Actions have consequences.

Burn the American flag, disrespect our nation, incite violence: ONE YEAR IN JAIL. No excuses. pic.twitter.com/mEBgJL6CNn

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 25, 2025

Donald Trump this week overrode the Supreme Court, declaring by executive order that it is illegal to burn the American flag.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump just signed an executive order directing the DOJ to pursue ONE YEAR IN PRISON for those who burn American flags in the street

“You get one year in jail, NO early exits, no nothing. One year in jail if you burn a flag. What it does is incite to riot!” pic.twitter.com/BpcYg2HvCt

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 25, 2025

Then some fat guy with very poor sounding speech went in front of the White House and burned the flag and yelled about White Privilege.

BREAKING: A veteran has been arrested for burning an American flag outside the White House, hours after Trump signed an executive order mandating one year in prison for flag burning.
pic.twitter.com/pk4mRNQOPN

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) August 25, 2025

BREAKING🚨: liberal arrested for burning American flag outside the White House. That didn’t take long…they can’t help themselves… pic.twitter.com/T2mit4XX2H

— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) August 26, 2025

That guy had obviously been planning on doing some kind of social media stunt like this for a while. Why didn’t he go on Ozempic first?

I’ve read some tweets. Most conservatives are talking about how people have been charged with burning gay flags, and so if it’s illegal to burn a gay flag, it should be illegal to burn an American flag. What they aren’t saying is that it’s not actually illegal to guy buy a gay flag and then burn it, all the people who were charged with doing that grabbed the gay flag from a gay church or some other gay place and burned it, meaning it was theft and vandalism, which are actual crimes. Of course, adding hate crimes enhancements to theft and vandalism is insane. But the argument of “if we can’t burn their flag, they shouldn’t be able to burn ours” is stupid in a lot of different ways. In this case, if Trump is allowed to pass any law with an executive order, why doesn’t he just make a law legalizing burning the gay flag? Why doesn’t he outlaw all “hate crime enhancements”? He’s saying he can make any law by just writing it on a paper, so he could do that.

Wouldn’t we rather have more speech than less speech?

I’m sorry, but as long as this is the status quo, I’m not going to work myself into a state of hysteria about Trump’s executive order on burning the American flag pic.twitter.com/YCeHkaR2hC

— Christopher F. Rufo ️ (@realchrisrufo) August 25, 2025

Please note: No one asked you to “work yourself into a state of hysteria,” Christopher. But you’ve set yourself up as a public commentator, an opinion maker, and so I think people expect you to have an opinion.

And then of course… the vets.

Some will say burning the American flag is their First Amendment right.
I put everything on the line for that flag, and watched some people lose everything for that flag.
If you want to burn it, you shouldn’t be here!
And if it happens in front of me, I will need bail money. pic.twitter.com/eQiXyrFoAU

— cjrseabee3 (@codyrussel70504) August 25, 2025

Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, btw.

I don’t know if he meant to post the Israeli flag and that is some kind of typo.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump just signed an executive order directing the DOJ to pursue ONE YEAR IN PRISON for those who burn American flags in the street

“You get one year in jail, NO early exits, no nothing. One year in jail if you burn a flag. What it does is incite to riot!” pic.twitter.com/BpcYg2HvCt

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 25, 2025

The question I had was: is it still legal to burn the Israeli flag? Because so far, none of the anti-speech laws Trump has been putting through have had anything to do with America, they are all just about Israel. The feds have seized control of the curriculums of universities and made it illegal to say Israel is genocidal or that Israel is like the Nazis, but you’re still allowed to say that America is genocidial and like the Nazis. So it would be out of character to outlaw burning the American flag while allowing people to legally burn the Jewish flag.

All this Trump police state type stuff is very strange and I think unexpected. It is strange that all of the people you would expect to be against this stuff are the ones supporting it.

