Analyzing the Attempts to Normalize Pedophilia.

 

December 18, 2023 by David Risselada

Sometimes I find myself at a loss. The past few years have been quite an experience for me as I have taken a deep dive into the studies of persuasive communications and their relationship to propaganda and attitude change. I also self-published a book on Critical Race Theory, attempting to show readers just how deep of a rabbit hole that subject is, and how simply banning its use in elementary school will have little effect on how the theory is being used as a social transformational tool. Finally, I took a principled stand for the Second Amendment and due process of law by suggesting that all elected officials, even those we support, must be held accountable for unconstitutional actions. Failure to do so equals consent in the minds of those who thirst for power. In one article, I cited a study showing how Trump’s position on a minimum wage proposal was presented from both a left and right-wing perspective to gauge party loyalty, which was effective in shifting the opinions of right-wing voters. I also speculated that this was likely the intent of his statement on red-flag laws, but I digress. This has done little more than isolate me from a larger audience who for the most part, is heavily invested in the idea that Trump is our savior and that banning CRT in elementary school is the solution to our problems. I have been told on more than one occasion that the type of articles I am writing are of no interest to the larger conservative audience. Of course not, people want to read what reflects their views. What they fail to understand is that feeding back to you what you already believe is the nature of the new propaganda. With artificial intelligence now producing content of its own, the public’s beliefs and attitudes will be even easier to guide and control, as the mainstream narrative keeps the public focused on partisan politics and the idea that we must vote for a particular candidate or we are doomed. My main argument over the past few years is that Americans need to shut off the news and study what is known about attitude change and persuasive communications. I am in no way claiming that I am the sole provider of this information, by the way, as all of this is published in communications journals. I am merely attempting to show what has been documented, and speculating about how it is affecting the mindset of the public.

With all of this being said, presuming anyone is still reading, I found myself this morning a little perplexed about what I should write. Last night, I watched The Sound of Freedom for the first time. This is an interesting movie because it received criticism not only from the left for being made-up hype about nothing but there was some on the right who called it a misdirection of sorts, distracting the public from the reality of child trafficking and who is involved.  I would be inclined to take the latter position only because we know of Epstein’s island and the number of politicians and celebrities who have been there. There is also a popular conspiracy about devil worship and child sacrifice concerning Epstein’s Island. I will not be discussing this as I believe that too is a misinformation distraction meant to discredit anyone discussing the issue. This isn’t to say that the events depicted in the film didn’t happen, only that there is much more to the story. The end of the movie had the greatest impact on me. It left me feeling downright disturbed. The claim was made that the United States is the world’s largest consumer of child sex. This would mean that we have a society teeming with pedophiles whose sexual lusts are driving the kidnapping and selling of children across the globe. While I can not find anything that backs that claim statistically, I have found that there are an estimated six million men in the United States who can be considered to have pedophilic tendencies. Here is the disturbing part. That number was published on a website that dedicates its research to the issues faced by people who are no longer referred to as pedophiles in the scientific community, but minor-attracted persons. Which of course, are now being discussed as a marginalized population. We also know that there has been a massive increase in the number of arrests of those who consume child pornography over the last decade. Finally, the American public has witnessed an attempt to de-criminalize, or at least de-stigmatize, pedophilia by trying to reclassify it from a mental illness or a crime to a normal sexual orientation. Don’t forget the issue of extremely graphic and sexually charged books being discovered in elementary school libraries.

This is something that cannot be denied. I have written on this topic before and I can say that there is an effort within the halls of higher academia and the scientific community to prove that pedophilia is not as harmful as previously assumed. In my article, The Problematic Science Defining Child Sexual Abuse and the Normalization of Pedophilia, I cite the work of Bruce Rind who has taken a lead role in studying this topic. Luckily, his work was met with much skepticism at the time and many in the halls of Congress deliberately distanced themselves from it. His article, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” was something I came across in 2010 as a student in the social work program at Northeastern State University. The title of the article itself struck me as odd from the beginning. Assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples? That implies two things. One, the harmful effects of child sexual abuse are assumed, not proven, and there is an academic effort underway, as stated earlier, to prove and document it. Sick. First, the latter part of the title, “Using college samples” indicates that his paper involved the already existing, detailed studies from around the world investigating the effects of child sexual abuse. There are many things to take from Rind’s paper that paint a very disturbing picture. For instance, he makes the claim, or academics around the world world rather, are claiming that the negative effects of child sexual abuse are not necessarily from the act itself, but other determining factors such as family life and the relationship with the adult. Here we go blaming the traditional family again, but more on that later. Secondly, he claims that the effects of sexual child abuse are determined to be harmful because they are looking at it from the assumptive position of abuse, as opposed to other determining factors he mentions, when, according to him, it shouldn’t be. Did you get that? Traditionally speaking, the existing presumption that adult-child sex is an act of abuse, and harmful to the child, should be discarded in favor of the view that other determining factors could be the cause of the negative consequence, not the sexual act itself. Rind’s so-called findings get more disturbing yet as he implies that there is a difference between a five-year-old girl being raped and a 15-year-old boy who consensually agrees to engage in sexual acts with an adult. The latter, he claims, should not be considered child sexual abuse and that an engagement such as this may be beneficial for the child.

“The problem they are attempting to rectify lies in the moral and legal definitions of CSA. They are claiming that there is a distinct difference between the two examples, and by classifying the fifteen-year-old boy as a case of CSA, the waters are being muddied on what actually constitutes CSA and how to determine what harm is caused. The article argues that classifying all cases of sexual activity with children as CSA is scientifically problematic because there is a difference between forceful and consensual acts. The term abuse itself, the article claims, is problematic because it does not differentiate between the violation of social norms and acts committed against a child’s will.”

