Tag: police state

Loss of Narrative Control: How State Power Struggles Against Free Speech

The state is losing control over the dominant narratives in the competition of prevailing stories. Its apparatus of power responds predictably invasively and reveals its hostility toward dissenting opinions.

The German Bundestag’s Vice President Bodo Ramelow calls for stricter control of social media. “The platforms must be regulated,” Ramelow warns, demanding that operators “be held liable for what happens on their platforms.” In view of the “coarsening of language and writing” in the digital space, he advocates clear identity verification of users.

Of course, the former Prime Minister of Thuringia and self-confessed fanboy of cultivated socialism is as far removed from protecting free speech as he is from a fair exchange of arguments among different interest groups on an equal footing, where the state takes on the role of a passive guardian. No, Ramelow is a representative of the autonomously reproducing caste of statists, whose clearly articulated goal is to develop the state from a referee role into the dominant actor in the societal power field.

Socialism as a Viral Disease

A state that abandons its neutral role inevitably degenerates into an overbearing actor — socialism as a power construct is the consequence. One can also understand socialism in its revolving character as a kind of intellectual viral disease. Resentment, inferiority complexes, and failure translate in unstable personalities prone to one-dimensionality in societal disputes into vulgar fantasies of expropriation. Economic and cultural crises cause the rapid spread of this civilizationally deforming ideology — a mental pandemic gaining energy, whose discharge dissolves the pillars of civilization: private property, autonomy of action, family, religion, and cultural life.

It is of fundamental importance to understand at what point in the cyclical course of our society we have arrived. Ramelow’s talk can of course be dismissed as infantile utterances of a provincial politician and salon communist, who, like so many of his comrades, has carved a path through bureaucratic positions, public service, and NGO activism to eke out a life at maximum distance from normal reality. Yet in my opinion, this would be a superficial judgment. Ramelow’s unrestrained demands for control of the supposed sovereign are an expression of the final phase of the societal cycle. We stand at a turning point where representatives of the state feel the overstretching of their power, shaped in growing public debt, collapsing economies, and an as yet unspecific unrest among the people.

State Activates Last Resources

The left-wing power machine’s fight against dissenting opinions and political movements has long been institutionalized. In laws such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, the EU undertakes as a kind of “Ministry of Truth” the obscene attempt to bring social media platforms under state control to counteract its loss of power. Soft, emotionally charged, the enforcers of control cite transparency and youth protection to justify their overreach. The obligation to moderate content and disclose algorithms opens the door wide to political influence.

The citizen’s digital sovereignty as a counter-public, as a new regulatory mechanism against state media dominance, has become the newest battlefield of a society that passively watched the rise of initially gentle socialism and must now experience how from climate moralism and diversity hype emerges a passive-aggressive classic control socialism, which spares no effort to deploy state organs like the judiciary apparatus against the growing dissident movement. In this way, the state forges ever new weapons in the war of memes, a war long lost but seemingly continued as a rearguard action until the bitter end. Consider the flood of lawsuits with which failed representatives of societal transformation like Robert Habeck defend their criticism-immune safe zones.

The judiciary’s assault on U.S. President Donald Trump during last year’s election campaign, intended to sideline the Republican, will go down as a unique case in American judicial history. These cases accumulate into a fundamental problem, drawing the battle line between the state apparatus and the civic sphere so sharply that one can already fairly confidently predict the failure of this pathological control fetish. That the U.S. government has actually managed in recent geopolitical turmoil to initiate the first budget cuts to the propaganda vehicle USAID can be seen as a milestone victory in the open culture war against civic freedom.

Keep reading

Israel Cracks Down on Foreign Media Outlets with New ‘Zero Tolerance’ Censorship Policy

Israel is placing strict limits on video that news organizations can take at the scene of Iranian missile attacks.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi announced the policy, which requires prior approval from “the Israel Police, the Government Press Office (GPO), and the military [Israel Defense Forces] censor,” according to the Jerusalem Post.

“In accordance with new zero-tolerance enforcement measures led by the national security minister and the police commissioner, any transmission — live or recorded — from areas under missile fire must receive explicit clearance from the IDF censor,” GPO Director Nitzan Chen said.

The new policy was enacted after missile attacks in Beersheba, Holon, and Ramat Gan.

