be citizens.  Of course, it's unlikely that migrants will be convinced to risk their lives for Europeans.  They might, however, be easily convinced to help oppress Europeans in exchange for citizenship and the spoils of subjugation.  

It's a threat western citizens need to seriously consider before supporting any government policy for the recruitment of foreign nationals.  They might just be supporting the very recruits that will eventually be used to enslave them.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 07:35

Ukraine's Fast-Tracked EU Membership Would De Facto Advance EU Federalist Goals

Ukraine's Fast-Tracked EU Membership Would De Facto Advance EU Federalist Goals

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The approval of “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and other candidate states would institutionalize a three-tiered Europe between the “E6”, Central Europe, and the new partial members from Eastern Europe and the Balkans for facilitating Germany’s divide-and-rule federalist plans.

Politico reported on the EU’s plan to grant Ukraine partial membership by next year at the earliest as part of a comprehensive solution to that country’s conflict. An unnamed official described this as “reverse enlargement” and explained that “It would be a sort of recalibration of the process — you join and then you get phased in rights and obligations.”

This modus operandi would enable all the other candidates to join too and thus complete the bloc’s expansion in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

If Orban isn’t ‘democratically deposed’ during next month’s parliamentary elections, then the EU plans to appeal to Trump to pressure him into agreeing to this, absent which they’ll remove Hungary’s voting rights.

Left unsaid is the assessment from early November when this general idea was first reported about how “Poland Might Impede The EU’s Push To Speedily Grant Ukraine Membership” if this compels it to open its agricultural market to another deluge of low-cost and low-quality Ukrainian exports.

Per the preceding hyperlinked analysis, “neither half of its ruling duopoly wants to be blamed for the domestic consequences of Ukraine joining the EU, especially not ahead of fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ruling liberal-globalist coalition is already facing an uphill battle and would torpedo any hope of keeping control if they supported this, while President Karol Nawrocki from the conservative-nationalist opposition would betray his base if he went along with them.”

It’s therefore possible that the EU’s “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine doesn’t include unlimited tariff-free access of its agricultural products either to the bloc as a whole or only to Poland in order to secure Warsaw’s approval. In any case, Ukraine’s fast-tracked EU membership would de facto advance EU federalist goals by institutionalizing Germany’s “two-speed Europe” proposal, thus leading to three tiers of membership actually between the “E6”, other full members, and the new partial members.

The “E6” refers to the bloc’s six largest economies – Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland – who’d collectively sit atop this institutionalized hierarchy that would unofficially be led by the German-Franco duopoly (or divided into factions by them if their rivalry becomes unmanageable).

Regardless of Poland’s participation or lack thereof within the “E6”, which the abovementioned hyperlinked analysis argues can’t be taken for granted, the EU would thus be formally divided.

The “E6” would push through reforms for facilitating federalization even if that end goal isn’t openly declared to avoid spooking some countries and their societies. The new partial members would then be pressured to conform with these new policies to obtain full membership, while the remaining full members from the second tier would be pressured by the first and third one into following suit. There’s a distinct geopolitical division between these tiers that deserves mention before concluding the analysis.

The “E6” represents Western Europe (with the exception of Poland), the new partial members would represent Eastern Europe and the Balkans, while the rest represent Central Europe. The EU federalists therefore want to pit the first three against the Central European members who oppose federalism in order to then impose that system upon them as a fait accompli. This observation further contextualizes the perceived urgency over approving “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and the other candidates.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 07:00

Pages