How does he justify the act of adult-child sex simply by saying the minor consented to it? The word consent implies there was a proposition in the first place. Meaning the adult in question has pedophilic tendencies. This, in modern society, is a crime. The left, however, is muddying the waters by referring to it as a violation of social norms as opposed to being a crime. This is where this gets interesting and downright troubling. This goes back further than most people may realize. First, it is important to understand that Critical Theory plays a role in this. Herbert Marcuse, of the Frankfurt School, argued that true human liberation would come when people’s basic sexual desires were set free and people could act on them without the restrictions put in place by societal norms. What societal norms? That sex was used as a means of not only reproduction but also maintaining white hegemony and the societal norms established by Protestantism. According to an article entitled The Natural Order of Disorder: Pedophilia, Stranger Danger and the Normalising Family, which is essentially an analysis of Michael Foucault’s 1978 book, The History of Sexuality, the term pedophilia itself is a social construct derived from the illusion that the white, heterosexual, bourgeoise family is the caretaker of social norms and what reproductive practices should look like. The pedophile, the authors claim, is a constructed enemy meant to create the illusion of the family as a safe haven from sexual danger. This is written in an academic journal called Sexuality and Culture. The authors of this article also go into the history of sexuality and psychology mentioning the time when homosexuality was treated by the medical profession as a mental disorder and because of this, other sexual deviants were invented in the minds of the public as shadowy figures who posed threats to women and children. As if pedophiles don’t exist and people don’t kidnap and rape children. This article also argues that sexual deviancy, and legislation that outlawed it, was not the result of valid scientific research into the psychology of sexuality, but of fearmongering from legislatures and an anxious public, who of course at the time, was predominately Christian.

I pulled up Foucault’s book this morning as well, and after getting through the first few pages I have to say it is quite telling. He is writing from the perspective of a homosexual who takes Marcuse’s views that unlimited and unbinding sexuality is the road to freedom and modern society, with its taboos and attitudes towards anything that doesn’t fit the normative view of how sex should function in society, is nothing short of repression. It is important to understand that this guy’s work is considered instrumental to the modern study of sexuality. The opening chapter starts with a description of the seventeenth century, a time he describes as being sexually free when everyone’s sexuality was out in the open and there was no need for secrets. He says it was a time when “knowing children hung about amid the laughter of adults: it was a period when bodies made a display of themselves.” Whatever that means. He then goes on to describe the next century as a time when sexuality was confined to the strict purposes of reproduction and kept safely tucked away behind parents’ doors. Is this guy sick or what?

Traditionally speaking, conservative Americans pride themselves on their morality and their Christian worldviews. How Christian are we when we let these kinds of studies take place in the halls of our higher academic institutions? Most people turn away from discussing these topics. What about our churches? Our churches are doing nothing to stop it. In fact, most of them are pushing the homosexual issue along with acceptance of the transgender agenda. If the claim made at the end of Sound of Freedom concerning America, and the consumption of child sex is true, we are a long way off from being anywhere near the higher level of morality we believe we represent. We should all be investing our time and efforts to expose this mentality and the efforts to normalize pedophilia as a sexual orientation. I know I will be.  The following link is a paper I turned in as a graduate student in a Master of Social Work program. The same program incidentally, where I was denied my degree three days before graduation.

In Defense of Our Nation: Child Sexual Abuse and the Repealing of Age of Consent Laws…..By David Risselada

If you enjoyed this content please consider subscribing to my website and checking out my most recent books.

A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy, now available in paperback.  

 

And Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.

 

Exploring the Concepts and Realities of Ideological Subversion

I was in my local grocery store the other day. It was earlier in the morning than when I usually go. I have been at home all week recovering from carpal tunnel surgery and this was the first time I had been out since. Even though the site has long become a familiar one, we have been dealing with the issue of Covid for over two years now, seeing most shoppers wearing facemasks left me feeling, shall we say, disheartened and deeply concerned about the state of our nation. The store was relatively packed, and I was, maybe, one of three or four shoppers not wearing a face covering. What left me feeling so disillusioned was the behavior of some of the people. For instance, one man saw me standing in an aisle all alone. He was at least twenty years older than me, putting him at around seventy or so. He was scared to death to walk down the aisle I was in and deliberately avoided doing so, despite the open space and me being the only one in the lane. Another individual, when I reached down to grab a package of shredded cheese, jumped back as if I had just threatened her with a gun. I was already at least three feet away from her when I grabbed my item, but she felt the need to put on this little show. I have reached the point, a long time ago mind you, where I can no longer take any of this seriously, and I begin to wonder if people have any interest in defending what little freedom of thought remains in our country. I told the woman I was not contagious and just a few years ago it was common knowledge that people would get sick from the flu every year. Influenza, after all, is a coronavirus as is the common cold. Her reply was at once, both hilarious and disturbing. She said she has Covid. If that’s the case, what is she doing in the grocery store? She didn’t appear sick. Her voice wasn’t coarse and despite being a bit misguided and frightened, appeared to be relatively healthy. Who knows, maybe she is recovering? I realized at this point, and I have known this from the beginning of all this nonsense, that there is no going back to normal. The issue of Covid-19, its variants, the vaccine, and all the other information pertaining to the so-called pandemic, has captivated, or captured, the hearts and minds of most Americans to the point where their perceptions of reality are so deeply altered, they will never let go. In the check-out lane, the cashier greeted me with the usual attempt to get rid of all their plastic bags as if I am someone who simply responds to the power of suggestion. “Plastic bags for you today sir?” He says with a smile. “No, thank you,” I replied. Driven by an urge to snap people out of this trance-like state they are in, I asked him if he had ever heard of Ivan Pavlov. He replied by asking, “The dog guy?” “Yes, the dog guy,” I said. “Did you know that Joseph Stalin employed him to apply his conditioning techniques to people in communist Russia?”

