Saturday, August 29, 2015

Population Control, Racial Strife and the Report from Iron Mountain BY David Risselada

In my last article I discussed the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and many of the provisions contained therein which may have serious repercussions for our second amendment. The left is on a serious mission to accomplish their gun control objectives as they are calling for confiscation laws similar to those enacted in Australia. If you are an avid gun rights supporter, then you know the actual statistics prove that guns are used for legitimate self defense far more often than murder. These facts however; do little to calm the consistent cry for stricter gun control laws, laws that would do little to prevent any tragedy simply because criminals willfully ignore the law. The very fact that the left so routinely ignores these facts, while displaying such a callous disregard for a person’s inherent right to self defense, while also showing such a high regard for the brutal practices of Planned Parenthood suggests there just might be another agenda at work. Sadly, there is an historical precedent that tells the story, and it is the same every single time. Tyrants rise to power by promising a better world and demonizing those who oppose. Citizens are stripped of their rights and dehumanized for failing to conform to the dictates of an enlightened leader. Strict gun control laws are passed to ensure no man has the means to resist and millions are senselessly slaughtered. In the twentieth century more people were killed by their own governments in a time of peace than were killed by foreign armies in a time of war.  Today, it is through the climate change agenda that the left seeks to impose its visions of population control in order to save the planet. In order to easily accomplish this, people must first be disarmed.
august 29
The left has consistently proven that they have little regard for the sanctity of human life. This is most evident not only in their incessant support for abortion, but in the way they have allowed black Americans to adopt the victim mentality that has destroyed so many of their lives. Through the constant race baiting and deliberate, but subtle attempts to whip up anger among the black communities, the left has done little but alienate these people, push back racial relations and turn many young men into hate filled, cold blooded murderers. The inner city ghettos, governed mostly by Democrats who make promises they have no intentions, or means of keeping, bear witness to an unprecedented rate of senseless murder in the black community, and the left does next to nothing to stop it. In fact, they make the situation worse by passing more gun control laws. The results of this have sparked fear of a racial conflict as all of the problems caused by democrats are projected onto the whole of White America. This concept is known as “White Privilege.” A racial conflict is the necessary crisis that would give the U.N. the needed excuse to implement its treaty and do away with the second amendment. Al l Americans should be alarmed by this because the U.N., in order to combat “Climate Change,” has called for a massive reduction in the world’s population. In fact, U.N. Climate Secretary Christine Figueres has stated for the record that global communism would be the best way to combat climate change. The fundamental lie fueling this agenda is that human beings, through consumption, are causing climate change and the only way to stop it would be to decrease the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.  For all of those people who support the climate change agenda, let me remind you that you exhale carbon dioxide; the number one gas the left claims contributes to climate change. Do you think you will be safe because you supported them? Communists always kill their supporters first.
