Tag: police state

Dystopian Rollout Of Digital IDs & CBDCs Is Happening

This isn’t conspiracy; it’s all in their own documentation.

They are building a full-spectrum digital cage, and its two locked doors are Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). You cannot have one without the other.

The plan is to replace your government-issued ID with a Digital ID, but it’s not just a card in your phone. It is fundamentally built upon your immutable biometrics: your fingerprints, the precise structure of your face, the unique pattern of your iris.

This biometric data is the key.

It is the hard link that ties your physical body directly to your digital identity credential.

Your very body becomes your password. The reason this is so critical for them is the financial system. UN & Bank for International Settlements docs overtly state that Digital ID and CBDCs are designed to be integrated.

The system cannot exist without this biometric digital ID.

Why?

Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols.

For this new digital financial system to function, they must absolutely “know” every single participant. Your digital wallet will be tied to your digital ID, which is mapped to your biometrics. Total financial-biological linkage.

We see the prototypes being rolled out now:

  • Sam Altman’s WorldCoin lures people to scan their irises for a “unique identifier” and a digital wallet. This is the exact model.
  • The UN’s “Building Blocks” program forces refugees to scan their iris at checkout to receive food rations. The value is deducted from a wallet tied to that biometric ID.

They justify this total surveillance under the guise of closing the “identity gap,” claiming the world’s poor need digital IDs to access essential services like banking and healthcare.

The reality?

This is the ultimate onboarding mechanism into a system of programmable control, where your access to society and your own money is permissioned and revocable based on your compliance.

This is the bedrock of the new global financial system.

It is not about convenience. It is about control.

Keep reading

Democratic senators say Israel barred their entry to Gaza

Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) drew praise from the Council on American-Islamic Relations for their efforts to enter Gaza, and the group, which blamed Israel for being attacked shortly after Oct. 7, 2023, urged other U.S. lawmakers to attempt the same thing.

On Friday, Van Hollen used language that U.S. Jewish groups have said hearkens back to centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories.

“Why have a State Department bureau on the Middle East if Trump and Sec. Marco Rubio are taking their orders from Netanyahu?” stated the Maryland Democrat. “We can save a lot of money by cutting out the middleman.” (Many American Jewish groups have said that suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu runs the U.S. government is Jew-hatred.)

“What will his next post be? The Jews who control our U.S. government?” stated Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Antisemitism, anyone?”

In nearly a dozen and a half statements posted to social media, the two senators criticized Israel and Netanyahu, including accusing the latter’s government of “weaponization of hunger.”

Keep reading

Australia’s Senate Orders Release of eSafety Censorship Emails

The Australian Senate has formally ordered the production of all communications between “eSafety” Commissioner Julie Inman Grant and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), adding to the scrutiny over the Commissioner’s role in transnational efforts to stifle online political speech.

While the contents of the emails had already come to light through a US House Judiciary Committee investigation, the Senate’s move signals a significant shift, one aimed squarely at holding a senior Australian bureaucrat accountable for her coordination with a foreign activist group pushing to censor views, including those of US President Donald Trump.

Senator Alex Antic, who introduced the motion, confirmed its passage on Wednesday afternoon, posting: “The Senate has voted in favour of my order for production of documents relating to communications between the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.”

Keep reading

Mississippi’s Digital ID Law Hits a Wall with Mastodon

Mississippi’s privacy-ruining online digital ID law is putting pressure on decentralized platforms, and Mastodon says it simply cannot comply.

The organization behind the software states that it lacks the technical ability to verify users’ ages and refuses to implement IP-based restrictions, which it argues would wrongly affect travelers and those temporarily located in the state.

The law, known as the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (HB 1126), has already led to Bluesky withdrawing its service from Mississippi.

Mastodon is not following that path. Instead, it points to the design of its platform, where individual server administrators are responsible for their own compliance with local laws. Mastodon itself neither collects user data nor maintains centralized control over the network.

Although Mastodon’s nonprofit arm initially declined to comment, it later provided a statement to TechCrunch.

The organization explained that while its own servers require users to be at least 16, it does not “have the means to apply age verification” and that the software does not retain any data collected during sign-up.

A feature added in the July 2025 release of Mastodon 4.4 allows server administrators to set age minimums and manage legal terms, but does not support storing verification data.

Each server in the network operates independently. It is up to those server owners to decide whether to integrate third-party systems to check user ages.

Mastodon confirmed it cannot offer “direct or operational assistance” to these operators and instead points them to resources such as the IFTAS library, which provides guidance on trust and safety practices for federated platforms.

The nonprofit reiterated that it does not track user behavior or enforce policy across the wider ecosystem. Responsibility for legal compliance, it says, belongs to those who host and manage the servers in their own jurisdictions.

Keep reading

How Canada lost its way on freedom of speech

American singer Sean Feucht has completed his 11-city tour of Canada. Well, sort of anyway. Public officials cancelled or denied him permits in nine cities, from Halifax to Abbotsford, B.C. Montreal went so far as to fine a church $2,500 for hosting his concert. As you know by now, these shows were cancelled because some people are offended by Feucht’s viewpoints, such as his claim that LGBT Pride is a “demonic agenda seeking to destroy our culture and pervert our children.”