In those incidents, footage was appearing on Al Jazeera. The Jerusalem Post report said CNN and The New York Times were targeted by the new rule in addition to Al Jazeera.

Although some photographers said they represented other outlets, Israeli officials said the footage was used by Al Jazeera, regardless of who might have recorded it.

On Tuesday, Israeli police confiscated photo equipment used by journalists in Haifa.

Al Jazeera has made an unauthorized broadcast of a rocket strike on an Israeli oil refinery compound, something no Israeli media outlet was allowed to do.

“Following the successful coordinated enforcement against Al Jazeera broadcasts and others that violate censorship instructions and harm state security, we are implementing a new policy: All foreign journalists who wish to broadcast from Israel during wartime must receive specific written approval from the military censor — not only for the broadcast itself, but for the precise location, as well,” Ben Gvir and Karhi said.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid responded, criticizing the decision.

“Their decision to impose sweeping censorship will not be enforceable as long as people have cell phones with cameras, and it simply crushes the support that has emerged worldwide over the past week for the just war we are waging,” Lapid noted.

But Ben Gvir said broadcasts can be used as weapons.

Keep reading

Belgian Nationalist Given 12 Month Suspended Sentence Because Someone Else Shared a ‘Racist’ Meme

Belgian conservative-nationalist Dries Van Langenhove has again been sentenced on appeal to one year in prison as a suspended sentence for what the judge said were violations of the Racism and Negationism Act.

The sentence stems from racist memes that were not even posted by him, but by members of a group chat he administrated seven years ago.

The sentence was delivered today by the Court of Appeal in Ghent, although Van Langenhove does not accept the sentence, and the case now goes into cassation.

On X, Van Langenhove simply wrote, “Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.”

He later clarified upon receipt of the written verdict that the custodial sentence “appears to be a suspended sentence,” which he suspects is “most likely because the prisons in Belgium are literally full of illegal migrants.”

“Most people don’t realize that the end result of such a sentence is the same. One politically incorrect tweet can now put me in jail. One meme sent by someone else in a group chat I am in can turn the suspended sentence into an effective one. This suspended sentence is the gravest form of censorship they could pursue and an effective way to kill activism,” he added.

Keep reading

“What in the World Would Justify Doing This?”: A Texas Vet and Hemp-Business Owner on the Looming THC Ban

By Sunday, Texans will know whether the hemp-derived THC products that have been legal in the state since 2019 will be banned as of September 1. During the Eighty-Ninth Legislature, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 3, which would end a $5.5 billion industry and which now sits on Governor Greg Abbott’s desk. Sunday is the deadline for him to either veto the bill—breaking with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who made SB 3 a priority during the session and pushed it through both chambers with zeal—or allow it to become law. 

Lukas Gilkey, an Austin-based U.S. Coast Guard veteran, cofounded the cannabis company Hometown Hero, which has been producing hemp-derived THC products since 2019, and has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of the ban. The 44-year-old has gone viral for his social media posts responding to Patrick and defending the industry. With just days to go before Abbott determines the fate of the industry, we asked him to explain his position and make his pitch to the governor for why weed is good for Texas.  

Texas Monthly: So there’s an argument that legalization of these products in 2019 was kind of an accident: The Legislature legalized hemp, mirroring language that appeared in the federal farm bill the previous year, and in the process allowed the proliferation of certain derivatives that it did not consider. And so the argument goes that what it has done this session is just correcting an oversight. Does that hold water for you? 

Lukas Gilkey: Knowingly or unknowingly, they legalized these products, and subsequently a fully legal industry was created from that decision. This industry has over four billion dollars in retail sales in Texas. It’s created over 53,000 jobs, over eight thousand small businesses. If they wanted to correct it, it should have been done much sooner, rather than letting so many Texans enter this industry under the assumption it was legal and the politicians were okay with it. They allowed this thing to grow and then changed their mind six years later when they could have done it in 2021. Why did they not? 

Keep reading

DEA Judge Shuts Down Cannabis Manufacturing Case Without Hearing, Company Plans Legal Challenge

The company behind the application, MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, is now preparing to challenge the ruling in federal court and call for the judge’s recusal.