There is a reason why there seems to be two issues being intermingled into one in this article. That in and of itself is proof, in my opinion, of the lies driving the agenda to cause conflict, disarm the citizens and begin the work of reducing the world’s population. You see, what we are witnessing is the application of more than one “scenario” being implemented in order to gain control and implement global government. One “model” entails the creation of an external enemy while the other actually suggests the use of climate change, or the environmental-pollution model.  This evidence can found in The Report from Iron Mountain, which Dr. Fred Deruvo wrote about at As Dr, Fred mentioned in his article, there are many websites that refute this report and claim that it is a hoax; however, there are many strategies outlined in the report that bear a striking resemblance to many of the events we are witnessing today.  Before I go on, let me explain a little about the report itself. The report was written to deal with the perceived problem of a peace time economy, or an economy no longer being fueled by the need for war. War has traditionally been a very successful method of maintaining control over the population. This report seeks to develop methods of maintaining that control in the event of a peacetime economy.  Consider the following passages –
august 29-2
When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war capable of directing human behavior patterns in behalf of social organization, few options suggest themselves. Like its political function, the motivational function of war requires the existence of agenuinely menacing social enemy. The principal difference is that for purposes of motivating basic allegiance, as distinct from accepting political authority, the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. PP.53
In this respect, the possible enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life; the construction of an up-to-date mythological or religious structure for this purpose would present difficulties in our era, but must certainly be considered. pp.54
It is also possible that the two functions considered under this heading may be jointly served, in the sense of establishing the antisocial, for whom a control institution is needed, as the “alternate enemy” needed to hold society together. The relentless and irreversible advance of unemployability at all levels of society, and the similar extension of generalized alienation from accepted values may make some such program necessary even as an adjunct to the war system. As before, we will not speculate on the specific forms this kind of program might take, except to note that there is again ample precedent, in the treatment meted out to disfavored, allegedly menacing, ethnic groups in certain societies during certain historical periods. pp.54
The first paragraph is pretty general in meaning. The perceived social enemy can be almost anything that causes people to make the necessary sacrifices of their freedom in order to combat it. Global warming and the deliberate instigation of racial conflict are both good examples, but the creation of Isis and the use of mass shooting episodes are definitely possible options for the social engineers pulling the strings.
It is the second and third paragraphs that become more specific in their intentions. Paragraph two for example, cites the “environmental-pollution” model as a means of scaring the public into believing that there is an immediate danger to their safety. Climate change is something constantly being shoved down our throats and as mentioned earlier, the Global elite are trying to convince you that global communism is the only way to deal with it. Finally we reach the third paragraph which in my opinion is probably the most telling. Here we have the writers admitting that is possible to use the so called “oppressed minorities” and turn them into an “alternate enemy” that may be useful in pushing for the type of control these people seek. In this case we see the constant inflaming of racial tensions and divisive rhetoric designed to make black people and other minorities believe they are being oppressed by whites. This in turn is creating a societal menace that many people are beginning to fear; thus, contributing to the completion of the objective.
There is another element to this that needs to be considered. It is the Democrat Party that has the racist past in this country. It is the Democrat Party that supports abortions and places Planned Parenthood clinics in minority neighborhoods. It is the Democrat party that consistently tells black Americans that they are incapable and in need of their assistance, and it is the Democrat Party that governs the inner city ghettos where blacks are killing one another on a continuous basis. It is also the Democrat Party pushing the global warming agenda. I guess the appropriate question would be which population of people do the global elite seek to reduce?

