My theory:

I told David I suspect they picked up a White, "right wing" influencer partially for the optics. (I have no idea if he's deep state.)

When they start picking up high-profile illegals on the left, a precedence has now been set. 

No one can say they are ignoring people on the "right" who are in the country illegally. They've already made an example of Milo. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0 

Well, I have lots of words but am keeping them to myself.

Am I the only one who wonders why God doesn't zap some of these people right in the midst of their blasphemy? 

https://x.com/Protestia/status/2092923074605977838 

Imagine how many illegals and people on visas see these stories and realize they need to get out while they have the power to do so? 

I tried to find the ICE jacket and it's not showing up. I wonder why? 

https://youtu.be/lpHQd3CAROA  

What the West Still Doesn’t Get It:

Communism’s True Core: The Systemic Lie

Most people in the West think they understand communism. They picture bread lines, gulags, failed five-year plans, and the collapsed Soviet Union. They treat it as a discredited economic theory – an experiment that proved that abolishing private property doesn’t work. Case closed, history moved on.

This misunderstanding may be the most dangerous intellectual failure of our time.

Communism was never primarily an economic system. Economics was the surface. Beneath it lay something far more insidious: a total, systemic, institutionalized commitment to lying. Not occasional dishonesty. Not spin or propaganda in the ordinary sense. Something deeper – a civilizational war against truth itself, waged through every institution, every classroom, every newspaper, every conversation, until reality itself became negotiable and the lie became the air people breathed.

The Words We’re Missing

The Polish language, forged by decades of living under this system, produced words for this phenomenon that English simply cannot match:

Zakłamanie – a state of total, pervasive, socially embedded falsehood, a condition in which an entire society is saturated with lies so thoroughly that truth becomes almost inaccessible.

Obłuda – a deep, performative hypocrisy, the gap between what is proclaimed and what is actually practiced, the mask worn so long it begins to feel like a face.

These are not words for individual liars. They describe a system – a mode of social organization built on organized mendacity, where the lie is not the exception but the foundation. English has no single word for either concept, and that linguistic gap is not a coincidence. It reflects a gap in experience. Cultures that did not live under communism lack the vocabulary because they lack the wound.

And because they lack the vocabulary, they struggle to recognize the thing when it reappears in new clothing.

The Continuity: Communism, Leftism, Wokeism

What we call wokeism today, or the broader radical left, is not a new phenomenon. It is the same operating system running on updated hardware. The specifics have changed – instead of the proletariat, we have marginalized identity groups; instead of bourgeois class enemies, we have racists and transphobes; instead of socialist realism, we have DEI statements. But the deep structure is the same.

That deep structure is this: truth is not discovered, it is assigned. Reality is not something to be understood honestly but something to be narrated strategically. Language is not a tool for communication but a weapon of power. And anyone who resists the approved narrative is not simply wrong – they are dangerous, and must be silenced, shamed, or destroyed.

This is zakłamanie in its modern form. This is obłuda wearing a human rights badge. The same movement that insists men can become women will insist, with equal fervor, that questioning this is an act of violence. The same institutions that claim to champion free inquiry systematically suppress dissent.

The same people who invoke tolerance as their highest value are among the most intolerant forces in public life. The contradiction is not accidental – it is structural. It is the system working as designed.

Why the West Still Doesn’t Get It

People who grew up in freedom tend to assume, at some level, that bad actors know they are lying. That somewhere behind the ideological performance, there is a cynical operator who privately acknowledges reality. This assumption is wrong, and it is why Westerners consistently underestimate what they are dealing with.

The totalitarian lie, at its mature stage, is not cynical. It is believed. Or rather, it creates a condition in which the distinction between belief and performance collapses entirely. People learn to say things they do not believe so fluently, and for so long, that they lose access to what they actually think.

This system does not just produce liars – it produces people who can no longer clearly distinguish truth from the narrative they have been trained to emit.

This environment also produces a kind of cognitive adaptation often described as doublethink – the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, and to accept both as true when required. It is not merely lying to others, but a learned internal tolerance toward contradiction itself, where inconsistencies are tolerated because survival depends on it. Literally twisting the minds.

Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and others who lived through this recognize the pattern immediately when they see it in Western institutions today. The show trials of Twitter mobs. The compelled speech. The ideological litmus tests for employment. The memory-holing of inconvenient facts. The ritualistic confessions of privilege.