The conservative media is ridiculously irresponsible. Obviously, when you start getting into military on the streets and so on, you’re establishing a precedent. This isn’t going to go away. In 2028, either Gavin Newsom or AOC is going to be president (it will probably be a shared ticket, with AOC as VP because she’s younger, but she will compete with him and might win). They are not going to remove the military from the streets or reduce the militarization of other law enforcement organizations. They’re also not going to add more freedom of speech. And if this thing where Trump can just make any law through EO stays in place, they are definitely going to use that.

To be clear, there is no way any Republican will win in 2028. I don’t believe elections are real, and I argued before the election that Trump would be allowed to win because Jews want him doing these wars for Israel. That seems to have played out, or be playing out, exactly as I said it would. But even if you believe elections are real, it is already obvious that Trump has completely burned any chance of any GOP candidate winning in 2028.

I guess if I believed elections were real, I would be telling anyone who wanted to run as a Republican to distance themselves from Trump aggressively right now. JD Vance can’t do that, but he was never going to win even the 2028 nomination regardless. But even if elections are real and someone like Tucker Carlson were to distance from Trump aggressively in preparation, no Republican can win, because this is too bad of a disaster and it is only going to get worse.

The next phase of the Iran thing is about to get rolling. Maybe I will have been right and Trump will end the Ukraine thing as that gets started, I don’t know. That seems possible. But yeah, just check the news: Israel is saying the “operation” is still ongoing, they are bombing Yemen again, they are threatening constantly, the Lebanese government is trying to disarm Hezbollah, Australia just accused Iran of burning Jewish restaurants in Australia (???), Iran is doing military drills and saying a new conflict “could erupt at any moment, China is shipping in weapons, CENTCOM is doing a leadership shift, the US is saying Iran is planning to attack America. And so on.

I am not going to predict a timeframe, but it is undeniable that this is going to blow up again, and much bigger, as all sides are saying “there is no solution.”

The point is: this presidency is going to be one of the worst messes in US history. Some people are still cheering some aspects of it, but especially if you include the Epstein thing, Trump has managed to piss off all of his own supporters in various ways. There is probably more Republican support for a war with Iran than there is for the one with the Ukraine, but even the boomers are starting to look at the Gaza thing like “wow, what is going on here?” And the Israel First agenda is not deniable, I guess the government is just hoping Americans prefer Israel over their own country and are fine with sacrificing benefits so that Israel can get more weapons to murder children.

The conservative influencer defense of the flag burning EO shows that they are really struggling to explain this stuff. “Well, if we can’t burn a gay flag then they shouldn’t be able to burn a US flag” is not a good argument, it is a retarded argument for babies, and these strange acts are not going to get any easier to explain as this continues to spiral.

And I mean. They are aiming for 400,000 deportations per year. So that is 1.6 million in four years, which is not even 20% of the number of people that came in under Biden. And remember: we had a whole lot of illegal immigrants before Biden took office. Also, even if the 400,000 per year target is hit, we will still end up with more people, because they are expanding H-1B.

But the fact that the deportations are so low will not prevent the Administration from using immigration as an excuse to implement a Palantir technological control grid.

So, at the end of this, no one is going to be happy with what we got, and Trump is going to hand over a massive police state and a completely new framework for making laws, a new framework for speech and vast new precedent for censorship of political speech, to his Democrat successor.

I guess the best we can hope for is that now that Trump has set a standard of deporting people with green cards for their speech, Prez Cortez might get rid of Jordan Peterson. Peterson in shackles, crying as he is marched onto a plane by masked thugs is pretty much the only good thing I can imagine having in the next decade or so.

And hey yo, dawg. I’m not trying to “blackpill you” with “black pills.” I’m just weighing in, telling it like it is. But to be clear, I’m reading and watching the materials from the pro-Trump people, and none it is all just a bunch of meaningless spin. They are pumping up the Putin meeting of course, and if he does manage to end that war, that will be good. I don’t know that he will end that war, but it could happen, and that would be good. But I can pretty well guarantee you that if that happens, it is going to coincide with a massive escalation in the Middle East.