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Here comes the Small Arms treaty Again By David Risselada

Un treaty&guns
Recently, we have witnessed the circus that is the United States Senate; completely surrender its constitutional powers to the executive branch. Last November we went to the polls and handed the Republican establishment the largest majority it has had in decades, only to watch them capitulate to the Obama regime on every single issue. From failing to defund Obamacare, reigning in spending and most recently the Iran deal, the Republicans have shown themselves to be the traitorous, communist infiltrators they are. What people need to see is that there is a conditioning process taking place, and the events revolving around the Iran nuclear deal is the most recent example. Here, little by little Mitch McConnell, along with Bob Corker, virtually reworked the treaty provisions in the Constitution. The U.S. Senate is the only congressional body that has treaty making powers and they completely reworked the entire process giving the president nearly all of the advantage. Treaties, under the U.S. constitution, need a two thirds vote from senators for ratification. Under the Corker bill, in order to stop the Iran deal there would need to be a two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented by the White House. Why would the U.S. Senate surrender such an important aspect of their constitutional authority? Is there another agenda at work? Sadly the answer to that question is yes. Many argued that the Iran deal is not a treaty but an agreement. The Senate had the authority to make it a treaty. Why didn’t they? It all revolves around a conditioning process designed to get the masses to accept the next big agenda item; The U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Many U.S. Senators have openly stated that they refuse to ratify this traitorous treaty; however, the new process established by the Corker bill may very well have changed the way treaties are passed from here on out. On Monday, August 24th officials from the Obama Administration will be going to Mexico to discuss the implementation of the Small Arms treaty.
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Small Arms Treaty. Many insist that it isinternational in scope and in no way would affect your right as an American to keep and bear arms. This a foolish assumption motivated by a fear of taking the time to do some research.  The text of the treaty is quite clear in its intentions to disarm civilian populations, or people deemed to be “unauthorized recipients” of firearms and ammunition. The language of the treaty can be very misleading as there are paragraphs that seem to support an individual’s right to own firearms based on the nation state’s own laws and constitutional systems. Take this paragraph from the Annex concerning the pretext of the treaty for example-
Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,
Many people would read that and assume that because our constitution protects our rights to keep and bear arms this treaty would not affect us in anyway. The only problem with this assumption is that law makers from many states have changed their gun laws. Semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines are no longer legal to own in several parts of the country. This changes the term “permitted or protected by law” drastically. States like New York, Oregon and Connecticut have already passed new gun registration laws that have yielded a low success rate of compliance. Situations like this are where the next part of the treaty would be helpful.
un-small-arms-treaty-draft picture
Article 16 International Assistance
  1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request.
  2. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.
  3. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.
President Obama would very much like to get Australian type gun control laws passed, in which case there would be very little that is “protected by law” that this treaty could not affect. In the event that people fail to comply with such laws, as they have in New York and other states, the U.N. would have legal authority to come in and assist local governments in disarming efforts. In fact, it is highly likely that the recent racial strife we have witnessed was intentionally fomented in order to push us into conflict; in which case, U.N. peace keepers would also have the authority to disarm conflicting parties under this treaty. The U.N. Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects states the following.
  1. To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons, particularly in post-conflict situations, unless another form of disposition or use has been duly authorized and such weapons have been marked and the alternate form of disposition or use has been recorded, and to include, where applicable, specific provisions for these programs in peace agreements.
Many people believe that ratification of this treaty would be an act of treason against the United States constitution that our politicians have sworn to uphold and defend; and truthfully, it would be. Unfortunately plans to disarm the United States have been in place for nearly six decades. State Department Publication 7277 describes the objectives of the United States as seeking a world free from war where all nation states have been disarmed and merged into a system of international control in line with standards set by the United Nations.

U.N. troops
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
  • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  • The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
  • The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is the culmination of this plan. It is hard to argue that our military is not what it once was. Not only have our forces been reduced to almost nothing, they have been psychologically disarmed as they have become a breeding ground of political correctness and social experiments. Our police forces are also being psychologically disarmed as they are afraid to do their job due to the intentional fomenting of racial strife. The disarming of military forces is the first stage of this plan. Stage two would include the establishment of a permanent peace keeping force within the framework of the United Nations and stage three would be the destruction of all remaining arms in order to maintain international order. If you believe at this point that our second amendment will mean anything, you are foolish. If they are successful in disarming our military there is no chance they will allow the civilian population to be armed.
un statue 2
This is high treason on a grand scale. The Obama administration has been involved in numerous scandals which involved gun running operations. Fast and Furious, which was used as a pretext to discredit the second amendment; and Benghazi, which was a gun smuggling operation arming Islamic terrorists for the purpose of taking out Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. President Obama has no right to move forward with this treaty and doing so is in fact, an act of treason against the American people. Only a mass movement of non compliance can stop this.
article for 11 july
                                       Will not be disarmed!