America’s perception of what is or what isn’t considered normal is deeply rooted in our subconscious. We all get up every day and live our lives within the confines of what has largely appeared to be a world that makes sense. We go to work, pay our bills, and keep ourselves informed by watching the daily news. We have our beliefs, our opinions, and our attitudes towards major social issues which affect all of us. Democrats believe that America is a racist nation in need of a complete make-over. Republicans believe that Donald Trump was America’s savior after eight years of Obama, without even considering his long friendship with the Clinton’s, and the fact that Billie boy encouraged him to run in 2015. Covid-19 has dominated our thoughts and beliefs for more than two years. No matter what side of the aisle you are on you cannot escape it. It has become the reality whether you believe it or not.

These issues are at the forefront of American consciousness because they are constantly pushed through the avenues where most Americans receive information, media and education. On one side of the aisle there is Fox News, which presents itself as the conservative outlet, and on the other, CNN. America’s educational institutions have become little more than pushers of liberal indoctrination and thought reform. While most conservatives would agree that education has taken a very socialistic turn, working to melt the minds of our younger generation, would they consider the possibility that Fox News exists to shape, define, and guide conservative thought? Probably not, if they pride themselves on staying informed. According to the book Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, highly educated people consider the news, whichever flavor pleases their senses, to be credible, and are likely to go along with whatever their favorite outlet is reporting. This is useful information if the purpose of the media is to shape and guide public opinion.

While the nation appears to be brainwashed by the illusion that masks and vaccines will save them, without asking the obvious question of why they haven’t already, there is good news. Millions around the world are awakening to a new reality. They are beginning to wonder if there might be something to the whacked-out, tinfoil hat, one-world government conspiracy “theory.” The bigger problem is that the powers that be successfully discredit and demonize any movement that works to expose this truth. In the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy worked to expose communist infiltration in our government, and the methods of subversion they employed. The term McCarthyism was attached to anyone who bought into his ideas. Today, anyone who opposes the leftist agenda is discredited through elaborately staged illusions meant to give the impression they were something that they weren’t. The best example of this is from a biography of Saul Alinsky from Stanford Horwitt. Many people are likely to know this, but it is a good reminder of what we are dealing with. Alinsky was asked by a group of college students what the best way to protest a George Bush rally would be. This is when he was a U.N. Representative. Alinsky told them to show up to the rally dressed like the KKK, and cheer whenever he said something they were against. Mainly pertaining to the Vietnam war. This, of course, created the illusion that the KKK supported Bush and that Bush was for the KKK.

There is an idea that I have come across in a couple of different books. In The Naked Communist, for example, Cleon Skousen says that if we study the problem of communism, we may be able to preserve freedom for all mankind. Unfortunately, he said this back in 1958. In another book, The Rape of the Mind, Joost Meerloo states “If we are to survive as free men, we must face up to the problem of politically inspired mental coercion, with all its ramifications.” What does this mean? It means we must accept that the world isn’t as it seems. Conservatives must accept that it isn’t just Democrats trying to transform our world. They must accept that when six corporations control all the media, and the owners of Fox News contributed more to Hillary Clinton while pushing stories promoting Trump, something is fishy. They must accept that perhaps Q is little more than a psychological warfare operation, controlling the thoughts of Trump supporters. The Soviets, after all, were experts in the use of controlled opposition to transform independent nations into communists states. Above all, it means that we must accept that everything we have ever believed about our thoughts and attitudes could be little more than deliberately created perceptions meant to keep us trapped in a thinking pattern that distracts us from the true reality. The reality of what Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov refers to as, Ideological Subversion.

Ideological Subversion: To change the perception of reality to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one can come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities, and their country. (Yuri Bezmenov)

According to Bezmenov, Ideological Subversion is such a long process that the average person doesn’t realize that any change is taking place. This is like the concept of Fabian Socialism, small incremental changes over long periods of time. The frog in boiling water, so to say. Most Americans alive today, for example, were born after the invention of the television. The idea that we receive the information that guides our decisions and daily activities through our T.V. sets has been so normalized, for so long, that no one blinks an eye at it. Most Americans are also unaware of the fact that the Soviets had plans to use our free press against us before the television was even invented. In a report entitled The Communist Peace Offensive, it is highlighted that communist propagandists were keenly aware of how to use America’s free press to push their aims. This was at a time when America received all its information through radio. They were exploiting our freedoms, and our susceptibility to the belief we were exercising freedom of choice by choosing what we wanted to listen to. Bezmenov states that one of the key principles of subversion is turning a stronger force against itself. This is a concept echoed in Saul Alinsky’s Rule for Radicals, where on page 128 he says to “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this because they can no longer live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” This is an example of political coercion we must face up to. Our cherished freedom of speech is being used as a weapon against us in the mass media. Even if we are aware of communist propaganda, we can’t argue against it because of the First Amendment. So, we believe.

