De-Moralizing America By De-Legitimizing Our Values

Fake bombers, mass shootings, riots, unfettered illegal immigration, transgenderism and constant accusations of  racism. What does all of this have in common? It is all a direct, frontal assault on the moral character and integrity of the United States. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Create the necessary chaos needed to instigate the crisis that will change our country from one of freedom to despotism. 

The fake bombing incident was no doubt an event staged to portray Trump supporters and the right in general, as right wing extremists. As discussed in Searching for Extremism on the Right, the left has been attempting for years to convince Americans that conservatives are a threat. The truth is that most Americans have conservative values. America is a center right nation so the ideology of conservatism must be thoroughly discredited and de-moralized if the lefts agenda is to drive on in any way. Right on que, as many Americans suspected there would be, a mass shooting occurred on Saturday October 27th, 2018. Like most mass shootings it was committed by a deranged leftist. For hours after every shooting, attempts are made to identify the shooter and their political leanings. Liberals of course, are praying that an unhinged Trump supporter is responsible while conservatives are hoping for the opposite. The truth is that it doesn't matter who the shooter is, our value system is being attacked and every time a shooting like  this occurs, the nation is further de-moralized  because we are portrayed as hanging onto a value system that enables people to commit these types of murders. It is part of the de-moralization process. No matter how much of a second amendment supporter you are, your heart drops to the floor every time there is a mass shooting. It is an incremental method of change designed to not wrestle your guns from you, but create a future generation who will willingly surrender them.

Obviously the attempts to bring thousands of illegal immigrants up to the border are done in order to create a situation where the right can be portrayed as uncompassionate and hateful. In the coming weeks we will no doubt hear more stories of children being separated at the border, and with the military being deployed there will likely be some violence that can be used to justify further degradation of our constitution. This is a classic Alinsky tactic of turning our values against us and setting us up as hypocrites. We claim that the United States is a free country and that all men are created equally with certain inalienable rights. It is difficult to be viewed as believing in these values when you are deliberately set up to oppose a caravan of poor, oppressed refugees. The idea of equality has been deliberately redefined by the left in an effort to turn that against us as well. Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity. The latter promotes human growth and ingenuity while the former stunts human potential. Again, this is done to de-moralize, to show the world that America can not live up to the values that she so proudly embraces.

The same can be said for the transgender movement. Are we as a nation living up to our values of individual liberty when we so adamantly oppose the transgender movement? Of course, we know the truth that liberty cannot exist without an absolute morality. The left twists the notions of right and wrong through concepts like moral relativism and accuse us of not living up to our values. In this case it would be the idea of not letting a transgender person, or a homosexual couple for that matter, live their lives as they see fit. 

All of this equates to a single, directed assault against our nations characters and values. For too long we have let the left, through education and control of mass media, re-define and re-shape our values to the point where most of us don't know how to stand on our own two feet and defend them. And there-in lies the point. When you can no longer effectively defend your values out of fear of being labeled a hypocrite or a racist or a homophobe, you have been effectively de-moralized.

The following is from Chapter 1 in Psychopolitics In America: A Nation Under Conquest

Yuri Bezmenov was a former KGB agent and a Soviet defector who described the psychopolitical process first hand by discussing the concept of Ideological Subversion.[1] He tried to warn the United States about the deception taking place in their government and other institutions using this process. He described it as a brainwashing technique employed against an enemy nation to change the culture to be more like the culture of the attacking nation. In other words, it is a process to make a nation Communist without military invasion. It is a method of changing the perception of reality of all Americans by controlling education and all information people are exposed to. The idea is to expose the population to an overabundance of conflicting information so that most people will simply not know what to believe and will be unable to defend their interests. Bezmenov’s testimony, in the opinion of this author, is proof of the legitimacy of psychopolitics because there is a clear relationship between what is being described by Bezmenov and the words of Beria.