The ruling was issued by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II, who dismissed the company’s bid for a marijuana bulk manufacturing license after more than six years of delays. MMJ BioPharma said the decision came without warning and without any opportunity to present evidence or respond to agency claims—calling it a “procedural ambush.”

“This isn’t regulation—it’s an illegal ambush,” said MMJ CEO Duane Boise, who said the company had complied with all requirements under the Controlled Substances Act and FDA pathways.

MMJ, which is developing cannabis-based medicines for Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis, submitted a legally binding supply agreement in March 2024 with a DEA-licensed Schedule I facility. The agreement included specific sourcing protocols, defined volume, and DEA Form 222 compliance. Despite that, Mulrooney’s June 16 ruling ignored the document entirely and blocked it from being entered into the record.

Boise accused the DEA of demanding the agreement and then refusing to acknowledge it once submitted. “The agency cannot demand a document, receive it, then declare it irrelevant behind closed doors,” he said.

The order also reversed a previous determination by another administrative judge that certain disputed facts warranted a hearing. Instead, Mulrooney cited internal communications from a DEA investigator that MMJ was never allowed to challenge or respond to—raising concerns of ex parte communications and due process violations.

Keep reading

Military Couple Refuses to Surrender Constitutional Rights to the U.S. Air Force, As an Active-Duty Service Member’s Career Hangs in the Balance … With No Pay

The spouse of an active-duty member of the Air Force stands in the gap for her husband of 11 years. Together, the family is facing an uphill battle against the Department of Defense for exercising the innate rights of all U.S citizens, rights that service members do not relinquish.

Maj. Brennan Schilperoort is a C-130J transport aircraft pilot who has honorably served the nation in the Air Force for over 17 years. Maj. Schilperoort applied for a flu shot medical exemption in November 2023, previously having a severe adverse reaction to it, but the Air Force refused him consideration. Another service member he personally knows was granted a medical exemption that same month for “headaches.”

With evidence mounting about the safety, efficacy, testing, and research surrounding the unlawful COVID-19 shot mandate since 2021, Maj. Schilperoort also discovered significant issues surrounding the flu shots. Medical options exhausted, he asserted his Constitutionally-protected rights in December 2023 to object to the flu vaccine for moral and religious reason, requesting a Religious Accommodation. The request was ignored in violation of the Air Force’s own regulations and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

While those who ignore regulations continue to walk scot-free, Maj. Schilperoort was punished for his decision. While his case is still in appeal, the C-130J pilot has been placed on a no-pay status since mid-March for taking an objection grounded in his faith and the Constitution.

Davis Younts, Maj. Schilperoort’s military defense attorney with 23 years of experience, stresses that removing pay from an officer like this is “in my experience only reserved for violent criminals or those already incarcerated.” Interestingly, it should also be noted that the Air Force pilot has not had a documented case of the flu nor has he had the shot in the last four years. The Air Force allowed him to continue working alongside his coworkers the entire time.

Still considered an active-duty service member (emphasis added), Maj. Brennan Schilperoort is no longer able to provide for his family, having gone without pay for three months while appealing his case. If the pending appeal is denied, he will also face administrative separation from the Air Force he has faithfully served for most of his adult life.

Keep reading

UK’s Net Zero agenda is right at the top of the tyranny scale

David Turver argues that the UK’s Net Zero agenda is a far-left, tyrannical project that attacks freedom and is comparable to fascist states.

“If we substitute ‘Net Zero’ for ‘the State’ in Mussolini’s famous quote, we get close to describing the totalitarian Net Zero agenda: ‘Everything within Net Zero, nothing outside Net Zero, nothing against Net Zero’,” he says.

He talks us through how he comes to the conclusion that those advocating for Net Zero dystopia are narcissistic, psychopathic Machiavellians.  “We have somehow allowed the very worst people to take charge of most of our lives,” Turver says.

Introduction

Some friends have asked me to write more articles on the political and sociological impact of Net Zero. In addition, another contact put forward the suggestion that Net Zero is an attack on freedom. That idea has been turning over in my mind and I have concluded he was right and, effectively, Net Zero is just a cloak for far-left tyranny.

The Political Compass

The Political Compass is a widely used tool to differentiate between different political ideas, philosophies and ideologies.