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

COINTELPRO and the move against patriots By David Risselada

The FBI has recently issued a warning which claims that the next big terror attack would likely be conducted by American militia groups against Muslims. They suggest that there is a severe “anti-Islam” bias among many of the patriot organizations and that they have solid sources indicating that there is heavy surveillance taking place at mosques across the country. This of course, is sensationalized speculation in response to the fact that militia groups have recently gathered around several mosques because Muslim terrorists have launched jihadist attacks against innocent people. Let’s not forget that it was a Muslim that attacked our military recruiting stations as well. If we were to apply the same logic the left has applied to the confederate flag, all Muslims would have been deported by now.  The Muslim population in America has been applying the same tactics of the civil rights movement, acting as if they are oppressed victims who are constantly being discriminated against. Organizations like CAIR do little to speak out against the atrocities being committed against Christians in the Middle East while accusing us of being “Islamophobic.”  All references to Islamic terrorism have been scrubbed from law enforcement training manuals, and patriotic groups willing to stand against tyranny have been labeled as potential terrorists since the Obama administration took control.
Anybody paying close attention to what is going on in this country knows that the federal government is deliberately trying to instigate the patriot movement in order to lock the nation down. Many people scoff at this idea and accuse those who would suggest it of wearing “tin foil” hats. Sadly, there is an historical precedent, and it isn’t limited to just “patriot groups” but anyone the government would consider to be a political foe.  A program called COINTELPRO, (which stands for counter intelligence program) was created by the FBI inorder to infiltrate political organizations and destroy them from the inside.  The program was created in 1956 and infiltrated groups like the Black Panthers, the U.S. Communist party, civil rights organizations, white supremacists and others that the FBI considered to be radical, including patriot militias.
The COINTELPRO program was used to infiltrate the Georgia militia in 1996 at the height of the militia movement. Militia members Robert Edward Star and William James McCranie were charged with manufacturing, with the intent to distribute, “shrapnel packed” pipe bombs. It was later revealed that these materials were planted on the property of militia members by COINTELPRO agents.  Listen to this recording by William Cooper as he discusses this revelation.  These are the same types of tactics employed in false flag operations such asOperation Northwoods. Here, the U.S. government wanted to go to war with Cuba so they proposed a “fake” terror campaign designed to give the illusion that Cuba was attacking us. It has been theorized that the September 11 attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin and even Pearl Harbor were all false flag attacks designed to bring us into a war that Americans would have otherwise opposed.
Over the past year it has become apparent that the militia movement in the United States is more than willing to stand against tyranny as they have responded to federal abuse of power at the Bundy Ranch and the Oregon mining standoff. There is an agenda hostile to American values and traditions being implemented by the current Administration, and the American people are being pushed to their ultimate limits. In response to our pushback we have been labeled as domestic terrorists while the real terrorist are all but ignored. The Obama administration, with the help of Al Sharpton, purposefully instigated racial riots which resulted in the burning down of two cities. There is a literal war being waged against the police and yet those responsible are being treated as oppressed victims. Muslims continue to behead Christians and burn people alive while hiding behind a false pretense of offense in order to push their agenda.  Muslims threaten to behead military families and the FBI has all but admitted that there are Muslim terror camps in nearly every state; yet they are now claiming that American patriots will commit the next terrorist attack against the Muslim population.  The militia is all that stands between freedom and tyranny. It is obvious that they see the militia as a threat to their agenda or else they would be labeling the actions of those killing police officers as acts of terrorism as well.  The criminal element that can be organized to do the bidding of the devil has no concern for what happens to the country; patriots on the other hand will die fighting for it. Labeling us as domestic terrorists is a deliberate tactic to be rid of us once and for all.
Why don’t you email the FBI with your opinions

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Television as a pyschopolitical weapon by David Risselada

