I! Think I can get the gist of it! I'm having difficulty reading the topmost thought bubble but uh, lemme see if I can suss this out.
"Our ??Fed????ity?? has banned word use for reasons beyond current legal ??newmits?? all in the name of national defense... which is a poor and trite excuse, to justify and mitigate the decades of bungles in the international scene by the capitalistic elite.

It begs the questions:
What is illegal or immoral or so harmful about talking about climate change and fetuses?
What is the vision of a world where the government does not regulate these very nouns by its standards?
What is making us so nationally insecure?
Where and who gets to talk about these things openly?

Are people afraid of mental ??defenestration?? if exposed too much to sensitive topics or stressful information? Is this the solution, or can we change our behavior?"

as for the meat of the matter, "national defense" as a reason to ban words has always been awful and the government has regularly whiffed when trying to hold most scientific pursuits to their own standards when they have things put forth to them by people who hardly interact with the practice or knowledge.

My kneejerk reaction to national defense and being nationally insecure is to condemn nationalism in general because I think it has always been a poisonous way of thinking.