It is typically drawn with the x-axis representing left and right opinions along the economic dimension. The left represents a desire for the economy to be run by cooperative collective agency with substantial state intervention and the political right represents a desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organisations, otherwise known as free markets.

The y-axis represents the social dimension, with the top representing authoritarianism and the bottom representing libertarianism. For shorthand, we can shorten this to tyranny versus freedom.

Net Zero Is Far-Left Tyranny

We can characterise Net Zero along both axes of the political compass. Starting with energy policy, we can see that there are government-mandated subsidies for renewables which cost a fortune. Plus, intermittent renewables can bid low into the market and be dispatched onto the grid despite the full cost of renewables being much higher than the market clearing price. Then there are extra subsidies for the Capacity Market to provide backup to intermittent renewables. In addition, there are even more subsidies for industry to compensate them for the resulting high electricity prices. There are extra subsidies for biofuels, green gas, green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. On top of that, Miliband’s plan for Clean Power by 2030 sounds like a Soviet-era five-year plan for tractor production.

The UK government and the Climate Change Committee are also intent on forcing landlords to install insulation measures, many of which have payback times measured in centuries. We also have subsidies for heat pumps and company EV drivers pay less tax than for petrol cars.

On the supply side, new drilling for both onshore and offshore oil and gas resources is effectively banned and the assets that remain are being taxed to oblivion with 78% marginal tax rates. Using gas to produce electricity attracts carbon taxes through the Emissions Trading Scheme, amounting to about 20% of wholesale prices.

All of this takes energy policy as far away from free markets as it is possible to imagine. Net Zero is a far-left project that would not have been out of place in the USSR.

Turning to the vertical axis, we can see that many of the proposed measures to achieve Net Zero can be described as tyrannical. First, the Climate Change Committee (“CCC”) is effectively beyond the control of Parliament and the people because, as former chair Lord Deben put it, Parliament has to seek the permission of the CCC to change the Carbon Budgets. To achieve the targets, the Government and their advisors want to interfere in our lives to an unprecedented extent. They are interfering in markets to mandate targets for heat pumps and EVs to change how we heat our homes and the type of car we drive. The Energy Act 2023 gives the authority for draconian powers to take control of EV chargers, batteries, home heating, washing machines, fridges and dishwashers. The Act even gives authority for powers of entry to check that our smart appliances are compliant. Now the Government is planning to force pension schemes to merge into mega-funds and force them to invest in clean energy projects.

The CCC has recommended that we cut our meat consumption by a third and cut the number of livestock by almost half. Of course, they also want us to eat “alternative proteins,” which is code for things like insects.

Some of the advisors to the Government are even more tyrannical. We have the Behavioural Insights Team (also known as the Nudge Unit) calling for the regulation of advertising and for TV drama and news to promote upbeat stories about Net Zero. They also want to influence the physical, social, economic and digital environment to alter what is offered to consumers and change perceptions of what is socially acceptable. They recommended that the Government intervene across vast swathes of the economy to align businesses, markets and institutions with Net Zero. These measures include a meat tax, making flights more expensive, defaulting us onto renewable energy tariffs and making heat pumps look cheaper than gas boilers.

The National Energy System Operator (“NESO”) is planning to halve per capita energy consumption. They also want to “optimise” demand by introducing penal charges at peak times through Time of Use Tariffs (“TOUTs”). In other words, consumers need to organise their lives around the grid rather than the grid being designed to meet the needs of its customers.

Keep reading

Why Is Texas Supporting Psychedelics Research While Criminalizing Cannabis?

Texas just announced it will invest $50 million into studying ibogaine, a powerful psychedelic drug that remains illegal at the federal level. The goal? To develop it into a potential Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for conditions like opioid use disorder, PTSD and depression; especially among veterans.

On the surface, this might sound like a bold and progressive move. But here’s the irony: at the very same time, Texas continues to criminalize cannabis and might soon even outlaw hemp-derived THC products.

Let’s break this down. Cannabis, a plant with centuries of use, decades of medical data and broad public support remains illegal for adult use in Texas. Despite overwhelming national support for legalization—a staggering 88 percent of Americans now back medical or recreational cannabis use)—the state has chosen to double down on prohibition, with lawmakers sending Gov. Greg Abbott (R) a bill that would outlaw consumable hemp products with any traces of THC. He has until Sunday to decide whether to allow that ban to take effect.