The process of Ideological Subversion can be broken down into four steps: Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis and Normalization.[2]

Demoralization is the process of re-educating a population into the beliefs of Communism/Marxism. According to Bezmenov this process takes fifteen to twenty years to complete. In other words, roughly the amount of time an individual spends in school. In the editorial notes of the Manual on Psychopolitics, Kenneth Goff, who claimed to be a member of the Communist Party, claims that they were taught that demoralization and degradation has become the preferred method of conquering a nation. Control of the population can be obtained without the destruction of war. America’s education system has long been dominated by the Left and has been used as an instrument of thought control over the American population. Today, we see an entire generation of Americans advocating for Socialism, believing there are more than two genders, and believing that any belief system that goes against theirs is hate speech. They are beaten down with self-hatred and taught that their country represents oppression and racism. They have been psychologically conditioned to believe that killing their unborn children is somehow an esteemed human right that takes precedence above all others. If these concepts don’t represent a process of demoralization, then nothing does.

The second process is destabilization. This is the breaking down of society to create the third phase, crisis. Surely by demoralizing our youth we are creating a crisis in morality; however, we have also created a culture of different “groups” and different beliefs in which everybody is fighting and unable to get along. Multiculturalism has ushered in an age in which respect for American culture is frowned upon and disagreeing with any of the many different cultures which now exist in American society is racism. 

According to Bezmenov, the goal of the crisis stage is to set the nation under attack up for a civil war or possible invasion. America is now at the point where rumblings about a possible civil war between the right and left are constantly heard in social media. Left-wing groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are professionally organized and funded to act as disruptors and initiate violence against right-wing groups. Infiltration of so-called right-wing groups has occurred for the purpose of giving the impression that they are racist white supremacists and that violence against them is therefore justified. This occurred at the Charlottesville riots.[3] The so-called Alt-Right is not a right-wing movement at all. White supremacists and neo-Nazis are not on the Right but the Left. Neo-Nazi, after all, stands for New Socialists. These riots at Charlottesville were deliberately staged by left-wing groups to portray supporters of Donald Trump and the Unite the Right rally as racists.

The last and final stage of Ideological Subversion is the normalization phase. This is the so-called solution to the problems created by the other three phases, and it usually requires the outright domination of a nation through a brutal dictatorship. To gain a better understanding of this, re-examine the last quote from the book on psychopolitics on the previous page.

By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression, and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.[4]

---

[1]http://dystopiausa.com/yuri-bezmenov-on-ideological-subversion/ (7-21-18)

[2]https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/08/from_russia_with_no_love.html (7-21-18)

[3]http://www.wbdaily.com/law-order/19320/ (7-21-18)

[4] https://israelect.com/reference/JackMohr/jm024a.htm (9-29-18)

Searching for Extremism on the Right

It was hardly a surprise to those on the right that the so called "mail bomber" turned out to be an alleged Trump supporter. The timing for this couldn't have been more perfect, or suspect being two weeks away from an election. For most of the year the nation was led to believe that voters would turn out in droves and vote Democrat in repudiation of Donald Trump. As the election draws closer it is becoming painfully obvious to them that this isn't the case. Their agenda, and ideology is being rejected outright. Their childish, deceptive tactics have backfired in many ways and the American people are seeing the Democratic party for what it is. An America hating criminal cabal willing to do anything to retain power. Hopefully the American people will question the authenticity of this latest event as well.

The left has been working hard to portray their political opponents as right wing extremists and terrorists for many years. They have a way of making excuses for their violent behavior claiming that it is justified in the face of right wing bigotry. They claim that we are the fascists while continually projecting their own racist past onto the Republican party. In 2009, at the onset of the Obama Administration, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano released a report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"  where nearly everyone of a right leaning orientation was labeled as a potential extremist. Veterans returning home from the war and unable to find jobs in the dismal economy were listed as being vulnerable to recruitment into radicalized groups. Gun owners were listed as potential extremists for being worried about further gun restrictions and erosion of their rights. Protestant Christian groups, pro-life activists, anti-tax advocates, if you held onto the notions of limited government and individual liberty you were a potential extremist. Ironically, the report does mention that while these are "potential threats" there was no information to lead anyone to believe that there was any real planning or criminal activity going on. What was missing however was any reference to Islamic terrorism or violent left wing groups.

