David R is a freelance writer and researcher. David served in the United States Marine Corps from 1995-1999 and the US Army from 2001-2006. In addition to contributing to FreedomOutpost.com, he writes at Radical Conservative. Follow David on Twitter.
President Trump won the presidency by promising to do something about illegal immigration. Millions of loyal followers faithfully believed his empty promises to have Mexico pay for the wall that he assured would be built. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency for two years, and no action was taken on the border at all. It wasn’t until after the 2018 midterms, where Democrats took control of the House of Representatives that the fight for the wall began. Since that time, we have been treated to a soap opera of a government shutdown, emergency declarations and more meaningless rhetoric to close the border completely. This has all culminated into nothing more than President Trump backing away from all of this and giving Mexico one year to stop the flow of drugs and immigrantscoming across our border. By the way, he isn’t playing around this time.
The question remains as to whether Trump is just incompetent, unable to fight the seemingly undrainable swamp or if he is one of them. Why wasn’t the issue dealt with when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate? The answer, while difficult to prove seems to be that the issue itself is just one of many being used to distract the population from an agenda that is steadily being advanced. The big news over the past few weeks has been the exoneration of Trump from the Russian collusion hoax. If there was any truth to any of this Trump would have the momentum and the motivation to drive on with his agenda. Instead, he is caving to the left, like always, while keeping the borders open another year under threat that he will eventually act. That is a far cry from having Mexico pay for a wall.
The truth is that the immigration issue won’t be solved. Even if Trump was honest in his attempts the issue of immigration is being used as a tool to reshape American demographics and merge the U.S. into a global governing system. The U.N. has published a document highlighting this plan claiming that population replacement through immigration is necessary to address the issue of aging populations and declining birth rates. In the United States, the fertility rate as of 2015 was 1.84 children per family, or 60 births per 1000 women of childbearing age. For the U.S. to maintain its culture, a minimum of 2.11 children per family is required. According to the Daily Mail, no U.S. state in 2017 had a birth rate among white women high enough to replace the population. Birth rates among minorities are way up, however. In fact, white babies are now the minority. This in and of itself isn’t a big deal if the United States culture was taught and appreciated. The problem comes when immigrants pouring into the country show no respect for our culture and make no effort to assimilate.
Why are Americans having fewer children? Many women feel the need to focus on career first, for sure. This isn’t a bad idea. Surely, we don’t want to have families if we can’t afford them. Could pushing the idea that having children is bad for the environment have something to do with it? What about the feminist movement that shuns the traditional family life and the role women played in it? How about transgenderism and the normalization of homosexuality? Are Americans being deliberately conditioned to have fewer children so the U.N. could replace our population? It would seem so.
The culture of individual liberty is what made America the greatest country on Earth. People traditionally have sought to come here to escape the depraved conditions of their home countries, where there is no opportunity, to build independent lives and live free. This is not a race issue; it is one of maintaining culture. The people flooding our borders now, while capable of assimilating and adapting to our culture if they choose, are being promised handouts in exchange for votes. The end goal is the elimination of individualism and the culture of freedom and replacing it with collectivism. Therefore, the Democrats insist on pandering to illegal immigrants. It is only a matter of time before they are the majority and there isn’t anything we can do about it.
There is a continuing trend when it comes to the issue of terrorism. With increasing regularity, acts of terror committed by radical Muslims are ignored while the white Christian male gradually becomes the new threat. The shooting in New Zealand for example, is being called an act of terrorism. The white male shooter, being portrayed as a white supremacist, was said to be triggered by a hatred of immigrants. In the United States, when a Muslim commits a mass shooting, he is portrayed as a crazy individual who isn’t motivated by religious fundamentalism. When a white male commits a mass shooting, he is referred to as an angry right-wing extremist driven by an anti-government ideology. Don’t misunderstand, the shooting in New Zealand was most certainly a terrorist attack complete with socio-political objectives. The point of this article, however, will be to show the deliberate attempts to change the public’s perception of what extremism is and the efforts to shield Muslim extremists from any criticism.
(Personal note: This author believes all peaceful people have the fundamental right to pray without fear of violence. The real people at fault are the ones who deny law-abiding people their inalienable right to armed defense. Some reports suggest it took police more than a half hour to respond to the situation in New Zealand.)
Since the beginning of 2019 more than 120 Christians have been slaughtered by radical Islamic militants in Nigeria. Many people don’t know this because it isn’t reported in the news. In fact, throughout 2018 the thousands killed in the African nation have led some to believe that a literal genocide is occurring. In the United States, the left wing press has reported that anti-government, right-wing extremists are responsible for more acts of terror on our soil than radical Muslims. For instance, Time reported since September 11, 2001, more Americans have been killed by white supremacists than by Islamic terrorists. This is a ridiculous assertion as in each case the number is rather insignificant, and the September 11th attacks took the lives of thousands in the first place.
There is a worldwide effort to criminalize any criticism of Muslims. According to The Clarion Project, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has launched a global initiative to “correct” the public’s perception of Islam where one of the goals is seemingly to disconnect the images of the Islamic faith from any acts of terror. In 2011, The Obama administration pushed through UN resolution 16/18, which was pushed by the OIC. This resolution essentially criminalizes criticism of Islam by equating any negative speech to potential threats of violence. Recently, Fox News hostess Jeanine Pirro has fallen under increased scrutiny in response to her comments about Representative IIhan Omar. Furthermore, the New York City Police Department and the FBI, likely as a result of the UN resolution have removed all references to Islamic terrorism from their training manuals. The focus is now on alleged right-wing extremism, or white nationalism. As time goes on, and younger generations are brought up under these guidelines, the reality of Islamic terrorism will be non-existent in the minds of our law enforcement officers.
It is ironic that one of the motivations listed in the manifesto of the New Zealand killer is immigration because according to the United States Department of Homeland Security report a concern about illegal immigration is enough to have someone considered a potential threat.
(U) Illegal Immigration
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.
It is also ironic that such an event occurred days before Senator Lindsey Graham holds a hearing on his nation Red Flag gun confiscation bill. After the shooting in New Zealand, it is entirely possible that anyone questioning illegal immigration could be viewed as suspect in the eyes of an ignorant public.
In the eighteen years since the September 11 attacks, Americans have been conditioned through a process called Associationism to view people who support the second amendment, oppose illegal immigration and question the government as potential terrorists. Associationism refers to how human beings learn by associating ideas. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the ideas of associative learning can be traced back to David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature. Hume’s theory elaborated on how a person’s perceptions are influenced by previous experience. Furthermore, Hume believed that there was no idea that existed in a person’s mind that was not first shaped by a previous experience. Associative theories of learning were later expanded on by Ivan Pavlov when he developed his theories on classical conditioning. Essentially, it was discovered that trained responses to a given stimulus can be replicated by simply replacing one stimulus with another. For nearly two decades now we have been inundated with images of Islamic terrorism (stimulus) which provoked feelings of fear and panic. This stimulus was accepted by the American people due the nature of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Slowly and ever so surely, this stimulus is being replaced with suggestions of right-wing extremism. Which, because of the already preconditioned perception of terror, is easily provoking the same pre-conditioned response. In other words, the word terror is now being associated with images of patriotic Americans standing up for their rights.
We are approaching a dangerous time. If the Red Flag laws pass and become national it will virtually create a closed society where everyone will be suspect of everyone. People will no longer speak freely for fear of being labeled a potential extremist and having a Red Flag order placed against them. They will no longer seek help if they are experiencing mental duress for the same fear. The more people resist such unconstitutional actions the more people expressing patriotic sentiment will be viewed as extremists and a potential threat to themselves or others. Every time an event like the one in New Zealand occurs the more this narrative will develop. Donald Trump not only supports the idea of Red Flag confiscation laws he agrees with Clinton on the idea of preventing people on the terror watch list from buying guns. According to the DHS you are suspected of being an extremist if you oppose immigration or are concerned about infringement on your gun rights. How are they going to determine who or who isn’t a potential terrorist? Donald Trump has also stated that he believes large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered “red flags.” Many of the Red Flag bills being passed at the state level suggest simply purchasing a firearm is enough to have an individual “red flagged.” Where is this going to end?
Earlier this week at the University of Boston, Robin DiAngelo, a professor with the University of Washington, gave a presentation in which she blamed white people for being “dangerous” if they fail to see people for their skin color. She claims that white people who deny the “reality of being black” while claiming to believe all men are equal are exhibiting white supremacism. What is the reality of black people that she is speaking of? Is she suggesting that they are incapable of achieving anything on their own, without the help of the white liberal welfare state? Is she suggesting they simply accept their place in society as an oppressed underclass and not even try? That is what is implied. Wouldn’t DiAngelo be the white supremacist for thinking this way?
The University of Washing recently made headlines when it was revealed their writing program is teaching students that the English language is racist. They claim there is no conclusive standard for the English language; therefore, holding people to any standard would be unfair because not everyone can be expected to keep up with its constant changes. The following is the full description of the University of Washington’s writing program.
The writing center works from several important beliefs that are crucial to helping writers write and succeed in a racist society. The racist conditions of our society are not simply a matter of bias orprejudice that some people hold. In fact, most racism, for instance, is not accomplished through intent. Racism is the normal condition of things. Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society. For example, linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent “standard” of English. Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.
Because we all live, work, learn, and communicate within such racist systems, the consultants in the writing center assume that a big part of our job is to help students become more critical of these unjust language structures as they affect students’ writing and the judgment of that writing. In particular, being aware of racism as structural offers students the best chances to develop as writers and succeed on their own terms in an inherently racist society.
Furthermore, by acknowledging and critiquing the systemic racism that forms parts of UWT and the languages and literacies expected in it, students and writing center consultants can cultivate a more socially just future for everyone. Just avoiding racism is not enough because it means we are doing nothing to stop racism at large, and it amounts to allowing racism to continue.
Is it any wonder our society is falling apart? Our universities are teaching that everything about our society, including the language we speak, is racist. The message of white privilege has become so perverted and twisted that Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a color-blind society, where people were judged by the content of their character, has been turned upside down. The word racism now implies believing that black people are equal with whites.
In a journal article entitled The English Only Movement in the U.S. and the World in the Twenty First Century it is argued by University of Arizona professor Teresa Pac that the English language has historically been used to oppress minorities and prevent them from gaining access to American culture. She also argues that white elitists enforced English as a national language because they feared minority languages would become dominant. This is a ridiculous assertion as English has never been the national language and the United States opens her doors to more immigrants from the third world than any other nation. This is an academic journal your children are reading in college.
The roots of racism can be traced back to the fields of psychology and psychiatry. These fields are heavily influenced by Darwinian/atheistic thinking, meaning that the study of human behavior is generally conducted from a scientific as opposed to a spiritual or religious perspective. Evolutionary theory then, is being applied to the development of mankind. Francis Galton, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, was an English psychologist who was related to Charles Darwin and shared many of his views concerning his theory of evolution. Galton, because he believed in evolutionary science, was convinced that Africans were inferior. Stating in his book “Tropical South Africa” that they had no independent will of their own, Galton believed that Africans needed leadership and preferred a life of servitude. This belief is what was later used to justify slavery. In fact, Africans who resisted slavery were considered mentally ill, as it was generally believed that blacks were incapable of self-care and freedom. This disease was referred to as Drapetomania and it is the root belief in what is driving the discussion of racism today. The left’s fundamental argument, as expressed by Professor DiAngelo, is that white people who view blacks as equal, and deny their “reality” as oppressed victims are racists. They are essentially arguing that black people are not as good as white people and need the government to make sure they have an equal chance at success. Isn’t that the very nature of white supremacism? Suggesting that whites are superior and are the only ones capable of helping blacks overcome oppression?
“Placing some physically healthy persons in the class of sick people may indeed be justified by appeals to ethics or politics; but it cannot be justified by appeals to logic or science.” (Szasz, T. 1974. The Myth of Mental Illness)
The National Association of Gun Rights has reported that President Trump’s White House has endorsed the use of red flag gun confiscation orders. To the average person, perhaps even the average gun owner, the idea of passing laws restricting access to guns for those diagnosed with mental illness has merit. People have a tendency, according to Thomas Szasz author of The Myth of Mental Illness, to show an intolerance to uncertainty. Therefore, in the minds of the public, it is rational to allow law enforcement to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens if there is any question pertaining to their behavior. Over the past several years, American’s have been exposed to a rash of mass public shootings followed by an unending barrage of anti-gun propaganda. These stories were certainly designed to raise the consciousness of the dangers of mentally ill people obtaining firearms. Many stories highlighted the failure of the background check system and of local authorities to identify persons who may pose a “danger to themselves or others.” The desired effect has been gaining public acceptance of infringement against the Second Amendment and the due process rights of those who may be considered mentally unstable.
The question no one is considering is the legitimacy of mental health diagnoses. Take ADHD for example. Millions of children are diagnosed and prescribed powerful drugs for a so-called disease that no can prove is real. According to neurologist Dr. Richard Saul, the disease as defined in the DSM simply does not exist because the described symptoms are so broad that the entire U.S. population could be diagnosed with them. Of eighteen possible symptoms listed in the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) an individual only needs to exhibit five. These symptoms include everyday behaviors such as forgetfulness, being easily distracted or being unorganized. Another good example is Operational Defiant Disorder, or ODD. According to the DSM, an individual only needs to display disagreeable behavior one day a week for a period of six months to considered operationally defiant.
The truth is that science has no idea what happens to the brain of a person diagnosed with mental illness. According to Psychology Today, it is understood that mental problems can develop from traumatic instances or drug use; however, there are no biological indicators which prove there is abnormal functions in the brain, and most disorders are diagnosed through observations of behavior rather than pinpointed, scientific tests which are used to identify physical illness. The same is true when it comes to schizophrenia, a disease that many people associate with psychotic behavior. According to Loren Mosher, a psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health, there is no medical evidence that supports the idea that schizophrenia is caused by chemical abnormalities in the brain. Thomas Szasz alludes to the idea in the Myth of Mental Illness that psychiatry, as a profession, fell into the habit of classifying behaviors that were misunderstood as mental illness simply because it is in man’s nature to classify things. He says that if we fail to take into account the rules made in classification systems, which according to him do not occur naturally and are always made by men, we run the risk of mistaking our own systems for naturally occurring events. In other words, over the years, psychiatry has become too dependent on their own systematic way of understanding; therefore, we have a system where illnesses are diagnosed off of observed behavior instead of something that can be proven to exist through medical tests.
This is important to understand because under many of these red flag laws the ability to quickly assess behavior and make determinations of some one’s mental status is being left in the hands of law enforcement. This is troubling in many ways because according to the Crime Prevention Research Center psychiatrists and other mental health specialists routinely miss the signs that may, according to the government, indicate someone may pose a danger to themselves or others. Their research shows that many of the recent mass shooters we have borne witness to have been in the care of psychiatrists and determined to not pose a threat to society. Furthermore, they highlight that only 13 out of 25 mass shooters were known to have mental health diagnosis’ such as schizophrenia. This means that the probability of a schizophrenic committing a mass shooting is one out of 123, 077, according to The Crime Prevention Research Center.
“To put it differently, if a psychiatrist was asked to screen 100,000 people with schizophrenia and identify the 1,000 most dangerous people from that group (the most dangerous 1 percent), less than 1 of that 1,000 would actually commit this crime and this assumes that you did accurately pick the 1,000 most dangerous individuals. To put it differently, you would have hopefully caught at most one real dangerous person, but at the expense of 999+ “false positives.” Again, note that this is 999 false positives out of 1,000 people is an overly optimistic number. The true false positive rate will be much, much higher.” (The Crime Prevention Research Center)
What this means is that it is incredibly difficult, even for mental health professionals, to identify dangerous people based on the methods used to diagnose mental health. Under the current system of observing behavior, people can be deemed mentally ill for any action that may seem questionable to anyone with the authority to make such a determination. If mental health professionals have had difficulty in determining the intentions of their own patients, how can law enforcement or any other part of the justice system do so successfully? If we drive on with this idea then we will be setting a precedent that will leave us with no freedom at all and a society diagnosed as crazy.
Gun control has proven over and over to be a failure. If it worked there wouldn’t have been a shooting. Not only does Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the individual in question was convicted of felony assault in 1995 for stabbing a woman. This means he was already a prohibited person and likely obtained the gun used illegally. A study conducted by the Department of Justice has determined that fewer than 1 in 50 prison inmates convicted of gun crimes purchased their guns through a licensed dealer, meaning that universal background checks would do nothing to stop gun crime. This, of course, will be ignored by lawmakers because their agenda doesn’t revolve around safety, but disarming the citizenry.
After every shooting, there is a developing narrative designed to reinforce the notion that more gun laws are needed. For instance, we often hear that the shooter was a normal everyday guy who no one suspected was capable of going off and committing such a crime. This creates the impression in gullible minds that their gun owning neighbor is also such a person. This narrative reinforces the idea that there is a need to confiscate someone’s guns if there is any behavior that seems to be questionable.
Another example is the one from the Church shooting in Texas. The shooter, in that case, was able to purchase his gun legally because the U.S. Air Force failed to report his name to the criminal database after being convicted of domestic violence. Like most other systematic failures, this is completely the government’s fault; however, it reinforces in the public’s mind the idea that our gun laws need to be revamped and more background checks are needed. This is all propaganda aimed at getting the general population to demand change.
The shooting in Illinois is no exception. There is a new narrative developing though and it is dangerous in the sense that it goes along with an executive action taken earlier in the year by President Trump, one that has divided the gun community, to be honest. President Trump’s bump stock ban is not fully understood for the danger it really presents to the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional in the sense that the attorney general essentially re-defined the existing definition of the word machine gun in the 1968 gun control act to include devices like bump stocks, or anything which increases the rate of fire on a semi-automatic rifle. Machine guns are already illegal and are defined as one pull of the trigger for a continuous rate of fire. Bump stocks do not even achieve this as they only use the energy of the rifle’s recoil to allow the trigger to be continuously pulled. The trigger, when using a bump stock, is still being pulled every time a round is discharged.
Based on this article from CNN, it is safe to assume that laser sights will be next on the list of things to ban. Laser sights allow a shooter to acquire their targets more quickly enabling for more rapid fire. So, there you go. The CNN story describes the shooter as running down the hallway just shooting everybody with a pistol that had a green laser sight. This story is designed purposefully to create fear and possibly add laser sights to a growing list of things Democrats want to ban.
The CNN article also described people in the factory running for their lives when they heard the shooting start. People panicking, not knowing what to do. In this writer’s humble opinion, this is part of the problem. This nation was founded on the idea of being a warrior culture. A population trained in the use of arms standing ready in defense of their families, communities and nation. It was understood that firearms in the hands of good men were a necessity in the fight against evil.
A relentless propaganda campaign waged by the left has changed all of that. The general public has been brainwashed to fear guns and the people that own them. Society is being conditioned to view the good men that will defend them as suspicious for owning guns.
If this keeps up and there isn’t a massive re-education effort in defense of the Second Amendment, we will soon be like Britain where people are reported to the police for buying hammers.
This is the inevitable result of encouraging an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and banning guns. People still murder and no one can defend themselves and eventually, something as innocent as buying a hammer becomes suspicious behavior.
Has there been an intentional effort to brainwash people into thinking differently about guns? Eric Holder can answer that.
With every new sunrise, we witness the world plunging deeper and deeper into chaos. Mankind seems to be taking the final steps off the edge and further away from sanity. The Democrat party, having once removed the word God from their party platform has exposed itself for what they really are, pure evil. The party that claims to be looking out for the oppressed and vulnerable has revealed it’s true agenda, death. They have shown the world that they have no concern for the most vulnerable amongst us and that life, in their minds, has no value beyond their own definition. They are arguing that a pregnant mother should have the right to kill her baby right up to the point of birth and in some cases, even afterward. How did we get to this point?
For years, our higher education system has been in the grips of those who do not believe in God. Our universities used to exist for the single purpose of teaching students how to find and pursue truth. Since the advent of Darwinian evolution and Pavlovian conditioning, however, education has moved into the realm of the scientific, disregarding Gods word in this search and leaning on man’s understanding instead. Once man discovered that behavior can be trained, shaped and manipulated to serve his own ends, life lost value as it was no longer believed that men had wills of their own.
B.F. Skinner once described the study of human behavior as being either pre-scientific or scientific. Pre-scientific meaning from the perspective that man was in some way able to control his behavior and scientific, after the acceptance of Darwin’s theories of evolution.
“In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person’s behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior.” (Skinner, 1971)
In the above statement, Skinner says that the study of human behavior should be conducted from the “scientific view” as opposed to the pre-scientific view. Looking at man through this lens has lessoned the value of human life. We have become, in the minds of scientists and behaviorists, no different than the animals Darwin claimed we are. We are not in control of our thoughts, actions and behaviors, they are controlled by the “evolutionary history of our species and the environmental circumstances to which an individual has been exposed.” (Skinner, 1971)
Marx was at one time a devout Christian. He later became angry and turned against God. Many argue he was an atheist however, the book Marx and Satan by Richard Wurmbrand suggests that Marx developed Communism as a means of destroying God’s creation. It is difficult to deny that Communism attacks the very nature of man and turns him into nothing more than a product of our behavior. Marx argued that class struggle was a natural part of evolution or dialectical materialism. The bourgeoise, the oppressor or “thesis” would naturally be overthrown by the proletariat or the anti-thesis, resulting in evolutionary progress of the species. Marx, according to Wurmbrand, reduced man’s behavior to being motivated by economics alone. Love, along with other human emotions, was reduced to nothing more than a necessity to achieve economic success.
