Saturday, September 15, 2018

Conservatives Non-Challenging Attitude Toward Change

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 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 whole heartedly 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 was 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 Trumps agenda even though much of it is the same. Since Trump has taken office he has signed a budget deal with the two Democrats that would be considered the worse 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 encouraged the confiscation of firearms without due process by suggesting states take it upon themselves to pass "red flag gun laws." He convinces his base however that he is pro-gun by arguing for armed teachers to prevent school shootings. Do you really want armed government agents controlling your children? 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, Trumps 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. It should also be remembered that Devos has also publicly stated that she believes U.S. education should be more like Europe's.

Ironically, Europes education has been under U.N. 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 U.N. charter is considered a fundamental human right. This of course is absurd, education can not 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 parents 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 Trumps 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, over population, 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. 

Saturday, September 8, 2018

The Dialectical Theater of The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Psychopolitics: The art and science of making Democrats believe Trump colluded with the Russians while making Republicans believe he is draining the swamp. 

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 in to 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 side show 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. You see? 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. To further stress the point, in Kavanaugh's 2006 confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Kavanaugh confirmed to Chuck Schumer, yes the same Chuck Schumer who now pretends to vehemently oppose him, that he would follow Roe V. Wade faithfully because it was established law. 

What could prove to be even more disturbing is that Kavanaugh, again in private meetings with Senators, stated that he views the appointment of Special Council Robert Mueller as appropriate! This shows that the man is willing to say whatever it takes to ensure his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Kavanaugh also played a role in helping Justice Roberts find the Obamacare mandate to be constitutionalHe 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 seeing as though he is being portrayed by the right as a constitutionalist.

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 staged side show 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 also 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. 

Sunday, September 2, 2018

The Fallacy of Mental Illness and Red Flag Gun Laws

Once again American's are dealing with the after math 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)

Following Trumps lead, states have been passing these laws, which infringe upon due process rights at an alarming rate. Ironically, the state of Florida recently passed such laws and since that time they not only dealt with the shooting in Jacksonville, they had shootings at two separate high school events as well. Luckily at one of these events a man legally carrying was able to stop the shooting.

The larger point being 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 lefts 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-

“We see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning, and will to act.”

Given the fact that one out of six Americans are 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 guess work 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 Metal 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.

"Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known "chemical imbalance." However, once a person is put on a psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function …  abnormally."

The use of psychotropic drugs, according to, 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.  

Saturday, August 11, 2018

The Hegelian Dialectic and the Delphi Technique

The Hegelian Dialectic [1]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 main stream media, so the public demands more gun control, which is already a predetermined solution. This process is based off something called Dialectical Materialism.[2] 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 main stream 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 keeps 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,”[3] 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 main stream 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 sky rocketed along with the production of after market 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[4] 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.[5]

“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 government impose regulations controlling fairness in social media[6].   Even Mark Zuckeberg, owner of Facebook, has said he is open to government regulations governing social media[7]. 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 whom ever 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.[8] 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[9]. 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[10] 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[11]. 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.

Monday, July 23, 2018

A Nation Gone to Pot

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues currently facing America is the push to legalize Marijuana. Several states Including Colorado, California and Oregon have legalized recreational use of what many consider to be the gateway drug, while a total of thirty states have legalized it for medical purposes. Oklahoma being the latest. Proponents argue that most U.S. citizens favor legalization or at least, decriminalization of the drug; however, its use has shown to increase risk for mental illness’ such as schizophrenia among heavy users, especially those under twelve years old. One thing is for certain, the legalization of Marijuana is set to earn the Marijuana industry a whopping 31.4 billion dollars by the year 2021 according to Forbes.[1] Bethany Gomez, a researcher for the Brightfield Group[2], an agency that researches markets for legalized Marijuana sales, suggests that the U.S. has a larger market than the rest of the world combined. That’s not hard to believe since twenty-four million Americans use illegal drugs. If the Brightfield group projects the U.S. to be a large market and sales are expected to boom to over thirty-one billion then they are going to have to increase users, meaning they will market the drug with the intent of creating new users. This could mean marketing to children.  

Many people argue that Marijuana has positive medical properties that aid in the healing of cancer and other chronic illnesses. Many people suffering from chronic pain claim that it eases their suffering. The truth is that there are two different properties to the cannabis plant CBD and THC. There is a vast difference in the way the two chemicals affect the brain. Both chemicals affect the endocannabinoid system[3] which controls functions such as pain, appetites, moods, immune response, and sleep. The big difference is that CBD does not produce the euphoric feeling of being high like THC does. THC binds and acts as an agonist with the brains CB1 cannabinoid receptors (medical marijuana, n.d.). This is responsible for the feeling of being high and causes the negative effects generally associated with Marijuana use. Slowed reaction time, decreased cognitive function, hallucinations and so on[4]. CBD on the other hand does not bind with the CB1 receptors and acts to counter the effects of THC on the CB1 receptors.