The Jews moving in to totally occupy Gaza is not something that is just going to go away.

And if you did have a big war, well, I guess having military on the streets, completely new speech laws, a new governance system where laws are just whatever the president writes on a paper, and a Palantir techno control grid would be pretty useful in that situation.

Are any of you old enough to have been around listening to Alex Jones in the late 1990s and early 2000s?

He used to make these documentaries about how there was going to be Marshal Law in America with totally militarized police and actual military on the streets and a biometric control grid.

Here’s Police State 3: Total Enslavement:

My favorite was Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (which was also “Police State 4”):

The first two are pretty good too.

It’s sort of hilarious to me that this now appears to be where we’re going, and all of the people who you would expect to be against it are cheering it on.

It seemed for a while like we were headed for a more “Brave New World” type dystopia, but now the vibe does seem to be straight-up “1984” type militarized police state type dystopia.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was written first, in 1932, then George Orwell’s 1984 was published in 1948 (hence the name). In 1958, Huxley published “Brave New World: Revisted,” a nonfiction piece in which he reflected on the original novel’s themes and also discussed 1984. He concluded that though the dystopia would be more like Brave New World, it would also have elements of 1984.

He talked about these issues in a 1958 interview with Mike Wallace.

The “overpopulation” stuff didn’t really age well. But some of the rest of it did. (And I guess it is true that population growth led to urbanization which led to more government control.)

It feels a bit like the coronavirus hoax was an attempt to do Brave New World, and now they’re just going full 1984.

But listen, the good news is…

Ah, wait. I lost my train of thought. I forget what the good thing is, but it’s something, I’m sure.

Twice a day Covid pill by Pfizer pic.twitter.com/S5guXlcm7z

— Osler (@osler78) September 1, 2021

Surprise!

National File:

Pharmaceutical megacorporation pfizer is now developing a COVID pill that is meant to be taken alongside the COVID vaccines that have already made the company a staggering amount of money. The new pill is expected to be released by the end of the year and will be required to be taken twice per day.

“Success against #COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said on Wednesday. “We’re pleased to share we’ve started a Phase 2/3 study of our oral antiviral candidate-specifically designed to combat SARS-CoV-2-in non-hospitalized, low-risk adults.”

Success against #COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments. We’re pleased to share we’ve started a Phase 2/3 study of our oral antiviral candidate—specifically designed to combat SARS-CoV-2—in non-hospitalized, low-risk adults: https://t.co/su5VtfbWPX

— AlbertBourla (@AlbertBourla) September 1, 2021

Pfizer also put out a press release the same week that proclaimed, “If successful, [the drug] has the potential to address a significant unmet medical need, providing patients with a novel oral therapy that could be prescribed at the first sign of infection, without requiring hospitalization.” The company described the drug as an “investigational orally administered protease inhibitor antiviral therapy designed specifically to combat COVID–19 – in non–hospitalized, symptomatic adult participants who have a confirmed diagnosis of SARS–CoV–2 infection and are not at increased risk of progressing to severe illness, which may lead to hospitalization or death.”

Pfizer is saying that they’re so confident about the pill that they’ve started producing it already, even before trials are finished.

Obviously, Pfizer is aware that they have a blank check from governments to produce any drug that is supposed to “fight coronavirus” and get it immediately approved for “emergency use.”

They’re saying now that people will take it “at the first sign of infection,” which would mean as soon as you test positive on a PCR test.

Of course, as we know, these things spiral quickly, and it would not be surprising if the government/media began demanding that everyone on earth start taking daily pills as a prophylactic to fight against the deadly coronavirus.

You can also imagine that the group of true believers in the virus hoax will be demanding access to these pills. We’ve all seen people who are clearly going to be in fear of this alleged virus for the rest of their lives, and they will want these pills.

You would then have the media declaring that anyone who is refusing to take their pills is a threat to society, and doing violence. Of course, they can give you whatever kinds of drugs they want in these pills, and they could make people addicted to them, or make them otherwise get sick without them.