It can be argued that the Theory of Evolution, combined with Marx’s ideas, are responsible for the atrocities the world witnessed in the twentieth century. When the value of human life is reduced to nothing more than an accident or process or evolution, eliminating undesirables that stand in the way of other’s grandiose ideas is easy. Communists killed an estimated 80-100 million people, according to The Black Book of Communism, because they were viewed as being in the way of progress, or creating a better world.
All of this has brought us to the point where human beings are now viewed as a scourge to the planet and the young have been indoctrinated into this thinking. It is now considered moral to kill a baby right up to birth.
If things are to change in this nation Darwinian evolution must be rejected as the main basis for scientific inquiry. It appears we may be on that path. According to an article at WND.com, one thousand scientists from around the world are rejecting the main premise behind Darwin’s theory claiming that there is no way it accounts for all the complexities of life. How could a Godless theory explain the complexities in a world created by God? Hopefully, more scientists will follow and our nation can return to a state of sanity.
Years ago, anyone talking about a New World Order and an attempt to reduce the world’s population would be labeled a conspiracy theorist. While the government would likely target you for holding those beliefs, it is getting harder and harder to deny that this isn’t a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact. All you have to do is look at the constant efforts to delegitimize human life itself, and it becomes crystal clear that there is an agenda.
For years we have been told that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change. Today, human beings are viewed as a scourge on the earth and many in the younger generation believe that something must be done to solve this non-existent problem or else, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says, the world will end in twelve years. Additionally, in 2015 United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, publicly stated that the world should make every possible effort to reduce the population in order to save the planet.
New York City just passed a law legalizing abortions right up to birth, and they celebrate this as an advance in women’s rights? Imagine the lifelong psychological conditioning required to teach a woman that it is a human right to murder her own child. It has been argued that a mother should have the right to kill her child after birth if the child would be some kind of burden on the family. In fact, Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Boston University, (a person in an influential position to shape young minds in other words) argues that a newborn has no claim to the right to life because they are not self-aware or rational beings. He goes onto say that certain animals are born with more self-awareness than human babies yet, we don’t place as much value on their lives. Therefore, it is justifiable to kill human babies after birth. Democrats claim to be for American values and defending the vulnerable. Whose more vulnerable than a newborn? Where’s the value in killing new life?
The younger generation is being bombarded with anti-family propaganda under the guise of transgenderism. Kids across the country are being taught that there are more than two genders and that it is a human right to self identify with whichever gender they choose. Furthermore, to deny them this right or to fail to recognize their preferred gender pronoun is considered a form of bigotry. Furthermore, there are efforts underway, through public education, to push homosexuality on our children as well. Not only does this corrupt the youth, but it also prevents them from reproducing if they pursue the homosexual lifestyle. Could that be the larger agenda?
Men are under full frontal assault. Any characteristic that was once considered masculine is now viewed as toxic. The “Me Too” movement has been weaponized and turned into a vicious man-hunting machine where any behavior viewed as traditional “courting rituals” is now a form of sexual harassment. Women, through the feminist movement, have been conditioned to place careers above family and child-rearing as an oppressive, patriarchal subjugation of women. The American birth rate is declining drastically, enough so that it will be impossible to maintain our culture. Could it be possible that this is due to the constant propaganda and attacks on our nation’s traditional values?
Gun control. The federal government is poised to pass the most oppressive form of gun control imaginable. Something akin to what the Soviet Union did. Red Flag gun laws. Under Senator Rubio’s bill, the Attorney General would have the power to give grants to states that pass their own Red Flag gun laws. These laws completely deny an individual due process rights or any knowledge whatsoever that they have been deemed a threat to themselves or others. Armed law enforcement officers, under the unsubstantiated belief that you are somehow a threat, simply show up to your home to confiscate your guns and it is on you, under these laws, to prove your innocence. To deny individuals the inalienable right of self-defense is on par with denying a newborn the right to life. It shows that those passing the laws place no inherent value in being human. Considering that all gun laws only affect the law-abiding willing to comply, and not the criminals intent on murdering gives more weight to the prior statement.
Everyone of these subjects could be elaborated on a great deal more. The one thing they all have in common is that they attack the value of human life. Little by little, inch by inch, our beliefs and traditional morals are being muddied and diluted with the objective of causing so much confusion that the general population simply doesn’t know what to believe. If we don’t know what to believe we certainly can’t defend or argue for a particular belief. The constant attacks against our nation’s character and the integrity of our people are carefully orchestrated propaganda campaigns designed to silence and breakdown our beliefs not only in ourselves, our nation and traditions but in God. Television, video games and an overall lack of having any responsibility for anything are exacerbating the problem. Too many people feel that these problems aren’t their responsibility. Too many Americans, for example, will simply go along with the passing of Red Flag laws because they will feel it doesn’t affect them. They are indifferent to the consequences of accepting abortion at the point of birth because they have been conditioned to believe that it isn’t their place to judge. They won’t stand up and defend Americanism because of the false associations made between American values and racism.
Nothing short of a mass awakening of the American conscience will turn us around and set the sails right. We have been psychologically conditioned to accept our own downfall in order to push a globalist agenda. By accepting the premise in any of these subjects we have made it easier for them to continue the devaluing of life.
On Thursday, January 3rd, 2019, the 116th congress convened for the new legislative session. Immediately, newly seated Democrats, as well as members of the established party, began introducing bills to impeach the president, eliminate the electoral college and fund Planned Parenthood. While little else can be expected from the Democrats, another bill was re-introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (Rino-FL) that would do the same as Representative Susan Brooks’ HR 5717, enable the Attorney General to give taxpayer dollars to states that pass their own “Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws.” This is at a time when we are being fed propaganda about the harmful government shutdown and the poor federal workers who are receiving no pay. The IRS has even announced that they won’t be issuing refunds as long as the government remains shut down. Yet, they are going to use our money, OUR MONEY, to illegally confiscate guns while denying people the constitutionally protected right of due process. Does anyone remember this? No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process law? Except for when we are uncomfortable when a certain individual has a gun and we have no compelling evidence to prove they are going to commit a crime but we just feel that it would be better if we took his guns first and made him prove his innocence later. Right?
The Red Flag Laws are based on the notion that mentally ill people shouldn’t have firearms and that law enforcement and family members should have at their disposal, more tools to prevent mentally ill people from committing gun violence. There are many problems with this however, there are two that immediately come to mind.
First, there are already laws and procedures in place which enable law enforcement or any other social agency to intervene in the case where an individual is demonstrating the capacity for violence. They simply have to be enforced. The new wave of Red Flag hysteria is the aftermath of the Parkland Florida school shooting where Nicholas Cruz murdered seventeen kids. The problem is that the entire system ignored all the warning signs. Not only that, 53 school districts across the nation, including Broward County were participating in an Obama era program that sought to keep minority children out of the criminal justice system. In fact, according to Real Clear Investigations, school districts who were hesitant to comply with the program were threatened with investigations and reduced funding. Furthermore, the Broward County school system superintendent worked with law enforcement to ensure that students committing crimes would not be arrested but put into a counseling program where they would explore the reasons for their anger. Fighting, assault and vandalism were all offenses that would lead to someone being referred to the program where as before, they may have been intercepted by police.
Nicholas Cruz was a part of this program and all of his behaviors that typically would have been considered reasons to involve law enforcement were ignored in order to satisfy the left’s misguided notions of social justice.
Secondly, mental health itself is a fallacy, there is no such thing as mental illness. In other words, there are no medical tests which conclusively prove that biological anomalies of the brain cause mental illness. In fact, there is evidence which suggests that the taking of psychotropic drugs lends more to the development of abnormal brain function than the so called condition for which it was prescribed. According to Mercola.com the use of psychotropic drugs to treat conditions like depression actually block the production of serotonin. Low serotonin levels are allegedly the cause of depression in the first place. According to Mercola, the National Institute of Mental Health concluded as early as 1983 that there was no indication that anything was wrong with the serotonin levels of the brain in depressed patients. Furthermore, the use of brain scans to prove the existence of a biological indicator of mental disease have also fallen short of real scientific inquiry because when studying the brain of schizophrenics and depressed patients no real study has been conducted on people who have not been prescribed an array of psychotropic drugs. Despite this, along with the fact that psychotropic drugs kill thousands of more people annually than so-called gun violence, mental illness is being used as a catalyst for gun confiscation.
Almost everything is considered a form of mental illness today. The DSM-V lists a total of 297 different mental disorders, none of which as mentioned earlier has a test which confirms their existence. Interestingly enough, so-called expert psychiatrists at the University of Colorado have recently concluded that the desire to eat healthy foods is a sign of a mental disorder which they have amply name orthorexia nervosa. What a joke that is. So now we are supposed to believe that eating healthy foods and staying away from the processed garbage that is known to lead to disease is a sign of a mental disorder? That in and of itself should be considered a mental disorder as should the desire to strip Americans of their right to bear arms and rights to due process.
Be careful America, when shopping for groceries. If you don’t purchase potato chips and soda pop, you may get red flagged and get a Zero Dark Thirty knock on your door by men with guns to take yours because you want to be healthy.
What else is there to do? It is beyond obvious that neither party is working in the interest of the American people but the global elite and their quest for a one world government. Many conservative Americans naively believe that if the house passed a Red Flag bill it would never make it past the Senate. Well, what do you do when the Senate Republicans are introducing their own? Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump, if presented with a bi-partisan Red Flag bill will veto it? Do you really think he cares about re-election or his second amendment supporting base? We will see. At what point will disagreeing with the reasonableness of preventing mentally ill people from owning firearms be considered in and of itself a form of mental illness? If they will declare the desire to eat healthy a mental disorder they will do anything. Furthermore, academia, along with their usual leftist rhetoric discrediting conservatives, are actively developing studies which declare the belief in the right to bear arms is its self, dangerous. Couple this with some of the language in Red Flag bills that state simply purchasing a firearm may be enough to have one “red flagged” and the stage is being set for all out confiscation.
In all reality, the people pushing this nonsense should be declared mentally incompetent for their unwillingness to look at facts and their inability to reason. They continue to push policies which only affect the decent law-abiding people while ignoring the fact that these policies do nothing to stop real murderers from murdering. In the meantime, innocent people, such as the man shot during a Red Flag confiscation order in Maryland will be targeted and there is little doubt that more will be killed. The left has become so obsessed with guns that there is little reason to believe that everything will work out in the end. Welcome to liberal la-la land, it’s going to be a Utopia.
In just a few short days the Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives. They have promised bold and decisive action on gun control with several bills in the works that would among other things, make private sales illegal, expand the background check system and outlaw the building of customized rifles. One of the most disturbing bills to be introduced in the House was HR 5717 by Representative Susan Brooks (R-IN). Introduced last May, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations on June 5, 2018. No action has been taken on this bill since that time. HR 5717 would give the Attorney General $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2019, 2020 and 2021to give grants to states that have passed their own “Red Flag” gun confiscation bills. HR 6747 is a similar bill that was introduced in September of 2018 and referred back to the Judiciary Committee where no action has yet been taken. With the Democrats coming into power this could very well change and these bills could get moving.
Red Flag Laws are rapidly gaining ground with 13 states currently having them on the books and nearly all the others ready to introduce their own. With grants promised from the Department of Justice, why wouldn’t they? They get taxpayer money to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens while the real criminals and murderers remain untouched. Like all other gun control measures, Red Flag laws, or extreme risk protection order laws have proven to be a failure. California has had them on the books since 2014, yet it did nothing to prevent the illegal alien from murdering Officer Ronil Singh this past week. Shouldn’t being in the country illegally be enough to have you deemed a threat to yourself or others?
Ironically, the Red Flag hype gained ground after the Parkland Florida shooting. Connecticut’s laws, which have been on the books since 1999, were looked at as the model for other states despite the fact that they did nothing to stop Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook school shooting.
Gun control laws do nothing to prevent the criminals from using guns to commit their crimes. That is why they are called criminals. California’s gun-related crime is up eighteen percent since 2014 and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In fact, they have had a universal background check system in place since 1991, and have prevented people who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes from owning firearms. According to a study conducted by John Hopkins University, these measures had no impact on the number of gun deaths in the state. In the UK, another leftist’s dream gun control state, handguns were banned in 1997 and firearm ownership was tightly regulated. Despite this, Britain is seeing a vast increase in the flow of illegal guns and gun crime, proving once again that gun control only affects the law abiding citizen who is willing to comply.
It is important to understand that Red Flag laws, while seeming to be necessary to prevent a dangerous individual from obtaining weapons, are ripe for abuse. It is the language of the bills along with the developing narrative to which you have to pay attention. For example, in HR 5717, one of the listed criteria for issuing an Extreme Risk Protection Order is if the individual in question poses a significant danger to themselves or others by possessing a firearm. If a person is that much of a danger to themselves or others wouldn’t that be the case even if they didn’t have firearms? After all, according to the FBI, more people are murdered with clubs and hammers than rifles. Confiscating their firearms on mere speculation will do nothing to prevent them from murdering if that is what they intend to do. Furthermore, as far as the left is concerned simply owning a firearm is enough to have you considered a threat to yourself or others. Especially if you understand their worldview.
Every time there is a mass shooting we are treated to hours of propaganda describing how the individual involved obtained his weapons legally, or that the person stole them from a family member who was the lawful owner. This is purposeful, it is an attempt to plant the idea in the mind of the masses that guns in the hands of the public in general, pose a threat to all of us. They want your neighbor to fear you if by chance they see you loading up your AR-15 for a day at the range. Another common narrative is that the shooter was a well-known member of the community who nobody believed was capable of committing such an act. The message here is that anyone at any time can snap for no reason and that as long as there are guns in the hands of the public, we are all at risk. Finally, the new developing narrative is the failure of government systems to function as they should. Individuals purchasing weapons who should have been denied but the background check system failed. While logic dictates that gun control will always fail, the masses will see this as a need to implement more controls.
These talking points are important because it speaks to the left’s worldview and how they see mankind in general. The left, mostly being Communist or Socialist are also subscribers to the theory of Darwinian Evolution. Evolutionary theory contributed greatly to the development of communism. It was the scientific approach to human existence, as opposed to the spiritual, that enabled people to accept the tenants of communist rationale. Karl Marx viewed the theory of evolution and it’s scientific explanation of natural history as being best suited to justify his theory of communism. According to Darwin, man has no independent will of his own. We are just animals whose behavior is based on evolutionary traits, not rational thinking or free will. When the left portrays the mass shooter as a normal everyday person who just snapped, they truly believe, or want you to believe, that this can be anybody with a gun because we have no control over our own behavior. This justifies, in their minds, the passing of laws that enables them to deem someone a threat simply for owning a weapon.
As the state becomes empowered to confiscate weapons from lawful owners more and more will naturally resist. Extreme Risk Protection Orders can be issued with no forewarning to the owner. Heavily armed agents will show up to individuals homes at zero dark thirty attempting to confiscate legally owned guns as was the case in Maryland where a man was killed in such a situation. As people resist, the narrative will slowly develop into one where all gun owners are a danger to themselves or others because they fear an encroachment on their rights.
If you’re worried about gun control, you’re already considered a threat to yourself or others. This is America’s Red Flag warning. The line we have all been drawing in the sand is being crossed.
I’m not advocating violence. All they need at this point is an excuse.
However, if there was ever a time to become active and let your voice be heard, it is now.
We must educate the ignorant masses to the dangers these laws pose or else people that innocently file for an ERPO may find themselves minus one family member for nothing more than expressing concern over their behavior.
We must also understand that there are already laws on the books to deal with an individual who makes threats or displays suicidal behavior. They simply have to be enforced.
Many people believe that President Trump wouldn’t sign such legislation. However, his recent bump stock ban should convince them otherwise. With one swoop of a pen, the ATF has usurped the authority to go into a law passed by Congress and change definitions to suit their needs. They had already declared bump stocks to be perfectly fine for public use in 2010 and now anyone in possession of one after March 2019 will be a felon. America, it is time to wake up and get involved instead of assuming that someone else will save you.
Once again, the nation was treated to the annual government shutdown soap opera that we have all grown so fond of. The left attempts to whip up mass hysteria over a small portion of government being closed as if we can’t live without them. The vast majority of people are probably not even aware it happened and of those of us paying attention, most are wishing the whole government would just go away.
Defunding Planned Parenthood was a major campaign promise. After signing, Trump immediately took to the airwaves and promised to never sign such a bill again claiming he did so simply for the military funding.
Perhaps this is why the president refused to sign this latest bill. On the other hand, maybe it’s all just a big game to keep us confused and unsure of what to believe.
In 2006, the year that the Democrats won the House and Senate from the Republicans, Donald Trump donated heavily to the Democrats, in particular, Chuck Schumer. In fact, it has been reported that Schumer has received more donations from Donald Trump and his family than any other Democrat. According to The Blaze, Trump told Hannity in an interview that he would naturally donate to Democrats in New York because they are the ones running the state.
“So, what am I going to do, contribute to Republicans? Am I going to contribute to — I mean, one thing, I’m not stupid — am I going to contribute to a Republican for my whole life when they get, they run against some Democrat and the most they can get is 1 percent of the vote?” -Donald Trump
Perhaps that is true, however; it doesn’t make any sense that someone who has received as much money as they had from President Trump would treat him the way Schumer treats him. Furthermore, it doesn’t make any sense that Trump, if he were a principled conservative, would cooperate on any level with someone who treats him the way Schumer does after donating so much money to him. Unless of course, it’s all just a horse and pony sideshow.
Surprisingly, Trump, along with his son, donated heavily to Hillary Clinton in the early to mid-2000s. He also gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Is this the same Hillary Clinton that Trump said should be investigated and arrested or the same Hillary Clinton that was an invited guest to Trump’s wedding?
What’s the point of all of this? The new year is rapidly approaching and in a few short weeks, the Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives. They are promising a one-two knock on gun bills and as Trump just demonstrated with the bump stock ban, preserving the second amendment may not be a campaign promise he intends to keep. Look at the above quote. Does that sound like the quote of a principled man or someone who will go whichever way the wind blows? If he were a Republican at the time he was donating large sums of money to Democrats. Why? Democrats don’t favor big business. He obviously believed it would benefit him somehow. With Democrats in control of the House will he suddenly switch gears under the same belief? At this time that remains unclear.
One thing is for certain: If there ever was a time conservatives needed to unite and stand ready to hold the President to his promises it is now. Far too many people are still insisting that the president is playing a brilliant game of four-dimensional chess with his attack on gun rights. They believe this bump stock ban will end up in the Supreme Court and that Trump’s nominees will save us. Well, we already saw how Kavanaugh voted in the last case.
Perhaps President Trump’s refusal to sign the latest budget deal was in response to a massive uproar of disapproval from his base. As long as people are willing to hold him accountable and stop with this belief that what we are witnessing is an epic battle of principalities instead a circus sideshow, we may come out of this less damaged. The problem is that too many people refuse to accept the information presented in this article or the fact that Donald Trump himself has expressed support for single payer health care and bans on semi-automatic rifles. A federal court has recently declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional. Obamacare was designed to fail, in order to pave the way for single payer. What will replace it? Donald Trump allegedly changed his position on semi-auto bans when becoming the Republican nominee. In 2019 we will find out for sure. Pay attention, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Things are beginning to unravel quickly. The left is engaged in a full frontal assault against the Second Amendment and they intend to keep pushing until they win. Far too many Americans are sitting in a comfortable, ignorant state of euphoria believing Trump and the U.S. Senate are on their side. Senator Lindsey Graham (R) has joined forces with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) to introduce a red flag gun restraining order bill in the Senate. Senator Rubio (R) has plans to introduce one similar to Representative Susan Brooks (R) HR 5717 that would give the U.S. Attorney General the power to give grants, taxpayer-funded grants, to pass their own red flag gun laws. Ever since President Trump sat next to Diane Feinstein on live television and expressed his support for taking guns from people “deemed to be a threat to themselves or others” before being afforded due process, states have been passing their own red flag laws at an alarming rate with encouragement from Trump’s White House.
The concept behind the “red flag gun law” is a simple one that seems to be a common sense solution to what the public sees as a massive gun violence problem. Under these laws, a family member or law enforcement agency has the power to file for an extreme risk protective order without an individual being aware of it. If the individual is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, armed law enforcement officers will show up to the individuals home to confiscate their firearms without any forewarning. In many cases, the individual in question has no criminal record nor has any warrant for arrest.
In Maryland, a man was shot by police under these circumstances. They showed up at 0500 hours and demanded he gives up his firearms. The request for removal was made by the man’s niece, who after he was shot and killed admitted that the man was harmless and that the police didn’t need to do what they did. The police justify the shooting by claiming they don’t know just what they may have prevented by confiscating his firearms. The man had no history of violent behavior but because his niece was uncomfortable, he is dead.
