Tag: police state

UK Gov’t Secretly Used BBC & ITV Soaps for ‘Underhanded’ Vaccine ‘Propaganda’ to Covertly Shape Public Opinion, Coerce Compliance

New Freedom of Information (FOI) documents confirm what many long suspected: The UK government secretly used popular soap operas like EastEnders and Coronation Street to push vaccine propaganda during the pandemic, raising urgent questions about how much influence the state holds over British media, and how far officials are willing to go to manipulate public thought, opinion and behavior under the guise of public health.

The findings echo May 2021 revelations that scientists on the UK government’s behavioral advisory committee admitted they used fear-based “totalitarian” tactics to control public behavior during COVID-19, describing the approach as “unethical,” “dystopian,” and a form of “mind control.”

They also mirror an October 2024 U.S. House investigation that found the CDC and Biden administration used a $900 million COVID campaign to “manipulate Americans” with “deeply flawed” messaging, “overpromising” vaccines “without evidence,” and funding Big Tech companies to “track and monitor Americans.”

Keep reading

Austria Approves Spyware Law to Infiltrate Encrypted Messaging Platforms

Austria is moving forward with legislation that would authorize law enforcement to infiltrate encrypted communications, marking a pivotal shift in the country’s surveillance powers and stirring a fierce debate over digital privacy.

The federal cabinet’s approval of the plan comes after months of negotiations, with proponents citing national security needs and opponents warning of expansive overreach.

The proposed law targets messaging platforms widely used for private communication, including WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.

It introduces the use of spyware, formally known as source TKÜ, which would allow authorities to bypass encryption and monitor conversations directly on suspects’ devices. The change represents a major escalation in surveillance capabilities for a country that has traditionally lagged behind its European counterparts in digital interception laws.

Backers of the measure, such as Social Democrat Jörg Leichtfried, who oversees the Directorate for State Security and Intelligence (DSN), framed the move as a preventative strategy. “The aim is to make people planning terrorist attacks in Austria feel less secure; and increase everyone else’s sense of security.”

Leichtfried called the cabinet’s approval an “important milestone.”

Austria’s domestic intelligence services have until now been dependent on international partners, including the UK and the US, to provide warnings of potential threats.

Keep reading

Nebraska AG Sends Threat Letters To Retailers Over Alleged Sales Of Illegal THC Products

The owners of 82 smoke and vape shops and other THC-friendly retailers in Lincoln are receiving cease and desist letters this week from Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) about selling THC-containing products.

Hilgers, the state’s top prosecutor, ramped back up his push to get stores to stop selling delta-8, delta-9 and other products containing tetrahydrocannabinol that he argues offer people an unregulated, unsafe, illegal way to get high.

Store owners in several cities that Hilgers has targeted have argued state law is unclear about the legality of selling the products. Some have argued that federal law might have a loophole allowing it.

Hilgers had said he would pause his efforts to warn and then sue retailers still offering the targeted THC products if the Legislature in the 2025 session passed a bill to clearly make them illegal in the state, which stalled. The bill is likely to return in 2026.

His office, which also files civil cases to enforce state law, has sent the letters to 204 stores statewide alleging unfair business practices, deception and violations of safety requirements for food. That tally includes 104 stores in Omaha, four in Kearney and three in Nebraska City.

Keep reading

Obama Wants Filters Not Freedom

Barack Obama’s recent appearance at The Connecticut Forum once again revealed a troubling truth: the political establishment is becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of government-managed speech.

In an extended conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, the former president signaled that his tolerance for open discourse ends where his ideological preferences begin.

Amid warnings about the spread of “propaganda” and falsehoods online, Obama floated the notion of imposing “government regulatory constraints” on digital platforms.

His rationale? To counter business models that, in his opinion, elevate “the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence.”

But it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see what’s really being proposed: a top-down mechanism to filter speech based on government-approved standards of truth.

This wasn’t framed as a direct assault on the First Amendment, of course. Obama was careful to qualify that such regulations would remain “consistent with the First Amendment.”