There is an episode of Star Trek where the crew discovers that one race is producing “medicine” for another race to fight against a deadly illness, but actually there is no illness and the drug they’re giving them is a narcotic.

Maybe the pill wouldn’t be an actual narcotic, but it could be something that is designed to make it so you have to take it for the rest of your life.

We can also think of the “Soma” in Brave New World, which was a Prozac type pill that the whole population was compelled to take daily.

Whatever is going on here, it is outrageous and terrible.

The government and media have totally failed to produce any evidence of a pandemic, and now they are pushing an infinite number of drugs on the population.

I saw someone make this comment the other day:

And it got me to thinking.

Both Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer are being accused of trying to “buy the presidency,” and this process involves nothing other than advertisements. And indeed, with nothing other than advertisements, both of these candidates have been able to garner a percentage of public support in polls.

These political ads that we are shown constantly are a very basic and barbaric form of brainwashing.

Neuroscientist and physiologist Kathleen Taylor wrote a book called “Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control” that describes the process of brainwashing as is used by cults and authoritarian governments.

Wikipedia:

In the Part I of the book, titled: “Torture and seduction”, Taylor analyzes how various parties have used certain techniques in influencing and brainwashing others, including a restriction of individual freedoms, deception, and methods that conflict with one’s decision-making processes. She utilizes case studies including Patty Hearst, the Manson Family, and the mass murder/suicide of members of Peoples Temple at Jonestown to illustrate the neurology she explains in Part II, “The traitor in your skull”. In the case of the Manson Family followers of Charles Manson carried out multiple murders in 1969, and with Peoples Temple over 900 followers of charismatic leader Jim Jones died in 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana after consuming cyanide. Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies. These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment. 

According to Taylor, cults emphasize positive aspects of the group over negative aspects of outsiders, endlessly repeat simple ideas in “highly reductive, definitive – sounding phrases”, and refer to “abstract and ambiguous” ideas associated with “huge emotional baggage”. Taylor writes that brainwashing involves a more intense version of the way the brain traditionally learns.

This is more or less the exact definition of advertisement itself.

Every advertisement uses repetition of simple phrases linked to huge emotional baggage.

Toothpaste advertisements tell you that using this toothpaste will make your family happier.

Perfume advertisements tell you that wearing a perfume will cause women to have sex with you.

Mountain Dew commercials tell you that drinking Mountain Dew will make you into an invincible ninja.

This is the moral quandary with the concept of advertisement in general, as we ask: “do corporations have a right to use psychological methods of brainwashing on you in order to manipulate you into buying their products?”

I would say that the answer is a definitive “no” in any sane society. But when you get into political advertisement, you reach a level of absurdity that, if it were to be considered, would undermine the entire structure of our political order.

Every article you read about political races mentions the importance of the advertising budget of candidates. And this advertising budget exists almost exclusively to use psychological methods to condition people to vote for specific candidates.

If this was simply about informing people about which candidate believes what and what his record is, then the government could allocate television time for each candidate to say what they believe and what they are promising to do and say “to learn more, check out my website.”

If the theory of democracy is that we live in a society of fully actualized individuals capable of making informed decisions about the way the government functions, then it would be impossible that opinions could be changed by bombarding people with advertisements.

Furthermore, if that were actually what democracy was, we would have zero problems with so-called “foreign hackers” meddling in our elections by posting “disruptive information” on the internet.

Related: If Fake News is a Problem for Democracy, Then Democracy is a Problem

So the fact is that no one actually believes in “democracy” as it is presented. In fact, by all accounts a democracy system is nothing more than a contest of who can manipulate the most people using the psychological methods of advertising. This is an extremely unstable system, wherein the only possibility of maintaining stability is through a centralized media, which determines what people are or are not allowed to see, in the same way that a cult determines what information people have access to.

That is to say: you have no more freedom in a democracy than you have in a Jonestown style cult, as both rely on the same mechanisms to alter your behavior. Of course, anyone could leave Jonestown. They were not physically forced to be there. And that is the core claim of why democracy equals freedom: because in a perfect democracy, there is no force involved.