Ironically, the state where one of the worst school shootings in recent history occurred, Connecticut, red flag gun laws have been on the books since 1999. They obviously were not effective in stopping Adam Lanza from shooting up Sandy Hook Elementary School. Even more ironic is the fact that after the Parkland shooting, The Ct Mirror bragged about Connecticut being one of the first states to pass such laws, even though they did nothing to stop Sandy Hook from happening. California is another state where red flag laws, along with other stringent gun control measures have been on the books for many years and their gun-related homicide rate is eighteen percent higher than before passing these laws. We all know that gun control affects only those with no inclinations to hurt others.
There is some evidence that suggests red flag laws have prevented people from committing suicide. Indiana, for instance, saw a 7.5% decrease in gun-related suicides since the enactment of their laws. Connecticut saw a 1.6% drop. These percentages are minuscule however and there is very little research out there that suggests seizing someone’s firearms will prevent suicide altogether. There are other means of committing suicide but as long as it’s not done with a firearm the powers that be seem content.
The truth is that red flag laws are ripe for abuse, and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused completely eliminating due process. The words “a danger to themselves or others” leave a broad open space for interpretation by law enforcement. It would be one thing to give immediate family member’s and them alone the right to petition for such an order in the case of extreme situations. Remember though, it is already against the law to purchase a firearm if a restraining order has been filed against you. Giving law enforcement this power is concerning because law enforcement is being conditioned to view those with opinions differing from the politically correct as potential threats to national security. As this author has mentioned in several other articles, The Department of Homeland Security considers gun owners that are worried about an infringement of their gun rights as potential extremists. How long before anything you say online, or calling your congressman to express concern about government corruption is enough to have law enforcement consider you a red flag? In New York, they are considering legislation that would enable them to do a search of your social media as part of the background check process.
The stage is set. All it will take is a few more people resisting these red flag gun confiscation orders and all gun owners will be considered a “threat to themselves or others.” This could roll downhill very quickly and it will likely gain the support of the sheeple because all they will be told on the news is a dangerous man resisted gun confiscation and was shot by police. The media has relentlessly waged a successful propaganda campaign aimed at terrifying people out of their own rights.
Passing these laws and eliminating our rights to due process is a clear violation of the constitution let alone giving the attorney general the power to fund it with our money. People need to awaken to the fact that Democrats and Republicans are uniting on this issue and in the event any of these laws pass it will be under the guise of bringing the country together to make us all safer. Didn’t someone else say this before?
1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future! — Adolf Hitler
The above quote is from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. Look at the words and read them carefully America. This one quote tells the tale of a disarmed, helpless population at the mercy of a brutal communist dictator that had a vision for a better world. In the final days, after years of simply going along and not understanding the implications of what was happening in their country, the Russian peasants trembling in fear, finally understood. Their time was up, there was no better world, only death.
Solzhenitsyn says they didn’t love freedom enough and that they had no real awareness of the situation. What does he mean? Clearly, he means the Russian people had neglected their own responsibility to the society in which they lived. They lost any appreciation for what freedoms they may have had and believed the propaganda machine that fed them a continuous stream of lies about total equality and fairness. They believed their government when they were promised freedom from responsibility if they would just surrender their own free wills. In the end, the only equality there was the equality of dirt, squalor and the stench of rotting flesh.
Before the communist revolution of 1917 gun ownership in Russia was quite common and firearms were readily available in cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg. In 1918 the Bolsheviks, under Vladimir Lenin outlawed gun ownership and specifically targeted non-communist party members for confiscation. Members of the party were of course allowed to keep their guns.
If you notice, here in America there is a major attempt to portray conservative Christians as potential terrorists even though they commit virtually no violence. Leftist groups like Antifa however, who identify as Communist, routinely get away with violent protests against their political rivals which often result in destroyed property and injured people.
After the communists declared victory the firearms restrictions were codified into Russian law. All those who were found to be in possession of firearms were sentenced to hard labor in the concentration camps, where millions were murdered incidentally. After Lenin died and Stalin took over, the communists, because of the existing gun laws, were easily able to implement a system of terror where all who were found to be in disagreement with communist ideals or were considered a threat, were rounded up for extermination. Stalin was able to confiscate property and engineer famines simply because the people had no means to defend themselves. In the end, Stalin eliminated nearly twenty million people who had been made completely helpless through the passage of gun registration and confiscation laws by people who believed they could create a better world. What the Russians didn’t understand was the creation of a better world meant the complete surrendering of their own wills and the right to exist as they see fit.
This is what happens when the value of life is diminished and people are viewed through the lens of science as opposed to spirituality. Much of Communist, and Nazi philosophy for that matter, is based on the precepts of Darwinian evolution. Human life, being a process of evolution as opposed to being created by God, has no inherent value according to evolutionary science. Human beings have no soul or independent will of their own; therefore, eliminating those who are viewed as inferior has no moral consequence. In America today a new moral ideal is slowly being created and those that disagree with it are labeled as intolerant bigots. This new ideal is presented as a higher form of morality and those that oppose, as Hillary Clinton referred to us, are deplorables.
At the same time, there is a massive effort by those redefining the nation’s values to strip us of our rights to keep and bear arms. Why? I think the answer is obvious.
Many people live day to day with the belief that what happened in Soviet Russia can never happen here because we have the Second Amendment. Sadly, most young people in our nation know next to nothing about the Constitution let alone something as important as the Second Amendment. Furthermore, a staggering forty-four percent of millennials claim they would prefer to live in a socialist nation as opposed to capitalism. These young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh would call them, are blissfully unaware of the millions murdered under such systems because they are not taught the truth.
Unfortunately, America’s current situation is not that different from the one described by Solzhenitsyn. Most people are living their lives ignoring the warning signs, unsure of what is happening in their own country. Millions of people, as a result of mass propaganda campaigns designed to get us to think differently about guns, are ready and willing to surrender their rights for the promise of a better, safer world. Most of these people couldn’t articulate the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place. The right to gun ownership needs to be viewed as more of a responsibility than a right. The Second Amendment protects the inherent value of human life by ensuring that the right and responsibility to defend it is recognized and protected. When that responsibility is stripped from the individual life no longer has value, or rather, the value of your life is now decided by someone else. In other words, when the right to defend your life is stripped from you and placed in governments hands, government controls whose life has value and whose does not. If the left truly believed in equality they too would hold the Second Amendment up as a cherished right which must be defended at all costs because it is the one thing that protects and defends a system where all men are viewed as equals. Without it we are nothing. When the government is armed and we are not we are no longer equal, but weaker. Without the ability to defend it, life becomes meaningless. The right to life depends on our right to protect it.
The Democrats are promising to make gun control a top priority as they are set to assume the majority in the House of Representatives. Some Democrats are even showing their true colors by foolishly stating that the government would use nukes on people refusing to comply with their gun confiscation mandates. While we can safely assume (hopefully anyway) that Representative Swalwell wouldn’t take out an entire state because people refused to surrender their constitutional rights, which he is sworn to uphold and protect incidentally, we shouldn’t assume our gun rights are safe just because Donald Trump is in the White House.
Among the many other sweeping reforms the Democrats plan to push, such as a ban on high capacity magazines are the passage of the so-called Red Flag gun laws on the national level. So far, roughly eleven states have these Red-Flag gun laws on the books. California was one of the first to pass such laws and as we have recently seen, they have done nothing to prevent people from committing mass murder. Florida also passed such laws last March and has seized firearms from over 450 people who have been deemed a threat to themselves or others. Unfortunately, these laws have done nothing to prevent the murderers from murdering, even with guns. They didn’t stop a shooter from shooting up a video game tournament. They also failed to stop yet another shooting at a school event where a gunman opened fire at a high school football game killing one and wounding two others. These people clearly should have been on Florida’s Red-Flag list yet, despite the new law and enforcement capabilities they went undetected.
In Maryland, we witnessed the reality of Red-Flag gun laws when a sixty-one-year-old man was shot and killed by police as they tried to confiscate his firearms. In this case the request for removal was made by the mans niece, who after he was shot and killed admitted that the man was harmless and that the police didn’t need to do what they did. The police justify the shooting by claiming they don’t know just what they may have prevented by confiscating his firearms at 5 A.M. The man had no history of violent behavior but because his niece was uncomfortable, he is dead.
Notice the part where it says, urging all states? If by chance a national Red Flag law were to make it past the Senate, there is a high likelihood that it would be signed by President Trump.
Trump is perceived by the right as being pro-gun, and in many cases, he has made very pro-gun comments. This website shows, however, that he is actually all over the place when it comes to gun rights. He is on the record saying that large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered red flags. He believes in putting people on “terror watch lists” and preventing those people from buying guns despite the fact that the so-called “no-fly list” has prevented many innocent people from being able to board a plane. In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, he expresses support for an assault weapons ban and longer waiting periods to purchase a gun. Finally, he criticizes Republicans for walking the NRA line and refusing to accept any “limited restrictions.”
The fact of the matter, as we all know, is that laws, no matter how effective or logical they may seem, will not stop anyone from committing murder if that is their intent. In the UK, they are dealing with an out of control problem of murders being committed with knives and they are actually pushing for knife control! This is, of course, is occurring after the nationwide gun ban, which was instituted in the 1990s. Ironically, gun crime in the U.K. is also on the rise.
I am not suggesting that people stop supporting President Trump. He is loved by millions and is perceived as doing many great things for the country. What I am suggesting, however, is that you break away from your protective bubble and realize that the man has stated his support for Red Flag gun laws and other gun control proposals that are a threat to the Second Amendment. Now is not the time to assume that because Republicans control the Senate there is no way these laws could pass. I am predicting that they will push these proposals hard and fast and they will be presented as common sense solutions. If President Trump supports them, it is likely he could get a Republican Senate to go along with them.
Finally, in an article published by Christianheadlines.com, Trump is quoted as saying that he has a lot in common with the Democrats that will be taking control of the House and that there is a better chance of getting legislation passed than had the GOP remained in control. Seriously? I wonder what legislation that will be?
Is all of this real or is it somehow orchestrated? A deliberate attempt to keep us afraid and break down our morality to the point where we no longer value human life, or have faith in our system of government? Many people would call me crazy for suggesting such a thing.
Examine the following sentence from the quote above a moment. “Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil.” Can anyone remember a time when there wasn’t chaos in just about every aspect of our daily lives? We now live in a nation where eleven states have passed laws where anybody can suggest to the police that you shouldn’t be in possession of firearms because they believe you have demonstrated an odd behavior. CNN’s Don Lemon is still on the air after declaring unapologetically that the white man is the nations biggest terror threat. Time and time again we are inundated with images of white men committing mass shootings. Is this not contributing to a climate of fear and mistrust? Is this not leading to neighbors growing suspicious of neighbors because they see them loading a firearm in their vehicle for range day? Or a hunting trip? What about the argument that gun control only affects law-abiding citizens? Do you think the lawmakers don’t know that? Every time there is a shooting in a gun free zone they push more gun control. What they want is for you to demand it!
What if the overall agenda is just to create such a strong sense of hopelessness in the current system that people will ultimately accept whatever the proposed solution to the problem is? I hate to beat a dead horse but let’s examine a quote from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, again.
In Maryland so far, 114 red flag arrests have been made. This is a problem that is likely to spread. Every time a shooting occurs, and the narrative continues to revolve around legally purchased guns by a person suffering from mental illness, the solution will be presented as these “red flag gun laws.” Is this a problem that is being allowed to deliberately grow out of control? Every mass shooter is known to be taking anti-psychotic medications despite the fact that many of them warn of suicidal or homicidal thoughts as a potential side effect. There are so many obvious solutions to gun violence yet the only one presented is gun control. This is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work. Scare the public through constant images of gun violence, wait for them to demand something be done, and then propose the pre-planned solution. To end, I would like to leave you with a quote from the late William Cooper, author of the book Behold a Pale Horse and host of the radio show Hour of the Time.
The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far, is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.
Recently, there has been a lot of attempts to portray those of a right-leaning ideology as potential extremists. The fake pipe bomber and the synagogue shooter were both portrayed as white nationalists. The FBI has even gone on record and stated that White Nationalism poses as much of a threat to the nation as ISIS or other Islamic terror groups back in 2017.
This report was released in the early days of the Obama administration and as we all know there was huge economic downturns, upticks in illegal immigration and attempts to restrict the second amendment. The formation of a one world government has also transpired beyond mere conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact. It’s almost as if the report was intentionally designed to silence and demonize those they feared would create the biggest obstacle to their agenda. Almost a decade later, and two years into a Republican administration, the efforts to label the conservative ideology as extreme in nature are stronger than ever. Especially considering the fact that the nation appears to be rejecting liberalism and the midterms are upon us.
Despite the fact that there haven’t been any acts of terror committed by people claiming to be part of “white nationalist group,” many Americans believe that there is a threat posed by right-wing extremists. The most recent example given can be the Charlottesville riots. It was later revealed, however, that the organizer of the so-called “unite the right” rally, Jason Kessler, was nothing more than an agent provocateur who was a member of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He was also an Obama supporter. People who would claim this to be an outrageous conspiracy theory need to revisit their Alinsky tactics. Student activists of the 1960’s sought Alinsky’s advice on how to protest a speech from then-UN representative George Bush concerning America’s efforts in Vietnam. Rather than simply picketing, Alinsky advised them to show up to the speech dressed as KKK members. He told them to wave signs that stated “the KKK supports George Bush” and that every time he said something in defense of the Vietnam war they should cheer.
This was a very successful tactic, one that had long-lasting results which associated Bush with the KKK. This is called Associationism, or associative theories of learning.
What is Associationism? Obviously, as the term implies, associationism refers to how human beings learn by associating ideas. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the ideas of associative learning can be traced back to David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature. Hume’s theory elaborated on how a person’s perceptions are influenced by previous experience. Furthermore, Hume believed that there was no idea that existed in a person’s mind that was not first shaped by a previous experience. Associative theories of learning were later expanded on by Ivan Pavlov when he developed his theories on classical conditioning. Essentially, it was discovered that trained responses to a given stimulus can be replicated by simply replacing one stimulus with another.
What does this have to do with right-wing extremism? Well, stop and think a moment. For nearly two decades now we have been inundated with images of Islamic terrorism (stimulus) which provoked feelings of fear and panic. This stimulus was accepted by the American people due to the nature of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Slowly and ever so surely, this stimulus is being replaced with suggestions of right-wing extremism. Which, because of the already preconditioned perception of terror, is easily provoking the same preconditioned response. The question remains as to whether or not the powers that be understand this and are deliberately changing the stimulus.
This should be concerning to all Americans, not just white, right-leaning conservatives. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 authorized the executive branch of government to indefinitely detain anyone considered to be a potential threat to the United States. Despite having a Republican administration this law is still in effect. Is it possible that so-called right-wingers who cling onto the traditional ideals the nation is founded upon could be rounded up as extremists and indefinitely detained in detention camps? Well, if we continue down the road we are on, it certainly is possible. We are on a road of orchestrated chaos and political mayhem. Paid opposition groups like Antifa are clearly trying to provoke the right into conflict. The left has demonstrated their ability to use violence to push a point. If this continues the country could possibly see violence on a much larger scale. This would be the needed excuse to round up all whose values do not align with the state. Is this a very likely scenario? This writer tends to have more faith in the American people and believes that the vast majority of us understand this and will not fall for it. You have to wonder though. Why else would they attempt to portray the people that love the country the most as potential terrorists if not to get rid of us?
Don’t forget to check out my books available at Amazon.
Fake bombers, mass shootings, riots, unfettered illegal immigration, transgenderism and constant accusations of racism. What does all of this have in common? It is all a direct, frontal assault on the moral character and integrity of the United States. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Create the necessary chaos needed to instigate the crisis that will change our country from one of freedom to despotism.
The fake bombing incident was no doubt an event staged to portray Trump supporters and the right in general, as right-wing extremists. As discussed in Searching for Extremism on the Right, the left has been attempting for years to convince Americans that conservatives are a threat. The truth is that most Americans have conservative values. America is a center-right nation so the ideology of conservatism must be thoroughly discredited and de-moralized if the left’s agenda is to drive on in any way. Right on que, as many Americans suspected there would be, a mass shooting occurred on Saturday, October 27th, 2018. Like most mass shootings it was committed by a deranged leftist. For hours after every shooting, attempts are made to identify the shooter and their political leanings. Liberals of course, are praying that an unhinged Trump supporter is responsible while conservatives are hoping for the opposite. The truth is that it doesn’t matter who the shooter is, our value system is being attacked and every time a shooting like this occurs, the nation is further de-moralized because we are portrayed as hanging onto a value system that enables people to commit these types of murders. It is part of the de-moralization process. No matter how much of a second amendment supporter you are, your heart drops to the floor every time there is a mass shooting. It is an incremental method of change designed to not wrestle your guns from you, but create a future generation who will willingly surrender them.
Obviously, the attempts to bring thousands of illegal immigrants up to the border are done in order to create a situation where the right can be portrayed as uncompassionate and hateful. In the coming weeks we will no doubt hear more stories of children being separated at the border, and with the military being deployed there will likely be some violence that can be used to justify further degradation of our constitution. This is a classic Alinsky tactic of turning our values against us and setting us up as hypocrites. We claim that the United States is a free country and that all men are created equally with certain inalienable rights. It is difficult to be viewed as believing in these values when you are deliberately set up to oppose a caravan of poor, oppressed refugees. The idea of equality has been deliberately redefined by the left in an effort to turn that against us as well. Equality of outcome is not the same of equality of opportunity. The latter promotes human growth and ingenuity while the former stunts human potential. Again, this is done to de-moralize, to show the world that America can not live up to the values that she so proudly embraces.
The same can be said for the transgender movement. Are we as a nation living up to our values of individual liberty when we so adamantly oppose the transgender movement? Of course, we know the truth that liberty cannot exist without an absolute morality. The left twists the notions of right and wrong through concepts like moral relativism and accuses us of not living up to our values. In this case, it would be the idea of not letting a transgender person, or a homosexual couple for that matter, live their lives as they see fit.
All of this equates to one directed assault against our nations characters and values. For too long we have let the left, through education and control of mass media, re-define and re-shape our values to the point where most of us don’t know how to stand on our own two feet and defend them. And therein lies the point. When you can no longer effectively defend your values out of fear of being labeled a hypocrite or a racist or a homophobe, you have been effectively de-moralized.
Yuri Bezmenov was a former KGB agent and a Soviet defector who described the psychopolitical process first hand by discussing the concept of Ideological Subversion. He tried to warn the United States about the deception taking place in their government and other institutions using this process. He described it as a brainwashing technique employed against an enemy nation to change the culture to be more like the culture of the attacking nation. In other words, it is a process to make a nation Communist without military invasion. It is a method of changing the perception of reality of all Americans by controlling education and all information people are exposed to. The idea is to expose the population to an overabundance of conflicting information so that most people will simply not know what to believe and will be unable to defend their interests. Bezmenov’s testimony, in the opinion of this author, is proof of the legitimacy of psychopolitics because there is a clear relationship between what is being described by Bezmenov and the words of Beria.
The process of Ideological Subversion can be broken down into four steps: Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis and Normalization.
Demoralization is the process of re-educating a population into the beliefs of Communism/Marxism. According to Bezmenov this process takes fifteen to twenty years to complete. In other words, roughly the amount of time an individual spends in school. In the editorial notes of the Manual on Psychopolitics, Kenneth Goff, who claimed to be a member of the Communist Party, claims that they were taught that demoralization and degradation has become the preferred method of conquering a nation. Control of the population can be obtained without the destruction of war. America’s education system has long been dominated by the Left and has been used as an instrument of thought control over the American population. Today, we see an entire generation of Americans advocating for Socialism, believing there are more than two genders, and believing that any belief system that goes against theirs is hate speech. They are beaten down with self-hatred and taught that their country represents oppression and racism. They have been psychologically conditioned to believe that killing their unborn children is somehow an esteemed human right that takes precedence above all others. If these concepts don’t represent a process of demoralization, then nothing does.
The second process is Destabilization. This is the breaking down of society to create the third phase, Crisis. Surely by demoralizing our youth we are creating a crisis in morality; however, we have also created a culture of different “groups” and different beliefs in which everybody is fighting and unable to get along. Multiculturalism has ushered in an age in which respect for American culture is frowned upon and disagreeing with any of the many different cultures which now exist in American society is racism.
According to Bezmenov, the goal of the Crisis stage is to set the nation under attack up for a civil war or possible invasion. America is now at the point where rumblings about a possible civil war between the Right and Left are constantly heard in social media. Left-wing groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are professionally organized and funded to act as disruptors and initiate violence against right-wing groups. Infiltration of so-called right-wing groups has occurred for the purpose of giving the impression that they are racist white supremacists and that violence against them is therefore justified. This occurred at the Charlottesville riots. The so-called Alt-Right is not a right-wing movement at all. White supremacists and neo-Nazis are not on the Right but the Left. Neo-Nazi, after all, stands for New Socialists. These riots at Charlottesville were deliberately staged by left-wing groups to portray supporters of Donald Trump and the Unite the Right rally as racists.
The last and final stage of Ideological Subversion is the Normalization phase. This is the so-called solution to the problems created by the other three phases, and it usually requires the outright domination of a nation through a brutal dictatorship. To gain a better understanding of this, re-examine the last quote from the book on psychopolitics on the previous page.