According to Gary L. Wenk of Psychology Today[5] the medical benefits of using CBD alone are very minimal because studies have shown the potency of the compound has little effect on the brain at all without the use of the entire plant. This means that to have any medical benefits at all the potent property of the plant, THC would have to be present as well. Or, CBD would have to be administered in such high doses to have any healing effects, leading to the possibility that the feeling of being high could be created.  What is the truth? It is likely that there simply has not been enough research to indicate one way of the other whether CBD oil has any real health benefits. A medical website called Healthline,[6] which is reviewed by medical doctors, lists all the possible benefits of CBD oil by suggesting it “may” help with chronic pain, or it “could possibly” be useful in treating anxiety. In other words, studies are preliminary, and they simply don’t know.

What is the real purpose of the push to legalize Marijuana? After all, it is thought to be the gateway drug which leads many people to more serious addiction problems. Besides the obvious earning potential for those in the industry the purpose behind legalizing Marijuana is to aid in the creation of an idle, non-caring population that is incapable of taking responsibility for their nation or themselves. Aiding in the creation of government dependency.

By making readily available drugs of various kinds, by giving the teen-ager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her the practices at the Sexpol, the Psychopolitical operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness, and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution which will give the teen-ager complete freedom everywhere-Communism. (Beria)

While most people will refuse to see a connection with the above quote, discrediting it as an old discredited conspiracy theory, the truth is that there was a documented attempt on the part of the communists to flood our nation with drugs. The book “Red Cocaine[7]” lays it out quite simply.

“The West has been the unknowing victim, for the past several decades, of long-term Soviet-Chinese strategic intelligence operations using drugs as a means of procuring the progressive demoralization of Western society and a concomitant degradation of the gene pool - with youth the prime target of this satanic offensive.” (Douglass, 1999)

Why the word satanic when referring to this agenda? Communism, as mentioned by this author many times before, is an anti-God ideology and as referenced in the first chapter is likely influenced by the fact that Marx, once a devoted Christian, became a Satanist.  Communism is an ideology that pits the natural state of human being against God for destroying society and remaking it in Marx’s view. Which is weakening man to the point of complete dependence on the state, where the state in fact, becomes God. What better way to do that than to alter the consciousness of a nations population with mind altering drugs?

Communists have long used drugs, since the early twentieth century, as a weapon to control populations. In 1928, Communist Mao Tse-tung cultivated opium for weakening the resolve of non-conforming populations within Communist China. (Douglass, 1999) Of course, this was done to weaken their will to resist and as soon as the job was accomplished all supplies of opium were cut off as to be able to maintain dominance over production and, likely create dependency upon the Communist government. Furthermore, the nationalization of opium production and trafficking to non-communist states became a paramount activity once Mao had taken control of the whole country in 1949. (Douglass, 1999) They were also manufacturing heroin, hashish, marijuana, and cocaine. In 1951 the United States began seizing large quantities of heroin which was later identified as being produced and manufactured in Communist China. Mao’s culturally decadent “Great Leap Forward” saw a steady rise in heroin production in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s. Ironically, this coincided with increased usage and deaths from overdose in the United States. (Douglass, 1999)

Not only were the Chinese using drugs against non-communist countries, the Soviet Union was as well. According to congressional testimony cited by Douglass, the Korean war was funded solely through the illicit sale of illegal drugs on the part of the Soviet Union and China. These drugs were used against America troops to among other things, study the effectiveness of American forces and the effects of the drugs by experimenting on prisoners of war.

“The experiments were justified as preparations for the next war. American and South Korean POWs were used as guinea pigs in chemical and biological warfare experiments, in physiological and psychological endurance tests, and in testing the effectiveness of various mind-control drugs, which were used to make US servicemen renounce America and speak of the benefits of the Communist system.”[8]

Surely, the effects of these drugs were well known and could have very easily led to strategic planning concerning the undermining of American culture. As mentioned in a previous chapter concerning psychotropic medications Dr. Wayne O Evans at a conference concerning the future use of psychotropic drugs stated the following-

Were these findings the result of some of the experiments conducted on U.S. troops by communists? Could be.

Sadly, Nikita Khrushchev took notice of these experiments and concluded that an effective strategy of weakening the imperialistic, bourgeoisie nations despised by the communists could be formulated.

