Scientific turmoil:Chaos through the transgender agenda

As the nation continues its leftward drift into a pit of orchestrated disarray, it is becoming clear that that the agenda itself is simply, uncontrollable chaos. There are many things happening in the nation that people have a hard time wrapping their heads around. People are confused, definitions of right and wrong have become deluded and in some areas of the country, expressing any form of patriotism has become a dangerous endeavor. The truth is that people will not understand what is going on until they accept a fundamental premise; a premise that has largely been discredited as a conspiracy theory in the minds of many Americans. Everything going on in the country today is part of a communist agenda to breakdown your morality, leaving you bewildered and not knowing where to stand. This could not be more apparent than the ongoing assault of the traditional family and the remaking of man himself through the “trans” agenda. 

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.[1]

The nation is going mad with the transgender agenda. Our children are being taught that gender is not determined by biology. Men are competing in women’s sports and stealing their opportunities,[2] and they are now airing television commercials depicting men having menstrual cycles.[3] They claim that transgenderism represents a new era in human rights and a failure, or refusal to accept this is akin to racism. You’re a hateful bigot if you oppose a man who dresses like a woman using the same public bathroom as your five-year-old daughter.

For years the left has accused the conservatives of waging a relentless war on women. Building off the first words of Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique,[4] they have insisted that women have been used and abused in an oppressive patriarchy, and that men expect nothing from women except to be barefoot and pregnant, dutifully submitting to his every demand.

The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night-she was afraid to ask of herself the silent question- “Is this all?” (Friedan, The Feminine Mystique)

The truth is that Friedan was a professional propagandist of the Communist party[5] and likely wrote the Feminist Mystique in order to create the division we see between men and women today. One of the goals of the Communist party is to discredit the family[6] as an institution. As mentioned earlier, in the minds of many Americans, the “communist conspiracy” has been discredited however, some truths are self-evident. 

When it comes to the transgender non-sense gripping the country many people are asking where the feminists are. Why are the women’s rights activists who have been so oppressed by men, allowing them to compete in women’s sports and use their bathrooms? The truth is one that is difficult to grasp. You first must accept the premise that there is indeed a communist agenda to turn everything up-side down, destroy your morality and remake society in their image. Friedan, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, was a communist. 

Marx also viewed the family as a vehicle of oppression in the sense that it encouraged the exploitation of women.

Some Marxists viewed the household as an institution that functions to support capitalism and it permits or even encourages exploitation. That is, by creating and recreating sexual inequalities, and keeping women in the home with responsibility for family subsistence, emotional support and reproduction, the family helps capitalism continue to exploit labor and helps maintains stability within a system of class oppression and inequality.[7]

Furthermore, the destruction of the traditional views of gender was also viewed as something that would liberate women from this oppression. Consider the writings of Freya Brown. In an article called “On the Social Construction of Sex,”[8] she makes the “gender and sex are only social constructs” argument and claims that the differences between the sexes are due to societies patriarchal dominance, which must be deconstructed. 

Ultimately, the belief that trans women have access to the benefits of patriarchy is based on a metaphysical view of gender, which takes the presence or lack of certain genitalia as a basis for a “real” gender, existing outside of actually observable social relations and material reality, yet still somehow affecting the contours of gender oppression. This theory is thoroughly anti-materialist and frankly bogus, yet it is allowed to carry more weight than it is due because sex is considered to be innate and immutable. Revealing sex as a socially constructed concept inexorably interwoven with gender would be a major step forward toward combating the ideological justifications for the oppression of trans women. Of course, the sex/gender dichotomy is part of an ideology that is a product of and a justification for patriarchy, a structural relationship which is oppressive to all women. To argue this in detail however will require a historical materialist analysis. (Brown, On the Social Construction of Sex)

The name of Brown’s website speaks for itself. Anti-imperialism.com, indicating that she is indeed, a Marxist.

The truth is that conservatism and holding a pro-family stance is more pro-woman than anything the left is pushing. We would never advocate allowing a man posing as a woman to invade the privacy of a little girl in the restroom or allow men to wrestle away athletic opportunities from teenage female athletes, and it isn’t because we are hateful bigots. How you can you be pro-woman and support such non-sense? The traditional view of the family is one where men and women enter into a mutually agreeable contract, where both are viewed as equal partners with different attributes which contribute to the betterment of society. The nation was founded on the principle that family life laid the groundwork for a system of self-governance and liberty, which is why it is so viciously attacked. To the founders, the family represented true equality between the sexes and freedom.

The Founders’ vision of family is built on the equality of the sexes and individual consent. Marriage’s public purpose or function is the procreation and education of children. this function requires a suitable form, so early laws discouraged or outlawed bigamous, polygamous, adulterous relations as inconsistent with marriage, the proper education of children, and hence the interests of society; public opinion was more severe than the laws. the Founders also made efforts to bring surrounding nations toward the peaceful adoption of monogamous, lifelong marriage.[9]

The belief that sex is a social construct, or that gender is not determined by biology is all an attempt to undue not only the so-called patriarchy, but the very principles the nation was founded upon. It defies the self-evident, irrefutable truths that keep men free and connected to God. This has been the Marxist agenda all along and they will do what ever is necessary to achieve it.

