The Struggle Continues
and it is global.....
Welcome, my dear readers, once again to the Asylum. This week I am doing something new. I am not going to include links to my sources. This is primarily because less than.01% of links posted are ever clicked, and of those, 93.7% are links to articles by other writers I recommend. Adding the links adds over an hour to the publication process because they do not carry over when I paste the finished product from my word processor into the submission portal, and I have to go through the article and manually add them back. Please let me know your opinion on whether the links were a valuable addition or can stay as a remnant of past articles.
I will say we have won some battles in the ongoing global fifth-generation civil war here in America over the last two years. This fight isn’t over, and it is being lost in most other places around the world. We must maintain the momentum we have here in America and resist any urge to complacency. A quick look around the world will tell you our few victories have been isolated and without many more, and further separation, we could still lose everything in a single election cycle.
Across the Western world, a pattern has become impossible to ignore. Governments that once claimed to defend liberal democracy are rapidly constructing a digital police state, one that suppresses dissent, erodes privacy, weaponizes law and technology, and conditions populations psychologically to accept, and even defend, policies that undermine their own freedoms. This transformation is not chaotic or accidental. It is structured, coordinated, and increasingly global, operating through legal systems, digital infrastructure, financial controls, education, surveillance, and the selective criminalization of political opposition. Its purpose is not merely control for control’s sake, but the reordering of society itself, one that neutralizes resistance to a new political and economic model being advanced by transnational institutions.
In the United Kingdom, this authoritarian shift is already tangible. Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government, political dissent is treated as a threat to the public good. Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek was barred from entering the UK after publicly criticizing Starmer’s immigration and speech policies and was bluntly informed that her presence was “not conducive to the public good.” The standard is no longer legality, but ideological acceptability. At the same time, tens of thousands of illegal migrants are housed at enormous taxpayer expense, while British citizens face economic strain, social fragmentation, and rising insecurity. The message is unmistakable: citizenship, law, and democratic consent are subordinate to adherence to the governing ideology.
This inversion of priorities reflects the rise of what insiders themselves have described as a permanent “stakeholder state”, a political perma-class of NGOs, regulators, lobbyists, and supranational actors operating beyond electoral accountability. Power is shifted away from voters and toward institutions with money, time, and access. Dissenters are excluded, silenced, or administratively erased, while those aligned with the prevailing agenda are protected regardless of conduct. The same logic is unfolding across Europe. In Germany, where voters delivered an unprecedented result in February, the Alternative für Deutschland emerged as the second-largest party, winning over 10 million votes and becoming the primary opposition in the Bundestag. Rather than accept this democratic outcome, the German domestic intelligence service designated the AfD a “proven right-wing extremist organization,” lowering the legal threshold for surveillance, financial scrutiny, informants, and communications interception. Calls to ban the party outright have followed, despite the fact that one in five German voters supported it. This is not the marginal suppression of fringe extremism; it is the normalization of treating mass political opposition as a security threat.
The timing is no coincidence. Germany is simultaneously expanding the powers of its foreign intelligence service, the BND, to monitor vast quantities of internet traffic, including content, not merely metadata. Communications between citizens, journalists, and political organizations may be stored for months, hacked if necessary, and analyzed under vague justifications such as “hate,” “incitement,” or “anti-democratic activity.” Surveillance, once associated with authoritarian regimes, is being reintroduced under the banner of security and responsibility, with Berlin moving in lockstep with Brussels.
France has taken a parallel path. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally and a dominant force in French politics, has been barred from running in the 2027 presidential election by a court ruling. Whatever one’s view of Le Pen, the effect is unmistakable: judicial mechanisms are being used to remove electorally viable opposition figures from the democratic process itself. When voters repeatedly choose leaders who oppose mass migration, EU centralization, or global economic restructuring, institutions increasingly respond not by persuasion, but by exclusion.
This is not limited to Europe. In the United States, speech control has advanced through regulatory capture and corporate-state alignment. A Google executive admitted before Congress that YouTube removed and demonetized content discussing election fraud claims, even when those claims were voiced by figures from both major parties. Content was suppressed not because it was false, but because it challenged institutional legitimacy at a politically sensitive moment. When pressed to name specific mistakes, the executive could not. Decisions were made “independently,” yet always aligned with state priorities.
At the same time, real-world election irregularities continue to surface. In Pennsylvania, authorities uncovered thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms tied to paid canvassing operations, with forged signatures, false identities, and unauthorized submissions. Despite the scale and organization of the fraud, the public is repeatedly told that concerns over election integrity are conspiracy theories. The contradiction is resolved not through transparency but through censorship and ridicule. Control over speech is now inseparable from control over financial life. In the U.S., the Cato Institute has documented that most debanking cases result from government pressure rather than independent bank decisions. Through opaque regulations and informal directives, individuals and organizations can be quietly cut off from the financial system without charges, trials, or due process. Economic participation becomes conditional on political compliance.
Digital infrastructure itself has become a battlefield. Italy’s attempt to compel Cloudflare, a core pillar of global internet infrastructure, to block content without judicial review, demonstrates how censorship is shifting from platforms to the underlying architecture of the internet. By coercing infrastructure providers, governments bypass courts entirely and establish mechanisms that can be repurposed against political speech at will. This approach mirrors the EU’s broader reliance on “trusted flaggers” and executive enforcement rather than the rule of law.
Perhaps most revealing is the psychological conditioning of future generations. In the UK, the Home Office has funded a video game aimed at teenagers that frames questioning mass migration or national identity as a pathway to extremism and counterterrorism intervention. Curiosity becomes suspicion. Dissent becomes pathology. Children are trained not to think critically, but to self-police their thoughts in alignment with approved narratives.
These developments are not isolated abuses. They are prerequisites. The authoritarian enforcement of speech norms, the expansion of surveillance, financial coercion, and political exclusion are necessary to impose a radical restructuring of Western society that would otherwise be rejected. The World Economic Forum’s model of “stakeholder capitalism,” championed by Klaus Schwab, explicitly calls for the fusion of government, corporations, and civil society into a single managerial system where decision-making is removed from democratic contestation.