News of the physically debilitating effect of the drugs captured the imagination of the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev. Drug and narcotics trafficking, he reasoned, should be viewed as a strategic operation that would directly weaken the enemy, rather than merely as a financial or intelligence tool. Accordingly, he ordered a joint military-civilian, Soviet Czechoslovak study to examine the total effects of drug and narcotics trafficking on Western society; this included its effects on labor productivity, education, the military (the ultimate target at that time), and its use in support of Soviet Bloc intelligence operations. Nor was this study approached as a question of tactics or as simply an opportunity for exploitation. The narcotics potential was examined in the context of long range strategy. Costs and risks, benefits and payoffs, integration, and coordination with other operations, were all examined. Even the effects of drugs over several generations, were analyzed by scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences. The conclusions of the study were that trafficking would be extremely effective, that the most vulnerable targets were the United States, Canada, France and West Germany, and that the Soviets should capitalize on the opportunity. The study was approved by the Soviet Defense Council in late 1955 or early 1956. The principal guidance from the Defense Council in approving the action was to direct the planners to speed up the timetable of events, which was possible because of certain operational experience with narcotics that already existed within the Soviet Bloc intelligence services but about which the people who had prepared the basic plan were unaware. This plan was formally approved when the Soviets decided to begin narcotics trafficking against the so-called bourgeoisie, especially against the 'American capitalists' - the 'Main Enemy. (Douglass, 1999)

What does any of this have to with the legalization of Marijuana in the United States? Many people would argue that the legalizing, and the decriminalization of the controlled substance would have a debilitating effect of on its negative consequences for society. This isn’t necessarily true in any sense. The effects of Marijuana on the brain cause serious cognitive functioning problems such as difficulty with problem solving, slowed reaction times, psychosis, loss of IQ, and impaired memory.[9] These are generally to be considered side affects of the drug taken in high doses. What people may fail to realize is that todays Marijuana has much higher levels of THC content than what was in the plant years ago. In fact, todays pot is specifically cultivated to produce higher rates of THC. According to the website Live Science[10] authorities have discovered that there has been an average eight percent increase in THC levels between 1994 and 2014. In 2015 NBC News ran a story highlighting the potency of legal Marijuana sold in Colorado and the levels are insanely high. In some cases, it is as high as thirty percent![11] Andy LaFrate, president of Charas Scientific[12] states that he sees little medical value in the Marijuana being cultivated for commercial sale and, has expressed concern that there appears to be a tremendous number of contaminants in the product. It makes sense that the increased amounts of the potent, psychoactive chemical in the drug would result in higher rates of dependency and psychosis.

Marijuana use also induces mental illnesses such as schizophrenia[13] in some people. While the proof, like other matters concerning the drug is inconclusive, the fact that there is a correlation should discourage the production legalized weed, for recreational or medicinal purposes. Sadly, the chances of developing such diseases are greater when the drug is used by people under the age of twenty-one which raises the question. Why would anyone want to make access to this drug easier by legalizing it? Surely, the same argument used in gun control debates can be used. People will get high and have access to the drug regardless; however, when there are such huge profits at stake there is going to be a need to create new customers and the legal barrier being removed may be all the motivation needed for people who may otherwise refrain from using the drug. Children are targeted by offering the drug in edible form such as suckers and gummi bears.

While many people claim that legal pot will eliminate many of the problems associated with its previous illegality, the truth is that it is creating more addiction and more problems with those who are addicted. In fact, people experience disorders with Marijuana at a higher rate than any other drug.[14] According to Robert L. Dupont M.D.[15], sixty percent of substance abuse disorders are due to Marijuana use.[16]

According to a report entitled The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact[17] eleven percent of Colorado youth were using legal marijuana compared to a seven percent nation wide average. Again, this correlates with the idea that children will be directly marketed too and that there is no longer the legal barrier. Adults in Colorado, according to the same report, were also using at a higher rate than the national average. In the last decade, since its legalization Marijuana users had a higher rate of abuse and treatment center admissions than methamphetamine users, second only to alcohol. From 2010 to 2014 the amount of pot seized for illegal distribution outside the state of Colorado increase seven hundred twenty two percent, meaning an increase in criminal activity as the crime rate increased more than twelve percent. Finally, homeless people with no prospects for jobs have flocked to Colorado, using its welfare system, and occupying their shelters simply to be able to use legal Marijuana.[18]

Finally, referring to the use of drugs to undermine our nation it would be worth the time to examine just who is behind the efforts to push legal Marijuana on the American people. A man whose sole mission, by his own admission, is to destroy the United States, George Soros. According to RT[19] Soros has contributed eighty million dollars to the cause of legalizing Marijuana. Through his charitable donations, Soros contributes about four million a year to the Drug Policy Alliance who claims to be pushing drug reform policies based on science and compassion for human rights. If anything, the science of Marijuana uses both recreationally and medically is inconclusive at best and terrifying at worst. Why, when there is ample evidence that it destroys youth would they push this? So they have generations of kids coming unable to think for themselves, of course.

George Soros is a leading financier of the agenda to merge America into a one world order and has contributed large sums of money to destroying this nation.[20] The fact that one dollar of his was contributed to legalize Marijuana should be of concern to all freedom loving Americans.

[8] Congressional hearings of 1975-76. See, for example, US Senate, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign Intelligence, Book 1 (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1976), pages 392-420. 6