---

[1] http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/downloads/brainwashing_book.pdf

[2] https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/03/01/watch-girl-lost-male-transgender-student-sports-

[3] https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/10/26/bizarre-menstruation-commercial-period-panties-shows-men-boys-getting-periods/

[4] https://archive.org/details/TheFeminineMystique/page/n43

[5] http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

[6] https://americasenemieswithin.blogspot.com/2011/02/45-goals-of-communist-party-1963.htmlhttps://americasenemieswithin.blogspot.com/2011/02/45-goals-of-communist-party-1963.html

[7]http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o402.htm

[8] https://anti-imperialism.org/2014/02/24/on-the-social-construction-of-sex-part-1/

[9] http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=polsci_facpubs

The Failure and Capitalization of Gun Control

On Thursday, October 10, Fox 13 reported that two people were killed from a shooting in a mobile home park in Tampa Florida. According to the article, which is only credited to Fox 13 Staff, there is no clear motivation for the shooting and the suspects are still on the loose. It is unclear how this could have happened because Florida passed its Red-Flag law immediately after the Parkland Shooting. Since that time more than 2000 people have had their guns seized based on nothing more than hearsay and speculation about what a person might do, and in the meantime, murderers are still getting away with murder. While groups like Everytown for Gun Safety claim Red-Flag laws to be an astounding success, the truth is that they do nothing but focus police efforts on people who probably have no intention of committing a crime while the criminals are still roaming free. As is the case with all gun control laws.  

Red-Flag laws are on the books in fifteen states across the country. They violate nearly all aspects of the bill of rights by denying an individual due process before their property is taken on mere suspicion. In most cases, it is up to family members or law enforcement to file for an “extreme risk protection order” against someone they feel may be a danger to themselves or others. After an individual’s guns have been confiscated, they must file a petition with the court to set a hearing a date where they will then have to prove there was no reason to confiscate their guns. In other words, gun owners are now guilty until they can prove their innocence. How did we reach such a point in America where a fundamental principle like the presumption of innocence is so callously thrown away?

In 2013, I wrote the article “The Culture Changing Pop-Tart.” Elementary School student Josh Welch was being suspended from school because his anti-gun, liberal teacher accused him of biting a pop-tart into the shape of a gun. Young Josh claimed he was trying to make a mountain but that didn’t matter to the teacher. The school insisted their actions were necessary to keep the other students safe, from a pop-tart gun. Since this time there has been a series of related incidents. The most recent was the suspension of a Colorado High School student for posting pictures of him and his mother shooting at the range. There was another incident in Kansas with a twelve-year-old who is now facing felony charges for pointing a “finger gun” at other students after her classmates asked her what five students she would kill if she could. This is a gray area because, in my opinion, this does cause some concern but doesn’t warrant felony charges. According to Cam Edwards from Bearingarms.com, two other students from the same school district were caught bringing real guns to school but no charges were pressed against them because there was no evidence they were going to use them. That makes perfect sense.

The truth is that there is a deliberate effort coming from the Department of Education to brainwash our students against guns. The News Education publication, “Educator Guide: The Battle Over Gun Control,” clearly shows how the education system presents a one-sided argument in an attempt to sway the opinions of students into accepting restrictions against their rights. Using the concept of critical theory, they present the pro-gun argument and the anti-gun argument but only provide the studies and statistics of the anti-gun side. They are encouraging students to criticize their own culture to affect social change. In the video below, Eric Holder can be seen describing how to change the public perception of America’s firearm culture. 

Guns in America were once viewed as a proud tradition of free and independent people. After years of effective conditioning and teaching techniques, such as active shooter drills and suspending students for displaying any support for gun rights, they are creating a culture of fear and uncertainty. Just as they are with other mass hysteria movements like #metoo, where the presumption of innocence is also thrown to the wayside.

The truth is that you cannot stop murderers from murdering. You can, however, capitalize on the failures of gun control by pushing for further restrictions until the ultimate objective has been achieved. California has had some of the strictest gun laws in the country and was one of the first to pass Red-Flag laws. Governor Newsom recently signed fifteen new gun control measures into law. They have upped the ante and now allow teachers, employers, and co-workers to file “red-flags” against anyone they deem to be a threat to themselves or others. Governor Newsom said that no state does it as well as California, according to Kristen Mitchell. He also said there is so much more they need to do. Therein lies the point. Governor Newsom knows these gun control measures will not stop murder. They will allow him, however, to take advantage of their failures and make the argument that because gun control doesn’t work, the only answer is an all-out repeal of the second amendment. The more gun control fails, the more the people who feel the need to act will call for further restrictions. Florida’s Red-Flag laws are an abysmal failure because they are confiscating guns from people who have done nothing wrong while there are currently two murders on the loose.

Red-Flag laws are not needed. It is already against the law to make threats of violence and a person can be charged with a crime and prosecuted for doing so. In many cases concerning Red-Flag laws, individuals who have been deemed to be dangerous are simply left alone after their guns have been confiscated. They are not arrested or charged with a crime. If they are a threat to themselves or others does it not stand to reason that they may commit an act of violence with something that kills far more people than a rifle? Like a knife or a hammer?

