Heads Will Roll.

For the first time in four years, since new laws were enacted in 2020, a man has been imprisoned in China simply for wearing a t-shirt. Unfortunately for us, this could spell what things may look like for us in the West in the not-too-distant future.

Read about it in full in today’s newsletter →

📖 ESTIMATED READ TIME: 5 minutes 55 seconds

Death and fabric.

In the late 18th century, during the most tempestuous days of the French Revolution known as the Reign of Terror, Paris became a theatre where even the fabric one wore could spell life or death.

Under the leadership of figures like Maximilien Robespierre, the ruling Jacobins had risen to power with ideals of radical equality. However, these ideals soon transformed into a paranoid quest for ideological purity, where clothing was no longer a personal choice but a profound political statement.

In this era, the sans-culottes became iconic. The term literally means 'without breeches,' referring to the working-class men who wore long trousers instead of the knee-breeches favored by the nobility and the bourgeoisie. This choice of attire was not just economic but deeply symbolic. It represented a powerful rejection of the old aristocratic order, a bold declaration of alignment with the common people's cause, and a testament to the revolutionary spirit of the working class.

In September 1793, the Jacobins introduced the Loi des Suspects—the Law of Suspects—which allowed for the arrest of anyone who 'by their conduct, relations, words or writings showed themselves to be supporters of tyranny, of federalism, and enemies of liberty.' This law instilled a pervasive fear in society, as individuals were constantly under the threat of being labeled as enemies of the state.

Under this law, the symbolism of one's attire could serve as evidence. A man in silk stockings, a powdered wig, or any vestige of noble fashion might be seen as a silent protest against the new regime. Such individuals could be arrested, tried, and often executed not for overt acts of rebellion but for the silent rebellion their clothing whispered.

One famous case was that of Madame Roland, a woman known for her connections to the Girondins, a more moderate political faction. Her downfall was swift, and part of it was due to her refusal to embrace the revolutionaries' austere dress.

Roland continued to wear fine clothes, inadvertently signalling her disdain for the radical Jacobins. Despite her personal integrity and her belief in the ideals of liberty and justice, she was dragged to the guillotine. Her attire, seen as a symbol of aristocratic pride, became one more reason for her execution.

For the Jacobins, nothing less than the complete loyalty of the populace would ever be accepted. Those who deviated from what was demanded, even in the smallest of ways, were branded as traitors.

And for traitors against the state, only one punishment of the day ever truly fit the crime:

“Off with their heads!”

Criminal clothing.

Arrested or executed simply for your choice of clothing?

In today’s modern world, we’d all find that sentiment ridiculous. Well, except maybe with the exception of the Chinese Communist Party.

In a terrifying use of laws that exist to maintain the power of the state, while hampering individual sovereignty, a man was just arrested in Hong Kong for wearing a t-shirt.

The National Security Law was implemented in 2020 and signed into law by the Chinese government, which now reigns supreme over Hong Kong. The laws were designed in response to the pro-democracy protests in 2019 that threatened China's rule of the island city-state.

Since that time, nobody has been officially prosecuted under these new regulations. That changed very recently, however, with the arrest of 27-year-old Chu Kai-pong, who just pled guilty to sedition and has been incarcerated for 14 months.

His official crime? Wearing a t-shirt with pro-independence slogans that included “Free Hong Kong.”

I wish I were joking that there was more to this story. Some nuance, or maybe a long-running set of historical crimes that Chu had committed, made wearing a shirt with dissident intent some kind of “final straw” that led to his arrest.

But no. This really is the entire story.

The West often looks at China, with its authoritarian rule by the CCP, its social credit system, and its all-knowing e-Yuan (China’s central bank digital currency), as something of a restrictive hellhole where people have no personal freedom any longer. A place that uses technology as a tool of oppression with an almost mythical zeal.

But here’s the truth: we in the West aren’t far from living under the kinds of draconian laws and mandates that the people of China do today.

Over the last couple of decades, most nations in the West have demonstrably become less free when compared to decades past.

To start with, our governments are involved in heavy control or manipulation of the media, reflecting dictatorial regimes of the past.

Recent examples include the United States, where during C-19, the current Biden administration (likely illegally in contradiction with the First Amendment) demanded that social media platforms like Facebook and (formerly) Twitter censor and de-platform those who were sharing “inconvenient” information that went against the government’s narrative—something that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted a few months ago.

In Europe, organisations like Reporters sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders) have noted a significant overall decline in the press's ability to do its job without government interference. Specifically, the introduction of laws, like the EU’s Digital Services Act, which has been criticised for potentially enabling overreaching censorship under the guise of regulating digital content, has contributed to this decline.

Not to mention, Europe has also participated in recent actions, like the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov or threatening to fine Elon Musk if he didn’t censor content on X, which the EU didn’t like.

In Australia, unprecedented ‘Assistance and Access’ laws mandate that device manufacturers like Apple and Samsung must install “backdoors” on devices sold in the country that the Australian Federal Police can use to access encrypted information on anyone’s devices.

In Canada, bills like C-11 (which became law) make it legal to require content platforms like YouTube to hand over user data to the government, as well as mandating a portion of the content they must produce.

Globally, over 130 nations—accounting for 98%+ of global GDP—are at some stage of testing or implementing a central bank digital currency that would allow our governments absolute control of how we spend our money. Even possibly cutting us off from using our money altogether.

Finally, back to the United States, media outlets like the New York Times and others openly discuss how the U.S. Constitution—arguably the most important document ever written regarding the sovereignty of the common people—is “problematic.”

In the words of the New Yorker, they even asked if it was time to “torch” the nation’s founding document.

Anyway, I think you get the picture.

Ten to twenty years ago, none of these worrying laws or actions enacted by our governments were commonplace. Today, they’re growing at a rate that should terrify us all.

Where will we be in another decade from now?

Sure, people aren’t yet being arrested in the West for wearing a t-shirt the government doesn’t like. But we’re very close to that being the case.

I’m generally an optimist. Unfortunately, I don’t see much optimism for the future of the West. Our nations are very quickly implementing laws that will mark any who disobeys as enemies of the state, in a mirror of the Chinese model of censorship and control.

Instead, it’s obvious that the state itself is the prime enemy of the people.

We shouldn’t give up the fight. However, we should be prepared for if we lose this battle against the powers-that-be.

Having a “Plan B” to fall back on is very obviously becoming much more of a “Plan A.”

Written by Leon Hill.
Founder, Anticitizen.

This newsletter is for educational purposes, and is not financial advice. Please do your own research, and consider risks involved with investing or purchasing any asset.