Tag: wrongthink

NORTHERN DYSTOPIA: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Warns Citizens To Be Vigilant, for ‘People With Traditional Values Can Be Extremists’

Woke Canada keeps descending into pure madness, led by the Globalist Liberal party. Justin Trudeau is out, Mark Carney is in, but the dystopian developments continue unabated.

For the canucks in power, it is progressive to defend mass migration, abortion and euthanasia, transgender dysphoria, ‘net zero’ and the church of climate change… the list is endless.

But, of course, the majority of normal people in Canada need to be kept in check by their Liberal overlords, so common, ordinary behavior needs to be vilified.

So now, warnings by Canadian Police arise that ‘people with traditional values could be extremists’.

If you like “traditional values,” such as mothers raising their children instead of daycare workers, this RCMP spokeswoman says you might be an extremist. pic.twitter.com/TpDBPAYmec

— Billboard Chris (@BillboardChris) July 9, 2025

The Telegraph reported:

“Staff Sgt Camille Habel, the spokeswoman for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), urged people to be vigilant following the arrest of four people in Quebec, who were allegedly involved in ‘ideologically motivated violent extremism’.”

Keep reading

German Court Fines Man €8,400 For Posting Banned Phrase

A court in the German town of Lindau has issued an €8,400 ($9,801) fine to a man over a post on X containing the phrase “Alles für Deutschland.” The man, identified as Andreas M., had written, “That’s exactly why I vote for the AfD. Everything for Germany,” in July of last year.

Months later, his home was raided at dawn by police, who confiscated laptops, phones, and hard drives.

According to Apollo News, authorities charged him under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code, a law banning slogans or symbols tied to unconstitutional or terrorist organizations.

While prosecutors pushed for a seven-month prison sentence, the court opted for a financial penalty. Both the state and the defense have filed appeals.

Andreas M. has stated that he was unaware of the slogan’s past use by Nazi Stormtroopers and said he intended the comment as a satirical show of support for the Alternative für Deutschland party.

His explanation was not enough to prevent prosecution. In modern Germany, the legal system increasingly treats such social media posts with suspicion.

This is not an isolated event. A growing number of Germans have faced police raids and fines over social media activity deemed offensive or unlawful in a nation without free speech protections.

The boundary between humor and criminal conduct has narrowed considerably, especially when directed at figures within the political mainstream.

Keep reading

‘Delete, Silence, Abolish’: America’s estranged allies ramp up perceived censorship, speech rules

Overt government control of the internet is expanding within America’s increasingly estranged allies and threatening to spill over national boundaries, likely renewing earlier confrontations with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the world’s richest man and creator of America’s newest nascent political party.

The European Union last week made its officially voluntary three-year-old “Code of Practice on Disinformation” legally binding under the Digital Services Act. It’s now a “Code of Conduct” to be used as a “relevant benchmark for determining DSA compliance” for Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Bing, TikTok, YouTube and Google Search.

These “very large” online platforms and online search engines were already signatories of the 2022 code, whose commitments include taking “stronger measures to demonetise disinformation,” increasing fact-checking across the EU and its languages and improved reduction of “current and emerging manipulative behaviour.”

Australia imposed an age-verification law for harmful content that makes the Texas law recently upheld by the Supreme Court look like a type-your-age prompt, applying to not only pornography but also “violent content” and “themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating,” in the words of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Last week she registered three of nine “codes” submitted by the online industry, covering “search engine services … enterprise hosting services and internet carriage services such as telcos,” and has sought “additional safety commitments” on remaining codes for “app stores, device manufacturers, social media services and messaging” and broader categories.

The same day, Canada suspended a U.S. tech firm tax to avoid trade recriminations from the Trump administration. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told the Canadian Press that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is taking a “fresh” look at predecessor Justin Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Act, which went down in Trudeau’s political downfall.

Anti-censorship group Reclaim the Net flagged pressure on Carney’s government to revive C-63, which famed Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson claims would criminalize wrongthink. Trudeau-appointed Senator Kristopher Wells pressed Government Representative Marc Gold to commit to further criminalizing “hate” in a “questions period” last month.

Keep reading

The Coward’s Bargain

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 that 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

Lawsuit Aims To Prevent IRS From Targeting Conservative Groups Ever Again

The mechanism that allowed the IRS to deny right-leaning groups legal nonprofit status during Barack Obama’s administration is still on the books, but this week a conservative group is challenging the provision in court to prevent it from being weaponized again.

Back in 2013, when Obama was president and Lois Lerner led the IRS Tax-Exempt Organizations division, Americans learned that conservative groups seeking nonprofit tax-exempt status were being blackballed by the IRS.

A 2014 House Oversight Committee report shows how huge the scandal was when it was discovered: “A May 2013 review of the IRS tax-exempt applications found that not a single group identifying itself as ‘Tea Party’ was approved by the IRS after February 2010, when the new targeting criteria were instated, while dozens of ‘progressive’ groups were approved.”