But that’s little comfort when the very premise involves the government determining which voices deserve a platform. Once the state takes a role in deciding what is true or acceptable, the line between moderation and censorship evaporates.

Obama’s remarks included a reference to a saying he alleges is attributed to Russian intelligence and later adopted by Steve Bannon: “You just have to flood the zone with so much poop…that at some point people don’t believe anything.”

This, he argued, is the tactic used by bad actors to disorient the public. What he failed to acknowledge is that the antidote to this isn’t more control, but more speech. Free people, given access to a full spectrum of views, are capable of discerning fact from fiction without government supervision.

The real danger isn’t “too much speech.” It’s the increasing desire to place speech under bureaucratic management.

Obama’s suggestion that some speech is too “hateful” or “dangerous” to be left unchecked invites a future where those in power decide what the public is allowed to hear, a vision completely incompatible with a free society.

And we’ve already seen how that plays out.

Keep reading

Texas Hemp THC Ban and Medical Marijuana Expansion Set to Become Law on Monday

With the deadline for gubernatorial action falling on Sunday, June 22, both bills are now expected to become law without Abbott’s signature unless he issues a rare weekend veto.

If no veto is delivered by the end of Sunday, the measures will automatically take effect. House Bill 46 would significantly broaden the state’s limited compassionate use program by adding eligibility for patients with chronic pain, terminal illness, and traumatic brain injuries. It would also expand the number of licensed dispensaries from three to fifteen and legalize new product forms, such as patches and inhalers.

Senate Bill 3 would prohibit nearly all hemp-derived THC products—including delta-8, delta-10, and THCO—when intended for ingestion, inhalation, or topical use. Only trace THC amounts would be allowed in non-intoxicating products like CBD. If enacted, the ban would deal a major blow to Texas’ multibillion-dollar hemp THC industry. The restrictions would take effect September 1.

Despite both bills passing with strong bipartisan support, Abbott said earlier this week that he was still undecided on the hemp ban. With time running out, stakeholders are bracing for the likelihood that both measures will quietly become law on Monday, June 23.

Keep reading

The Coward’s Bargain: How We Taught A Generation To Live In Fear

Everyone’s Afraid to Speak

Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.

My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason and facts though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.

This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.

But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “that can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.

But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.

I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.

After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.

Another person told me they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during COVID sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.

But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.

This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.

And this is the world we’re handing to our children.

Keep reading

Corruption: The Founders Warned Us About Ourselves

“This can only end in despotism.”

Benjamin Franklin didn’t offer that as a theory. It was a sentence – and prophetic. He knew exactly what happens when a people trade virtue for vice: liberty dies, and tyranny takes its place. Not by accident. Not by force. 

But by choice.

And he wasn’t alone. The founders – and the political thinkers they studied – understood this brutal truth: no system of government can survive the corruption of its own people. Not a monarchy. Not a republic. Not even one bound by the most carefully written constitution in human history.

Once the rot sets in, the outcome is inevitable. The laws become meaningless. The safeguards fail. The tyrants rise. And the people, soft and submissive, cheer them on.

That’s the path we’re on now. Not because we’ve been conquered. Because we’ve decayed.

This isn’t a warning about what politicians are doing to us. It’s a reckoning for what we’ve allowed to happen in ourselves. The one form of corruption no constitution can ever fix is the corruption of the people.

VIRTUE OR TYRANNY

Franklin made that plain just before the Philadelphia Convention began. He wasn’t focused on structures or amendments. He focused on character – because he knew freedom isn’t granted, it’s earned. And not everyone earns it.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

James Madison didn’t pretend otherwise. In the debates over ratification, he dismissed the fantasy that liberty could be preserved by parchment alone. If the people are corrupt, they won’t just tolerate corruption in office – they’ll literally vote for it. And that makes every branch of government just as rotten as the people who put them there.

“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”

Thomas Jefferson explained what comes next. The collapse of liberty doesn’t begin with gunfire or invasions – it begins with rot. A quiet, invisible corrosion that spreads through the people until the entire system breaks.

“It is the manners and spirit of the people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

These weren’t new insights. The American founders didn’t invent this doctrine – they inherited it. Algernon Sidney paid for it with his life.