A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center claims that "almost two thirds" of recent terrorist attacks in the United States have been committed by "right wing groups." Mind you, they consider the KKK to be right wing even though it was founded by the Democrats. The report goes on to say that the remaining attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists or left wing radicals. Almost two thirds is a pretty vague estimation that could mean just slightly over half, leaving the remaining attacks as being "almost half." In any case, the Charlottesville incident was listed as one of these attacks and if you remember the organizer turned out to be an Obama supporter and a member of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In other words, he was likely an agent provocateur deliberately working to portray the so called "Alt-Right" as violent extremists.

While many may scoff at this as some kind of conspiracy theory, the truth is that there is a history of infiltration into right wing groups with the intent of portraying them as radicals. The most recent event was in the 2016 "Oregon Standoff" at the wildlife refugee where armed patriots stood against an illegal takeover of land by the federal government. Local Fire Chief Chris Briels went on the record and claimed he had caught federal agents posing as militia members harassing locals and snooping around the towns armory. He later resigned as a result saying he couldn't be a part of a government he couldn't trust or have faith in. It would be one thing to infiltrate a criminal organization with the intent of proving criminal activity but to deliberately give the impression that such activity is occurring is another thing altogether.

Conspiracy theorists believe that the FBI often times deliberately sets people up to commit acts of terror in order to justify their existence, so to say. In 2016 a schizophrenic man in Oklahoma City was given cash, a vehicle and a fake bomb by the FBI in a so called sting to carry out a bombing at an Oklahoma City bank. The FBI claimed that the individual prescribed to an anti-government, right wing ideology. The question in this scenario remains as to whether or not the individual could have carried this out of his own accord. According to his parents he had no money, no job and no vehicle of his own.

According to a National Security Studies Policy Paper entitled "The FBI's Secret War Against the Patriot Movement and How Infiltration Techniques Relate to Radicalization Influences" the FBI conducted an extensive infiltration program into many of America's so called "right wing extremist movements" or militias. They established a fictitious veterans group called the Veterans Aryan Movement and spent two years, 1991-1993 infiltrating militia groups and gathering intelligence. Despite following alleged plots, hundreds upon hundreds of hours spent investigating these groups resulted in negligible results as far as actual prosecutions or even criminal activity goes. Funny, didn't we see this in another report? As the name of the report suggests, one result of this infiltration was increased paranoia and a reinforcement of the belief that the U.S. Government was turning against the very values it was supposed to protect and stand for, namely the Constitution. There was even an instance, according to the report, where militia members would join in on the mind games and feint that they had plans to do something so they could flush out the infiltrators.

While our government is hard at work trying to portray the right wing ideology as extreme, they are doing the exact opposite when it comes to Islam. According to Judicial Watch, the FBI, in 2012, under the direction of the now infamous Robert Mueller, purged all FBI training materials of any references to Islamic terrorism or any material that may in any way, be offensive to Muslims. In all fairness however, the report mentioned in the previous paragraph does expose the same type of infiltration programs being conducted against Muslims by the New York City Police Department without any justifiable evidence or any actionable results. Here's an idea, let's treat terrorists like terrorists and leave innocent people alone, no matter who they are or where they come from.

The left will certainly treat this mail bomber incident as all the evidence they need to prove that the right wing ideology is driven by violent tendencies and that conservatives are hate filled bigots. CNN has been continually blaming Trump for this and even suggesting that he apologize for his "divisive rhetoric," which they claim is the cause. Is it possible that the man was a right wing Trump supporter? Sure it is, but we all know that the Democrats are desperate and terrified of losing the midterms. If they are capable of prosecuting a man on trumped up sexual assault charges and carrying out the Russian collusion charade for two years in an effort to discredit Trump, I think they are quite capable of pulling this off as well.