How can a country that purports to protect freedom of speech tolerate this blatant censorship? The answer is that our free speech law is so difficult to decipher that some officials may have genuinely believed they can shut Feucht down to prevent hateful or discriminatory speech.

As I explain in a new essay for C2C Journal, the problem is that, since the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the Supreme Court has failed to draw a principled line between when governments can and can’t limit expression. This is despite the fact that a principled rule – first articulated by John Stuart Mill in his still-famous 1864 essay On Liberty and established to varying degrees in Canada’s pre-Charter jurisprudence – was ripe for the taking.

Mill argued – persuasively, in my opinion – that governments can limit harmful forms of expression like nuisance noise or imminent physical consequences like inciting an angry mob to burn down a person’s house – but they must never seek to censor content or ideas. A clear, principled line, understandable to every citizen, government official and judge. Something like “golden rule” for understanding the domain, and legitimate boundaries, of free speech.

Keep reading

The Harsh Truth About Life In Canada Today

Canada is often portrayed as a land of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity. Reality, however, tells a different story…

Statist policies, crushing taxes, bloated bureaucracy, and a society overtaken by woke ideology have shattered Canada. This is a cautionary tale for those looking at Canada as an ideal living space. If you are asking yourself what living in Canada is like, let me explain: Canada is not a land of fulfilled dreams but of enduring harsh conditions and barely getting by.

As if economic hardships aren’t enough, Canadians are also oppressed by the Orwellian newspeak that woke culture is creating. If you speak your mind, you’re labeled a fascist. If you question social policies, you’re accused of microaggressions.

There are no best places to live in Canada anymore. As a Canadian, I see little chance of Canada becoming livable again. Since I founded Expat Money in 2017, I have been helping expats build their Plan-Bs to protect their wealth and freedom and leave countries like this one.

Let’s look at the unfortunate condition that Canada has fallen into.

The Restrictions Imposed During Covid

The strict quarantine measures and harsh government interventions implemented in Canada during the COVID-19 hysteria were shameful. The government expanded police and administrative powers to smash public backlash against its COVID policies.

A significant protest movement called The Freedom Convoy began in early 2022. Truckers and citizens held large demonstrations in Ottawa against vaccination mandates, harsh pandemic restrictions, and the government’s authoritarian tendencies.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau used extraordinary powers to freeze the bank accounts of protesters and crack down on activists. Individual and property rights were arbitrarily violated.

The Canadian government imposed mandatory vaccinations on federal employees, healthcare workers, and those in the transportation sector, turning personal health decisions into state mandates. Those who were not vaccinated were suspended from their jobs, their travel rights were restricted, and they were ostracized from society. Even the private sector was coerced to impose vaccinations under government pressure.

Moreover, harsh lockdowns and restricted entry into the country forced businesses into bankruptcy. Massive numbers of people lost their jobs, and the government’s financial structure was severely damaged.

Keep reading

Canadian Hikers Get the COVID-Style Tyranny Treatment

Canadian politicians are creating one bonfire after another of freedom and individual rights. COVID crackdowns established persecution precedents that politicians in some provinces refuse to allow to gather dust. Politicians are claiming the right to financially cripple anyone who makes a single misstep in violation of the latest idiotic decrees.

On August 5, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston decreed a $25,000 fine for anyone walking in the woods or otherwise violating a new prohibition that covered both government and private lands. The prohibition will continue until October. Houston declared, “Most wildfires are caused by human activity, so to reduce the risk, we’re keeping people out of the woods until conditions improve. I’m asking everyone to do the right thing—don’t light that campfire, stay out of the woods and protect our people and communities.”

Canadian politicians are exploiting wildfires the same way that former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau exploited COVID to lockdown the entire nation. One critic on X/Twitter scoffed that “the province needs 10 weeks of no walking in the woods to flatten the curve”—paralleling the “two weeks to flatten the curve” crapola that initially sanctified the most onerous COVID restrictions. During the pandemic, Nova Scotia heavily fined citizens caught walking their dogs or exercising in park.

The government failed to document how the environmental peril situation this year was fundamentally different than in previous years. Author Peter Clark observed, “Fears of arson or climate hysteria appear to be behind bans on fishing & hiking in Nova Scotia’s forests. Canada’s forest fires have fallen almost half in the last 40 years & seem unrelated to weather or climate.” At the same time that Nova Scotian politicians are treating every resident and visitor like an arsonist, Canadian governments have let actual arsonists go free with legal wrist slaps.

Canadians are denouncing the new decree as “climate confinement”—an ominous development in a nation whose politicians have long swooned over the World Economic Forum. According to Travel and Tour News, “Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has officially ended, the consequences of restrictive policies are still being felt. With domestic travel restrictions now in place due to wildfire risks, many Canadians feel that their freedom to explore their country has been drastically reduced.”

“They’ve turned the great outdoors into the Forbidden Forest,” scoffed one critic. A photography website warned: “Photographing in the Woods in Nova Scotia Is Currently Illegal.” The government decrees provoked a firestorm of opposition:

“How does hiking in the woods with my dogs come across as a fire hazard?”