He warned that liberty and virtue are inseparable. Once one falls, so does the other.

“Liberty cannot be preserved, if the manners of the people are corrupted, nor absolute monarchy introduced where they are sincere.”

John Adams reached the same conclusion. He didn’t talk about elections or institutions. He made something else clear: the Constitution was made for a people of strong moral character – and it’s useless without them.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Samuel Adams didn’t just warn about corruption – he exposed the strategy behind it. Tyrants don’t need chains or armies to enslave a people. They just need to make the people ignorant and vicious. That’s how they hold power.

“It is in the Interest of Tyrants to reduce the People to Ignorance and Vice. For they cannot live in any Country where Virtue and Knowledge prevail.”

And the tyrants don’t even need chains. A broken people will do the job for them – gladly.

“The Religion and public Liberty of a People are intimately connected; their Interests are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this Reason, it is always observable, that those who are combin’d to destroy the People’s Liberties, practice every Art to poison their Morals.”

Keep reading

Palantir Denies Claims It Is Building Master Database

Palantir Technologies is roundly denying claims it’s building a massive, unified database containing Americans’ personal information, following media coverage implying its work for various federal agencies could enable unprecedented surveillance.

On May 30, the New York Times published an article highlighting the potential impact of the more than $900 million worth of federal contracts awarded to the Denver-based technology company since the beginning of the Trump administration.

“We are not building, we have not been asked to build, and we’re not in contract to build any kind of federal master list or master database across different agencies,” Courtney Bowman, the company’s global director of privacy and civil liberties, told The Epoch Times, “Each of those contracts are separate and fulfill specific mandates that are scoped and bound by congressional authorities and other laws.”

In March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order designed to limit wasteful spending by “eliminating information silos” among federal agencies. The order mandates that federal agencies must share data with each other. Furthermore, it requires the federal government to have unrestricted access to data from state programs receiving federal funding.

In the days following the report, various media outlets published reports that interpreted Palantir’s work as tantamount to developing a “’master database‘ or ’central intelligence layer’ drawing on Interal Revenue Service, Social Security, immigration and other records,” the Digital Trade & Data Governance Hub at George Washington University said in June.

“Collecting and linking such a vast array of sensitive records could create an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure. … There is a heightened risk of sensitive data being repurposed for uses beyond its original intent, or being used for political purposes,” a team led by Michael Moreno, a research associate at the Hub said.

Keep reading

U.S. Ramps Up Surveillance Amid Fears Of Iran-Backed Sleeper Cells 

President Trump stated Thursday that a potential U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear targets could occur within a two-week window. This announcement aligns with an uptick in U.S. military activity across the USNORTHCOM, USEUCOM, and USCENTCOM theaters, including airlift missions, the deployment of aerial refueling tankers, and the repositioning of naval assets—indicators consistent with pre-strike staging. While officially framed around countering Iran’s nuclear program, the operation so far suggests regime change. 

Simultaneously, in the Homeland, concerns are flourishing over the possible activation of Iran-backed operatives. According to CBS News, intelligence and law enforcement officials remain focused on Hezbollah-linked sleeper cells and IRGC proxy networks, which could be directed to carry out retaliatory actions if the U.S. initiates kinetic attacks against Iran to support Israel. 

Here’s more from CBS News, citing multiple sources… 

As President Trump is contemplating potential U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, law enforcement officials have stepped up surveillance of Iran-backed operatives in the United States, multiple sources told CBS News.

FBI Director Kash Patel has increased efforts to monitor possible domestic sleeper cells linked to Hezbollah — a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization backed by Iran — since Israel’s Operation Rising Lion offensive began earlier this month, U.S. officials said.

. . . 

The threat from Iranian operatives has worried current and former administration officials since Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was assassinated on Mr. Trump’s orders in January 2020.

CBS noted:

Late last year, federal prosecutors charged an operative of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and two U.S.-based people with plotting to surveil and assassinate critics of the Iranian regime. The IRGC operative allegedly told investigators he was pushed by unnamed IRGC officials to plan an attack against Mr. Trump.