By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression, and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.
A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center claims that “almost two thirds” of recent terrorist attacks in the United States have been committed by “right-wing groups.” Mind you, they consider the KKK to be right-wing even though it was founded by the Democrats. The report goes on to say that the remaining attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists or left wing radicals. Almost two-thirds is a pretty vague estimation that could mean just slightly over half, leaving the remaining attacks as being “almost half.” In any case, the Charlottesville incident was listed as one of these attacks and if you remember the organizer turned out to be an Obama supporter and a member of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In other words, he was likely an agent provocateur deliberately working to portray the so-called “Alt-Right” as violent extremists.
While many may scoff at this as some kind of conspiracy theory, the truth is that there is a history of infiltration into right-wing groups with the intent of portraying them as radicals. The most recent event was in the 2016 “Oregon Standoff” at the wildlife refugee where armed patriots stood against an illegal takeover of land by the federal government. Local Fire Chief Chris Briels went on the record and claimed he had caught federal agents posing as militia members harassing locals and snooping around the town’s armory. He later resigned, as a result, saying he couldn’t be a part of a government he couldn’t trust or have faith in. It would be one thing to infiltrate a criminal organization with the intent of proving criminal activity but to deliberately give the impression that such activity is occurring is another thing altogether.
Conspiracy theorists believe that the FBI often times deliberately sets people up to commit acts of terror in order to justify their existence, so to say. In 2016 a schizophrenic man in Oklahoma City was given cash, a vehicle and a fake bomb by the FBI in a so-called sting to carry out a bombing at an Oklahoma City bank. The FBI claimed that the individual prescribed to an anti-government, right-wing ideology. The question in this scenario remains as to whether or not the individual could have carried this out of his own accord. According to his parents, he had no money, no job and no vehicle of his own.
According to a National Security Studies Policy Paper entitled “The FBI’s Secret War Against the Patriot Movement and How Infiltration Techniques Relate to Radicalization Influences” the FBI conducted an extensive infiltration program into many of America’s so-called “right-wing extremist movements” or militias. They established a fictitious veterans group called the Veterans Aryan Movement and spent two years, 1991-1993 infiltrating militia groups and gathering intelligence. Despite following alleged plots, hundreds upon hundreds of hours spent investigating these groups resulted in negligible results as far as actual prosecutions or even criminal activity goes. Funny, didn’t we see this in another report? As the name of the report suggests, one result of this infiltration was increased paranoia and a reinforcement of the belief that the U.S. Government was turning against the very values it was supposed to protect and stand for, namely the Constitution. There was even an instance, according to the report, where militia members would join in on the mind games and feint that they had plans to do something so they could flush out the infiltrators.
While our government is hard at work trying to portray the right wing ideology as extreme, they are doing the exact opposite when it comes to Islam. According to Judicial Watch, the FBI, in 2012, under the direction of the now infamous Robert Mueller, purged all FBI training materials of any references to Islamic terrorism or any material that may in any way, be offensive to Muslims. In all fairness, however, the report mentioned in the previous paragraph does expose the same type of infiltration programs being conducted against Muslims by the New York City Police Department without any justifiable evidence or any actionable results. Here’s an idea, let’s treat terrorists like terrorists and leave innocent people alone, no matter who they are or where they come from.
The left will certainly treat this mail bomber incident as all the evidence they need to prove that the right wing ideology is driven by violent tendencies and that conservatives are hate-filled bigots. CNN has been continually blaming Trump for this and even suggesting that he apologize for his “divisive rhetoric,” which they claim is the cause. Is it possible that the man was a right-wing Trump supporter? Sure it is, but we all know that the Democrats are desperate and terrified of losing the midterms. If they are capable of prosecuting a man on trumped up sexual assault charges and carrying out the Russian collusion charade for two years in an effort to discredit Trump, I think they are quite capable of pulling this off as well.
Don’t forget to check out my books available at Amazon:
There is a mob heading to the American border. A mob no doubt driven by the belief that they are owed something by the United States. They are almost certainly being funded by George Soros while undoubtedly receiving the full support of the Democrat Party. This will culminate into a crisis of epic proportions if not stopped. It has the potential to re-define what we consider to be our sovereign nation. As they burn our flag and proudly display their own, this five-thousand strong invasion force would have us believe they are seeking a better life in the U.S. and are fleeing poverty and oppression. If this is the case then why are they burning our flag? If our nation is so racist, as the Democrats would have you believe, why will they insist we let these people in to have a chance at a better life? How can they have a better life if we are so racist? The truth is that this is an attempt to completely remake the demographics in our country and eliminate the white majority, period. Below is an excerpt from chapter 9 of my new book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest entitled Racism, Multiculturalism and Immigration.
It is estimated that there are at least eleven million illegal immigrants living in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center. The cost to the US taxpayer is staggering. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the hardworking, taxpaying American citizen shells out approximately 135 billion dollars a year. This averages out to over eight thousand dollars per illegal alien. That is an unsustainable burden on the working taxpayer, one that deters hard work, as people are less inclined to work harder if their earnings are redistributed to those who don’t work or appreciate the system in which they live. Illegal immigrants tend to be catered to by the Left, meaning they are inundated with claims that Americans hate them and are racist. It isn’t uncommon to see groups of illegals burning American flags while proudly waving the flag of their home country. Why do they come here if Americans are so racist and mean-spirited? The free money, of course. According to a 2013 article published by the Daily Mail, the Obama administration deliberately advertised free welfare and food stamp benefits to illegal immigrants.Flyers were distributed, in Spanish, advising people seeking to cross the border that their status as illegal immigrants would not be a factor in receiving food stamps and other welfare benefits for their family. In other words, the Obama administration was encouraging illegal immigration. The Left would like to see all of them granted amnesty and made permanent citizens with the right to vote, of course.
Democrats accuse the Right of racism for opposing amnesty, even though the US takes in over one million legal immigrants annually. This is according to the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration Statistics Yearbook, which tracks the number of legal immigrants coming in every year. Since 2007 the United States has taken in a whopping 10,668,262 immigrants. That number represents a decade’s worth of immigration at about one million people per year. This trend, a million per year, has essentially been going on since 1989. Between that time and 2007 we took in 16,741,652 immigrants, bringing the grand total for a thirty-year period to 27,419,914 people. The current US population stands at approximately 326,143,246 people. Immigration is the largest contributing factor to population growth in the US. Not only are we taking in over two million immigrants every year due to legal and illegal immigration, immigrant women on average are giving birth to over 700,000 children annually.
As of 2013, according to Pew Research Center, 78 percent of America’s immigrants came from South America, Mexico or East Asia. Only 14 percent came from other European countries with similar cultures. The change in demographics was deliberately set in motion to reduce America’s white population. Writing for Newsweek magazine, William H. Frey highlights the fact that in 2011 America saw fewer white babies born than minority babies. He is seemingly overwhelmed with joy as he admits that a continuation of this trend will rapidly, within a few decades, result in a minority white population. Ideally, whether the population is majority white, black or Hispanic should make little difference. The American culture of individual liberty and personal responsibility is one that can be adhered to by all, and our Constitution, whether or not people realize it, is the document providing the freedom that people of all cultures enjoy. Leftists like Frey, who view the world only in terms of race, hold the opinion that white Americans fear becoming the minority because we fear losing our privileged status, and by simply being white we are all racist. This is not true; what we fear is the loss of a culture that promotes liberty and freedom for all people. Multiculturalism encourages people to hold on to their cultural identities while discouraging assimilation into the dominant culture. Again, this is the idea of counter-hegemony. If white Americans become the minority the culture will likely not survive because everyone else has been taught they are victims of it.
With this being said, we can look at the actual change in policy which shifted immigration patterns. According to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the powers over naturalization rest exclusively in Congress. In 1965 the US Congress passed a law, which was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, that set us on the course we are on today. This law was known as the Immigration Act of 1965. Up until this law was passed immigration was based on a quota system. Immigrants from around the world were let in based on the percentage of people from that part of the world already in the US. This was known as the National Origins Quota and was passed into law in 1924 to slow the massive migration into the United States and protect our cultural identity. This was later considered a racist policy, as most of the immigrants were coming from European countries. The Immigration Act of 1965 was written to change the demographics of America by opening immigration up to the third world.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.
This bill grew out of the growing civil rights movement. While new laws preventing discrimination based on skin color were being passed, pressure was also mounting to change the laws related to how America took in immigrants. Immigration to America literally became a human rights issue. According to Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, the new immigration law was the manifestation of the civil rights movement on the world stage. Opponents of this bill were labeled as racist and bigoted for standing in opposition because the bill itself was an extension of the civil rights laws being passed in the US. Edward Kennedy, who was serving as the chair for the Senate subcommittee hearing this bill, claimed that the number of immigrants coming into the country would not increase and that our country’s demographic makeup would not change as opponents of the bill argued they would. According to the Center of Immigration Studies the number of immigrants coming into the country tripled over the next three decades, with over eighteen million coming from Latin American and Asian countries. Furthermore, the education gap between native-born Americans and those immigrating also widened significantly. This created a strain on the system because America is a high-tech society that now had a large population of people unable to compete in those jobs and therefore lived their lives courtesy of the US taxpayer.
As we can clearly see, accusations of racism have been used to push America closer to her own demise. The Left deliberately changed the demographics of the nation to create a more collective society. It is estimated, according to Investor’s Business Daily, that 70 to 80 percent of immigrants from South American countries and Mexico will vote Democrat. Obviously, the immigration strategy was set in motion to ensure Democrats would eventually win a permanent majority where they could institute their plans for a Socialist America. At this point, it is unlikely that this boat could be turned around, as whites are expected to become the minority by 2043. Truthfully, a white minority in a nation like America should matter little. The ideals of liberty and individualism should be a uniting factor for all who live and seek to come here, and in truth, it is these ideals which attract people in the first place. People seeking a better life don’t flee America for Cuba or Venezuela, for example. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been pushing a message of collectivism which attracts the type of people that will vote for Socialism. If the Democrats are successful, by the time whites are a minority most of the population will be voting Democrat.
It isn’t just the issue of immigration that is changing the demographics. The rate at which white Americans are giving birth is declining. A sustained birth rate of 2.1 children per family is required to maintain a population. The birthrate for American women has dropped to 1.9 per family. This is unsustainable as far as maintaining our culture goes. As of 2013, the number of minority births surpassed the number of white births by 12,166. Again, the idea of white people being a minority in America should not matter; however, the question must be asked: when we are the minority, will the new majority set up the same safety net for us that we have set up for them?
The left is clearly losing their collective minds. Failure to take out Donald Trump and convince the masses that he stole the election has literally driven them insane. They fail to realize that the overwhelming support President Trump enjoys stems from the American people being sick and tired of the left always getting their way and Republicans always cowering in fear to them. They perceive Donald Trump as someone on the outside who calls them out for what they are and fights back. Whether or not this is truly the case remains to be seen. Never forget that the Clintons were at Trump’s wedding and they have been friends for years. Nevertheless, support for Trump is as strong as it has ever been, and the left is in a perpetual meltdown because their ideology and notions of social justice continue to be rejected.
While being interviewed by the New York Times Nancy Pelosi stated that collateral damage to those who disagree with the Democratic agenda may have to be accepted as a consequence if they lose the election. What collateral damage means is anybody’s guess, however, with the violence being directed at conservatives it isn’t a far stretch of the imagination to figure it out. Perhaps, it means dragging us off to the guillotines as one college professor recently suggested.
In any case, the Democrat party is showing the American people their backside and acting as if they are morally superior to the rest of us, which in their minds, justifies the violence. After all, we are nothing but a bunch of deplorables anyway.
This is turning into the perfect illustration of what this writer so often writes about. The Means and ends Morality of the left. Nancy Pelosi stated in her interview the main agenda items of the Democrat Party. Gun control, abortion rights, climate change, same-sex “marriage” and immigration. To them, these are key issues that define their morality. They claim that compassion and love for human beings are what drives them, and to disagree with any of it means you hate people. They claim that government has the power to create a perfect world where everyone is completely equal and if people would just give them the power, they would make it so. They believe this is possible, therefore, they operate from the ends justify the means mentality. To put it more simply, the ultimate morality for them is fighting for this false Utopian ideal. Failure to sacrifice your own misperceived notions of what is right or wrong in pursuit of this Utopia is considered an act of immorality to the left.
“In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation,” he doesn’t care enough for the people to be “corrupted” for them.” (Alinsky, 1971)
In A Psychological Assault on Freedom, this author described the differences in the way the left and right define freedom and morality. The right, deriving their morality from the Judeo-Christian religions and the concept of a universal, absolute right and wrong believe in individual, inalienable rights. The radicals on the left have been able to protest and spread their misguided message because the vast majority of us understand that freedom of speech is a concept that must be applied across the board. (If we believed as they did we would have shut their non-sense down years ago.) The left, on the other hand, derives their sense of morality from the scientific approach of understanding human behavior and the theory of Darwinian evolution. To them, there is no absolute morality other than what they define it to be. They are attempting to create a world where they set the standards of what morality is and disagreeing with it makes you a deplorable human being.
The term deplorable is as derogatory a term as any other in describing a person. It dehumanizes and alienates while justifying, in the minds of the left, the violence we are witnessing. This is the same mentality that led to so many millions being ruthlessly murdered by their own governments in the twentieth century. A standard of morality was set by the communists and a failure to conform to those ideals was viewed as being mentally ill or deficient.
The communists attempted, and still are attempting, to change the very nature of human beings. They believed that they could create a world where everyone would willingly surrender their livelihoods to the so-called greater good and goals of the state. They believed a world where everyone was working for the fulfillment of someone else’s needs would be ideal and a failure to see the reasonableness in this was considered selfish. Those holding onto outdated, antiquated ideas were, in the minds of the communists, unworthy of life because life itself was now being defined by man and not God. Human beings are not collective creatures, we are individuals driven by the need to provide for ourselves first. No one is going to work hard only to see the product of their labor given to someone who doesn’t.
For years, people in America have lived a blissful existence with the belief that “it can never happen here.” It is happening here. Since the election of Barack Obama, we have witnessed a growing mob mentally on the left. They have demonstrated a cold, ruthless willingness to burn down cities and attack those who don’t share their viewpoints. Leftist politicians like Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi incite this mob mentality by encouraging people to be disruptors. Waters told her supporters to form groups and tell conservatives they are not welcome anywhere. Where will it stop? Hillary Clinton suggested that civility can only be a reality once the Democrats regain control of the House and Senate. Are we to believe that they will suddenly become civil and respectful of differing viewpoints once they regain power? The thought of these people having any political power is frightening.
The question as to what to do about this remains. No one wants to see our nation erupt in violence. Sometimes it seems that the left is trying to intentionally trap us into overreacting, leading to a chain of events that would ultimately lead to gun confiscation and martial law. Have we reached a point where meeting the left on their terms is an inevitability? Are they going to, using mob violence, force us into a position where defending our self with equal violence is the only viable option? That remains to be seen and hopefully won’t become a reality. The left has been extremely successful in labeling Americans as hypocrites because they believe we don’t live up to the values we espouse. This author believes that the first and foremost thing we can do is to start being the change we want to see. If we want our nation to be moral, then we must be moral. Maybe we aren’t so far gone where simply ignoring these radicals on the left and not reacting to them at all would be a good first step. After all, they are making complete donkey tails out of themselves and seem to be on a path of self-destruction.
What will they be willing to do to save their sinking ship? That’s a scary thought indeed and we should be ready for anything.
Our nation is in a struggle, a struggle over the very definition of the values upon which we were founded on. To the right, freedom means having the ability to live life and achieve what you can based on the merits of individualism and personal responsibility. To the left, freedom means an entirely different thing. They are creating a world where opposing the most abhorrent behaviors is becoming an act of bigotry. To the left, personal responsibility and the merits of individualism are frowned upon and a collective, groupthink behavior is rewarded. Freedom then becomes freedom from having to take responsibility for your actions. Freedom is being free from morality.
The right believes America to be a nation based on Christian values, and the notion that there is a higher sense of morality. A universal right and wrong, if you will. The left has been seeking to re-define what is morally right by introducing concepts like moral relativism into our education systems. Moral relativism posits the idea that morality is only a social construct and that values are not universal in nature but rather, cultural and based on personal choice. In other words, there is no set of values that are superior to another because there is no universal, absolute morality.
The origins of this thinking can be traced to psychology and Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution, of course, suggests that mankind has no divine connection and has evolved from apes. Therefore, he is just like any other animal in the sense that his behavior isn’t the result of any free choices, rather a result of evolutionary processes. The study of human behavior is undertaken almost entirely from this perspective.
B.F. Skinner wrote, in Beyond Freedom and Dignity that there are two predominant views concerning human behavior, scientific and pre-scientific. Pre-scientific refers to the belief that man is in control of his behavior and can freely choose based on the notion that we have “free will.” The scientific view, on the other hand, suggests that’s man’s behavior is traceable to the evolutionary history of our species and dependent upon environmental situations. Skinner suggests that the study of human behavior should focus exclusively on the latter as opposed to the former. Below is Skinners quote in its entirety.
“In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person’s behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior.” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity)
When it comes to the lefts influence in education, no argument needs to be made. Conservatives are well aware of the fact that our public schools have become public indoctrination centers. What may be lesser known however is the extent in which the fields of psychiatry and psychology have played. For instance, John Dewey has come to be known as the father of modern education. He was not only a psychologist but a Fabian socialist who saw a need to move away from the traditional learning of reading, writing and arithmetic to create a new socialized citizen.
The new school system envisaged by Dewey was to take over the functions and compensate for the losses sustained by the crumbling of the old institutions clustered around the farm economy, the family, the church and the small town. “The school,” he wrote, “must be made into a social center capable of participating in the daily life of the community . . . and make up in part to the child for the decay of dogmatic and fixed methods of social discipline and for the loss of reverence and the influence of authority.” Children were to get from the public school whatever was missing in their lives elsewhere that was essential for their balanced development as members of a democratic country.
He therefore urged that manual training, science, nature-study, art and similar subjects be given precedence over reading, writing and arithmetic (the traditional three R’s) in the primary curriculum. The problems raised by the exercise of the child’s motor powers in constructive work would lead naturally, he said, into learning the more abstract, intellectual branches of knowledge. (Walters, International Socialist Review Vol. 21, 1960)
This is interesting because as of now, a whopping thirty-two million Americans cannot read above a fifth-grade level. Furthermore, nineteen percent of all high school graduates can not read at all. Also, consider this fact. American high school students ranked 24th place out of twenty-nine countries in basic math skills in 2014. The fact that John Dewey was a psychologist isn’t merely a coincidence. Most psychologists/psychiatrists ascribe to Darwin’s theory of evolution and view man as an animal that needs to be trained. Their influence in education is just as far-reaching as John Dewey’s. For instance, the first president of the American Psychological Association, G. Stanley Hall is quoted as saying the following by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.
“We must overcome the fetishism of the alphabet, of the multiplication tables, of grammar,” he said. “It would be no serious loss if a child never learned to read.”
These are the same three things that John Dewey seemed to think children no longer needed. As mentioned earlier our illiteracy rates are through the roof and many parents are becoming increasingly frustrated with the common core math that their children are bringing home.
Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health is quoted as saying the following.
The last sentence brings us back to the original idea in this article. The left does not share our view of morality. To them, the notion of a universal right and wrong which restrains our animalistic instincts is slavery. According to many in the field of psychiatry, true freedom means exactly what the underlines statement suggests, and what was mentioned earlier. Freedom from morality. Therefore, there is a struggle of values between the left and right. The right, being mostly Christian and believing in absolute morality believe that people should seek to control their behavior and that freedom, as defined in America, is possible because people are able to do so based on that universal morality. The left believes that morality is authoritarian in nature and represents oppression. To them there is no God, therefore letting loose the animal instincts which enslave us to pre-conditioned behavior, as opposed to free thinking and self-control, is the true definition of freedom.
In conclusion, I think a quote from the book Toward Soviet America will tie all of this together nicely. The connection lies in the fact that Communism is also atheistic in nature and applies science to the study of human behavior from the Darwinian perspective. In fact, according to the film The Bloody History of Communism, Ivan Pavlov was directed by Lenin to apply his techniques of classical conditioning against the Russian population. In all communist societies populations who refused to go along with communist ideals were targeted for re-education or extermination. People who held onto religion and traditional ideas concerning family were considered mentally defective and were treated by none other than psychiatrists to correct their behavior.
A U.S. Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools. (Foster, Toward Soviet America)
Once again, the left is showing their true colors and proving that racism is squarely in their corner. In the same way they have attacked Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and other prominent black Americans for leaving the plantation of self-hatred and dependency, they have launched a vicious assault on Kanye West for his support of Donald Trump. He has been called mentally ill and Trumps “token negro” by CNN. They even went so far as to say that West’s support for Trump is what happens when “negroes don’t read.”
he left works relentlessly to paint conservatives as “white supremacists” and racists, however, their insistence that black Americans think like they do and stay trapped in a world where they are downtrodden and oppressed is more indicative of racism.