Red-Flag Laws must be opposed on all levels and those that exist need to be repealed before all gun owners are deemed a threat to themselves or others simply for owning a gun.  

Someone else's eyes

Sometimes it snows when what you need most is to see the sun's brilliant light piercing the dark dreary clouds.


Sometimes you search for a smile when all you all find is a sad, sullen frown.


The winter always ends, and life begins anew. Skies once gray now shining brilliant blue.


Put on a smile, savor the clearing skies.  You just may be the light in someone else’s mourning eyes.


David Risselada

The climate mob: Government needs brainwashed minions to demand change

The climate hysteria is reaching its peak as more and more we are seeing what a government-controlled education system is doing to the minds of our younger generations. Millions of school-aged children are being bombarded daily with climate propaganda designed to frighten them into becoming political activists. As Dr. Stephen Jackstadt writes in “Environmental Education: Turning Kids into Political Activists”, the environmental movement is largely dead and discredited in the eyes of the public, but one place that it is still going strong is public education. While this paper is from 1995, it presents a clear picture of the indoctrination taking place in the classroom concerning environmental issues. After decades of constant fear-mongering, is it any wonder we see children demanding an end to life as we know it to save the planet?

The federal government has been in control of public schooling since the Department of Education was created under Jimmy Carter in 1979. If the schools are teaching climate activism and pushing global warming alarmism, it is because the government has a vested interest in students believing it. Students allegedly organizing climate strikes, and lobbying Congress to take action to save their futures is the culmination of an education agenda that goes back more than thirty years. According to Jackstadt, the textbook “Environmental Science: The Way the World Works,” was encouraging school-aged children as early as 1993, to call their congressman and senators and demand further regulations on automobile fuel standards. Furthermore, the textbook went on to suggest that any further delays would be “intolerable.” These days, the climate change agenda is woven into the fabric of all educational programs from math to English.

What interest would the government have in indoctrinating our children into believing human beings are destroying the planet? The United Nations has a sustainable development agenda which was once known as Agenda 21. It has now become known as Agenda 2030 and the goal is to destroy capitalism and institute global government on the basis of trying to save the planet while eradicating inequality. While the goals may seem noble enough, they would be accomplished through government dictate, meaning a complete end of freedom. While many people would argue that the United States should leave the U.N., the fact is our involvement has been mandated by law since 1945 with The United Nations Participation Act. This law committed the United States to full participation in the U.N. while authorizing the president to appoint representatives and commit the United States military to conflicts based on U.N. objectives. To be more specific, congress would retain the power to determine the size and terms of military deployments, but the power to determine what would constitute the type of crisis warranting their use would be solely up to the United Nations Security Council. That is a complete loss of American sovereignty in and of itself because the power to wage war, according to the U.S. Constitution, rests with the United States Congress alone. It was because of the provisions of this law that President Truman was able to commit troops to the Korean War without the consent of congress and instead, the vote of the U.N. Security Council on the pretext of an international emergency.  The same could be said for many of the wars and police actions that would soon follow.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon committed the United States further to the goals of the U.N. and the push for global government by signing HR 6768, The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act. This act, Public Law 93-188 made it U.S. policy to contribute funds to the United Nations in a coordinated, international effort to protect and improve the environment. The basic premise behind the sustainable development agenda is that the United States and the world's wealthy owe the rest of the world a climate debt for destroying the environment and raping third world countries of their natural resources. While there is a concentrated effort to indoctrinate American students into believing their own country is solely responsible for the destruction of the planet, the fact remains that China produces more carbon dioxide than America and the European Union combined. No one is demanding China reduce its emissions.

If the United States government is committed to assisting the United Nations in achieving their environmental goals, then it would stand to reason to assume that the Department of Education is helping smooth the transition from freedom and capitalism to global government. Students, after all, are being taught that capitalism is responsible for catastrophic climate change. While many Americans reveled in the fact that President Trump backed away from the Paris Accords, education secretary Betsy Devos did not hesitate to commit U.S. schools to promoting the U.N. agenda. While the public perception is that the president is protecting America’s interest, the education system continues to indoctrinate our children right under our noses.

Thousands of scientists have debunked the man-made climate change myth, and despite the fact that no clear evidence exists which supports the claim, children will continue to believe it as long as the schools teach it. This is because our education system now revolves around the use of stimulus-response conditioning techniques, and the push to create the ideal citizen that will fall in compliance with government dictates. In 1969, The then-named U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare released a report entitled Reducing Behavior Problems: An Operant Conditioning Guide for Children where operant conditioning was defined as the following.

In its simplest form, operant conditioning involves the systematic use of consequences to strengthen and weaken behaviors under specified stimulus conditions. Operant behavior is strengthened by some consequences called reinforcers and weakened by other consequences called punishers. Withdrawal of reducing consequences will also weaken behavior. This process is called extinction.

What this essentially means is that our children are being rewarded for expressing views favorable to government interests and punished for not. This is how children are brainwashed into advocating for policies that go against their own interests.