Media, according to Bezmenov, is one of the main avenues of subversion because it has a direct impact on public opinion and attitude. This isn’t a crazy conspiracy theory. Countless hours of research have gone into media-related studies going all the way back to The War of the Worlds radio broadcast. The book, Invasion from Mars: A Study of the Psychology of Panic highlights the fact that researchers found people’s trust in media figures had a major impact on their belief that what they were listening to was a real-world event, not a play. The book, Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research discusses the role of media from being simply a conveyor of information to a tool of persuasion. For years there was little in the way of solid evidence suggesting that media can change people’s beliefs or opinions because it was doing little more than telling people the facts. It was in the 1960s that researchers found that opinions and attitudes were largely shaped not by the story itself, but how the story was framed for the audience. How did the media present the story? The news media started assuming the role of defining what issues American’s would think about, not necessarily how they thought about the issues. This, according to the authors of Chapter One of Media Effects, is referred to as the agenda-setting role of mass media. Defining what it is Americans consider to be the most pressing and salient issues of the day.

Again, this is an example of the problem of communism we must study. Media Effects: Advances in Theory Research isn’t a conspiracy book. It is a detailed account of the numerous studies that have occurred to figure out how to use media to persuade, not inform, written by the researchers. If we decide to keep ourselves trapped in a line of thinking that was deliberately designed by these people to guide our opinions, and define for us what we should consider important, we will not get out of this. Another book to look at is Manufactured Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is admittedly, a known leftist, however, his insight rings true. Discussing something called the Propaganda Model, he describes a news media where a certain amount of dissension is allowed to counter the mainstream narrative. This is done to give the illusion of a free press as the alternative information is kept within acceptable bounds and margins. In other words, whether you are listening to news that pushes or questions the Covid-19 narrative, your mind is still on Covid-19. Right where the commies want it to be.

This is the reality we are living in. Our thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and opinions have been subverted through the infiltration of media. A massive amount of research has been conducted concerning how we respond to media messages, how they affect our opinions and dominate our thinking. The mass media sets the agenda for what we are to consider “the most important and salient issues of the day.” As noted earlier, researchers also know that highly educated people pride themselves on staying informed and up to date on the latest information, and view media sources as legitimate. This is the reality of Ideological Subversion. It isn’t a crazy whacked-out conspiracy theory, but a frightening truth that can be verified if people could learn what to research. The media narrative over Covid-19 has been so successful, for example, that people continue to rush out to testing sites and accept a positive test result, despite the fact that the World Health Organization itself has admitted the PCR tests are producing high rates of false positives.

A good article is supposed to describe the problem and offer viable solutions. Presenting workable ways to solve the problem of brainwashing is difficult because you must first, convince people they have been brainwashed. Solving this problem and returning America to a state of uninfringed liberty means accepting that we have all been affected by this. We cannot go on thinking that Fox News is giving us the conservative viewpoint, for example. We must move on realizing, based on the evidence presented, that they could be defining what it is conservatives should be thinking about.  It is the same for all media. The false left/right paradigm exists to create conflict and push us towards socialism. The bottom line is this. We must shut off the news and start researching for ourselves. It has all been written down, the work has already been done. We just need to read and accept that it may be the reality we are dealing with.

 

 

 To whomever, it may concern,

For months now I have been working to draw attention to deliberate lies and inconsistencies pertaining to the Coronavirus narrative. I suppose I had some hope that there were people willing to do what our forefathers did and put their necks on the line in defense of liberty. I suppose I was wrong. In this letter, I will provide the links to the information which shows there is no need for mandated vaccines, and frankly, information that should have stopped this dead in its tracks long ago.

First and foremost, I need to remind you that Dr. Fauci has been exposed as a liar. He has been exposed for funding GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH. Are you suggesting that I should be forced to take a vaccine that was just proven to be manipulated to be more dangerous? How can you justify this when there is other information which discredits the entire narrative? Furthermore, the director of the National Institute of Health has just resigned due to this revelation. Francis Collins, NIH Director, Resigns After Gain-of-Function Falsehood Exposed (breitbart.com) The Deputy Director of NIH recently admitted that Gain of Function Research was conducted with SARS COV-2. Vaccines cannot be undone. By mandating me to take this vaccine you are requiring I be injected with a substance invented to fight a disease that was manufactured through gain of function research, to be more virulent, in a laboratory.  NIH admits US-funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan (nypost.com)

The following is from the CDC’s own document entitled-CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. On page 40 they admit there was no isolated sample of covid 19 when they developed the PCR testing procedures. The following is from that document-

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full-length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. Samples were extracted using the QIAGEN EZ1 Advanced XL instrument and EZ1 DSP Virus Kit (Cat# 62724) and manually with the QIAGEN DSP Viral RNA Mini Kit (Cat# 61904). Real-Time RT-PCR assays were performed using the Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath™ 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG (Cat# A15299) on the Applied Biosystems™ 7500 Fast Dx RealTime PCR Instrument according to the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel instructions for use.

CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel - Instructions for Use (fda.gov)

If there was no isolated sample of the virus from which they developed the PCR test, what did they use to develop the vaccine? Can you tell me what they mean when they say, “viral transport medium to mimic the clinical specimen?” If you can’t explain that do you not have a moral imperative to find out what that means? Does this not violate laws concerning informed consent such as 38 U.S. Code 7331?