The right believes in equality of opportunity for all, meaning that everyone regardless of race can achieve anything based on their own merits. It is the left that is so intensely focused on the issue of race. They insist that black Americans hold onto this misguided sense of resentment for something that they themselves did not experience. They insist that black Americans denounce the notion of individualism and merit and stay trapped in this cycle of dependency. In this author’s humble opinion, the very definition of white supremacy is the notion that black Americans can’t have a fair shot without the help of the white, liberal welfare state!
“White privilege education originates from a program called Create Wisconsin. It was created in 2009 by the Wisconsin Department of Instruction to study the challenges that minority students faced because public education, it was argued, was geared towards white kids and not minorities.
Every year there is an annual White Privilege Conference hosted by a group bearing that name. Their goal, as noted on their public website, is to “deconstruct the white culture” to achieve racial justice. The idea of deconstructing whiteness is one that is rapidly catching on, as universities across the country are adding this to their preexisting social justice programs. Illinois’ Northwestern University—a prestigious private university, mind you—is one such school looking to shame people for being white. White students looking to participate in social justice are encouraged to explore why their whiteness should lead to feelings of guilt. Other topics designed to deconstruct white culture are intellectualizing racism vs. real feelings of racism and appropriate terminology to use when discussing issues of race.
What they are arguing for is a system based not on the student’s ability, but on cultural differences and the assumption that minority students aren’t able to comprehend the lessons being taught. This in and of itself is racism because they are arguing that minorities are not as smart as white kids and need extra help. Because of this assumption the entire education system has been dumbed down to a lower standard, which creates lower expectations for everyone. Every year at Wisconsin’s annual White Privilege Conference it is further taught that America’s culture is inherently racist and that minority students need special treatment to succeed. If that isn’t the textbook definition of racism, then I wouldn’t know what is.”
The truth is that this attitude is based on the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry, which have their origins in the Darwinian theory of evolution. In evolutionary theory, humankind is an evolving process, i.e. the survival of the fittest type of mentality. People ascribing to this theory have traditionally viewed blacks as being inferior and without wills of their own. In fact, a term drapetomania refers to the idea that blacks prefer to live a life of servitude as opposed to freedom. The following is an excerpt from Psychopolitics in America.
“In a report entitled Psychiatry and Racism: Psychiatry’s Betrayal, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights shows the historical roots between racist attitudes and the fields of psychiatry and psychology.
Francis Galton, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, was an English psychologist who was related to Charles Darwin and shared in many of his views concerning his theory of evolution. Galton, because he believed in evolutionary science, was convinced that Africans were inferior. Stating in his book Tropical South Africa that they had no independent will of their own, Galton believed that Africans needed leadership and preferred a life of servitude. This belief is what was later used to justify slavery. In fact, Africans who resisted slavery were considered mentally ill, as it was generally believed that blacks were incapable of self-care and freedom. This disease was referred to as Drapetomania.
Today, with the white privilege narrative raging across the nation, it seems that anyone disagreeing with this consensus is being accused of racism. The Left is pushing the idea that blacks need government welfare to level the playing field, when in fact it is this welfare and government dependence that keeps them down.”
The left fights to convince minorities that they are oppressed victims and that they are unable to compete in a nation such as ours because of the inherent racism built within the institutions. The only institutional racism that exists is within the ranks of the Democrat Party. Their behavior towards Kanye and other conservative blacks is right in line with the what is described in the above paragraphs. They treat the fact that they have chosen to think for themselves and question the mainstream narrative as some type of disease. They launch vicious assaults against them just as if they are hunting down escaped slaves. It is the backward mentality of the left, which views blacks and other minorities as inferior and in need of “special help” that is the real white supremacism. It is the insistence that blacks view themselves as victims as opposed to citizens with equal opportunity that holds them back and keeps them impoverished. Which is right where the Democrat party wants them, poor and voting Democrat!
With over 350 footnotes citing news articles, academic studies and books on social science, I attempt to connect the dots and show the Communist involvement in subverting the American mind and changing our culture from one of rugged individualism and individual liberty to one of complete helplessness and dependence.
While many people have attempted to prove the communist subversion of our nation to be a hoax, this book attempts to debunk that theory by connecting their words and plans to events we see playing out on a daily basis.
Subjects include the Hegelian dialectic, education, Communist involvement in fomenting racial strife, feminism, the homosexual agenda, psychology and psychotropic drugs, media, Saul Alinsky and much more!
Thank you to all my readers, I hope this book brings a new understanding of how we got here and what we can do to reverse it. Below is an excerpt from the chapter on the mainstream media.
“There is also something known as “trauma-based programming,” which is likely the actual methodology used in breaking down the subjects in MK Ultra. This type of programming can be best described as a method that blocks a person’s ability to consciously process any information. Through the use of pain, terror, drugs, illusion, sensory deprivation, sensory over-stimulation, oxygen deprivation, cold, heat, spinning, brain stimulation, and often, near-death experiences, the subject is susceptible to the power of suggestion and/or classical and operant conditioning methods. Given what we have learned about the effects on the brain when watching television, you almost have to wonder if that in and of itself has become a method of “trauma-based programming.” When people spend so much time in front of the television it affects their ability to discern reality from what it is they are seeing on TV. We also learned that too much television releases endorphins that stimulate the brain in much the same way opium does, and finally, we learned that the functioning of the neocortex is significantly altered while watching television, while the limbic system, the portion of the brain more responsible for primitive, reactionary functioning, is more active. With this information it seems plausible that the sensationalism associated with mass acts of violence on the mainstream media is being done on purpose in order to condition the masses with subtle suggestions of surrendering individualism for collectivist solutions, namely Communism. Seeing that a solid understanding of human reactions to traumatizing events through broadcasting had been firmly established before the advent of television, this conclusion is almost a certainty.
On October 30, 1938, the United States population was driven into a panic-stricken state of mind as the broadcast of H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds was heard across the country. The story was played as if it were an actual news event depicting an invasion of aliens from the planet Mars. This was before the advent of television, when it wasn’t uncommon for families to gather around the radio and listen to “shows” in much the same way that they gather around the television today. The resulting panic from the broadcast drew the attention of the social scientists of the time as they immediately began the work of studying the human reaction to panic and fear. This research, in many ways, laid the groundwork for many of the “mechanisms of control” we currently see in our society. Consider the following quote from Haldey Cantril’s The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic.”
Such rare occurrences provide opportunities for social scientists to study mass behavior. They must be exploited when they come. Although the social scientists, unfortunately, cannot usually predict such situations and have his tools of investigations ready to analyze the phenomena while it is still on the wing, he can begin his work before the effects of the crisis are over and memories are blurred. The situation created by the broadcast was one which shows us how the common man reacts in a time of stress and strain. It gives us insight into his intelligence, his anxieties and his needs, which we would never get by tests or strictly experimental studies.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies… is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” (Carroll Quigley)
Carrol Quigley was a mentor of Bill Clinton. What he is saying here is identical to one of the goals of the communist party described in the book “The Naked Communist.” That goal simply put, is infiltrating one or both political parties in the United States. Very few Americans would have a hard time denying that the Democrat party has been taken over by the hard left, however, a misguided faith still exists when it comes to the Republicans. Nothing demonstrates this more thoroughly than the enthusiasm surrounding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
The so-called patriotic right is ecstatic that they won what was seemingly a savage fight for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. What happened, in reality, was a dialectical display of how much power the government, or “the deep state” as they have come to be known, has over public perception. The most frightening aspect of it all is the people on the left and the right are wholeheartedly invested in their parties perspective narrative. The left, for instance, believes that Kavanaugh is a sexual predator and the right, a constitutionalist. Neither is the truth. As demonstrated in my last article, Kavanaugh is a statist judge who had a hand in writing the patriot act and believes that illegal surveillance against Americans is consistent with the fourth amendment. The right appears to be willing to sacrifice their fourth amendment rights for privacy to watch the left have a fake meltdown.
Nothing demonstrates the reality of the above quote by Quigley better than the fact that Kavanaugh and Merrick Garland, the liberal judge nominated by Obama at the end of his term, voted identical ninety-three percent of the time. Even Ted Cruz, in an effort to calm the left noted this fact during the earlier confirmation hearings. What does this mean? It means that we just fell for a huge scam designed to get you to support a judge who, if you did the research beforehand, may not have supported. It’s all a game to keep us in the dark.
Many of Trump’s policies also support the notion of the quote above. The war in Syria, potential war with Iran, the new trade deal, Betsy Devos signing us on the UN Sustainable Development education agenda and others are policies that remain unchanged whether it is a Republican or Democrat in office. The power elite, understanding human behavior very well, know that all they have to do is show Donald Trump giving a speech denouncing the United Nations for example, and no one will believe that we just signed onto their agenda. That’s how it works. People believe what they see and given the fact that we are an entertainment addicted nation, most people live their lives believing what the television tells them to believe. As demonstrated by the latest circus called the Kavanaugh confirmation.
The hope now is that the scheme to portray Kavanaugh as a sexual predator has backfired and will result in a huge “red wave” in the midterm elections. This could be but what difference will it really make? Particularly if the quote from the Naked Communist is true and the Republican party has been infiltrated by Rinos.
In all reality it shouldn’t matter, nor should we care who is on the Supreme Court. Their job is not to make law but to uphold the Constitution, period. The fact that the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is able to gain the national attention it does is indicative of the fact that too many people give government too much legitimacy. Perhaps, in the end, Kavanaugh will prove the skeptics wrong and be an outstanding justice. As Americans however, this author believes it is our responsibility to uphold liberty and this can’t be done if we just follow the dangling carrot put in front of us. We have to research things for ourselves.
Last week, Americans witnessed first hand just how despicable our government really is. Unfortunately, many millions of Americans still fall for the fake right vs. left paradigm that keeps us ideologically rooted in our perspective camps. We are supposed to believe that our chosen political parties are fighting the good fight to either restore our traditional American values or instill a new social justice to right misperceived wrongs of the past. Unbeknownst to most of us, however, is the darker truth that both parties are working hand in hand to achieve an objective, and that is the growth of government power. In order to achieve this objective, they need to keep us ignorant and most importantly, eager to vote.
Currently, we are supposed to be following along and outraged because we believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a terrible human being who gang rapes women, or because he is an honorable constitutional judge that the left is trying desperately to keep off the court. What most people don’t realize, or take the time to research for themselves for that matter, is that Judge Kavanaugh is just another statist judge who will go along to get along. That is the truth they are trying to hide from you. Judge Kavanaugh helped write the Patriot Act, and views the illegal NSA spying on American citizens as being consistent with the Fourth Amendment. His reasoning for this is that searching phone records of Americans is not considered unreasonable because Americans have surrendered their information to a third party when purchasing a service. This is known as the third party doctrine. He also believes that the heightened need for tighter national security constitutes this illegal spying as reasonable. Of course, he helped write the Patriot Act.
The left has organized hoards of angry feminists to protest Kavanaugh because they believe he will fight to overturn Roe V. Wade. This doesn’t make any sense because Kavanaugh told Senator Collins, in a private meeting, that he considers Roe V. Wade to be settled law. Ironically, he told Chuck Schumer the same thing in his confirmation hearings for the D.C. court of appeals. Of course we all know that the opposition to Kavanaugh is bought and paid for anyway; however, many people fail to consider the possibility that the whole thing is just a ruse to give the illusion of conflict.
One more thing to consider about last weeks staged drama is the fact while it was all happening President Trump signed another huge spending bill to the tune of eight hundred fifty four billion dollars to stop a government shut down. This of course was done with no press present. Trump had previously suggested that he would let the government shutdown to get the funding for the wall but the Republicans pushed him into signing the bill. Yeah right, so much for four-dimensional chess. Where is that money coming from? If the economy is doing so good why are we still borrowing money to run the government? What President Trump and the Republicans in Congress fail to realize is that their base doesn’t care if the government shuts down. If we can’t afford to run our house, we go with go without. Why do we have to pick up the tab for their irresponsibility?
What is really happening in our country? False accusations of Russian collusion, false allegations of sexual harassment. A media that works feverishly to stir up anger and keep us divided. Constant indebtedness and constant assaults against our constitutionally protected inalienable liberties. All of this has America on the verge of madness, by design. The truth is that we are in the final stages of a grand strategy of misinformation designed to realign global politics into a one world communist government. Unfortunately, this idea, along with the evidence that supports it has been so thoroughly discredited that nobody believes it. People that suggest this as a possibility are often mocked and ridiculed by people that believe what they are being spoon-fed on a daily basis. Ironically, they are unable to come up with any answers of their own. They just believe for example that Trump is draining the swamp despite the fact that he just signed this huge spending bill, or despite his education secretary signing us onto the UN sustainable development education plan. Conversely, liberals believe hands down that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election and that Kavanaugh is a serial rapist who can’t be let onto a basketball court with children. Both presumptions are equally ridiculous. None of it is true, it is all a theatrical production put on by people who have thoroughly studied and mastered human behavior and psychological manipulation of the mind. And we just follow along.
What is true is that the Soviet Union, in an attempt to defeat the west and create a global communist government, embarked on a strategy of misinformation designed to lull the west into believing that they had abandoned communism and were reforming their governments to be more favorable to democracy. People like Joseph McCarthy worked to warn us about Soviet spies in our government but he was discredited and mocked, which made his evidence unbelievable to the masses.
In the book New Lies For Old, Anatoliy Golitsyn describes this strategy as a process of convincing the west that the old communist powers had seen the failures in their systems.
“The Communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of Communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the Communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such… stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland”. (Golitsyn, New Lies For Old)
Golitsyn, like so many other others have also done, warns that the United States and another western countries are not prepared to deal with the type of deception the communists are willing to deploy against them.
“First, the democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ and have failed to perceive the deployment of the Communist political potential of the renewed ‘democratic’ regimes against the West. The democracies could perish unless they are informed about the aggressive design of ‘perestroika’ against them.”
Secondly, I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communist treachery, would not be able to grasp the new maneuvers of the Communist strategists and would rush to commit the West to helping ‘perestroika’ which is so contrary to their interests.” (Golitsyn, New Lies For Old)
Again, this deception was that the communists were reforming their governments or “liberalizing and restructuring” to be more favorable to freedom. The lengths that they are willing to go are astonishing. The majority of Americans for example, believe that Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union and that this led to the fall of the Berlin Wall. This was actually predicted by Golitsyn as part of a campaign to liberalize eastern Europe from Soviet control.
Liberalization” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated…
Western acceptance of the new “liberalization” as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of Communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan… Euro-Communism could be revived. The pressure for united fronts between Communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified.”(Golitsyn, New Lies For Old)
If Reagan defeated communism then why do we have a bunch of leftists running our government? If Reagan defeated communism and didn’t sign these educational agreements, then why do we have universities pushing out brainwashed imbeciles who know nothing of their culture and beg for socialism? These are examples of questions that people can’t answer if they even accept them as legitimate questions in the first place.
In a report entitled “The Communist Peace Offensive”, former Republican advisor to the State Department John Foster Dulles gave the following testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July of 1950.
“It is my opinion that the leaders of communism are, before venturing an open war, trying to create a public opinion of the world to believe that they are the nations that stand for peace and that we are the Nation that stands for war, and they have made very good progress in doing that.”
They know that everybody wants peace, and if they can pose as the lovers of peace, then, perhaps they can risk war.”(John Foster Dulles, July 5, 1950) Is this not what we are seeing every day? The constant discrediting of America as an imperialistic, warmongering nation that oppresses people and steals their natural resources? Is it a coincidence then that strategies similar to this are found in a book called The Naked Communist on a list of forty-five declared goals of the Communist Party? This is another piece of evidence that has long been discredited by the mocking of Joseph McCarthy. However, if you study the list for yourself, you can see that much of it has already been accomplished! Below are some of the most obvious ones that most people would probably be able to recognize.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.” And Finally
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
If anything, this article has at least attempted to open your mind to the possibility that there may be more going on behind the scenes than you realize. If the communists are willing to create the illusion that they were defeated with the fall of the Berlin Wall, as has been suggested is the case by Golitsyn, then what else are they willing to do to fulfill their goal of global conquest? Was the ridiculous display in the Senate last week really a fierce battle for the confirmation of a constitutional Supreme Court Justice or was it two political parties working together to deceive you into believing that’s what it was? Or was it a spectacle simply put on to distract us from other things we don’t know about? Only time will tell.
One thing is for certain, as the midterms approach, you can expect things to become more heated and more out of control.
America truly has lost her way. Founded as a nation where the individual citizen was sovereign and the maintaining of liberty was a responsibility understood by all, we have transgressed into a country where we sit on the edges of our seats waiting for the government to save us from ourselves. Government has become the central focus of our lives as conservatives wait for Trump to “make America great again” and liberals wait for the Democrats to create utopia. This was not the original intent of government when our nation was created. Government was recognized by the founders as a necessary evil and worked to give us a nation where the powers of government were few and limited in their scope. Our bill of rights explicitly states in the tenth amendment that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. America was founded as a nation where the people had the freedom to govern their own lives and the government had no power to tell them how to live. Yet, here we are after more than a century of progressivism and government controlled education waiting for the government to fix all of our problems.
Day after day, the powers that be beat us down with a false narrative designed to keep us ideologically rooted in our perspective train of thought. Conservatives believe wholeheartedly that Donald Trump is the savior of America and that he is working diligently to drain the swamp. Liberals believe that Trump colluded with the Russians and stole the election from Hillary. Both positions are ridiculous. In all truth, the real reason Donald Trump won because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. That is how our choices are controlled. After eight years of Obama, there was literally no way Americans were going to vote for Clinton so, Donald Trump became the acceptable choice.
“There’s another reason for working within the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.)
Has the election of Donald Trump and the belief in “MAGA” brought the conservative electorate to a passive, non-challenging attitude toward everything he does? It would seem so. It would seem that the prospects of a Hillary presidency were enough to get Americans to accept Trump’s agenda even though much of it is the same.
Since Trump has taken office, he has signed a budget deal with the two Democrats who would be considered the worst he could have possibly dealt with, Schumer and Pelosi. American conservatives should have been outraged at this because not only is it the largest spending increase in our history, it continues to fund liberal agenda items like Obamacare and Planned Parenthood.
He has recently committed our troops to an indefinite presence in Syria, which is just more of the same unending war against terror doctrine initiated after the September 11th attacks, and despite his rhetoric about putting America first, Trump’s education Secretary Betsy Devos has just signed onto the United Nations education agenda. Conservatives will likely look at this move and claim that Trump is playing four-dimensional chess with the United Nations or worse yet, assume he doesn’t even know what his own administration is up to.
This is a foolish assumption as earlier in the year, President Trump proposed, despite promising to eliminate the Department of Education, to merge it with the Department of Labor which would be right in line with the UN agenda.
Ironically, Europe’s education has been under UN control for some time and revolves around the idea of creating a “sustainable workforce” to combat global warming. In other words, the agenda revolves around indoctrinating our children into the belief that humans are ruining the planet and only surrendering our rights to government can solve the problem.
To say our education should be more like Europe’s is troubling coming from a conservative administration. Education under the UN charter is considered a fundamental human right. This, of course, is absurd. Education cannot be a human right because it involves someone else’s labor, time and resources to provide it. Nevertheless, in Germany a family had their children seized by the government because they were homeschooling. This was seen as a violation of the children’s rights to a public education. Furthermore, it is believed that the parent’s influence upon the child are often oppressive in the sense that parents push their outdated, religious values on their children and these values may contradict the state.
“German law states children must attend school from age six to 18. Homeschooling is not permissible. Two German Supreme Court rulings on the subject have given the state equal authority as parents over children’s education. The law is meant to ensure children receive the appropriate socialization, Donnelly said.” (Olmstead, The American Conservative)
Writing for the Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion in their paper entitled “TheEffects of Parents’ Fundamentalism on Children’s Educational Attainment:Examining Differences by Gender and Children’s Fundamentalism,” Darren Sherkat and Alfred Darnell claim that children of Christian fundamentalists often suffer from social pressures against secular education. They also claim that children in fundamentalist families suffer from limited options in education due to fearing a lack of support from parents. They also claim that the contradictions created by the “creation myth,” as opposed to the scientific facts presented in secular education, contribute to this suppression of children. They write:
“Conservative Protestants have long been concerned about the focus and desirability of secular education. Evolutionary theories of human and animal origins are clearly oppositional to the literal interpretation of the creation myth preferred by fundamentalists, and controversies over Darwin’s theory of evolution are ubiquitous. Many conservative Christians are averse to the scientific method which seeks to discover facts rather than proclaiming “The Truth.” Scientific findings often seem to promote alternatives, or are questioning of, claims made in the Bible.”
There is a great deal more that could be said about the educational agenda. However, it is up to the American people to do their own research.
Americans should be outraged that Betsy Devos is signing on the UN education agenda, but as long as they are glued to their television, or following Trump’s tweets, they are likely to believe that Trump is making America great again. It is because of an education system that has been controlled by the left for so long that Americans look to government to solve problems at all.
Little by little, we are now being indoctrinated to believe that only a world government can save us from problems like climate change, overpopulation, gun violence and wealth inequality. Is it possible that President Trump will see what Devos has signed us onto and stop it? Sure, anything is possible, but it isn’t likely. Americans should be waking up to the fact that much of what they voted against by electing Trump is still little by little, marching on.