Even worse, prohibition isn’t stopping anything. The black market is thriving in Texas. Cartels and illicit operators flood the state with unregulated, untested cannabis. No taxes are collected, no consumer protections exist and legal hemp retailers are now being threatened. It is a misguided public safety argument deluded by a lack of facts and science, political conservatism, contradictory business objectives and outdated stigmas.

Meanwhile, ibogaine, a hallucinogenic alkaloid that can induce intense psychedelic experiences, is now the subject of a $50 million state-funded research push. The same lawmakers who claim cannabis is too dangerous and not well studied are throwing their support behind a compound with far less research and much more uncertainty with the intent of studying it.

This isn’t a critique of psychedelic medicine. Ibogaine may very well hold incredible therapeutic value. But if Texas is willing to support cutting-edge, controversial treatments for serious mental health and addiction issues, why not start with widely available data and access to cannabis? Cannabis has already been shown to help with chronic pain, anxiety, sleep, seizures and opioid dependency.

Keep reading

Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Blasts EU’s Digital Services Act as Gateway to Censorship and Centralized Control

While European regulators polish their halos and crank out legislation faster than Brussels can subsidize cheese, Pavel Durov is out here playing the role of a digital heretic.

In a French interview, the Telegram founder is sounding alarms over what he sees as a not-so-slow crawl toward speech control disguised as safety. The latest darling of the bureaucratic elite? The Digital Services Act is a piece of legislation that reads like it was written by a committee of risk-averse interns with a fetish for vague language and zero accountability.

Durov isn’t whispering his concerns at think tank luncheons or lobbying dinners. He’s calling it what it is: an institutional greenlight for censorship. “Once you legitimize censorship, it’s difficult to go back,” he says, which probably makes him the least popular dinner guest in Brussels since anyone asked about eurozone debt.

What makes this more than another libertarian tech rant is that Durov isn’t hypothesizing. He’s living it. Right now, he’s effectively stuck in France, being slow-roasted by criminal accusations that, according to him, are so flimsy they wouldn’t hold up in a Bluesky comment section.

“Nothing has ever been proven that shows that I am, even for a second, guilty of anything,” he insists.

One story in particular peels back the clean, professional veneer of Europe’s “rules-based” order.

Durov describes a charming little tête-à-tête with the head of France’s foreign intelligence service, the DGSE.

Over croissants and state-sponsored pressure, he was asked to delete Telegram channels tied to Romanian political activists.

He refused. Not with a polite “I’ll look into it” or some carefully lawyered dodge, but with what may be the most defiant line uttered by a CEO since Steve Jobs told IBM to get lost: “I told them I prefer to die than betray my users.”

Nothing screams “democracy in action” quite like a spy agency demanding censorship in a private meeting. At least they skipped the pretense.

Beneath the PR gloss of the Digital Services Act lies the basic truth of modern governance: power is being centralized and speech, sanitized.

Keep reading

75,000 pounds of THC products seized in DFW raids as Texas Gov. Abbott weighs statewide ban

Police raided locations across DFW on Tuesday in a year-long investigation into THC sales. 

The Allen Police Department, with help from the DEA, seized products at three warehouses in Dallas, while other agencies raided the owners’ homes in Carrollton, Colleyville, and Plano.

Allen’s police chief took the CBS News Texas crew inside one of the warehouses as officers pulled products off the shelves. 

According to early estimates from Allen PD, investigators seized over 75,000 pounds of THC products and $7 million worth of cash and assets in Tuesday’s raids.   

Chief Steve Dye said the warehouse raids are the product of an investigation that began more than a year ago with undercover purchases at shops in Allen. The I-Team documented how the Allen Police Department’s narcotics unit bought and tested the items ahead of raids at nine stores last August. Investigators said the illegal products found in Allen are being supplied by the warehouses in Dallas. 

“You don’t have to go to your drug dealer anymore to buy drugs,” said Dye. “You can go to a vape shop on any corner.” 

He believes the products found on store shelves are more dangerous than illegal drugs because, Dye said, the false sense of safety has led to an explosion in use.

Keep reading