Are you aware of the legal and scientific processes which are required in the documenting of new viruses? If not, here is some information on that for you to read. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE 'NOVEL CORONAVIRUS', 'SARS-CoV-2'? - Dr. Kevin P. Corbett - Evidence Not Fear

This is important because the W.H.O. acknowledged that the PCR tests were producing high rates of false tests. In June 2021 the CDC announced they were halting the use of the PCR tests by December 2021. In their own words, they are calling for something that can differentiate between the flu and Covid-19. Can you explain why? Can you explain what testing procedures they are using now and how they are ensuring they are not producing false positives? If you cannot, do you not have the moral imperative to find out for the sake of your employees? Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Last summer Dr. Birx admitted that they were labeling all deaths as covid-19 deaths. The number of those allegedly killed by Covid was revised several times over to reflect the number of those who may have died from other health complications. The CDC, this past June, released the following report ̶ Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,677 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020-March 2021. In their own words, the death of 94.9% of the 540, 677 people hospitalized due to COVID-19 can be attributed to comorbidities such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and even high rates of anxiety. This means, and we have known this all along, that only a small percentage of the population are affected by Covid-19 in a life-threatening way. Furthermore, in this report the CDC states that only people at risk from these other underlying ailments should be targeted for vaccination. The following quote is from that report-

The highest risk of severe COVID-19 illness was associated with obesity, anxiety and fear-related disorders, diabetes with complication, CKD, and neurocognitive disorders. Among patients younger than 40, essential hypertension was also a risk factor for death. The total number of underlying medical conditions was a strong risk factor of severe COVID-19 illness. Preventing COVID-19 in populations with these conditions and multiple conditions should remain a public health priority, along with targeted mitigation efforts and ensuring high uptake of vaccine, when available, in these people and their close contacts.

In October 2020, The New England Journal of Medicine released their article entitled Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 where they essentially recommend employers be tasked with mandating the vaccine because it would avoid the “constitutional due-process issues” of government mandating it. They also state that the vaccine should only be mandated by employers if there is a system of accountability in place. Are you going to take responsibility for adverse reactions? If not, you have a moral imperative to protect your employees from possible harm. The following is a quote from that article-

Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (nejm.org)

“Neither fines nor criminal penalties should be used, however; fines disadvantage the poor, and criminal penalties invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds. Both are bad public health policy for a Covid-19 vaccine because they may stoke distrust without improving uptake.”

I would urge you to read it. To avoid these issues, they are putting the burden on you, and it has been planned that way.

The FDA press release letter clearly states there is an increased risk for Myocarditis and, that the long-term effects of the vaccine are not yet known.

“Additionally, the FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and has determined that the data demonstrate increased risks, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support. Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes. The Comirnaty Prescribing Information includes a warning about these risks.” FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine | FDA

Are you prepared to inform me and other employees about the possibility of these risks and the unknown long-term effects based on our own individual health histories? If not, how can you rightfully and morally mandate a vaccine simply because you are being told to? The government may offer some protection against liability but in the long run, adverse reactions will be the responsibility of those forcing the vaccine on their employees under duress of losing their jobs. That is a false choice that employees cannot be held responsible for when they are being forced.

I would urge you to read the vaccine approval letters from the FDA to Pfizer. They clearly state that what was approved was a vaccine called COMIRNATY, which they claim is the same ingredients of the Pfizer Bio-n-Tech vaccine. However, the Pfizer vaccine was only reauthorized under the emergency use authorization. Can you assure me that the shot you will be requiring me to take is the Comirnaty vaccine and not the Pfizer Bio-N-Tech? If not, you are forcing me to take a shot that is still under the EUA. If you cannot make sense of this information, then do you not have the moral imperative to find out exactly what is going on if you are going to force your employees to be vaccinated? Senator Ron Johnson has sent two letters to the FDA demanding clarification on this issue to which he has received no response. Under federal law, it is illegal to require a vaccine which is still under emergency use authorization, or if there are other effective means available to treat the disease.

“On August 23, 2021, FDA approved the biologics license application (BLA) submitted by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH for COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 16 years of age and older. On August 23, 2021, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the August 12, 2021 letter of authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to clarify that the EUA will remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses, and to authorize use of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in the approved BLA.” Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA LOA reissued October 20 2021 (fda.gov)

Have you heard the term ANTIBODY DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT commonly associated with the mRNA vaccines? It is a process which allegedly inserts the spike protein of the synthetic virus, (because remember, the CDC admits they never isolated a virus) into your DNA which in turn, when later exposed to a similar virus or the so-called virus itself, you become sicker because your body replicates it. Here is some information on that as well.

“Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials. Here, we describe key ADE mechanisms and discuss mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies in development. We also outline recently published data to evaluate the risks and opportunities for antibody-based protection against SARS-CoV-2.”

Can you provide me with information that guarantees I will not experience this? If you cannot, do you not have the moral imperative to learn more about it? According to a recent study, the majority of Covid hospitalizations are occurring because of anti-body dependent enhancement in fully vaccinated individuals. AI-Powered DoD Data Analysis Program Named “Project Salus” SHATTERS Official Vaccine Narrative | SOTN: Alternative News, Analysis & Commentary (stateofthenation.co)

The Covid-19 pandemic has been filled with misinformation and deliberate lies meant to scare an unsuspecting public into compliance with this vaccine effort. The information has been provided which paints a clear picture at the very least, that forced vaccinations would be unethical simply because the information is inconsistent. As it stands right now, there is no recourse for individuals to take as the pharmaceutical companies and government are immune for prosecution in the event of adverse reactions. Currently, according to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Reaction Reporting System, there have been thousands of reports since this vaccine was introduced. There is also a federal lawsuit alleging that 45,000 people have died of this vaccine. With all due respect to you and your organization, unless you can guarantee my safety and follow the laws of informed consent, which I am pretty sure I have demonstrated you cannot, you have no legal or moral authority to force this vaccine on me and it would be, no matter what the president says, against the law to fire me or anyone else given the circumstances. I would urge you to jump on board the lawsuit that is being filed by not only the State of Oklahoma, but twenty other states as well before making any decisions we all will regret.