Don't forget to check out my books available at Amazon-

Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest 

Paperback

Not on my Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education

I noticed today, after receiving my first copies of my book, that I needed to make a few changes to the table of contents. These changes have been made.

Forcing Demographic Change: An Excerpt From Psychopolitics in America

There is a mob heading to the American border. A mob no doubt driven by the belief that they are owed something by the United States. They are almost certainly being funded by George Soros while undoubtedly receiving the full support of the Democrat Party. This will culminate into a crisis of epic proportions if not stopped. It has the potential to re-define what we consider to be our sovereign nation. As they burn our flag and proudly display their own, this five-thousand strong invasion force would have us believe they are seeking a better life in the U.S. and are fleeing poverty and oppression. If this is the case then why are they burning our flag? If our nation is so racist, as the Democrats would have you believe, why will they insist we let these people in to have a chance at a better life? How can they have a better life if we are so racist? The truth is that this is an attempt to completely remake the demographics in our country and eliminate the white majority, period. Below is an excerpt from chapter 9 of my new book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest entitled Racism, Multiculturalism and Immigration.

It is estimated that there are at least eleven million illegal immigrants living in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center.[1] The cost to the US taxpayer is staggering. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the hardworking, taxpaying American citizen shells out approximately 135 billion dollars a year.[2] This averages out to over eight thousand dollars per illegal alien. That is an unsustainable burden on the working taxpayer, one that deters hard work, as people are less inclined to work harder if their earnings are redistributed to those who don’t work or appreciate the system in which they live. Illegal immigrants tend to be catered to by the Left, meaning they are inundated with claims that Americans hate them and are racist. It isn’t uncommon to see groups of illegals burning American flags while proudly waving the flag of their home country. Why do they come here if Americans are so racist and mean-spirited? The free money, of course. According to a 2013 article published by the Daily Mail, the Obama administration deliberately advertised free welfare and food stamp benefits to illegal immigrants.[3] Flyers were distributed, in Spanish, advising people seeking to cross the border that their status as illegal immigrants would not be a factor in receiving food stamps and other welfare benefits for their family. In other words, the Obama administration was encouraging illegal immigration. The Left would like to see all of them granted amnesty and made permanent citizens with the right to vote, of course.

            Democrats accuse the Right of racism for opposing amnesty, even though the US takes in over one million legal immigrants annually. This is according to the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration Statistics Yearbook, which tracks the number of legal immigrants coming in every year.[4] Since 2007 the United States has taken in a whopping 10,668,262 immigrants. That number represents a decade’s worth of immigration at about one million people per year. This trend, a million per year, has essentially been going on since 1989. Between that time and 2007 we took in 16,741,652 immigrants, bringing the grand total for a thirty-year period to 27,419,914 people. The current US population stands at approximately 326,143,246 people. Immigration is the largest contributing factor to population growth in the US. Not only are we taking in over two million immigrants every year due to legal and illegal immigration, immigrant women on average are giving birth to over 700,000 children annually.

            As of 2013, according to Pew Research Center, 78 percent of America’s immigrants came from South America, Mexico or East Asia.[5] Only 14 percent came from other European countries with similar cultures. The change in demographics was deliberately set in motion to reduce America’s white population. Writing for Newsweek magazine, William H. Frey highlights the fact that in 2011 America saw fewer white babies born than minority babies.[6] He is seemingly overwhelmed with joy as he admits that a continuation of this trend will rapidly, within a few decades, result in a minority white population. Ideally, whether the population is majority white, black or Hispanic should make little difference. The American culture of individual liberty and personal responsibility is one that can be adhered to by all, and our Constitution, whether or not people realize it, is the document providing the freedom that people of all cultures enjoy. Leftists like Frey, who view the world only in terms of race, hold the opinion that white Americans fear becoming the minority because we fear losing our privileged status, and by simply being white we are all racist. This is not true; what we fear is the loss of a culture that promotes liberty and freedom for all people. Multiculturalism encourages people to hold on to their cultural identities while discouraging assimilation into the dominant culture. Again, this is the idea of counter hegemony. If white Americans become the minority the culture will likely not survive because everyone else has been taught they are victims of it.