“Please tell me the difference between a trail and an unpaved road.”

“I’m confused. We’re banned from the woods? Half of us live in the woods.”

Nova Scotia established a snitch line so people could report neighbors or hooligans who strolled in the woods, and it quickly received thousands/tens of thousands of complaints.

Keep reading

UK free speech crackdown sees up to 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses such as retweets and cartoons

Bernadette Spofforth lay in jail on a blue gym mattress in a daze, finding it difficult to move, even breathe.

“I just closed down. But the other half of my brain went into Jack Reacher mode,” she said, referring to the fictional action hero. “Every single detail was in this very vivid, bright, sharp focus.”

She remembers noticing that you can’t drown yourself in the toilet, because there’s no standing water in it and the flush button is too far to reach if your head were in the bowl.  

She’d end up being detained for 36 hours in July 2024. Three girls had just been murdered in Southport, England, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party. But Spofforth was not under suspicion for the crime.

Instead, horrified, and in the fog of a developing tragedy, she’d reposted on X another user’s content blaming newly arrived migrants for the ghastly crime — clarifying in her retweet, “If this is true.”

Hours later she realized she may have received bad information and deleted the post — but it had already been seen thousands of times. 

The murders resulted in widespread civil unrest in the UK, where mass migration is a central issue for citizens. Four police vehicles arrived at her home days later. Spofforth, 56, a successful businesswoman from Chester, was placed under arrest.

“We’re a year on now and I can honestly tell you that I don’t think I will ever recover,” she told The Post. “I don’t mean that as a victim. Those poor children were victims. But I will never trust anything the authorities say to me ever again.”

Her story is one repeated almost hourly in the UK, where data suggests over 30 people a day are arrested for speech crimes, about 12,000 a year, under laws written well before the age of social media that make crimes of sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

Social media continues to be flooded with videos of British cops banging on doors in the middle of the night and hauling parents off to jail—all over mean Facebook posts and agitated words on X.

Keep reading

Silenced Voices and Sealed Coffins in Nicaragua

Mauricio Alonso Prieto once championed Sandinista socialism, but like many of his fellow countrymen, he became part of the opposition and came to “question the authoritarian direction of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) under the leadership of Daniel Ortega” and Rosario Murillo.  

This week, that cost him his life. 

On July 18, authorities in Nicaragua arrested — or kidnapped — Alonso, his wife, and his adult son, who is a worship leader at the evangelical Christian La Roca de Nicaragua Church. A group of “uniformed police officers and ‘volunteer’ officers wearing masks and dressed in black or blue” conducted a raid at the home of Pastor Rudy Palacios Vargas, the founder of La Roca de Nicaragua Church Association. These “officers” detained others in the home as well, including the pastor and various family members. Alonso and his family just happened to be there for a visit and were not part of the warrant. 

Authorities released Alonso’s wife the same day, but held him and his son “incommunicado” at the 3rd Police District. On July 28, a Nicaraguan digital news outlet reported that the two men, along with the pastor and his relatives, were now housed at “La Granja,” an overcrowded Nicaraguan prison notorious for abuse and mistreatment of prisoners. The men apparently went through a “fast-tracked” virtual hearing during which they were charged with treason and conspiracy.   

After weeks of no communication, Alonso’s wife got a call on August 25 stating that her husband had died, though there were no other details. His family learned that the Ortega-Murillo regime would not allow them the options families traditionally want when they lose a loved one. There would be no wake, no final goodbyes, no autopsy. The family received Alonso’s body in a sealed casket, and they were forced to have a funeral immediately under police observation. Despite his wife’s pleas, they would not allow her imprisoned son to attend the funeral either. 

Keep reading

DOJ Charges Man Who Burned American Flag in Protest of Executive Order

A man who burned the American flag outside the White House earlier this week is facing charges from federal prosecutors in accordance with President Donald Trump’s recent executive order.

That order, signed on Aug. 25, specifically directed the attorney general to prosecute those caught burning the American flag or desecrating it in other ways.

“You will see flag burning stopping immediately,” Trump said. “The people in our country don’t want to see our flag burned and spit on.”

North Carolina resident Jan Carey, 54, is the first to face that prosecution after he decided to burn the American flag as a form of protest to the executive order. In an interview with local media, he explained he “immediately thought I need to go burn a flag in front of the White House and let’s put this to the test.” He also said he was a military veteran.

Carey faces two misdemeanor criminal counts in Washington, D.C., in federal court. However, neither charge focuses on the fact that he burned the flag.

The first count was for lighting a “fire in an undesignated area,” and the second was for “lighting a fire in a manner that causes damage to real property or park resources.”

“On or about August 25, 2025, within the District of Columbia, Jan Careylit, tended, and used a fire in a manner that threatened, caused damage to, and resulted in the burning of property, real property, and park resources, and created a public safety hazard,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro wrote in her complaint.A Supreme Court ruling in 1989, Texas v. Johnson, declared the act of flag desecration was protected as symbolic speech under the First Amendment, and Trump directed the attorney general to pursue charges in line with the First Amendment.

Keep reading