(From my upcoming book “A Psychopoltical Agenda to Drive a Nation Pyscho”)
article june 11-2
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 ground work 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.”[1]
“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.”
 This quote is quite telling in its intentions when you consider the fact that our news media is little more than a collection of stories designed to portray society as dangerous and something to be feared. Rarely do we see any stories  on the news that remind us of the compassionate side of human beings, and what we are capable of us as a society when we work together. Instead, all we see is murder, crime, environmental disasters and a political side show attempting to make us believe one man can fix it all. The media is being used as a mechanism to keep us in a constant state of panic, and the social science behind human behavior, some of which was discovered after the “War of the Worlds” broadcast, is being used as the mechanism to keep us in the dialectic. This is summed up nicely in Edward Bernay’s 1928 book, “Propaganda.”[2]
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country.”
 This is the very purpose of the television media, not to mention Hollywood and all of the anti-American films they produce. The majority of what you watch every day is designed to blur your conscious thought process, put you in a state of shock and guide your opinions and beliefs to the left, towards the acceptance of a communistic society.  This becomes evident when you consider who funded much of the research that was conducted in the early part of the twentieth century concerning human behavior.  Cantril, (author of The Invasion from Mars) was affiliated with Princeton University’s “radio research project” which was funded by none other than the Rockefeller foundation.  [3] The Rockefeller name is of course synonymous with those groups behind the efforts to create a one world government. Other groups behind this type of research included the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rand Corporation.[4]
Cantril later went on to establish the Office of Public Opinion Research[5]. This organization paved the way for much of the apparatus that makes up the United States propaganda efforts as it studied the effectiveness of “PSYCHO-POLITICAL” operations that were being conducted by what was then known as the Office of Strategic Services, [6]fore runner to today’s Central Intelligence Agency.  Rockefeller money also contributed to Cantril and Princeton’s efforts to study radio propaganda being used in Nazi Germany [7] during World War II. In my last book, “Not on my Watch” I discussed The Frankfurt School of Social Research[8] which was a school dedicated to the cause of bringing cultural Marxism into societies. This school was closed in Frankfurt and brought to the United States in 1933. There is little doubt that much of the “radio propaganda” being studied by Princeton revolved around the teachings of the Frankfurt school. In essence, the understanding of human behavior and how to guide public opinion was already well established by the time television was invented. It may be safe to conclude that the television was invented exclusively to build upon this apparatus of control.
At the very least it is blatantly obvious that all of the violence seen on television is deliberately being shown to shock the subconscious while in a subdued, hypnotized type state.  Seeing as though determining the effectiveness of Psycho-Political operations was one of the main objectives of Cantril’s studies, we should examine what the Soviet Manual on Psychopolitics[9]has to say on the issue of violence.
Beria writes in the Manual of Psychopolitics that Russian psychiatrists fully understood that an acute sense of fear can create a hypnotic state of mind.  He also says that this acute state of fear can be caused by “shock of an emotional nature” and the use of drugs. Is it possible that television, along with the high rate of psychotropic drug use is causing Americans to live in a constant of state of fear? A state of fear so emotionally overwhelming that it prompts them to simply go along and surrender their liberties willingly?
“In order to induce a high state of hypnology in an individual, a group, or a population, an element of terror must always be present on the part of those who would govern.” [10]
 This is why the main stream media and Hollywood are constantly exposing us to violence. This is why they continuously push stories of deranged gun men that suddenly snap; they are attempting to create a state of panic in the minds of men that would make them more controllable, and more willing to obey.  Many people understand this concept; however, what they may not understand is the science behind it and the role television plays. In essence, the constant exposure to brutal violence in the media and the gruesome inhumanity displayed in Hollywood films, combined with the altered state of consciousness caused by the drugs is a deliberate tactic of the communists used to subdue your will to fight for your liberty.