           With this being said, we can look at the actual change in policy which shifted immigration patterns. According to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the powers over naturalization rest exclusively in Congress. In 1965 the US Congress passed a law, which was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, that set us on the course we are on today. This law was known as the Immigration Act of 1965.[7] Up until this law was passed immigration was based on a quota system. Immigrants from around the world were let in based on the percentage of people from that part of the world already in the US. This was known as the National Origins Quota and was passed into law in 1924 to slow the massive migration into the United States and protect our cultural identity.[8] This was later considered a racist policy, as most of the immigrants were coming from European countries. The Immigration Act of 1965 was written to change the demographics of America by opening immigration up to the third world.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.[9]

            This bill grew out of the growing civil rights movement. While new laws preventing discrimination based on skin color were being passed, pressure was also mounting to change the laws related to how America took in immigrants. Immigration to America literally became a human rights issue. According to Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, the new immigration law was the manifestation of the civil rights movement on the world stage.^[10] Opponents of this bill were labeled as racist and bigoted for standing in opposition because the bill itself was an extension of the civil rights laws being passed in the U.S. Edward Kennedy, who was serving as the chair for the Senate subcommittee hearing this bill, claimed that the number of immigrants coming into the country would not increase and that our country's demographic makeup would not change as opponents of the bill argued they would. According to the Center of Immigration Studies the number of immigrants coming into the country tripled over the next three decades, with over eighteen million coming from Latin American and Asian countries.^[11] Furthermore, the education gap between native born Americans and those immigrating also widened significantly. This created a strain on the system because America is a high-tech society that now had a large population of people unable to compete in those jobs and therefore lived their lives courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

            As we can clearly see, accusations of racism have been used to push America closer to her own demise. The Left deliberately changed the demographics of the nation to create a more collective society. It is estimated, according to Investor’s Business Daily, that 70 to 80 percent of immigrants from South American countries and Mexico will vote Democrat.[12] Obviously, the immigration strategy was set in motion to ensure Democrats would eventually win a permanent majority where they could institute their plans for a Socialist America. At this point it is unlikely that this boat could be turned around, as whites are expected to become the minority by 2043.[13] Truthfully, a white minority in a nation like America should matter little. The ideals of liberty and individualism should be a uniting factor for all who live and seek to come here, and in truth, it is these ideals which attract people in the first place. People seeking a better life don’t flee America for Cuba or Venezuela, for example. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been pushing a message of collectivism which attracts the type of people that will vote for Socialism. If the Democrats are successful, by the time whites are a minority most of the population will be voting Democrat.

           It isn’t just the issue of immigration that is changing the demographics. The rate at which white Americans are giving birth is declining. A sustained birth rate of 2.1 children per family is required to maintain a population. The birthrate for American women has dropped to 1.9 per family.[14] This is unsustainable as far as maintaining our culture goes. As of 2013 the number of minority births surpassed the number of white births by 12,166.[15] Again, the idea of white people being a minority in America should not matter; however, the question must be asked: when we are the minority, will the new majority set up the same safety net for us that we have set up for them? 

Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest

Paperback

Not on my Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education

---

[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ (3-24-18)

[2]https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers (3-24-18)

[3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315115/Shocking-US-government-leaflet-tells-Mexican-immigrants-collect-food-stamp-benefits-admitting-theyre-country-illegally.html (3-24-18)

[4]https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table1 (3-24-18)

[5]http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-5-u-s-foreign-born-population-trends/ (3-24-18)

[6]http://www.newsweek.com/americas-getting-less-white-and-will-save-it-289862 (3-24-18)

[7]https://cis.org/Report/HartCeller-Immigration-Act-1965 (3-24-18)

[8]https://immigration.laws.com/national-origins-act (3-24-18)

[9]https://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965 (3-24-18)

[10]http://www.jtl.org/auster/PNS.pdf (3-24-18)

[11]https://cis.org/Report/Legacy-1965-Immigration-Act (3-24-18)

[12]https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/3-reasons-the-left-wants-evermore-immigrants/ (3-24-18)

[13]http://www.businessinsider.com/census-whites-will-become-a-minority-in-the-united-states-by-2043-2012-12 (4-8-18)

[14]http://www.investmentoffice.com/io/Investment_Thoughts/Beyond_Finance/2_Birth_Rate_Needed_to_Maintain_Current_Population.php (4-8-18)

[15]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-official-minority-babies-are-the-majority-among-the-nations-infants-but-only-just/ (4-8-16)

The Dangerous Morality of the Left

The left is clearly losing their collective minds. Failure to take out Donald Trump and convince the masses that he stole the election has literally driven them insane. They fail to realize that the overwhelming support President Trump enjoys stems from the American people being sick and tired of the left always getting their way and Republicans always cowering in fear to them. They perceive Donald Trump as someone on the outside who calls them out for what they are and fights back. Whether or not this is truly the case remains to be seen. Never forget that the Clintons were at Trumps wedding and they have been friends for years. Nevertheless, support for Trump is as strong as it has ever been, and the left is in a perpetual meltdown because their ideology and notions of social justice continue to be rejected.

While being interviewed by the New York Times Nancy Pelosi stated that collateral damage to those who disagree with the Democratic agenda may have to be accepted as a consequence if they lose the election. What collateral damage means is anybody’s guess however, with the violence being directed at conservatives it isn’t a far stretch of the imagination to figure it out. Perhaps it means dragging us off to the guillotines as one college professor recently suggested. In any case, the Democrat party is showing the American people their back side and acting as if they are morally superior to the rest of us, which in their minds, justifies the violence. Afterall, we are nothing but a bunch of deplorables anyway.

This is turning into the perfect illustration of what this writer so often writes about. The Means and ends Morality of the left. Nancy Pelosi stated in her interview the main agenda items of the Democrat Party. Gun control, abortion rights, climate change, gay marriage and immigration. To them these are key issues that define their morality. They claim that compassion and love for human beings is what drives them and to disagree with any of it means you hate people. They claim that government has the power to create a perfect world where everyone is completely equal and if people would just give them the power, they would make it so. They believe this is possible therefore, they operate from the ends justify the means mentality. To put it more simply, the ultimate morality for them is fighting for this false Utopian ideal. Failure to sacrifice your own misperceived notions of what is right or wrong in pursuit of this Utopia is considered an act of immorality to the left.

“In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation,” he doesn’t care enough for the people to be “corrupted” for them.” (Alinsky, 1971)

In A Psychological Assault on Freedom this author described the differences in the way the left and right define freedom and morality. The right, deriving their morality from the Judeo-Christian religions and the concept of a universal, absolute right and wrong believe in individual, inalienable rights. The radicals on the left have been able to protest and spread their misguided message because the vast majority of us understand that freedom of speech is a concept that must be applied across the board. (If we believed as they did we would have shut their non-sense down years ago.) The left on the other hand derives their sense of morality from the scientific approach of understanding human behavior and the theory of Darwinian evolution. To them there is no absolute morality other than what they define it to be. They are attempting to create a world where they set the standards of what morality is and disagreeing with it makes you a deplorable human being.

The term deplorable is as derogatory a term as any other in describing a person. It dehumanizes and alienates while justifying, in the minds of the left, the violence we are witnessing. This is the same mentality that led to so many millions being ruthlessly murdered by their own governments in the twentieth century. A standard of morality was set by the communists and a failure to conform to those ideals was viewed as being mentally ill or deficient.