That was also the model for Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel “Brave New World.” This book portrayed a society where the ruling class had reached perfect control of the people, so there was no need to use force because no one was resisting, due to the control that the state had over information.

Sigmund Freud and classical conditioning were in fact featured heavily in the book. Huxley was writing at a time when democracy was relatively new, and all he was doing was describing its perfect form.

It should be extremely disturbing that this system is celebrated as the pinnacle of civilization, and one which should be aggressively spread across the planet, given its obvious flaws and the total refusal of democracy believers to ever address any of these flaws.

Mankind should fight for freedom. And there is no freedom here.

Progressives are now embracing the 1984 aesthetic.

One thing that struck me when reading 1984 was the mention that everyone was wearing unisex, drab jumpsuits, and that all gender roles were abolished. The point, of course, was to destroy all basic human bonds, to be replaced with an artificial loyalty to an abstract “party.”

While adherents to the modern Jew-liberal system like to present themselves as colorful eccentrics who value “humanity” over drab, boring traditions, in reality they are the very embodiment of that totalitarian drive to abolish nature. They claim that their “omnisexual” perversions are all about “love,” but in fact they’re responsible for destroying all love from society.

We’re in a completely materialistic, completely individualistic world, where natural relationships between men and women are quickly being pathologized into nonexistence, replaced by hordes of joyless, sexless hedonists.

From a physical prison, to a spiritual one.

Get ready for your blue jumpsuits, boys and girls.

They’re right around the corner.

The Guardian:

Is John Lewis at the frontline of modern gender politics? It has never seemed so before, but judging by the reaction to the department store’s announcement last week that its own-brand children’s clothes will no longer be divided by gender, some people clearly see the retailer as radical. There will now be no separate sections in the stores, nor such binary labels on the clothes themselves; instead, the labels will read “girls and boys” or “boys and girls”.

The conversation over whether clothing should be more gender-neutral does not just apply to childrenswear – over the past decade there has also been a marked rise in gender-neutral clothing for adults. Some high-end designers such as JW Anderson, Rick Owens and Rad Hourani have championed gender-neutral clothing, while a raft of smaller companies run by young designers, such as Rich Mnisi, are pushing the idea that men’s and women’s clothes should be obsolete categories. This approach has also filtered down to the high street – H&M and Zara have both created non-gendered ranges.

Actually, it seems we’re already halfway there to the blue jumpsuits.

The British designer Katharine Hamnett has a long history of exploring non-gender-specific clothing, and her newly reissued collection features unisex shirts, sweatshirts and silk all-in-one suits. She says that, in the past, when women stepped on to more traditionally male sartorial territory – wearing military-inspired clothing, for instance – this “was about appropriating male power”. Now, she says, a move towards equality means women “may be feeling more comfortable with themselves”; in other words, they may have the freedom to wear what they like. (It is still far less common for men to seek out traditionally female clothing.)

You think women have been wearing dresses for thousands of years because they were oppressed? Women wear distinctive clothing, hairstyles and accessories in order to attract men. The point of this “unisex” nonsense is to put an end to that, in order to reduce man-woman relationships to tedious, business-like drivel. The point is to wipe us out.

The Jews have engineered the perfect mix of 1984 and Brave New World in order to engineer the destruction of the White race and the enslavement of humanity. A sexless, childless totalitarian society drenched in pleasure and perversion, with everyone too doped up on mind-numbing drugs to realize what’s going on or do something about it.

We’re the only force which represents the natural order, including the fact that men and women are different and that sexual reproduction is actually an important part of civilization and racial survival.

That’s why we’re enemy number one of the Jews and their evil servants.

This time they’re not planning to turn the frogs gay.

In the paper that is being referenced here they claim that in addition to being accepting of their own ethnic displacement people doped with oxytocin increased donations to migrants by 74%.