This past week America witnessed the true nature of the Democrat party. In opposition to the confirmation of Trump’s SCOTUS pick, the radical left, once again, threw a little hissy fit. In usual fashion, protestors who were willing to throw it all on the line to bring it all down were bussed into Washington D.C. and ushered into the Capital building where the hearings were taking place. Leftists from all over the country did everything they could to disrupt the hearings because they believe Brett Kavanaugh is a threat to a woman’s “right to choose.” They’re afraid that he will work to overturn Roe V. Wade. Ironically, conservatives believe the same thing because he is allegedly a staunch pro-life judge and a strict constitutionalist. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to both sides of the aisle, they are being played and the whole emotional display put on by the Democrats was nothing but a staged sideshow designed to give the illusion of conflict.
It turns out the Democrats had used the Labor Day weekend to plan the protests. This is no big surprise, the Democrats are willing to do anything to achieve their objective. Most Americans naively believe their objective is to stop this confirmation.
Truthfully, however, the staging of this protest was done to hide the fact that Brett Kavanaugh is just another big government shill who will uphold the status quo. The protests were part of a dialectical process that gives the illusion that conservatives are getting what they want when in reality, it is the left that is winning.
According to ABC News, Kavanaugh, in a private meeting with Senator Susan Collins, a liberal posing as a Republican, told her that he believes Roe V. Wade is established law and that all cases pertaining to such should follow the precedent already set by the Supreme Court. Let this sink in for a moment. Before the hearings began Kavanaugh told Collins he has no intention of going against Roe V. Wade, yet he sat there and played his part perfectly while the left attempted to portray him as an anti-abortionist during the hearings.
This is all a show to cover up the fact that Kavanaugh is just another in a long line of statist judges who will uphold precedent instead of solid constitutional law.
America is at a real tipping point. Democrats believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Clinton. Conservatives believe that Trump is working diligently to drain the swamp. Somewhere in the middle is the truth that all of it is just a staged sideshow designed to keep the masses from discovering that the agenda they voted against is still driving on.
There is the legitimate question as to whether or not Trump knew what he was getting with Kavanaugh. Some who realize who Kavanaugh is are of the belief that Trump was tricked by bad advisors working for the so-called swamp.
That could be.
However, it should be noted that Trump himself was never known for being a staunch constitutionalist until he decided to run as a Republican. Even as President, he has supported and encouraged the idea of Red Flag gun laws, he worked with Pelosi and Schumer on a budget deal that put us further in debt and funded Planned Parenthood. He then stood in front of God and Country and promised to never do it again.
He is also against his campaign promises, threatening to get us more deeply involved in the Syrian war, which if you remember, Syria was part of the Project New American Century war doctrine that was launched immediately after the September 11 attacks. So, despite the belief that Trump is a conservative by those on the right, many aspects of the statist agenda that they voted against are still advancing.
Americans need to stop following the carrots being dangled in their faces and take it upon themselves to do serious inquiries into what is going on. Too many Trump supporters are no different than Obama supporters. They believe everything he says and get caught up in the mellow dramatics of a conflict that is deliberately staged as left vs. right to keep them distracted and ideologically rooted in a controlled paradigm.
It is okay to Support Trump if you are a conservative. However, it is also okay to question him as well.
Once again American’s are dealing with the aftermath of another shooting where the shooter, David Katz, was under the influence of powerful anti-psychotic drugs. It has become the common tale across the country as all mass shooters are discovered to have been prescribed these drugs. In this case, Katz has been dealing with issues concerning his mental health since the early 1990’s, and despite being prescribed a variety of psychiatric medications, was able to legally purchase the weapons he used in the shooting. Federal law already dictates that if an individual had been adjudicated mentally deficient they are to be barred from gun ownership. Taking a psychiatric medication doesn’t mean one is adjudicated by a court of law to be a mental defect, which explains why he was able to purchase the gun. On the other hand, if you’re a veteran or a senior citizen and need a little help managing your finances, get ready to hand them over because you will be declared incompetent to handle your own affairs.
The issue of mental health is something that America needs to pay closer attention to, particularly the relationship between psychiatric care and gun rights. More and more we hear arguments about the need to deny an individual their constitutionally protected right of due process if they are known to suffer from some kind of mental illness, or have been deemed to be a “danger to themselves or others.” The Trump administration has gone on record and encouraged states to pass what are becoming known as “red flag” gun laws which enable authorities to seize guns from such people before they can commit a crime. This may have gone unnoticed by the larger Trump fan base as he had backed off several other gun control proposals which infuriated the left. This, of course, could be a dialectical process which gives Trump the appearance of being a gun rights supporter but needing to make a tough decision to do something about mass shootings and dangerous people obtaining firearms.
Sorting it out, the president’s “gun plan” consists of assisting the states in providing training for school staff in the defensive use of firearms, $50 million a year in federal grants under his proposed STOP School Violence Act, pushing for a NICS “fix” that has gotten bogged down in Congress, approving the banning of so-called bump stocks that the Department of Justice had already announced, improvements to the FBI “tip line” following the apparent failure of that service to warn of the possible threat from the Florida shooter, and a commission to come up with additional suggestions over the next 12 months. In addition, the president lent support for “red flag” laws by the states.(Adelmann, The New American)
The larger point is that despite the misguided efforts to stop violent crime, red flag laws do nothing to stop murder and only work to disarm people inclined to follow the law.
Conservatives are too quick to jump on board the mental health bandwagon in an attempt to put the blame of mass shootings somewhere. The left blames all gun owners and indicates a willingness to disarm everyone of everything in order to solve the problem. The right, in a defensive reaction to this, is quick to go along with the mental health narrative without a real examination of what the real agenda may be. That real agenda is the use of mental health/mental illness as a tool for the eradication of the second amendment. Every time a shooting occurs, pro-gun websites are quick to publish articles highlighting the shooters mental health problems without realizing how they are serving the dialectical process. By pointing out the shooters mental health, or the fact that they have legally purchased firearms despite being barred from doing so, they are strengthening the left’s argument for gun control. In other words, the left wants us all to believe that the current laws in place don’t work, and there is a need for an honest open debate about gun reform. The left wants you to argue that the current gun laws are not effective, it serves their purpose.
When it comes to mental illness the question arises as to why the psychotropic medications that are so readily available and prescribed at an alarming rate, all come with the warnings of possible suicidal/homicidal behavior attached to them. This is where it gets disturbing. In 1967 the worlds prominent psychiatrists met in Puerto Rico to discuss the future of their profession. Their ultimate objective was the subjugation of the human mind and enslaving it to the pharmaceutical industry, for profits of course. They set out to make a plan which would ultimately mandate the use of powerful psychiatric drugs for so-called mental diseases which no one could prove existed. To this day, mental health is considered by many to be a pseudoscience as opposed to an actual medical profession. In any event, one of the psychiatrists present, Dr. Wayne O Evans is quoted as saying the following:
Given the fact that one out of six Americans is currently taking some kind of psychotropic drug you have to wonder if there is something to this. Think about it a moment. One out of every six has been diagnosed and prescribed a psychiatric medication. This could be used as the basis to push for further gun restrictions in the future, and if it is successful millions of Americans will lose their rights. Or grow up without them seeing as though many of these people are drugged in elementary school for fictitious diseases such as ADHD.
It has long been understood that in traditional medicine, a scientific process of detecting symptoms that can be attributed to biological anomalies, which cause illness, is employed. In psychiatry, there is no scientific process of detecting biological anomalies because no biological test or blood work exists to prove their existence. It is all guesswork based on subjective opinions of people who study, for the lack of a better term, human behavior. Dr. Russell Barkley of The University of Massachusetts Medical Center has all but admitted that no scientific test exists to diagnose the presence of a mental disorder. This also includes the nearly three hundred fictitious disorders used to label an individual mentally ill due to some emotional trauma we all experience from time to time, found in the DSM V.
In the book, The Myth of Mental Illness by Dr. Thomas Szasz M.D. the idea of psychiatry being a profession that is dishonest with its subjects is discussed. Szaz states the following concerning psychiatry:
No science can be better than its linguistic apparatus allows it to be. And the language of psychiatry (and psychoanalysis) is fundamentally unfaithful to its own subjects: in it, imitating medicine comes before telling the truth. (Szasz, T. S. (1974) The Myth of Mental Illness)
What Szasz is saying here can be, theoretically at least, attributed back to the 1967 meeting in Puerto Rico. The profession itself set about the work of controlling the human mind, not healing real diseases. As a result, an entire profession has been built based on the fundamental premise of wanting to appear scientific but having no scientific validity in the method in which it diagnoses diseases they desperately want to prescribe medications for. As mentioned earlier, one in six Americans are now taking these medications. The common argument today is that mental illness or depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. How is this chemical imbalance detected without any lab tests? Unfortunately, the truth is slowly revealing itself and evidence is suggesting that the use of the prescribed psychotropic drugs is actually the leading cause in rising rates of mental illness. In other words, the side affects of the drugs, which warn of suicidal or homicidal behavior, are what’s causing the chemical imbalances in the brain, not a mental illness. This is even the case with people suffering from known diseases such as schizophrenia, which is recognized around the world as a disease as opposed to many of the disorders in the DSM, incidentally.
The use of psychotropic drugs, according to Mercola.com, can actually interfere with your brains neurotransmitters which prevent your brain from performing its normal biological functions. In turn, this produces the same type of symptoms which mimic the so called mental health conditions people are prescribed drugs for in the first place. Often this can result in a patient being prescribed several psychotropic medications at once, which is often the case with mass shooters.
“After several weeks on psychoactive drugs, the brain’s compensatory efforts begin to fail, and side effects emerge that reflect the mechanism of action of the drugs. For example, the SSRIs may cause episodes of mania, because of the excess of serotonin. Antipsychotics cause side effects that resemble Parkinson’s disease, because of the depletion of dopamine (which is also depleted in Parkinson’s disease).As side effects emerge, they are often treated by other drugs, and many patients end up on a cocktail of psychoactive drugs prescribed for a cocktail of diagnoses. The episodes of mania caused by antidepressants may lead to a new diagnosis of “bipolar disorder” and treatment with a “mood stabilizer,” such as Depokote (an anticonvulsant) plus one of the newer antipsychotic drugs. And so on.
Given the information presented in this article, passing red flag laws and denying someone due process based solely on the preconceived notion of mental health is no solution to the problem of mass shootings. Examining the psychiatric profession on the other hand may be a start. Unfortunately we have reached a point in this nation where being a conservative, or a Christian is becoming viewed as a mental health issue. In the article Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, it is argued that conservatives suffer from a form of mental illness because of their alleged rigidity to change and a willingness to tolerate inequality in order to perpetuate their own power structure. We seem to hear a lot about conservatives fear of change and the so-called institutional power of the “white supremacist” system we all cling to. Is this going to be enough to get an individual red flagged and deemed a danger to society? Time will tell, as red flag laws continue to gain momentum in states across the nation they are surely going to be abused. If this momentum isn’t stopped, innocent people will be stripped of their rights without any real proof they were ever going to commit a crime. While in the meantime, people intent on committing murder will continue to do so.
The Hegelian Dialectic has become well known among many conspiracy researchers as the problem-reaction-solution strategy. It is believed that many problems in society are deliberately created by government for the public to demand a solution, which is already predetermined. For example, gun control is believed to be a result of the dialectical process by many people who believe that the government seeks to disarm us and eradicate the second amendment. Gun violence is deliberately allowed to grow out of control with shootings continually being shown on the mainstream media, so the public demands more gun control, which is already a predetermined solution. This process is based off something called Dialectical Materialism.This theory suggests that all progress in the world, or all change that occurs does so through a struggle of opposites. Scientists in Communist Russia were expected to be able to fit all their conclusions and hypotheses into this framework. This might explain why Communism is such a disastrous system because it is not based on reality.
The Hegelian Dialectic was formulated to guide men’s thoughts into accepting economic Communism. Economics, being a creation of man, was viewed as a means of exploitation and a way to divide society into different classes. These different classes were viewed as the catalyst of implementing Communism because they were used to create conflict and struggle with the end goal being the elimination of classless societies. It is important to understand the framework of this dialectical process because everything from education to mass media is designed to give the appearance of a conflict of opposing ideas and the process is guiding the masses incrementally towards one possible outcome, total control over our lives.
Fox News and CNN are prime examples of this conflict of ideas. Fox is supposed to represent the “right wing” or conservative point of view while CNN, and quite frankly, the rest of the mainstream media, tend to represent the liberal view. This is the illusion they want to sell you anyway. The one thing they both share is a constant display of narratives that keep the public focused on the wrong arguments. In other words, arguments that guide the debate towards government solutions. While there appears to be an actual debate taking place the truth is that certain arguments are discredited and people making them are often put on the defensive or made to appear in the minority while making their argument.
Every important issue in American society is guided by this process. Two sides of an argument where the same people tightly control the narratives are beat into the heads of the public while opinion is guided into accepting certain solutions. Another good example to demonstrate this is again, the gun control debate. This author is not suggesting that the recent mass shooting experienced in America were deliberately staged by government, though false flag events are historically real, it is being suggested that the media, in collaboration with government anti-gunners are using the dialectic to guide public opinion in only one direction, the total elimination of private gun ownership. Every time there is a mass shooting the media focuses on very specific things that shape the argument. For instance, the fact that the shooter was taking psychotropic drugs, or the fact that in the most recent examples the guns used in the shooting were purchased legally even though they shouldn’t have been. This leads to demands for more government solutions when in fact, it is government failure that led to the shootings in the first place. In the Parkland Florida shooting, which occurred on Valentine’s day of 2018, it was widely reported that the FBI had visited the shooter on numerous occasions to investigate possible threats allegedly made by the shooter. The overall developing narrative is that the system is broken and must be reformed. It is already against the law to purchase a firearm if you have been ruled mentally defective, are a fugitive from justice, have a restraining order against you, or if you are addicted to illegal substances. When the media presents these problems and highlights the shooters getting their guns legally despite them, the only possible solution that starts to present itself in the minds of the gullible is the full banning of firearms for everyone.
Ironically, an old radio talk show host and author of the book “Behold a Pale Horse,” William Cooper, predicted that the government would allow the issue of gun violence to grow out of control, so a scared public would demand an end to the Second Amendment.
“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far, is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.” (Cooper, 1991)
The above quote was from 1991, before the hysteria of the present-day mass shootings we have recently witnessed. There is little doubt that the gun control debate is working to create a demand for civilian disarmament. The AR-15 type rifle has become America’s most popular firearm for sporting and defensive use. They have also become the most demonized, and their capabilities have been greatly over exaggerated by the mainstream media to keep the ignorant masses in a state of fear. The term assault weapon has been attached to them very effectively even though a weapon that has only a semi-automatic function is not standard military issue or would be virtually useless as an actual assault weapon. They were banned for a ten-year period where a study was conducted which concluded their banning had little effect on violent crime. Because of this determination, George W. Bush lifted this ban. Looking at the above quote it kind of makes you wonder if there was a more conspiratorial agenda to this, since this time the manufacture of AR style rifles has skyrocketed along with the production of aftermarket accessories. All of which by the way, the general masses, who are ignorant about firearms, all consider to be “scary looking.”
Yet another blatant example of this process at work is the revelation the social media giants such as Facebook and Google and have been collecting mass amounts of data on their users to determine social attitudes on political issues. Cambridge Analytica, a data collection firm created in 2013, was according to The New York Times working in collaboration with the Trump campaign to determine the personalities of potential voters and attempt to target them. Of course, there is a social outrage over these accusations, however, this type of data collection was also happening under the Obama Administration and they bragged about it according to post by Accuracy in Media.
“The Obama presidential campaign boasted and bragged about their use of Facebook data in order to win re-election. As our own Don Irvine wrote, a former Obama staffer tweeted that the Obama campaign used Facebook user data similar to Cambridge Analytica. The same staffer said that Facebook let the Obama campaign use their data because Facebook “was on our side.” (Accuracy in Media)
The end goal is predictable, the demand that the government impose regulations controlling fairness in social media. Even Mark Zuckeberg, owner of Facebook, has said he is open to government regulations governing social media. Of course, he is playing the victim here, pretending that he wasn’t aware of how The Obama Administration used their data for their own aims. This is intended to portray to the general, clueless public, that he is re-thinking how he operates and that he feels shame over what has happened. The end goal, as stated above, is the acceptance of government control over what is said and expressed on the internet, period. It is working like a charm as well because both the left and right are upset over these revelations.
In August of 2018, Facebook, Google, Apple and YouTube virtually eliminated Alex Jones, founder of Info Wars, from any of their search drives. This is being viewed as outright censorship of alternative views and a violation of the first amendment. Alex Jones, of course, is a shock jock of sorts who works to expose the workings of the New World Order conspiracy and was allegedly banned because of his insistence that the Sandy Hook School shooting was an elaborate hoax designed to persuade Americans into demanding gun control. Many on the right are claiming that this has nothing to do with the first amendment and that private corporations can ban whomever they wish, while others still are demanding government act to prevent these corporations from censoring anyone based on their political viewpoints. Again, this plays right into the hands of government because behind the scenes the left is planning an all-out takeover of the internet. The claim, of course, is that the internet needs to be regulated to prevent foreign influence in our elections, however, the truth is that the internet has been a powerful tool in exposing corruption and offering alternative viewpoints to the false mainstream media. To create a socialist paradise, the information must be controlled, and all Americans must base their beliefs on the same information. This creates quite a conundrum because the American government was created by, for and of the people to protect the rights of American citizens. Rights which our founders have described as inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken from us because they exist in the natural state of being human. If governments job is to protect these rights, then where else do you go when they are being infringed upon by corporations who seek to eliminate points of view which differ from their own? Was the banning of Alex Jones a deliberate ploy to get the masses to demand government intervention, paving the way for government control of the internet? It certainly is possible because that is exactly the way this is playing out.
This is how the dialectical process works and it is present in nearly all social issues confronting America. From global warming to health care, from gun control to wealth inequality we are being led to believe that we are overwhelmed with problems that only government can solve, and to solve them they need us to relinquish more of our God-given liberty.
The passage of Obamacare is probably the best example of all. The creation of a massive entitlement which forces people who can afford to do so to pay higher insurance premiums so the people who cannot, can get cheaper healthcare. Furthermore, there was a fine imposed by the IRS for not purchasing a healthcare plan. Ironically, the fine was never more than the cost of an Obamacare plan which inevitably meant there was more of an incentive to not purchase an Obamacare plan because it was cheaper to pay the fine. The result is an unsustainable system which we were told would pay it for itself. The failure of Obamacare would force the government to implement the much desired by the left, single-payer healthcare system.
Another method of guiding popular consensus is the use of the Delphi technique. This method encourages the open debate between two or more opposing ideas with the intent of pushing the discussion in the direction of an already agreed upon solution. This solution is usually based on the opinions or objectives of a panel of so-called experts on whatever subject is being discussed. Often, this is done in a public setting where the appearance is given that public opinion is valued on whatever subject is being discussed. The leader is often a trained change agent who is very skilled at identifying the types of people who are generally opposed to the already agreed upon consensus. They are also skilled at humiliating them and making their positions look foolish, which in turn, encourages those in the audience to keep quiet or go along to get along. In the end, the opinions that favor the desired outcome are made to appear as if they are the majority. This could be done by dividing people into groups and having them submit their ideas on paper to a facilitator where they have no idea if they will even be seen. Or, people paid to express support of the desired outcome could be present in the audience giving the appearance they are in the majority. This technique is frequently used in the classroom as well to push socialist ideas such as socialized medicine and solutions to climate change.
Most Americans would agree that over the past several years we have witnessed an incremental loss of liberty. Since the election of Donald Trump, the patriotic vigilance that stood ready to defy tyranny and oppose “Obamaism” has died down and we have returned to a passive attitude of compliance, believing that under Trump, all will be fine. The media and their Democratic sidekicks continue to feign outrage over everything that Trump does while Trump himself continues to tweet undignified, cocky responses. The American people eat it up in our system of false choices and illusions of freedom, while an unnoticed agenda continues to evade the ignorant masses. Many people that voted for Trump were anything but principled conservatives so they may very well throw their support behind this agenda without understanding the implications. This agenda is gun control and it has more steam now than it did during the entire duration of Obama’s presidency.
Since the Parkland shooting, and Trump’s insistence that guns should be taken from people who are “a danger to themselves or others” before being afforded due process, a statement mind you that the White House attempted to walk back the next day, states have been passing the so-called red flag gun violence protection order into law. There are now thirteen total states where authorities may be ordered to confiscate firearms from someone simply because a judge, family member or other concerned party suspects they may be a danger to themselves or others. There’s that phrase again. It is a pretty broad statement and this will be expanded on shortly. Coming into 2018 there were only five states with such laws, so this is an agenda rapidly gaining steam.