The communists attempted, and still are attempting, to change the very nature of human beings. They believed that they could create a world where everyone would willingly surrender their livelihoods to the so called greater good and goals of the state. They believed a world where everyone was working for the fulfillment of someone else’s needs would be ideal and a failure to see the reasonableness in this was considered selfish. Those holding onto outdated, antiquated ideas were, in the minds of the communists, unworthy of life because life itself was now being defined by man and not God. Human beings are not collective creatures, we are individuals driven by the need to provide for ourselves first. No one is going to work hard only to see the product of their labor given to someone who doesn’t.

For years people in America have lived a blissful existence with the belief that “it can never happen here.” It is happening here. Since the election of Barack Obama, we have witnessed a growing mob mentally on the left. They have demonstrated a cold, ruthless willingness to burn down cities and attack those who don’t share their view points. Leftist politicians like Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi incite this mob mentality by encouraging people to be disruptors. Waters told her supporters to form groups and tell conservatives they are not welcome anywhere. Where will it stop? Hillary Clinton suggested that civility can only be a reality once the Democrats regain control of the house and senate. Are we to believe that they will suddenly become civil and respectful of differing viewpoint once they regain power? The thought of these people having any political power is frightening.

The question as to what to do about this remains. No one wants to see our nation erupt in violence. Sometimes it seems that the left is trying to intentionally trap us into overreacting, leading to a chain of events that would ultimately lead to gun confiscation and martial law. Have we reached a point where meeting the left on their terms is an inevitability? Are they going to, using mob violence, force us into a position where defending our self with equal violence is the only viable option? That remains to be seen and hopefully won’t become a reality. The left has been extremely successful in labeling Americans as hypocrites because they believe we don’t live up to the values we espouse. This author believes that the first and foremost thing we can do is to start being the change we want to see. If we want our nation to be moral, then we must be moral. Maybe we aren’t so far gone where simply ignoring these radicals on the left and not reacting to them at all would be a good first step. Afterall, they are making complete donkey tails out of themselves and seem to be on a path of self-destruction.

What will they be willing to do to save their sinking ship? That’s a scary thought indeed and we should be ready for anything. 

Be sure to check out my latest book to learn more. Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest

Paperback

Not on my Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education

A Psychological Assault on Freedom

Our nation is in a struggle, a struggle over the very definition of the values upon which we were founded on. To the right, freedom means having the ability to live life and achieve what you can based on the merits of individualism and personal responsibility. To the left, freedom means an entirely different thing. They are creating a world where opposing the most abhorrent behaviors is becoming an act of bigotry. To the left, personal responsibility and the merits of individualism are frowned upon and a collective, group think behavior is rewarded. Freedom then, becomes freedom from having to take responsibility for your actions. Freedom is being free from morality.

The right believes America to be a nation based on Christian values, and the notion that there is a higher sense of morality. A universal right and wrong, if you will. The left has been seeking to re-define what is morally right by introducing concepts like moral relativism into our education systems. Moral relativism posits the idea that morality is only a social construct and that values are not universal in nature but rather, cultural and based on personal choice. In other words, there is no set of values that are superior to another because there is no universal, absolute morality.

The origins of this thinking can be traced to psychology and Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution of course suggests that mankind has no divine connection and has evolved from apes. Therefore, he is just like any other animal in the sense that his behavior isn’t the result of any free choices, rather a result of evolutionary processes. The study of human behavior is undertaken almost entirely from this perspective.

B.F. Skinner wrote, in Beyond Freedom and Dignity that there are two predominant views concerning human behavior, scientific and pre-scientific. Pre-scientific refers to the belief that man is in control of his behavior and can freely choose based on the notion that we have “free will.” The scientific view on the other hand, suggests that’s man’s behavior is traceable to the evolutionary history of our species and dependent upon environmental situations. Skinner suggests that the study of human behavior should focus exclusively on the latter as opposed to the former. Below is Skinners quote in its entirety.