But 11 years later, the same criteria on the application for a nonprofit 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status remain, leaving the door open to more corruption.

Lex Politica Attorney Chris Gober has been working since then to change the rule on behalf of Freedom Path, a now nearly inactive conservative issue advocacy organization that filed for tax-exempt status in 2011. After the IRS requested a list of Freedom Path’s donors in 2012, and the 2014 Lois Lerner scandal blew over, finally in 2020 — nine years after its application — the IRS denied Freedom Path nonprofit status on the basis of the same “Facts and Circumstances Test” weaponized against conservative groups in the scandal.  

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is defending the Facts and Circumstances Test as the case returns to court this week for a status report with Washington, D.C., District Judge Jia M. Cobb. Freedom Path is asking the court to declare the Facts and Circumstances Test “unconstitutionally vague.”

The IRS uses the 11-factor Facts and Circumstances Test (seen below) to evaluate whether a group’s advocacy communications, such as advertising campaigns, should be considered “issue advocacy” — which would allow the group to become a tax-exempt nonprofit — or if its communications should be considered a “political campaign intervention,” preventing the group from gaining tax-exempt status.

The test is subjective; results depend on the values of the person evaluating the applicant’s material.

“It has a necessary chilling effect, because conservative groups nationwide will have to self-censor rather than risk IRS retaliation,” Gober told The Federalist.

Keep reading

The UK’s Crackdown On Pro-Palestine Activists Has Reached New Orwellian Levels.

For years, the UK government has attempted to crack down on the activist group “Palestine Action”, due to their disruption of the Israeli arms manufacturing plant Elbit Systems, which manufactures weapons used to slaughter civilians in Gaza.

The UK government has consistently coordinated with officials from Elbit Systems to assure them that it will crack down on pro-Palestine protests.

As the Guardian has reported , because many court cases have led to “Palestine Action” activists being “acquitted for in the past with human rights defenses” UK government officials met with representatives of Elbit Systems to “reassure” them that they would crack down harder on the protests.

As the independent outlet Declassified UK reported, in 2022, “then home secretary Priti Patel met privately with Martin Fausset, the CEO of Elbit Systems UK, to ‘discuss protests and security’, Home Office documents revealed that the purpose of the meeting was to ‘reassure… Fausset that the criminal protest acts against Elbit Systems UK are taken seriously by the Government’”.

As journalist Kit Klarenberg reported, soon after this meeting, a UK court “ruled that human rights defenses could only be relied on in cases of vandalism of public property, not in cases where criminal damage has been caused to private property. Because Elbit is a private company, the Attorney General’s Office used this determination to dramatically increase prosecutions of Palestine Action activists.”

The Guardian also reported that this meeting with Elbit Systems was “attended by a director from the Attorney General’s Office, said to be representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).”

Tim Crosland from the Defend Our Juries group said “These disclosures, despite the extensive redaction, are the smoking gun on what has been obvious for a while: the government has been trying to put a stop to juries acquitting those who expose and resist corporate complicity in violations of international law and mass loss of life. Such political interference is a national scandal that goes right to the top – the corruption of democracy and the rule of law by those with wealth and power”.

The UK federal government has also coordinated with local police in an attempt to crack down on Palestine Action protestors, even giving a direct line of communication between Elbit Systems and UK police.

As Declassified UK reported, after “Palestine Action” activists disrupted an Elbit Systems drone factory in Leicester in 2023, “Britain’s policing minister Chris Philp held a briefing with Leicestershire police’s deputy chief constable regarding the ‘ongoing protests’”.

Notes from the meeting state that there were “Pushes for remand of those arrested and supports proactive action, show of police and clear[ly] expects us to be taking action against those that commit crime. Focus not on peaceful protestors and facilitating that but on the company”.

Another police file showed that Elbit Systems even shares intelligence on protestors with UK police, as Declassified UK reported, “Elbit Systems UK has ‘its own intelligence cell and shares[s] information with the Police across the country on a two weekly basis’, a police file observes.”

Along with Elbit Systems, the Israeli embassy in the UK has pressured the UK government to crack down on Palestine Action protests.

As the Guardian reported in August of 2023, “Israeli embassy officials in London attempted to get the attorney general’s office to intervene in UK court cases relating to the prosecution of protesters”.

The Guardian found that “The papers, obtained through a freedom of information (FoI) request by Palestine Action, indicate that embassy officials pressed for the director general of the attorney general’s office (AGO), Douglas Wilson, to interfere in cases related to protests on UK soil.”

Since the genocide in Gaza began, the UK government has gone further with its crackdown on Palestine Action activists.

In August of 2024, UK police arrested and charged 10 Palestine Action activists for entering an Elbit Systems facility in Filton, Bristol.

Documents have strongly suggested that the Israeli embassy interfered in the investigation into the Filton activists arrested.

As the Guardian reported in early September of 2024, the head of international law at Britain’s Attorney General’s Office, Nicola Smith, sent the contact details of the CPS (Crown Prosecutorial Service) and Britain’s counter terrorism police (SO15) -who investigated the Filton case- to the deputy Israeli ambassador to the UK, Daniela Grudsky Ekstein.