What does it mean to say a danger to yourself or others? Well, under President Trump, or sensible state governments it could very well mean exactly what it says. A person, for example, like Nikolas Cruz who clearly was making threatening statements should have been intercepted by law enforcement, arrested under current laws concerning threatening others and tried in criminal court. That would have been the proper thing to do, and anyone who is threatening others should also be arrested if the situation calls for it. There may be nothing to worry about here; however, if such a law were to be passed on the national level, and rumor has it a bill will be introduced this fall with the support of the American Medical Association, and an anti-gun liberal takes office, we all know how this law would be abused. That is why it is imperative to understand, no matter your position on Trump, that you have to watch and be ready to get involved and hold his feet to the fire because once a law is signed, especially one of this nature, it won’t go away.
To the majority of people who may have no vested interest in defending the Second Amendment, it would seem to make sense to confiscate guns from someone who may be a danger to themselves or others. Who defines this? Who decides what constitutes a danger? The United States Government, in a document that has yet to be denounced, has made it perfectly clear who they consider to be threats to society. Veterans, Christians, conservatives and gun owners who may be worried about the passing of restrictive gun laws which limit their freedoms. People who oppose government agendas such as unlimited abortion rights and immigration, as well as the belief that states are sovereign to federal power, are also considered possible threats.
Despite the fact that these so-called violent right-wingers haven’t committed any acts of violence, and groups like Antifa continue to disrupt and harass right-wingers as if its some kind of moral obligation without a condemnation of any kind, it can be safely assumed that people opposing the liberal order could be targets of gun control. It could reach a point where simply owning a gun could put you in the category of being a danger to yourself or others, and the fact that Trump is using this language is, in this authors opinion, alarming. Mainly because he has so many supporters who support the second amendment wholeheartedly, that think the man was ordained by God to fix the country and that he is playing four-dimensional chess every time he appears to cave in on a liberal agenda item.
There is something else that should have people concerned over the issue of denying someone due process before depriving them of life, liberty, and property and it goes back to a law passed by the Obama administration. In 2012 conservatives were up in arms over the National Defense Authorization Act which enabled the government to detain anyone indefinitely if they were considered to be a threat to national security. Could this indefinite detention provision and the passage of gun violence protection orders intersect somewhere down the road and be used to target all gun owners simply for owning a gun? Could opposing the so-called reasonableness of denying an individual due process if they have been declared to be a danger to themselves or others be grounds to be considered a danger to yourself or others? At what point will vociferously opposing big government be considered threatening behavior which warrants a knock on your door at 0300 hours in the morning?
This article was not written to spark conspiracy theories or stir the pot but to motivate those lovers of liberty to take a step or two back and pay a little more attention, and to stop putting your faith in one man. Look past the media sideshow which is deliberately staged to keep you fixated on politics like its some reality television program. Trump may be exactly who he says he is, however, he has made the statement that his administration is working on legislation that would prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from having guns. His language, not mine. If a law such as this is passed it will only be elaborated on in the future.
What is Psychopolitics? According to Lavrentiy Beria, Psychopolitics is a lesser known division of Geopolitics and is used to maintain dominion and control over the thoughts of the masses, as well as the highly educated. How is Psychopolitics applied? Psychopolitics is a form of psychological warfare and its main purpose is creating the necessary chaos to make the population of the targeted nation view communism as the only alternative to the problems they face. In other words, it’s a deliberate campaign to turn the values, ethos and culture of enemy nations completely upside down so the people have no idea which leg to stand on when it comes to defending their nation. Psychopolitics is the deliberate infiltration of a nation’s institutions with the intent of incrementally changing the mindset of the population against their own country. America is the victim of a psychopolitical assault designed to keep us controlled in the parameters of fake political parties and identity politics. Race, sex, wealth, family life, media, religion and education are all weapons used against the masses to guide their opinions through a dialectical process so that they are favorable to the Psychopolitical agenda. Psychopolitics is a Democrat party feigning outrage at a Republican president for fake “Russian Collusion” who a few years earlier, donated money to their campaigns as a Democrat, while an entertainment addicted nation watches like its a soap opera. Psychopolitics is doing whatever is necessary to keep the people from understanding anything.
Psychopolitics is the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus and masses; and affecting of the conquest of enemy nations through “mental healing.” Lavtentiy Berea “A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Pyschopolitics.”
According to The Black Book of Communism, between eighty-five and one hundred million people were brutally murdered by Communist regimes in what has become known as the greatest carnage in human history. There are others however who would place that figure well above one hundred and fifty million. Communists, in their false worldview, believe that anyone who does not share in their idea that the state should be the ultimate authority, or the highest entity that explains human existence are “mentally ill.” The tragic result of this misguided belief is a need to be rid of those who stand in the way of their goal of complete and total equality.
What does it mean to suggest that the state should define human existence? Well simply put, communists do not believe in God, and they view man as merely another animal that has no more special purpose for existence than a turtle or a frog. Their desire for complete power has led to the belief that man should exist for the explicit purpose of serving the state, and as noted earlier, any resistance against that idea is met with either brute force to eliminate the dissent, or some form of punishment (mental healing) to bring those resisting into alignment with communist ideals. The best way to put this is to take it from the words of Laventriy Berea himself. Communists view man as an organism on both the political and economic levels. This completely strips the individual of all humanity as he is viewed as nothing more than a means to an end. Berea describes this concept by comparing man to an organ in the human body. The body would represent the state and the organ, an individual. The way communists view man is the same way a doctor would view an organ of the human body if the individual were sick or dying. The failing organ would certainly be affecting the functioning of the greater whole; therefore, the organ would have to be brought back into alignment with the body in order for healing to take place. They actually refer to this as the organ “rebelling” against the greater whole and in order to save the life, the rebellion needs to be stopped. Communists view men who do not agree with their ideals in much the same way. An individual who does not see the reasonableness in communism is to be considered mentally defective.
As mentioned earlier, pyschopolitics is also the perfection of the social sciences, i.e., psychology and psychiatry to the point of being able to manipulate the human will, so they believe. The problem is as self-evident as any other truth that governs human nature; human beings were created with free will and have an ability to choose, unlike other animals, therefore; we were not meant to be governed in such a manner. This is why communist regimes went about the work of purging their societies of those they felt could not be brought into alignment with the state’s objectives. The human spirit, for the most part, will naturally rebel against any attempts to subdue its free-willed nature because we naturally exist as individuals, not as entities designed to serve those who seek to control us. What communists have discovered however; is that human beings can be manipulated through the use of social science, drugs, torture, reward and punishment and other “mental healing” methods. Humans who fail to adapt and accept such conditioning are once again, viewed as inferior and were historically either placed in “gulags” or simply eliminated altogether. This was the result of the ideology founded by Karl Marx and put into action by heartless men intent on creating a perfect world.
Marx, in his book The Communist Manifesto , viewed religion as an opiate of the masses and believed that Communism could succeed if God could be removed from the hearts of men. Being the founder of Communism, it would be assumed that Marx himself was an atheist as Communism places the state as God. This is not the case, Marx was at one time a devout Christian who was very familiar with scripture. In fact, Marx wrote the following quote when he was young. “Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ.” Later in his life, for reasons unclear, Marx became angry and turned against God. Communism was founded to turn men away from God, to break man’s connection with the divine and place his control in the hands of other men. The following is also attributed to Marx.
Yet I have power within my youthful arms To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity) with tempestuous force, While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness. You will sink down and I shall follow laughing, Whispering in your ears ‘Descend, come with me, friend’”. “Thus Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well, My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for hell.”
“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet Full in the face of the world, And see the collapse of this pygmy giant Whose fall will not stifle my ardour. Then will I wander godlike and victorious Through the ruins of the world And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.”
Communism seeks to define human existence in terms opposite of what God had intended for man. The purpose of Psychopolitics is to turn society upside down and offer Communism as the only viable system that can make things right. Therefore, Communism is carrying out the work of the devil, which is to enslave humanity and destroy what God has created.
Lavrentiy Beria, the individual responsible for Manual on Psychopolitics, was a ruthless propagandist who many say was responsible for the purges in the Soviet Union that led to the deaths of so many millions . According to Biography.com, Beria joined the Bolsheviks in 1919 after dropping out of school where he was studying mechanical construction. Working for the Bolsheviks he was engaged in counter-intelligence and revolutionary activities in Georgia. After demonstrating his ruthless ability to discard the value for human life through kidnapping, rape, torture and murder he quickly rose through the ranks. He met and became close with Joseph Stalin in 1926. Stalin referred to him as Russia’s Himmler, who of course was Hitler’s propaganda minister. In 1938, according to Atomic Heritage Foundation, Stalin appointed Beria to the Deputy Chief of the NKVD (Narodnyĭ Kommissariat Vnutrennikh Del) or in English, The Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs. He later took full command when the former chief Nokali Yezhov was arrested as an enemy of the state. Though, it is rumored that Beria personally orchestrated the death of Yezhov himself. Beria remained chief until his death in 1953. The NKVD was the Soviet Union’s secret police who carried out vicious raids against the non-conformists and those members of the Communist party who had demonstrated disloyalty to Stalin by either eliminating or imprisoning them in the gulags. According to Spatacus-Educational.com 19.8 million people were arrested by the NKVD between the years 1935 and 1941 as enemies of the state with over seven million of them being executed.
Beria was known for being an exceptionally devious and deceptive individual. This is evident by a thorough examination of the Manual on Psychopolitics where deception is a key component to the infiltration of the mind. In fact, according to Roy Medvedev, author of the book “Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism” Beria was never a die-hard Marxist revolutionary but a man with no principles capable of committing any crime. Nikita Khrushchev would later describe Beria as two-faced schemer, displaying a sinister hypocrisy that he even found to be shocking. This is evidenced by the fact that while working for the Soviets he also maintained relationships with foreign intelligence services and once worked in opposition to the Bolsheviks by supporting the Muslim Democratic Musavat Party during Russia’s revolution. This shows Beria to in fact be a man of no principle, but an opportunist seeking power. Beria’s crimes were so shocking in nature and his ruthlessness so unparalleled that even members of Stalin’s inner circle referred to him as a “blood thirsty dwarf.” Beria was also known for being a deviant sexual predator, raping and torturing an untold number of victims. It was later discovered that he maintained torture devices in his private office where he would take young women he had kidnapped to rape and torture. Beria was said to be one of the few heads of state that would personally torture his victims.
The Manual on Pschopolitics refers to the use of force as an attribute in the conquering of nations. Any organization, writes Beria, which has the spirit and courage to display inhumanity, savageness, brutality, and an uncompromising lack of humanity will be obeyed. Through this uncompromising use of force against individuals Beria believed he could get any man to confess to being the king of England.
Beria was executed in 1953, shortly after the death of Stalin for treason against the Soviet Union.
The Manual on Psychopolitics, which is quoted several times throughout the pages of this book was published in the United States in 1955. It is said to be taken right from the Communist Manual of Instructions on Psychological Warfare. Many people have claimed that it is not real, and many of the quotes are claimed to be fake. It is this authors contention, however, that many of the events that have played out in the United States, the propaganda war launched by the media, the discrediting of religion and our nation, in general, can be attributed to the methods described in the Manual. The following is the address given by Beria to a group of U.S. students at Lenin University which is the first chapter in the Manual.
American students at the Lenin University, I welcome your attendance at these classes on Psychopolitics.
Psychopolitics is an important if less known division of Geo-politics. It is less known because it must necessarily deal with highly educated personnel, the very top strata of “mental healing.”
By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression, and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.
A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.
To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every “home-grown” variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your misguided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented “healing” remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of “psychology.” You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.
You must labor until we have dominion over the minds and bodies of every important person in your nation. You must achieve such disrepute for the state of insanity and such authority over its pronouncement that not one statesman so labeled could again be given credence by his people. You must work until suicide arising from mental imbalance is common and calls forth no general investigation or remark.
With the institutions for the insane you have in your country prisons which can hold a million persons and can hold them without civil rights or any hope of freedom. And upon these people can be practiced shock and surgery so that never again will they draw a sane breath. You must make these treatments common and accepted. And you must sweep aside any treatment or any group of persons seeking to treat by effective means.
You must dominate as respected men the fields of psychiatry and psychology. You must dominate the hospital and universities. You must carry forward the myth that only a European doctor is competent in the field of insanity and thus excuse amongst you the high incidence of foreign birth and training. If and when we seize Vienna you shall have then a common ground of meeting and can come and take your instructions as worshipers of Freud along with other psychiatrists.
Psychopolitics is a solemn charge. With it you can erase our enemies as insects. You can cripple the efficiency of leaders by striking insanity into their families through the use pf drugs. You can wipe them away with testimony as to their insanity. By our technologies you can even bring about insanity itself when they seem too resistive.
You can change their loyalties by Psychopolitics. Given a short time with a Psychopolitician you can alter forever the loyalty of a soldier in our hands or a statesman or a leader in his own country, or you can destroy his mind.
However, you labor under certain dangers. It may happen that remedies for our “treatments” may be discovered. It may occur that a public hue and cry may arise against “mental healing.” It may thus occur that all mental healing might be placed in the hands of ministers and be taken out of the hands of our psychologists and psychiatrists. But the Capitalistic thirst for control, Capitalistic inhumanity and a general public terror of insanity can be brought to guard against these things. But should they occur, should independent researchers actually discover means to undo psychopolitical procedures, you must not rest, you must not eat or sleep, you must not stint one tiniest bit of available money to campaign against it, discredit it, strike it down and render it void. For by an effective means all our actions and researches could be undone.
In a Capitalistic state you are aided on all sides by the corruption of the philosophy of man and the times. You will discover that everything will aid you in your campaign to seize, control and use all “mental healing;’ to spread our doctrine and rid us of our enemies within their own borders.
Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover that you can now affect your own legislation at will and you can, by careful organization of healing societies, by constant campaign about the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness make your Capitalist himself, by his own appropriations, finance a large portion of the quiet Communist conquest of the nation.
By Psychopolitics create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace Man has ever known. Thank you.
Yuri Bezmenov was a former KGB agent and a Soviet defector who describes the psychopolitical process first hand by discussing the concept of ideological subversion. He had tried to warn the United States about the deception taking place in their government and other institutions using this process. He described it as a brainwashing technique employed against an enemy nation for changing the culture to be more like the culture of the attacking nation. In other words, it is a process to change a nation communist without military invasion. It is a method of changing the perception of reality of all Americans by controlling education and all information people are exposed to. The idea is to expose the population to an overabundance of conflicting information that most people will simply not know what to believe and will be unable to defend their interests. Bezmenov’s testimony, in the opinion of this author, is proof of the legitimacy of Psychopolitics because there is a clear relationship between what is being described by Bezmenov and the words of Beria.
Conservatives are sitting on the edge of their seat awaiting Trumps Supreme Court nomination. It has come to a choice of three according to the Washington Post, federal judges Brett M. Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge are the favorites, both of which are allegedly staunch Second Amendment supporters.
According to The Federalist, Kethledge practices law from the strict interpretation of what was intended by our founders, which is what conservatives are hoping for in a Supreme Court pick. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is likely to become a key issue in future Supreme Court cases, so the more justices that view the constitution from an originalist viewpoint, the better. Kavanagh is also said to be an originalist when it comes to the Second Amendment he wrote a scathing dissent against the District of Columbia appeals court which supported bans on personal firearms in Washington D.C. Kavanagh wrote-
This is all great news, however; Kavanaugh is also said to have supported the individual mandate in Obamacare. In fact, many conservatives are pointing out that his opinion helped Chief Justice Roberts in ruling that Obamacare was constitutional as a tax. He argued this position under the 1867 Anti-injunction Act which posited that a tax couldn’t be challenged in court until it has been paid. That is an interesting perspective to add to his consideration for the Supreme Court.
While these two picks appear to be positive as far as gun rights are concerned, Trumps nomination of Mark Jeremy Bennett is a bit more disconcerting. Bennett is a former attorney general from Hawaii who has very limited interpretations of the Second Amendment, and, Democrats are praising his nomination. Why would Trump nominate two pro-Second Amendment judges to the Supreme Court and an anti-gunner to the 9th Circuit, which is the most anti-gun appeals court there is? Furthermore, why would Trump want to nominate anyone whom the Democrats would support the way he is being treated?
While the answers to these questions may be difficult to answer, you can bet that there are some hefty Second Amendment battles coming up. There is a massive campaign being organized to push for new gun laws before the November election. These laws would include the so-called Red-Flag laws being passed in many states. These laws enable law enforcement to seize firearms from people considered to be a “threat to themselves or others.” That is broad terminology unto which firearms can be seized. How long until simply owning a gun makes you a threat to yourself or others? Unfortunately, this is terminology that President Trump and his administration have used after the Parkland Florida shooting.
According to the Washington Post, Trump’s White House also endorsed a bill that would allegedly strengthen and expand the federal background check system currently in place. Universal background checks have long been a goal by the anti-gun left.
Trump’s record on Second Amendment support is all over the board. This website shows a broad range of answers given by Trump when being questioned on Second Amendment issues. They range from opposing all restrictions on firearms to supporting a ban on so-called assault weapons and longer wait periods to buy a gun. Trump also stated that large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered red flags and that there should be watch lists which enable the government to determine who and who shouldn’t be able to purchase a gun. Ironically, his support for the Second Amendment appears to gain more strength the closer it gets to 2016.
The upcoming months promise to be interesting. What will happen if Trump’s pro-gun nominees clash with his alleged support for red-flag gun control laws? Will a Supreme Court Justice Kethledge, for example, stick to his original beliefs concerning the original intent of the founders on the Second Amendment or will he, like Roberts, cave into political activism? At this point, it is anybody’s guess.
While many Americans find themselves enthralled with the Trump vs. the left charade, steadily fed to them as a distraction; a surreptitious, leftist agenda drives on. While campaigning President Trump promised to eliminate the Department of Education, an over bloated government agency that works to brainwash our kids against our values more than anything else. Trump has stated that education should be governed at the local level and even tweeted his intent to get rid of common core. The promise to eliminate the Department of Education has been replaced with an initiative to merge it with the Department of Labor. While many people may initially see this as a good move, one that would effectively prepare students to enter the workforce, they fail to realize that this is the fulfillment of a socialist agenda.
During the early 1900’s, (Americas progressive era,) educators became convinced that the Soviet model of education was superior to America’s. Instrumental players like John Dewey, who is considered by the left to be the father of modern education, worked to turn America’s education system into one where students were trained to be socially acceptable members of a democratic society as opposed to free thinkers able to exercise their own free will. Schools were designed to create the ideal citizen as opposed to the next great inventor, or entrepreneur. Dewey believed that the school system was to take over the functions of old, crumbling institutions within a failing society. Institutions like the church and the family that once rooted children in a system of traditional values were replaced with a system that taught social, collective values. Dewey also believed a system that encouraged individual thought and free thinking would stand in the way of the ideal society, contributing to independence and individuality. In Democracy and Education, he wrote the following concerning his thoughts on individualism.
When the social quality of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows. Moral individualism is set up by the conscious separation of different centers of life. It has its roots in the notion that the consciousness of each person is wholly private, a self-enclosed continent, intrinsically independent of the ideas, wishes, purposes of everybody else.
He also writes-
A being whose activities are associated with others has a social environment. What he does and what he can do depend upon the expectations, demands, approvals, and condemnations of others. A being connected with other beings cannot perform his own activities without taking the activities of others into account. For they are the indispensable conditions of the realization of his tendencies.
What he is saying in these two paragraphs is that a society based on individualism is detrimental to a social state where societal needs are bound together by common experiences of those sharing the same environment. By merging the Departments of Education and Labor, where a school to work pipeline would undoubtedly be created, Dewey’s vision of a collective social state is being fulfilled as people would be trained to fit the needs of society as opposed to being taught to think for themselves and make their own path.
America was founded as a nation where the individual was sovereign to government power and free to pursue their own ambitions. It is inevitable that the merging of these two over-bloated bureaucracies will lead to the impairment of the free-willed pursuit of happiness as the needs of society will unavoidably dictate which career choices a student can pursue. When a student is taught how to think they can adapt to changing environments and are able to tend to their own needs. Contrarily, when they are taught to do a job based on a system of competencies, as opposed to an ability to problem solve, it is all they know how to do. It is not uncommon for people to continually return the outcome based technical schooling programs to learn how to do a new job because the previous one they were trained in no longer exists, or they simply have not been trained well enough to do the job.
Patriotism and religion are other aspects of individualism which must be undermined for a system like this to work. In 1932, William Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party of the United States wrote the book Toward Soviet America, where he described his vision of American education, which is strikingly similar to what we see today as much of what he describes has been accomplished.
“A U.S. Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.” (Foster, Toward Soviet America)
While Trump is calling for the merging of these two departments, his education secretary, Betsy Devos, is suggesting our education system be reformed to be more like Europe’s. That is the last thing America needs if we are to survive as a free republic as opposed to a social democracy. This initiative, as well as the merging of two unneeded bureaucracies, should be opposed by all freedom loving Americans. Unfortunately, much of this communist education system has been implemented years ago which is why Americans are so easily distracted by the mellow dramatics of a circus sideshow designed to keep them distracted from the fact that despite Trump winning the election, a leftist agenda slowly drives on.
Is America really on the verge of another civil war? Has the political divide become so deep that conservatives and liberals can find no other alternative to settle their differences that they must be settled through violence? Some people would have you believe this to be the case, people with an agenda that is. Allowing ourselves to fall for this propaganda gives the elites all the excuse they need to put the final nail in the coffin and institute a full-blown, technocratic police state. The infrastructure is all in place, all they need now is the consent of a scared public, and a barbaric civil war would do the trick.