Furthermore, it has been recently discovered that the vaccine is only good for six months before it starts losing its efficacy. Are you prepared to force your employees to get booster shots every six months to a year?  Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study (thelancet.com)

I would also like to highlight my religious objections to this vaccine as well as all others. Revelations 13:17 clearly states that a mark will come and if men refuse to take it, they will not be able to buy or sell. Clearly, with the idea of vaccine passports and some businesses refusing services, and even some hospitals refusing organ transplants if patients do not have this vaccine, we are on this path. It is my sincere religious belief, based on the words in Revelations and my personal relationship with Christ, that this vaccine represents such a mark. For the record, I have not taken any vaccines since being released from active duty over 15 years ago, with the exception of the swine flu. I only took this one because my wife had my small children injected with it. If they were gong to suffer any adverse effects, I was going to suffer them also. My children are now grown, and my wife stands with me in my refusal to take this vaccine. It is also well known that the use of aborted fetal tissue was used in the development and testing processes of this vaccine. I stand 100 percent against all abortions and feel there is no legal, moral of ethical grounds in which a vaccine that used aborted fetal tissue can be forced on me or anyone else. COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf Some will argue the lives potentially saved would rule out ethical concerns however, it is clear that this vaccine is not preventing people from contracting Covid-19. Title VII of the Civil Rights act states that religious discrimination in the workplace is illegal. It is also illegal to segregate people based on their religious beliefs or, to harass people based on their religious beliefs. Making people justify their religious beliefs in response to a mandated vaccine which is still authorized under emergency use could constitute harassment and segregation. Drawing any attention towards those people who have chosen to not get vaccinated because of religious reasons certainly would be considered harassment and making them follow any different procedures because of their unvaccinated status would be singling them out, thus, constituting segregation.

There is one final point I would like to make. Congress, the people we elect, are exempt from this mandate. This means they are sitting back letting you, the civilian business owner, assume all the risks in doing so. Is that right? Shouldn’t the people we elect to represent us be subject to the same laws, or at the very least, be working to protect your interests? After all, they are not the ones with money invested in employee training and other business details associated with retaining good, dependable help. It is becoming abundantly clear that millions across the country are refusing this vaccine and many employers, consequently, are suffering a lack of staff. Do you think this is the right way to go? Is it right that this burden was placed on you because the government knew they didn’t have the lawful authority to do it?

Thank you

David Risselada

 

 

 

 

Talked into Accepting Tyranny: Covid-19 and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion

 

The great tragedy of our time is not a government seeking total control, but a population of willfully ignorant people refusing to turn off their televisions.

Cleon Skousen said in The Naked Communist that freedom for all men is achievable if enough people could study, and understand the world’s most pressing problem. What is the problem he was referring to? The Marxist’s quest to reshape humanity in their own image. Unfortunately, people have consistently shown that they’re more interested in being entertained than taking the personal responsibility required to maintain a free society. This is relevant in America as our lives revolve around television media. While there seems to be an awakening to the reality of “fake news” and a propaganda-driven agenda, too many Americans remain blissfully unaware of how their own behaviors and reactions to media messaging help shape and aid this agenda. The controllers behind the scenes spend countless hours analyzing our attitudes and opinions to understand the cognitive processes involved in their formation, and how to change them to gain compliance. Studying and understanding the problem of Marxism still holds great importance. However, it is the sophisticated science of studying human behavior – being applied to change our attitudes – which must be understood. Particularly when it comes to Covid-19.

There is a massive effort underway to understand how to change our attitudes, opinions, and behaviors through the psychology of persuasion. It could be theoretically argued that Americans are allowing themselves to be talked into accepting tyranny because of the way media frames the message, and how effectively social scientists can capitalize on our reactions. According to the book Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, it isn’t the information being presented which influences persuasion, but how people respond to it. Social Scientists have been able to study the effects of mass media attitude change through the lens of a behavioral model called the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. As the name implies, this model examines the abilities of certain people to “elaborate on,” or think deeply about messages they are receiving from media sources. The Elaboration Likelihood Model was also used to determine the best way to frame messages, based on people’s reactions, to gain compliance with the Covid-19 agenda.

According to Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, this model of persuasion focuses on two aspects of cognitive functioning which show how people respond to media messages. These are referred to as the central and peripheral routes of persuasion. The central route suggests that certain people can apply their own experiences, and carefully analyze the information as they receive it.  The central route is taken because people are thinking deeply about an issue, therefore, it is necessary to tweak the message based on the recipient’s current beliefs to achieve persuasion. The peripheral route suggests that some people cannot process information effectively, and all it takes is a simple “cue to action” to motivate a change in attitude. Interestingly, it has been shown that attitude change through the central route can be longer-lasting because of the effort put into the thought processes, this is known as effort justification. People justify their change in opinions, or behaviors, because of the effort required to make the change. The peripheral route produces change based on passive and reactionary processing, meaning that very little thought was put into it therefore, the change in opinion may not be as deeply rooted. It has been shown that important information, what people think about most, can be determined by the stories consistently presented by the media. If the media can control what is in the forefront of people’s minds, persuasion through the Elaboration Likelihood Model is almost a certainty.

According to an article entitled Persuasion amidst a pandemic: Insights from the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the study of persuasion and attitude change can provide useful guidance in effectively framing the Covid-19 message to gain more compliance with desired behaviors. This article echoes some of the same information previously mentioned. For example, people’s abilities to process information are broken down into two categories, high and low elaboration. When elaboration is high, it is more closely associated with the central routes of persuasion, and when elaboration is low, the peripheral route. The authors of this article state that the effectiveness of a persuasive message can be predicted by understanding the amount of elaboration the recipients are likely to put into processing it. Are they likely to investigate the merits of the information being presented, or just accept it?