Keep reading

Police ‘assessing’ comments made by Kneecap and Bob Vylan after Glastonbury acts spark outrage with remarks

Avon and Somerset Police are examining video footage from Glastonbury Festival to determine if criminal offences were committed during performances by bands Bob Vylan and Kneecap on Saturday afternoon.

The force announced on social media: “We are aware of the comments made by acts on the West Holts Stage at Glastonbury Festival this afternoon.

“Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.”

The investigation centres on comments made by punk duo Bob Vylan and Irish rap trio Kneecap during their sets at the festival’s West Holts Stage.

Keep reading

Sweden plans to remove citizenship from people seen as threat to state

Sweden’s political parties have agreed that dual citizens who commit crimes that threaten national security should lose their citizenship.

A cross-party committee recommended that the change could be applied to anyone who had used bribes or false information to obtain their citizenship; and also if they committed crimes that were a threat to the state or came under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

But it stopped short of proposals by the minority government for gangsters to have their citizenship revoked.

Justice Minister Gunnar Strommer said Sweden was dealing with “violent extremism, state actors acting in a hostile manner towards Sweden, as well as systemic organised crime”.

Under Sweden’s constitution, revoking citizenship is currently not allowed and a vote will take place next year in parliament on changing the laws.

Centre-left opposition parties say that revoking gang criminals’ citizenship would be a step too far, as deciding how to define the law would be difficult. Two opposition parties, the Left and the Greens, said they could not back removing citizenship at all.

However, Sweden’s centre-right governing parties, backed by the more radical anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, want the changes to tackle the dramatic rise in gang crime and the high rate of gun killings.

“The proposals I received today will not give us the possibility to take back Swedish citizenship from gang leaders in criminal networks sitting abroad, directing shootings and bombings and murders on Sweden’s streets,” Strommer told Swedish Radio.

The government points to neighbouring Denmark, where citizenship can already be removed because of an act that is “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state”. The law was recently extended to include some forms of serious gang crime.

Sweden’s minority government has also moved to tighten rules on applying for citizenship.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell said that last year police reported 600 cases of people applying who were considered a threat to national security.

From June 2026, anyone seeking a Swedish passport will generally have to have lived in the country for eight years instead of five at the moment. Tests on Swedish language and society would also be included.

Keep reading

German police launch nationwide crackdown on online ‘hate speech’

Germany’s law enforcement authorities have launched a nationwide crackdown on alleged internet ‘hate speech’, the Federal Criminal Police (BKA) have announced. Two thirds of the cases being investigated are linked to “right-wing” ideologies, the BKA said, with the media reporting they often involve “insults against politicians.”

Some “isolated cases” have been tied to “religious… left-wing and foreign” ideologies, according to police. More than 140 criminal investigations have been opened across all German states.

The list of the most common crimes included incitement of hatred, use of prohibited symbols, and approval of crimes and insults, the police said. According to Germany’s ARD broadcaster, the criminal cases often involve “insults against politicians.” 

The police operation included over 65 searches and “numerous” questionings, the BKA stated. Law enforcement has not reported that any suspects were detained as part of the investigations. The BKA also called on the people to “support” the police and contribute to combating online hate by reporting “hate postings” to either law enforcement or their network providers.

Keep reading

Free Speech Travesty: German Pensioner Who Called Green Economic Minister Habeck an ‘Idiot’ Has Been Convicted

The case of German pensioner Stefan Niehoff became a major international story after police raided his home for calling Robert Habeck an “idiot” while Habeck was serving as Germany’s economy minister at the time.

Now that Niehoff has been convicted — for sepearte offneses — it has become clear how far the German media has gone to create the perception that Niehoff is a Nazi to smear his name, when the exact opposite was true all along.

Elon Musk tweeted about the case. The Economist included the incident in a long list of items showing Germany was walking all over free speech, and Niehoff was publicly outspoken over what happened to him.

Niehoff suffered a house raid early in the morning at his home in Burgpreppach, while his disabled daughter was home, all because Habeck filed a complaint against him for Niehoff calling him an “idiot” in an internet post.

The case looked exceedingly bad, so the German establishment went into damage control.

Numerous news outlets started publishing articles that the main focus of the investigation against Niehoff — the “idiot” comment — had quietly been sidelined. Now, the courts were focusing on “unconstitutional” symbols that Niehoff shared. In other words, after the Niehoff case blew up in their faces, they needed to find an ad hoc justification after the fact to justify their witch hunt against him.

In Germany, any kind of “unconstitutional symbol” basically means you were sharing swastikas or other symbols associated with the Nazi regime. Most people suddenly thought Niehoff was some kind pro-Nazi activist.

The reality is that he was comparing the left-liberal traffic light government, which was in power at the time, to the era of National Socialism. In other words, he was criticizing the Nazis, not praising them.

Keep reading