Friday, August 7, 2015

The role of media in conditioning the masses By David Risselada

brainwash tv
I have been a long believer that everything we witness in the political arena these days is nothing but the carefully contrived work of social scientists scheming to push us towards acceptance of a global governing system. Many Americans have painfully opened their eyes to the realization that the new boss is almost always the same as the old boss, and that politicians are little more than skilled orators that know how to play on the emotions of the electorate. By now, most of us are familiar with idea that the two party system is little more than an illusion designed to keep us distracted just enough to believe that we can maybe, just maybe make a difference the next time around. The only problem is, there never is any difference and sadly, the more we allow ourselves to be fooled by this dialectical contrivance, the worse off our nation becomes. There has never been a better example of this than the fiasco we witnessed on Fox News called the Republican debates. While many people seem to think that Donald Trump did a great job and that Megan Kelly is now a horrible person for deliberately attacking him, the truth, in my opinion, is that this is all political theatre designed to keep our faith in a system that continues to rob us of our very souls. We as a nation have been collectively conditioned to view everything through the prism of entertainment media, and that is all these debates amount too any more. It almost seems as if Americans have lost their ability to discern reality from television programming, and that we have reached that point where art is no longer mimicking life, but life is mimicking art.
republican debate2
The global elite are probably having a hay day watching our adoration for Donald Trump grow. To give an example of just how conditioned the masses are to follow, consider the fact that Donald Trump all but admitted that he donated money to Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi while proudly proclaiming he did so to get them to do what he wants them to do. This represents everything that is wrong with American politics today, and yet because he displays just the right amount of patriotism, he is leading in the polls by a substantial lead. I’ll admit, it is refreshing to see someone call out the left on their hypocrisy, but in the end is there a difference between “let’s make America great again” and “hope and change?” Not likely. It is just another carefully planned campaign designed to play on the emotions of a population that views this as just another “reality T.V.” program.
In my article entitled “Dialectical Materialism: Change through opposing views in media,” I discussed the fact that an education in journalism is little different than an education is Social Work. Everything in the liberal arts revolves around the concepts of social justice and social change and in fact; it is admitted in the course description of many journalism programs that the goal of journalism is to “inspire the public into political action” and to develop awareness on issues concerning social justice. Consider once again, the following description fromBerkeley University.
“The goal of this online course is two-fold: 1) to teach students of journalism, public policy and social work how to use journalism and media as an implement of social change; and 2) have those students become effective change agents themselves. This class is not theoretical – students should be prepared to dig in deep and make meaningful contributions to policy change on both the state and federal level.”

As far as the Republican debate and the mockery that ensued, the moderators do not consider themselves “news reporters.” Rather, they consider themselves change agents working to advance the agenda of collectivism.  There is little doubt that the questions asked by Megan Kelly were carefully thought out and scripted from the beginning. Another fact I pointed out in this article is that Fox News contributes far more money to Democrats than Republicans and as a matter of fact; it turns out they are one of Hillary Clintons top ten contributors.

The entertainment media has a larger role to play than simply manipulating us into believing things that aren’t true. Americans watch a tremendous amount of television. Children on the average spend about 32 hours a week watching television while adults, according to the New York Daily News, watch an average of five hours a day. This is about 35 hours a week or more. This is significant because there is substantial research that shows that watching television actually affects the way our brain works. This, in my opinion, may explain why Americans are so easily fooled. The Presidential debates, when handled by the right change agent moderators, are likely to resemble any reality television programming. You see, too much television actually increases chemicals in the brain that produce the same effects as opiates such as opium or heroin.  Also, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere of the brain. This may sound a bit ironic for those us frustrated by the fact that leftists seem to act purely on emotion, but the fact is that the left side of the brain is the critical region responsible for cognitive processes while the right side is more responsible for emotional reactions. While watching television, the left side of the brain shuts down; this leads to the production of the opiates while the right side of the brain is processing the information coming from the television. This is according to the research done by Herbert Krugman. Consider the following findings-
Herbert Krugman’s research proved that watching television numbs the left brain and leaves the right brain to perform all cognitive duties. This has some harrowing implications for the effects of television on brain development and health. For one, the left hemisphere is the critical region for organizing, analyzing, and judging incoming data. The right brain treats incoming data uncritically, and it does not decode or divide information into its component parts.
Also, it has also been discovered that while watching television, the Neo-cortex, or upper region of the brain, also shuts down while the limbic system, (the lower portion) becomes more active. These lower regions of the brain cannot process information the way the Neo-cortex does, therefore, the ability to discern reality from television programming is diminished. In other words, the more T.V. you watch, the more likely you are too think that what you are watching represents reality. Consider the following from Krugman’s research.
When you’re watching television the higher brain regions (like the midbrain and the neo-cortex) are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions (like the limbic system). The neurological processes that take place in these regions cannot accurately be called “cognitive.” The lower or reptile brain simply stands poised to react to the environment using deeply embedded “fight or flight” response programs. Moreover, these lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images (a job performed by the neo-cortex), so they react to television content as though it were real, releasing appropriate hormones and so on. Studies have proven that, in the long run, too much activity in the lower brain leads to atrophy in the higher brain regions.
Is it possible that Americans, because of their fascination with entertainment media, have become unable to discern reality from television programming? Is it possible that that the Republican debate and politics in general are carefully contrived drama designed to coincide with the conditioning of television programming in order to further distract the population? Given the current state of affairs, and the research presented I would have to say it’s more than possible.
Krugman, Herbert E. “Brain wave Measures of Media Involvement,” Journal of Advertising Research 11.1 (1971): 3-9. Krugman later became manager of public opinion research at General Electric.
For more information about brainwashing and how to fight back against the left, check out my book Not on my watch: Exposing the Marxist agenda in education.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