Convincing the public to adopt behaviors that counter conventional logic, like wearing a mask all day, or getting a vaccine that has been “fast-tracked,” requires strong attitudes towards those behavioral choices. Attitudes tend to be stronger when there is a great deal of confidence behind them, how easily accessible the information is that shapes the attitude, and how important it is. According to the book Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, highly educated people tend to expose themselves to mass media communications at a higher rate and are more likely to receive the message. Most people consider the news to be a credible source of information, therefore, those so-called, highly educated individuals who trust the news can be deemed easily persuadable because they believe their attention to media contributes to their decision-making process. Their attitudes are strengthened because they believe they are making informed choices from credible sources. Creating the perception that people are making informed choices and coming to their own conclusions in the context of attitude change is essential in developing effective persuasive communications.

“Examining persuasion variables through such a framework is critical when considering how to effectively persuade the public in a context like the COVID-19 pandemic. When persuasive messaging is aimed at creating public safety attitudes that guide behavior, such messaging must be disseminated in a way most conducive to creating strong attitudes. Ensuring that this occurs requires understanding which persuasion processes tend to produce strong attitudes as well as how and when those processes are most likely to be elicited.”

Source credibility and perceived biases among message recipients are strong factors to consider when framing a message. Persuasion can be effective if a source generally perceived to be biased suddenly changes position. This gives people who are in the high elaboration category the impression that the biased source suddenly switched their position because of new and important information they have received. When it comes to Covid-19, information is always changing, and prominent people who are seen as biased by some have changed their positions several times. Is this done deliberately knowing that it increases the chances of attitude change?

Framing the message around the values and morals of those targeted for persuasion is also effective in producing attitude change. It is believed that behaviors and attitudes are centered around a person’s beliefs, therefore, if a position appears to be argued from the perspective of an individual’s moral worldview, they are more likely to change their attitudes. An article entitled Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory shows how presenting leftwing issues within the moral framework of conservative values produces desirable behavioral change. For example, the issue of homosexual marriage was presented within the context of human freedom and individual choice, morals associated with conservative beliefs, and this prompted a more accepting attitude towards the issue. It has also been shown through various studies that message processing is more effective when a level of importance is placed on the issue. If a position is framed within the parameters of an audience’s morals it is viewed as being more important, therefore, the chances of longer-lasting shifts in attitudes are greater. The whole Covid-19 narrative has been presented through the lens of adopting behavioral changes based on the idea that they would save lives. This is a value that all people would assign great importance to.

All media communications concerning Covid-19 are created to produce behavioral changes which are conducive to the agenda. They are all formulated based on what is understood about human behavior, and our responses to their messaging. The authors of Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research state that it is necessary to separate the public into those who may have a genuine interest in the message, and those who do not, when it comes to crafting the information meant to influence our choices. The most important element is how the information presented is perceived to have a direct impact on the individual. Those interested, or concerned, about Covid-19 are going to be considered high elaboration targets, and the message will be tailored to create the perception that they are putting a great deal of thought into their decisions. News stories concerning Covid are going to be presented in a smart, credible way to produce the strongest results. Those considered to be low elaboration targets or people who do not think deeply about the issue, do not process the information effectively enough to be affected by this type of persuasion. They are believed to be motivated by cues to action, or stimuli, which prompts them to react. Ridiculous narratives like “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” or, “two weeks to flatten the curve,” are geared towards these people.

In summary, these studies have been going on for decades. One of the first major attempts to understand mass media and how it affects human behavior occurred after the 1938 radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. Millions of people responded as if they believed Earth was being invaded by Martians. Hadley Cantril, author of the book Invasion from Mars: A Study of the Psychology of Panic stated this particular study would lay the groundwork for how all future studies concerning mass media, and our reactions to it, would be conducted. There are many parallels between that study and what was discussed in this article. (See this PDF) First, the perceived trust of those acting as news broadcasters played a tremendous role in people’s reactions to the broadcast. Secondly, they were able to separate people into those who had what was referred to as “critical ability” to do further investigations and those who simply responded based on the stimulus itself. Fortunately, not everything these researchers believe about our behavior is true. There are many people doing research for themselves and coming to radically different conclusions. This is putting a thorn in the side of those pushing this agenda and forcing them to adopt more coercive means. This isn’t to say that these methods aren’t effective. Many millions of Americans are adopting the behavioral recommendations simply because they have been persuaded into doing so. Cleon Skousen was correct in his assertion that a failure to understand the problem of Marxism would have dire consequences.  Failure to understand the efforts taken in manipulating our perceptions, and changing our attitudes, is perhaps of equal if not greater importance.

To learn more about this topic check out my book Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.

 

 

 

Framing Narratives and Inducing Compliance Using Moral Foundations Theory

If Americans could comprehend the amount of research that goes into media messaging, and how to frame an issue to affect attitude change, they would forever shut off their televisions. For the political elite, America’s culture of free choice presents a problem, one they see as standing in the way of their grand vision of Utopia. They cannot force their agenda without some smooth-talking aimed at the moral base of dissenters if they expect them to change their political positions. Even Biden’s recent tyrannical dictates, which many people accept as legitimate, demonstrate an understanding of political and moral framing of the issues. Millions across the country will accept his unconstitutional actions because of the effective methods used in presenting Covid-19 as a life-threatening pandemic. Research has shown in numerous instances, that framing an issue within the moral confines of a targeted audience is often enough to shift opinions and gain compliance with an action they may otherwise reject.