The goal of the left is to rip the nations morality apart and create conditions where people see their solutions as the only alternative to the tumultuous events unfolding around them. In Brainwashing: A Synthesis on the Russian Manual of PsychopoliticsLavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet secret police, explains this by saying the following-
By Psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression, and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.
For years now, we have listened to the hysterics of the left claim that the right represents an ideology of violence and intolerance despite the overwhelming fact that it is the left who organizes unruly mobs in protest of whatever outrage is motivating them into action. Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter all epitomize the idea that violence against an imperialistic nation such as the United States, where white supremacism allegedly permeates the institutions, is justified. The communist left is operating from a list of declared forty-five goals they established to bring this country down, violent protests were among these established objectives. This list of goals was not only published in the book The Naked Communist, they were made part of the congressional record in 1963. In other words, congress is aware of what is happening in our country.
Goal #19 Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.
Goal #42 Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
The latest display of emotional virtue in which the left is displaying orchestrated indignation is the immigration debate.Massive protests are once again being utilized to feint moral umbrage towards the Trump administration, even though he is merely enforcing current immigration law. The end goal of course is the elimination of America’s lawful borders and an unending flow of immigrants who have no interest in sustaining our culture of liberty.
These issues which cause conflict among Americans are deliberately being thrust into the public exclusively for that purpose, to cause conflict. The Hegelian Dialectic is used to cause problems, get the public to demand a solution, then implement the one that’s been waiting in the shadows. Americans were supposed to see the reasonableness in liberalism and accept it as an alternative to conservatism, which is always presented as selfish and aristocratic. American’s have rejected it outright with the election of Donald Trump and in desperation, the left is working to cause as much chaos as they can to bring us to our knees. Make no mistake, the left is using everything they can, the Russian investigation, immigration, gun control and other contentious issues to keep us divided. They invent labels while insisting that their positions are morally superior, and that opposing viewpoints to collectivism should be shouted down. Leftwing politicians like Pelosi and Waters have been instigating violence by suggesting people form groups and become disruptors or surround people from the opposite political party and publicly shame them.
If there were to be another civil war in this country it would be because the left wants one. They have become so intolerant of anything other than their mystical, fabled delusions of utopia that they are enthusiastic about the prospects of staging violent protests and even setting off bombs to get their way. They have been pushing for decades to transform America into a socialist paradise and they have largely failed to bring it to fruition. They are desperate, delusional and angry, and they are operating from an ends justify the means mentality that makes it all the more dangerous.
Violence breaking out on a large scale would drive the public to demand a solution from the government to foster in a sense of safety and normalcy. This is what the desired outcome is, so before you let the violent rhetoric of the left push you to achieve their ends, realize that your reaction is what they need to control you.
The left is using the issue of illegal immigration to push for open borders and the elimination of America’s national identity. They are also using it to discredit Donald Trump as he is being portrayed as a heartless dictator who is locking up poor children seeking asylum in the United States. The two Alinsky rules the left are using here are numbers eight and ten.
Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. (Alinsky, 1971)
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.(Alinsky, 1971)
What President Trump is currently dealing with is an overwhelming problem of illegal immigrants crossing our border because the left has virtually made it legal to do so. The Hegelian dialectic is in play here as this issue has been allowed to grow out of control for several decades to create a public demand for a solution, and that solution is being presented as amnesty.
For years, the Obama administration, according to the Dailymail.com, had been sending leaflets to Mexico advising people that they can get free food stamps and other benefits in America without admitting they are in the country illegally. As a result, millions of people are rushing to cross the border to get their fair share of the free ride. The left is taking the opportunity to discredit President Trump because of policies which have been in place for two decades which separates children and their families at the border while a determination is made pertaining on what to do with them. The debate currently rages over whether there is a federal law requiring such an action. President Trump has made the claim that Democrats passed this law. In 2002, a Democrat Senate majority voted in favor of Public Law 107-296, which was a bill following the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. George W. Bush was president at the time, so he would have had to sign the bill into law. This bill does give authority to place illegal immigrants under the age of 18 into a detention facility; however, there is nothing in this law which specifies the separation of families. In any case, families have been separated at the border for decades, even under the Obama administration. Even MSNBC was forced to admit that the policy took place under the Obama administration. Whatever the case may be, the Democrats are clearly showing their hypocrisy on the issue while pulling the heartstrings of the ignorant. For years, when it suited them, they advocated for strong border policies and tougher laws on illegal immigration. Many people likely remember the time when the Clinton administration sent armed Immigration and Naturalization officers to seize Elian Gonzalez from his family’s home in Miami . Gonzalez was brought to the United States from Cuba under the same conditions which Democrats now champion and encourage illegal immigration. To escape the harsh realities of living under oppressive rule and third world economic conditions. The Clinton Administration made no apologies for this pre-dawn raid where they snatched young Elian from his uncle’s arms at gunpoint.
The left is now using this issue to present Trump’s actions as morally reprehensible, so they can get their voting base worked up and mobilized. While doing so they have once again shown the world just how low they are willing to go to present something as a crisis which must immediately be solved. Time Magazine, on the cover of their July issue, has run a photo of a little girl screaming at the border and President Trump hovering over her while saying the words “welcome to America.” As stressed many times throughout this blog, the left’s job is to discredit the country, so this cover makes America look like a mean and nasty place. You must wonder though, if they thought the country was such a mean and nasty place then why are they encouraging people to cross the border illegally, only to be separated from their families and be treated like animals? Shouldn’t they be encouraging the people oppressed by white privilege and imperialism to cross the border into Mexico where everyone is of such higher virtue? The truth of this photo is that the girl was never separated from her family and that her mother was not an asylum seeker. Rather, her father claims that the mother hired a smuggler to bring her across the border, leaving the father behind, and that she was looking for work. According to an article published in the Washington Times by Stephen Dinan, the mother, Sandra Sanchez was deported from the United States under the Obama administration. Dinan further argued that because she left other children behind she has no justifiable claim to asylum in the United States. If she had fears of being persecuted she would not leave other loved family members behind. This is how the left plays, they take advantage of any opportunity to discredit their opposition even before finding out any facts.
Another shocking revelation that has become known, one that of course the left is trying to use against Trump, is the fact that many of these children are being force-fed powerful anti-psychotic drugs once they have been separated from their families. A report from Revealnews.org reveals that immigrant children have been sent to shelters which have a history of abusing their guests with psychotropic medications since 2003. One such shelter, Shiloh, received 5.6 million dollars from the federal government and has been housing these children since 2013. Children have complained of being forced to take up to ten different medications at a time. This author, during an internship at a child welfare office, can attest to this as he was witnessing shelters who engage in the practice of drugging the children after they have been taken from their parents. Ironically, many of these children were of Hispanic origin and the year was 2013. It is unknown if there is a connection between these shelters and those involved in housing illegal immigrants.
Another image that has sent shockwaves through the lefts emotional outrage machine was one of a little boy being locked in a cage, crying. It turns out that the photo was part of a staged protest where left-wing agitators put themselves in a cage to demonstrate their outrage over families being separated at the border. That brings us to another Alinsky rule, one that has been employed many times before.
A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it there is something very wrong with the tactic. (Alinsky, 1971)
The left has fun doing many of the things they do. They especially like to incite riots against conservatives in their attempts to portray conservatism as selfish, bigoted, and hateful. On Sunday, June 24, 2018, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, attempting to whoop up hatred against Republicans encouraged her voters to harass and intimidate Trump supporters to protest the immigration issue. This is despite many of the issues she is trying to bring attention to have been proven false.
This is all indicative of the means the Alinsky moralists are willing to employ to discredit and destroy their opposition. The sad thing is that they feel no shame for doing so, they have elevated their morality with the false notion of being virtually superior to us. As mentioned in earlier articles, they have no morality except that of being willing to corrupt themselves to create their cherished Utopia. They will only come out and admit they are wrong if they fear public opinion demands they do so. In many cases, they will still find a way to justify the use of misinformation or lying to prove a point. In the case of Waters, her voters believe, because of the lies pushed by the media in collaboration with the education system, that the Republicans truly are bigoted and are working feverishly to keep the poor children from their families.
Maxine Waters isn’t the only Democrat who has become unhinged in her calls for action. MSNBC commentator DonnyDeutsch took to the airwaves on Saturday, June 23, 2018, to suggest that all Trump voters are to blame for child separations. In fact, he suggested that voting for Trump is comparable to standing on the border and ripping children away from their parents.
What has to happen now is this can no longer be about who Trump is. It has to be about who we are, if we are working towards November. We can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms. The mistake that we’ve made in the past, is “Look at that bad guy over there. Look at that bad guy.”
What the Democrats have to do is make the next election a referendum on not who Trump is, but who you are. That’s the big difference. You can no longer now as a voter — because it’s not about taxes, it’s not even about some abstract term of immigration or nationalism; if you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going “You here, you here.”
And I think we now have to flip it and its a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, well he’s okay, but — and I think that gymnastics and I think that jiu-jitsu has to happen. (Deutsch)
The desperation to retain voters and discredit the truth is boiling over to dangerous levels and if it is not tamed by a respect for humanity, could very well result in someone getting hurt.
The American Medical Association is jumping on board the gun control bandwagon by organizing a massive push to lobby lawmakers to enact stricter gun laws. Among some of these proposals is a ban on so-called assault weapons, high capacity magazines, licensing and registration of all firearms, and laws which prohibit anyone under the age of twenty-one from purchasing any type of weapon. Currently, people under twenty-one are already prohibited from owning handguns. These new proposals, mirroring Florida’s new gun control measures, would make purchasing any type of rifle or shotgun illegal by anyone under the age of twenty-one. Imagine the hypocrisy of such laws, eighteen-year-olds fight for our freedom only to be denied the freedoms they believe they are fighting for. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee everyone’s inalienable right to self-defense. The American Medical Association has no authority to offer policy initiatives on this subject.
The American Medical Association is attempting to present gun ownership as a public health crisis. This began under President Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Murthy is responsible for organizing a group called Doctors for Obama and helped lobby Congress for the passage of Obamacare. This group has already pressed for these gun control laws under the misguided notion that banning guns is a part of medicine and would result in a healthier America.
While labeling gun ownership as a public health crisis may seem far-fetched to some, the fact is that conservatism has been labeled as a potential mental illness for quite some time. In the article Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, the authors argue that a conservative’s unwillingness to change is a sign of a mental disorder. They also argue that the right generally shows a favorable attitude towards inequality while the left pushes for total equality, meaning that conservatives are intolerant bigots. This, according to the authors, is because the right believes in a hierarchal structure for society. This, of course, is nonsense. The right believes in equality of opportunity, not forced outcomes. In any case, the label of mental illness is being associated with political conservatism. Soon, those showing an unwillingness to accept the idea that gun ownership is creating a public health crisis could be considered mentally ill as well.
“The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.” (Beria, Manual on Psychopolitics)
The AMA may be seeking to treat gun ownership as a public health crisis; however, in doing so they appear to be hiding some of their own public health problems. For instance, a report released in 2016 by John Hopkins Medicine reveals that medical errors and malpractice are now the third leading cause of death in America. According to John Hopkins safety experts, more than 250,000 people per year die of medical errors. This far surpasses the three hundred and seventy-six people murdered by rifles in 2016. It is amazing because the AMA cites the devastating human toll of so-called gun violence without mentioning a word about the numbers killed by their own errors.
Another point the AMA is failing to mention is the number of people killed annually using prescription drugs, namely anti-psychotics. Over fifteen thousand people died because of psychiatric drug use in 2014, this is more than the number of deaths due to heroin addiction. Yet, the AMA is directly involved in marketing these drugs through advertising campaigns designed to make people think the drugs are designed just for their specific symptoms. These ads play daily on television, depicting a normal everyday family suffering the effects of some illness wondering what they can do about it. The chosen drug is marketed directly to individuals who may feel they are experiencing these symptoms. Unfortunately, the list of potential (side) effects, in many cases include suicidal and homicidal behavior. It is a well-established fact that many of the mass shootings recently witnessed in America were committed by people taking these types of medications. The AMA then appears to be pushing gun control to divert attention away from the fact that they are profiting from one of the probable causes of gun violence.
The AMA also employs a subtler tactic of using standardized billing codes. As a student in social work, this author was taught this as a common method of collecting payment from Medicare. Service providers, whether they be physicians, or mental health counselors are forced to give a diagnosis and prescribe a drug and assign it a billing code to receive payment. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, for example, is nothing but a list of billing codes for hundreds of so-called mental disorders for which people are prescribed drugs. The AMA established this method to establish communications between providers and insurance companies. Now, it has just become a source of income for the pharmaceutical industry whose profits are in the billions.
The AMA can push gun control all they want. It is apparent that they are doing so to hide the atrocities committed by their own greed. There are over two million defensive gun uses annually in the United States, a finding incidentally, which was hidden from public view by the Centers for Disease Control. By jumping aboard the gun control wagon, the AMA is only re-affirming the Left’s commitment to leave good people helpless while empowering those who have the inclination to prey on others. The idea of gun ownership being a public health crisis without addressing the root causes of violent behavior does absolutely nothing to keep people safe. Britain found out the hard way. Firs,t they surrendered their guns, now the government is demanding people surrender their knives.
One of Alinsky’s most effective strategy’s, one that we see play out daily, can be found in the chapter entitled Tactics. This chapter highlights twelve rules of tactics, and one of them sticks out because it encourages those pushing for social change to use our own rules against us in a way that discredits everything we do.
“The fourth rule of tactics is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” (Alinsky, 1971)
What this comes down to in its most basic elements is that the left doesn’t believe that men can be free and self-governing, and that the system that allegedly believes in “justice for all” has failed. In order then, to re-organize society to their liking they must use our system against us to show that it has been a massive failure. This is akin to the discussion on means and ends morality because what they seek to do is use our morals against us in a way that makes us appear hypocritical in our most fundamental beliefs. They employ this to destroy the constitution as well as the Christian religion.
One of the best examples to point to is the mainstream media. One would think that after the constant exposure as liars and partisan hacks, along with the massive ratings drop that they would wake up and see the light. What if their agenda goes beyond simply being partisan hacks for the Democrat party? What if their purpose is to completely discredit the first amendment to the constitution by deliberately lying and hiding behind it? If this was the case, eventually people would come to see the first amendment as something that enables people to lie cheat and steal as opposed to using it for its intended purpose, which is to hold government accountable and seek truth. This would be another application of the Hegelian Dialectic discussed earlier. Create the problem so that the people demand a solution, thus ensuring the consent of the governed. In some instances, this has already proven to be the case when it comes to the issue of regulating the internet. Earlier this year we saw the issue of censorship on social media. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube have all been found to be targeting conservative views and censoring them through a change in their algorithms. This has resulted in far less people being able to access conservative sites. In fact, it led to a dramatic reduction in traffic to conservative based sites, which included sites dealing with political campaigns. Sites dealing with liberal issues or Democrat candidates saw no reduction in their traffic. “President Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts dropped 45 percent. In contrast, potential left-wing presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did not see drops. Fox News had a drop of 26 percent in its Facebook engagement, whereas CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post saw virtually no change. The only left-leaning sites that appear to be affected were clickbait sites.
Right Wing News, which has over a million fans on its page, saw such a decrease in traffic that owner John Hawkins said it was no longer profitable to keep running. He shut down the page and site (it’s still online but is not updated). IJ Review, another popular site on the right that got much of its traffic from Facebook, was forced into layoffs last week. Three other sites are depending heavily on Facebook. Young Cons, Western Journalism and Sarah Palin, saw huge decreases in website traffic in January. Some sites had to switch domain names to survive. Western Journalism renamed its domain Western Journal. Even the most popular sites on the right were affected, like Breitbart.” (Alexander, 2018)
Another tactic being employed by social media giants was the re-direction from conservative based sites to liberal ones like the associated press. According to Alexander, an article published by The Gateway Pundit featuring a pro-second amendment position by the father of two Parkland shooting survivors was flagged and re-directed in this manner. What we are witnessing is an all-out attempt to control the public’s perception of reality and what they believe. Could there be another agenda? The conservative reaction to this was to demand that the government get involved and regulate the internet to ensure everyone’s viewpoint is heard equally.They are effectively using the first amendment against us in ways that could have probably never been imagined. Some will argue that Facebook, and YouTube, for example, are private entities who themselves have a first amendment right to determine what is appropriate to post on their media platforms. The result however, is the demand from a group that historically has unabashedly argued for unrestricted free speech demanding the government do something. The same is being accomplished through the television media. There is a demand to hold the major, liberal run media organizations accountable for their constant lying and attacks upon conservative beliefs. Essentially, by demanding a government solution we are giving them what they want, power over us. What they want is a demand to end freedom, a demand to implement government control and a belief that the experiment in individual liberty and natural rights has failed.
“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, 1971)
What Alinsky is essentially arguing is that by controlling the system from the inside the conditions of hopelessness can be created, thus leading to a demand for change from the people who created the hopelessness in the first place. In the case of the mainstream, and social media, the goal is to completely eradicate the concept of free speech while hiding behind it. If they can make people believe that the first amendment leads to nothing but lying, and that people’s speech must be controlled, then the work of eliminating free speech from our society is all but completed for them.
The 2017 football season saw the war on free speech rise to new levels as players, in attempt to portray themselves as oppressed victims of American imperialism, took a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner. This tactic enraged and isolated much of the NFL fanbase as ratings took a massive hit; however, the actions of players like Colin Kaepernick were lauded by liberal outlets as heroic and courageous. The left is portraying this as an example of the exercise of free speech while many on-lookers took offense to it. Of course, anything the left takes offense to must immediately become a national televised issue with panels of talking heads telling us to be offended. When the right takes offense to something we are often called bigots and presented as people unwilling to tolerate other people’s worldviews. Here-in lies the brilliance of the tactic of using our own rules against us, how can we claim to support freedom of speech if we don’t tolerate an expression that differs from our own? That is why the left continually wins the narrative. What if the right just learned to collectively ignore the immature antics of the left and let them express themselves without the fan-fare spectacularism pushed by the media? Would any of these tactics ever become mainstream if we didn’t pay attention to them? It is doubtful. In any case, the non-sense is sure to continue into the 2018/2019 football season as the NFL has officially made it their policy that there will be no kneeling during the national anthem while players are on the field. They are free however, to remain in the locker rooms if they choose. The following line from this MSNBC article proves that this is an effort to label conservatives as intolerant and hypocritical.
“The league that wraps themselves in the flag but doesn’t honor the first amendment its showing its true colors.” (Kluwe, 2018)
They are working to portray the NFL, an allegedly patriotic, pro-American organization as unable to live to the values they espouse by not allowing their players to freely express themselves as they should be allowed under the first amendment. In all truth they should let the players take a knee, they look like idiots. Nowhere else in the world can people, no matter their skin color, be paid millions of dollars a year to play a ball game professionally. By taking a knee during the national anthem these players are in a roundabout way, biting the hand that feeds them. They make millions of dollars while the very people fighting to protect their rights to do so make pennies in comparison. This is what angers NFL fans, not they are taking a knee, but that they are ignorant in the reason they are doing so.
This tactic, of employing our rules against us, is employed in almost all aspects of society to make conservative morals look hypocritical. Our constitution states that all men are created equal and that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. What this means of course is that we are all created in the eyes of God with the same rights and we are entitled to equal treatment under natural law. It does not mean that we are all equally capable of achieving the same things. This is the definition that the left has given equality to destroy the constitution and present its writers as selfish elitists. The left knows that there is no way everyone can be made completely equal; however, they use this as their rallying call against our system claiming that the constitution guarantees equality and that it is a value we hold dear as Americans.
One thing that the Obama Administration was able to do, which is the epitome of this type of strategy, was put in place a rule which allowed the government to waive the ninety-day residency requirements for new immigrants to obtain firearms, this was rule 1140-AA44 signed by Eric Holder. This rule virtually allowed an illegal immigrant to come into the country and legally purchase a firearm. Technically, it applied to only immigrants here legally; however, given the fact that several states give illegal immigrants drivers licenses that would enable them to purchase a firearm under this rule.
“Rule 1140-AA44, originally signed by Eric Holder, “would finalize an interim rule published on June 7, 2012 that removes the 90-day state residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm.
This was done for discrediting the belief that we are all entitled to equal unalienable rights because conservatives rightfully argue that only citizens of the United States should be entitled to these rights. The left is again portraying the conservative beliefs as being unable to stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives are unable to live up to their values therefore; the constitution is invalid because it isn’t working to ensure equality for all. That is the left’s argument. It isn’t that the conservatives don’t believe that immigrants don’t have rights, they believe there should be a certain amount of assimilation into the culture to understand where those rights are derived from. According to the Washington Times, the Obama administration had also eliminated the required oath of new citizens to be willing to bear arms in defense of the nation, yet they are going to allow them the right to exercise the second amendment? Again, this is being done to turn our system against us and it works perfectly. As long as people are afraid of being labeled as a hypocrite, or accused of not standing up for the values they claim to stand for this tactic will continue to work against us.