To a post-communist eye, it is unmistakable. To eyes that have only known freedom, it looks like a passionate, if misguided, social movement.

That gap in perception – between those who have vocabulary for zakłamanie and those who do not – may be one of the most consequential fault lines in the Western world today. Because you cannot fight a disease you cannot name. And you cannot name what your language was never built to describe.

The first task, then, is translation – not just of words, but of the lived understanding those words carry. The lie is not a bug in this system. It is the system. Until that is understood, the West will keep arriving, perpetually surprised, to find that the institutions it trusted have been quietly hollowed out from within.

Now my daughter has graduated from high school and what kind of opportunities are there for her and her peers? 

It's insane, sad, and maddening. 

Around this structure grew an entire ecosystem of permanent government bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, defense contractors, banks, multinational corporations, lobbying firms, think tanks, universities, NGOs, media organizations, technology companies, international institutions, and foreign interests seeking influence over Washington. They frequently compete with one another, and their interests sometimes collide, but they also overlap, exchange personnel, depend upon one another, and share an obvious interest in preventing the entire global arrangement from being turned upside down by several million angry people who suddenly notice they’re being exploited to maintain a world that is not improving.

That is what I mean by the Post-War Consensus, or PWC. It is not a claim that every policy since V-J Day was secretly written by a cabal in George Soros’ mountain lair. It is the broad institutional settlement that grew out of American global leadership after World War II and accumulated additional layers over the following eighty years. Presidents changed. Parties traded control of Congress. Wars started and ended. The Soviet Union itself disappeared. Yet the basic assumption that America should manage an enormous international political, military, and economic world order survived them all.

And this is where UniParty needs to be understood. It does not mean Republicans and Democrats are identical. They aren’t. It means that for decades the acceptable leadership of both parties largely operated within certain common boundaries concerning the basic structures of American power. Administrations changed, but the machinery remained. One party might turn one dial clockwise, and the other turn another counterclockwise, but both parties kept feeding it.

Neoconservatives are one cog in that machine, not the machine itself. Global finance is another. The military-industrial complex is another. The permanent bureaucracy is another. Foreign-policy think tanks, corporate lobbyists, multinational interests, intelligence agencies, media gatekeepers, and foreign governments attempting to influence American policy occupy still other positions. The mistake is looking at any one cog and assuming you’ve found the engine. It’s not just Israel. It’s not just the CIA. It’s not just the Federal Reserve. It’s not just the Council on Foreign Relations. The Establishment is the ecosystem produced by their intersection, and the Establishmentarian is the person whose politics reliably bend toward preserving it. It doesn’t matter if they’re a conservative Establishmentarian or a Liberal one; not really. It’s all the Establishment, one way or another.

Grasping that is crucial because an Establishmentarian can call himself a conservative while conserving remarkably little that previous generations of Americans would recognize as their inheritance. He can watch industries disappear, communities hollow out, debt explode, borders become abstractions, foreign commitments multiply, families become economically harder to make, and government become larger and more remote, yet somehow conclude that the greatest threat to America is the angry citizen asking why their burritos cost so much.

A conservative has to ask what is actually worth conserving, and sometimes that requires tearing down institutions that have outlived their purpose or turned against the people they were supposed to serve. The Establishmentarian has a much easier answer. Whatever else he is willing to sacrifice, there is one thing he can always be counted upon to conserve: the Establishment.

THE DISSIDENTS

Once you understand the Establishment this way, another word that gets thrown around suddenly makes a lot more sense: dissident. The word sounds sinister because it is supposed to. It conjures up radicals lurking outside respectable society, plotting against the institutions that keep civilization from collapsing. But a dissident is not necessarily a radical, and he is certainly not defined by how far Left or Right he happens to be. A dissident refuses to accept the boundaries of the approved political conversation.

The Establishment is perfectly capable of accommodating Democrats and Republicans because it has been doing so for generations. It can survive an argument about marginal tax rates. It can survive Republicans appointing conservative judges and Democrats appointing liberal ones. It can survive four years of one party running the executive branch followed by four years of the other. Those fights can be genuine, vicious, and consequential while still taking place inside a larger institutional framework that neither side seriously intends to dismantle.