“In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior.” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity)

When it comes to the lefts influence in education, no argument needs to be made. Conservatives are well aware of the fact that our public schools have become public indoctrination centers. What may be lesser known however is the extent in which the fields of psychiatry and psychology have played. For instance, John Dewey has come to be known as the father of modern education. He was not only a psychologist but a Fabian socialist who saw a need to move away from the traditional learning of reading, writing and arithmetic to create a new socialized citizen.

The new school system envisaged by Dewey was to take over the functions and compensate for the losses sustained by the crumbling of the old institutions clustered around the farm economy, the family, the church and the small town. “The school,” he wrote, “must be made into a social center capable of participating in the daily life of the community . . . and make up in part to the child for the decay of dogmatic and fixed methods of social discipline and for the loss of reverence and the influence of authority.” Children were to get from the public school whatever was missing in their lives elsewhere that was essential for their balanced development as members of a democratic country.

He therefore urged that manual training, science, nature-study, art and similar subjects be given precedence over reading, writing and arithmetic (the traditional three R’s) in the primary curriculum. The problems raised by the exercise of the child’s motor powers in constructive work would lead naturally, he said, into learning the more abstract, intellectual branches of knowledge. (Walters, International Socialist Review Vol. 21, 1960)

This is interesting because as of now, a whopping thirty-two million Americans cannot read above a fifth-grade level. Furthermore, nineteen percent of all high school graduates can not read at all. Also, consider this fact. American high school students ranked 24^th place out of twenty-nine countries in basic math skills in 2014. The fact that John Dewey was a psychologist isn’t merely a coincidence. Most psychologists/psychiatrists ascribe to Darwin’s theory of evolution and view man as an animal that needs to be trained. Their influence in education is just as far reaching as John Dewey’s. For instance, the first president of the American Psychological Association, G. Stanley Hall is quoted as saying the following by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.

“We must overcome the fetishism of the alphabet, of the multiplication tables, of grammar,” he said.  “It would be no serious loss if a child never learned to read.”

These are the same three things that John Dewey seemed to think children no longer needed. As mentioned earlier our illiteracy rates are through the roof and many parents are becoming increasingly frustrated with the common core math that their children are bringing home.  

Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health is quoted as saying the following.

“The training of children is making a thousand neurotics for every one that psychiatry can hope to help with psychotherapy. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers. … If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”

The last sentence brings us back to the original idea in this article. The left does not share our view of morality. To them the notion of a universal right and wrong which restrains our animalistic instincts is slavery. According to many in the field of psychiatry true freedom means exactly what the underlines statement suggests, and what was mentioned earlier. Freedom from morality. Therefore, there is a struggle of values between the left and right. The right, being mostly Christian and believing in absolute morality believe that people should seek to control their behavior and that freedom, as defined in America, is possible because people are able to do so based on that universal morality. The left believes that morality is authoritarian in nature and represents oppression. To them there is no God, therefore letting loose the animal instincts which enslave us to pre-conditioned behavior, as opposed to free thinking and self-control, is the true definition of freedom.

In conclusion I think a quote from the book Toward Soviet America will tie all of this together nicely. The connection lies in the fact that Communism is also atheistic in nature and applies science to the study of human behavior from the Darwinian perspective. In fact, according to the film The Bloody History of Communism, Ivan Pavlov was directed by Lenin to apply his techniques of classical conditioning against the Russian population. In all communist societies populations who refused to go along with communist ideals were targeted for re-education or extermination. People who held onto religion and traditional ideas concerning family were considered mentally defective and were treated by none other than psychiatrists to correct their behavior.  

A U.S. Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools. (Foster, Toward Soviet America)

Be sure to check out my latest book to learn more. Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest

Paperback

Not on my Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education