The threat on the Homeland has never been graver given the Biden-Harris regime of globalists facilitated the greatest invasion this nation has ever seen on the southern border, with millions of unvetted migrants, criminals, cartel gangsters, and terrorists. 

In late 2024, former CIA targeting officer Sarah Adams spoke on the Shawn Ryan Show about Al-Qaeda terrorists on American soil. 

Keep reading

The Censorship-Industrial Complex Has Now Become Self-Perpetuating

I’ve covered a lot of speech crime indictments here at the plague chronicle.

Before Covid, these things hardly ever happened.

Occasionally you’d find the odd article about a dumb tourist who was cited for throwing a Nazi salute in public or something, but that was it. The whole area just didn’t matter.

The German state acquired a kind of political Long Covid from the pandemic.

Its agents learned from their virus repressions that they could get away with a lot more than they ever thought, and they also learned to view ordinary people as their adversaries.

A third thing happened too, in that lockdowns moved a lot of discourse to the internet, and the German elite discovered for the first time that they and their policies suffer a popularity deficit there. To explain this, our baffled and offended if powerful social media naifs borrowed the malevolent concept of “disinformation” from the Anglosphere. They began whining and crying and beating their breasts and clutching their pearls about disinformation. None of them did this so hard and so insistently as the Greens, because the Greens represent the views of the German political elite, and as an elite they feel entitled to scold, control discourse, and tell other people what to do.

That’s my potted history of how we got to this world, with pensioners being sent to jail for typing the wrong three-word phrase on the internet and YouTubers being fined thousands of Euros because some computer programme hallucinated into their banal complaints about poor internet reception a contextually incoherent Nazism. If you’re unlucky enough, you can get nailed for literally anything, and we only hear about a tiny minority of these cases. For a lot of people, the summary judgements they receive from the court are embarrassing, baffling and not worth the trouble. Those who can will just quietly eat the fine and try to get on with their lives.

In past pieces, I’ve drawn comparisons to the DDR, and I’ve also tried to characterise political repression as something that all states get up to when their ruling classes become threatened. I stand by all of that, but I’ve neglected to explain why our present situation is unique.

Europe and particularly Germany have entered a totally new era when it comes to government interference with personal expression. We’ve never seen anything like this before, it is going to get a lot worse, and nobody anywhere has the slightest interest in dialling this back. The prosecutions are escalating and they will only become more pervasive and ridiculous.

What is happening resembles classic “totalitarian” political tactics only superficially. The DDR employed literal bureaucrats and secret policemen whose job it was to censor speech according to defined standards and to punish or intimidate those who said inconvenient things. An analogy would be the farmer who decides there are too many rabbits eating his cabbages, and so he goes out and shoots them.

Modern Germany just can’t go out and shoot rabbits, and the reason has nothing to do with liberal democratic freedoms. We can’t even build bridges. Over a century ago, the Kingdom of Saxony required only two or three years to build the first Carola Bridge over the Elbe in Dresden. The SS destroyed that monument in 1945 to slow the Soviet advance, but the DDR needed only four years to build a replacement – the one that finally collapsed in September of last year. Today, in the best Germany of all time, we will require at least ten years and almost certainly more to build our third Carola Bridge. That is a very rough scale of how much ability the state has lost in the space of just a few generations.

The sclerotic, hyper-managerialised state that cannot build an uncomplicated 500-metre bridge across a river also finds censorship really, really hard. And so it has signed over this project to a whole world of NGOs, many of which now devote incredible resources to policing the internet all day.

We once had a farmer shooting rabbits, and that was bad enough if you happened to be a rabbit. Now we have an obese, bed-ridden, day-drinking farmer who can no longer fit through his front door. To solve his rabbit problem he has deputised a lot of autonomous agents, like the myxoma virus, to get rid of the hated rabbits instead.

This means he’s no longer in control of the process at all. The censorship happens all on its own, and for reasons of its own too.

It’s just something that a growing number of state-adjacent organisations do now, because there are institutional interests (jobs, funding) behind it.

How this happened is insidious.

Keep reading