The dissident becomes dangerous when he walks past those arguments and starts kicking the pillars. Why does the United States need troops scattered across the planet? Why are we obligated to fight this war? Why is this foreign alliance treated as permanent regardless of whether it continues serving American interests? Why did we ship productive industry overseas and then congratulate ourselves because imported televisions became cheaper? Why should capital be allowed to search the entire planet for cheaper labor while an American worker is told he must become more competitive or flexible or adapt to new careers? Why are multinational corporations treated as free-market actors when so many of them depend upon government contracts, subsidies, regulatory advantages, intellectual-property protections, favorable trade arrangements, and armies of lobbyists?

Those questions become even more dangerous when they leave Washington and arrive at the kitchen table. Why does a man with a decent job struggle to buy the kind of house his father bought on one income? Why are young couples delaying marriage and children because they cannot afford the necessities of family life? Why is consumer debt astronomical? Why does a trip through the grocery store feel like a mugging? Why can Wall Street celebrate while the town where you grew up loses its factory, its hardware store, its families, and eventually its future? At some point, people stop accepting charts showing that the economy is doing wonderfully and start trusting the far more persuasive evidence in their bank accounts.

This is why populism, rather than Left or Right, creates such panic within the Establishment. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump do not share a political philosophy, but they do share something. Sanders attacked concentrated financial and corporate power from the socialist Left. Trump arrived from the nationalist Right attacking trade deals, mass immigration, the Iraq War, NATO burden-sharing, globalization, and the bipartisan foreign-policy class. Their diagnoses frequently differed, and their prescriptions differed even more, but both committed the same unforgivable offense: they told millions of Americans that the people running the system might be the problem.

That was the electricity behind Trump in 2016. Whatever else anyone thought about him, he walked onto a Republican debate stage and attacked propositions Republican voters had spent years being told were beyond discussion. He called the Iraq War a disaster. He attacked free-trade orthodoxy. He questioned whether America’s alliances were actually reciprocal. He treated the border as something a sovereign nation was entitled to control. Most importantly, he demonstrated that Republican voters had never consented to many of the sacred cows supposedly defining Republicanism. They had merely been told that accepting them was the price of admission.

AND

Once a political establishment has decided which questions people are allowed to ask, it does not need a terribly sophisticated method for dealing with people who ask the wrong ones. It needs labels. The labels change depending on the subject; instead of answering the dissident’s complaint, translate it into an ideology so poisonous that he is forced to defend himself rather than continue advocating for his interest.

The formula is simple. An American says his groceries are becoming unaffordable. Communist. He wonders whether importing millions of workers affects the bargaining power of American labor. Xenophobe. He questions another foreign intervention. Isolationist. He wonders whether a supposedly indispensable ally is actually behaving like one. Conspiracy theorist, antisemite, foreign propagandist. He suggests that multinational corporations should not possess an unlimited right to destroy American communities merely because doing so improves the quarterly return to shareholders. Marxist. He concludes that perhaps his own government should consciously prefer the interests of its own citizens.

Woke Right. Woke Reich. Scmoke Schmight. It’s all nonsense.

https://insighttoincite.substack.com/p/ring-gate-a-taxonomy-primer-to-understand  

Words fail doesn't even begin to cover this. 

Are you good with this? 

https://youtu.be/ll779OYMZxE?si=j91vJd48ZiWlSjcm 

Just like the set-up at AmFest where attendees could have their picture taken with the tent setup where Charlie Kirk was murdered? You can relive the horror in person! What an opportunity to be emotionally abused and manipulated! 

Are you kidding me? 

This is major psychological warfare stuff and too many Christians are completely oblivious to how insane these move truly are.

There’s a 41-foot trailer in a church parking lot in Phoenix this Sunday. Inside, there’s strobe lights, empty tents, VR headsets, and a 55-inch touchscreen showing videos produced in Israel. Young Christians will file in after the service, experience an “immersive October 7 exhibit,” and leave with educational materials about why supporting Israel is what Christians have “always believed.”

What they won’t see anywhere are the words “Paid for by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” What they won’t know is that they’re targets of a registered foreign agent conducting a $4 million influence operation on American soil.

This isn’t conspiracy theory. It’s disclosed in federal documents filed with the Department of Justice in September 2025. The operator is a Republican political consultant named Chad Schnitger. His boss is the Israeli government. His mission is to reverse declining support for Israel among Christians under 30 who “don’t remember 9/11.”

This isn’t lobbying. This is a foreign government manipulating American theology, tracking believers in their houses of worship, and operating through a network of registered agents spending ten million dollars to reshape how evangelicals think about Israel. And the mobile museum launched this week.

https://insighttoincite.substack.com/p/israels-religious-interference-propaganda