A discussion with Gun Owners of America president, Larry Pratt By David Risselada

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Gun Owners of America president, Larry Pratt.  Gun Owners of America is a great organization whose members are on the front line in our battle to retain the second amendment for future generations.  The Obama administration has been waging a silent war on gun owners, attacking us in any way they can. Recent assaults we have seen include the attempt to strip social security recipients of their gun rights and the attemptsto regulate gun related speech on the internet. Gun owners of America is taking the lead in fighting these issues as they are one of the most effective gun lobby groups in the nation. It was a real pleasure speaking with Mr. Pratt, he is a very personable individual who seems to enjoy a good conversation. He is very knowledgeable when it comes to the issues we face as a country and as a matter of fact, him and I actually have something in common. We spent a short time discussing my book, “Not on my watch: Exposing the Marxist agenda in education,” it turns out both Mr. Pratt and I had similar experiences dealing with the academic left while in college. We both faced scrutiny for expressing opinions that were not considered politically correct. That realization laid the ground work for what was in my opinion, a great conversation.
We spent the majority of the conversation discussing various agenda items of the left and the tactics they employ in order to accomplish this agenda. The first topic was the issue of mental health and gun control. As we all know, the left is using the issue of mental health to try to limit gun ownership. One of the themes we discussed was the idea that when pro gun advocates point out the fact that all mass shooters are doped up on psychotropic drugs, they are actually helping the lefts argument concerning mental health and gun control. This is because the left has the uncanny ability to twist anything to fit their narrative.  To continually point out the fact that mass shooters are all on drugs, we further the agenda of proving mentally ill people shouldn’t have guns. Obviously some people shouldn’t if they are that sick; however, this is already the law. We also discussed the fact that the issue of mental illness has been a long time tactic of the communists in an effort to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
The next topic we discussed was the point I was making in my article Psychopolitics in Social Work Education. Here I cited a passage from the book on Pyschopolitics where one is led to believe that all literature found in our universities is purposefully controlled to push a communist narrative.
Technical papers should exist as to the number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious, should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a background of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who had ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology.
This article was motivated by the fact that I had come across some interesting information that seemed to give the above passage some real credibility. It turns out that only a few major corporations are controlling the content of academic research. You see, when you do research at the University level, you are, for the most part, limited to using peer reviewed research journals. These journals, it turns out, are all controlled by these corporations, especially in the social sciences, where most of your hard core leftists seem to be present.
One of the main themes of many of my articles is the idea that the left is using education as a means of “brainwashing” the gullible masses into accepting their liberal worldview.
Finally we discussed the point I tried to make in my article, “The Democrats lack absolute morality and their actions prove it.”  At the end of the article I made the observation that we can’t beat the left by playing by the conventional rules, and we had to be just as merciless in our attempts to win back the country. Mr. Pratt asked me to elaborate on that. What I was trying to say is that we are up against an enemy that is willing to destroy everything because they believe they can create a perfect “utopian world.”  They believe that the highest level of morality is corrupting themselves in order to achieve this vision. How can you beat that? You have to be steadfast and passionate in your defense of truth and not be afraid to stand by your convictions.  Sadly, these are qualities lacking in the current Republican establishment.
I was honored that Mr. Pratt took the time to contact me. The interview was recorded and will play on Gun Owners of America radio on Saturday August 15. Stay tuned.