Our Brave New World is manifesting so quickly now, that even when social scientists make terrifying announcements such as this, the general populace can only blink in disbelief, before abandoning the notion altogether…

From a Zerohedge article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08…

A few days ago, we reported on some interesting remarks that the brilliant British author/philosopher Aldous Huxley made about our eternal Jewish enemy.

These revelations motivated me to go back and reread his seminal work Brave New World, as it had been many years since I had done so. Much to my surprise, and completely unexpectedly, I found myself noticing what seemed like obvious anti-Jewish and pro-White undertones in the book, such as the Jewish nature of the villains and the Aryan nature of the heroes (the “world controller” character is described as having a “hooked nose” and the hero as a blonde European, for example).

Upon doing a bit of internet research to put together a piece about this, I discovered that I was not the first to come to these conclusions after stumbling across an article at the website Jett and Jahn that says essentially the same thing.

The article basically encompasses all of my observations and could hardly be improved upon, so I will just quote it in full.

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley Warned About Jews:

British author Aldous Huxley wrote “Brave New World” in 1931.

The book is a parody of utopian novels he had read that predicted a “glorious future”. Huxley was skeptical of modernization and worried about the social effects of the Industrial Revolution.

His novel actually describes a dystopia, a liberal society controlled by a small group of people.

Most of the negative characters from the book are named after famous Jews:

Bernard Marx: Named after Jewish revolutionary Karl Marx

He has an inferiority complex since he is shorter and thinner than other males. He is very critical of society out of jealousy because he doesn’t feel accepted.

Lenina Crowne: Named after Jewish revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin

She is very attractive, popular, and charismatic. She has sex with many different men in the story.

Morgana Rothschild: Named after Rothschild Jewish banking family

Bernard accidentally sits next to her at the orgy ceremony in Chapter Five. He immediately regrets it because she has a unibrow…

Polly Trotsky: Named after Jewish revolutionary, Leon Trotsky

She is a young girl who briefly appears at the beginning of the book. She makes a sexual advance at a young boy but he gets upset and rejects her.

Mustapha Mond: Named after Jewish Zionist Alfred Mond

He is the World Controller for Western Europe (how fitting?).  He is very intelligent but uses his knowledge to manipulate people.

In Chapter Three, he is desribed as “a man of middle height, black-haired, with a hooked nose, full red lips, eyes very piercing and dark”. (need any more proof?)

Meanwhile, the noble characters in Huxley’s story are clearly not Jewish:

Helmholtz Watson: Named after German physicist Herrmann Vonn Helmholtz

He is a professor at the College of Emotional Engineering. He is tall, strong, athletic, and handsome but his intelligence isolates him from others. He is unsatisfied and feels emptiness but doesn’t know what to do about it. He gets in trouble when the government discovers a poem he has wrote about being introverted. Eventually, he is deported to a stranded island but views the punishment as an opportunity.

The main character of the story, John “The Savage” was not named after a specific person but symbolizes the traditional idea of a “hero”. He grew up on a Native Reservation in America but didn’t fit in because he was a blonde European. He is chivalrous, disciplined, and intelligent but introverted and feels isolated.

Huxley’s predictions are fascinating to read from the modern perspective.

For example, the word “God” has been replaced with “Freud”, the Jewish psychologist behind the Sexual Revolution.

In Huxley’s story, Freud is honored as “the first to reveal the appalling dangers of family life”. In the future society, the family has been destroyed and the state raises children.

If you haven’t read this book, I strongly recommend it. (Here is a link to a free online copy).

The beginning is confusing but necessary to help build the story.

(Unfortunately, there are no movie versions that follow the actual  storyline from the book. The Jews in Hollywood obviously wouldn’t let that happen…)

It’s impossible for anyone to know what was going through Huxley’s mind when he wrote Brave New World, but it is hard to believe that this wasn’t intentional. And, if it wasn’t, that means he subconsciously envisioned a dystopian future as being a struggle between Jewish oppressors and Aryan victims, which is in itself pretty fascinating.