What is framing? According to the book Dynamics of Persuasion: Communications and Attitudes in the 21st Century, framing presents a relevant issue in a way that promotes the “problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and treatment recommendations” of a media message. Researchers have found that people are not necessarily the rational thinkers they are assumed to be. Framing issues from a particular viewpoint has shown that people are very susceptible to simple twists of words and reversing of logic. When facts are presented differently, it changes how people respond to them. A common example is how the survival rates of surgery may be framed. If a doctor explains a certain procedure has a ninety percent survival rate in one instance and a ten percent fatality rate in the other, people respond to the ten percent fatality rate more, even though the information is the same. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s former regulatory czar, writes in his book Nudge that framing works because people are “mindless, passive decision-makers.” He says people are not capable of thinking about how issues are framed, or if their opinions would change if they were presented differently.

This is important to understand because there is a massive academic effort underway which seeks to determine the best ways to shift political attitudes. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the media framed the issue from the perspective that morality would dictate conformity with the measures taken to stop the spread. The media persuaded people into compliance through careful manipulation of the narrative based on what they know about the moral perspectives of the targeted population. Persuasion in politics, according to the book, Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, is about the number of people that can be talked into changing their position to the other side, or nudged into complying with political objectives. Understanding the moral base of those seen in need of an attitude shift is essential to get naysayers to comply with government goals that go against their moral reasoning and political orientations.

The art of persuasion has been used extensively in pushing people to accept the absurd during the Covid-19 psyop. The technique of fear-then-relief suggests people ̶ after being exposed to a fear-causing stimulus ̶ become mindlessly compliant once that stimulus has been removed and they become overwhelmed with the sensation of being relieved. This deceptive method of persuasion was applied by keeping the population in a sustained state of panic and offering the vaccine as the only viable way of returning to normal. This worked on a large portion of the population; however, the insatiable thirst of the tyrants won’t be satisfied until there is a needle in every arm.

Another method of persuasion that has proven effective in shifting political opinions is Moral Foundations Theory. This model of behavioral change suggests that people’s political and social attitudes can be changed by framing an issue within the political orientations ̶ or moral foundations ̶ of those deemed in need of an attitude adjustment. Before discussing what is believed about the moral foundations of the politically aware, it is important to understand the different types of people who are most susceptible to attitude change techniques. According to an article entitled Persuasion, psychology and public choice, the moderately aware citizenry who believes they have a basic understanding of political processes is the most targeted for persuasive communication strategies. This is because those on the two extremes, the ones paying no attention at all to anything, and those deeply rooted in their political worldviews, are unlikely to need persuasion or shift their attitudes in any way.

“The third type of citizen is moderately sophisticated, and according to Zaller nearly all the “action” in political persuasion occurs in this group. They have at least some set of integrated beliefs about politics, and some understanding of means–ends relationships in policy. It is likely that they will pay attention to, and perhaps be convinced by, arguments that offer evidence for one position or another. And since many in this group are undecided in the early portions of campaigns, they provide a useful set of recruits for candidates and consultants. Unfortunately, since they also lack deep knowledge of policy problems, and have only partially integrated beliefs, they are also the most easily misled, and the most susceptible to facile and superficial arguments.”

(In the study of persuasion, it is a reoccurring theme that the social scientists conducting these studies believe most people are too stupid to do any research on their own.)

Using Moral Foundations Theory, the political elite and their media cohorts target those that are sitting on the sidelines with morally framed messages which fit in the parameters of their moral worldviews. In an article entitled Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory, the authors discuss the methods used in framing political issues in a manner consistent with the moral values of liberals and conservatives. Like all studies in the social sciences, this one is rife with left-wing bias, particularly in how the morals of liberals and conservatives are described. There is some truth to their assertions, however. For example, liberal morals are described as being concerned with fairness and not wanting to do harm to others, whereas conservative morals are equated to respect for authority, loyalty to group identity, and purity of worldview. In most cases, liberals tend to show more loyalty to group identity than conservatives do but showing an ideological adherence to the liberty worldview is a right-wing trait to be sure. This is important because it is within this context that left-wing issues are framed to shift the opinions of conservatives to the left.

This study was broken down by examining how the framing of issues swayed the beliefs of participants ̶ if at all ̶ from their moral foundations. In some cases, if a conservative issue was framed in a conservative moral framework, the opinions of conservatives became more embedded. This is referred to as the entrenching hypothesis. In most cases, the same was true for liberals. The persuasion hypotheses, however, yielded some interesting results. When a left-wing issue was presented using an argument framed in the moral foundations assigned to conservatives, they were more likely to shift their opinions than liberals were. This is done from the “purity to worldview” morality assigned to the right. A New York Times article entitled The Key to Political Persuasion explained this using the issue of homosexual marriage. By framing the issue within the context of freedom and personal liberty, conservatives were brought to a point where they were willing to change their opinions.

“In one study, we presented liberals and conservatives with one of two messages in support of same-sex marriage. One message emphasized the need for equal rights for same-sex couples. This is the sort of fairness-based message that liberals typically advance for same-sex marriage. It is framed in terms of a value — equality — that research has shown resonates more strongly among liberals than conservatives. The other message was designed to appeal to values of patriotism and group loyalty, which have been shown to resonate more with conservatives. It argued that “same-sex couples are proud and patriotic Americans” who contribute to the American economy and society.”

By assigning moral values the way they have, they can also categorize conservatives as being uncompassionate for their unwillingness to shift their opinions on topics like gun control. In an article entitled I am an AR-15 Owner and I’ve had Enough, Daniel Hayes attempts to sway opinions by stating he had a moral reformation, and the liberty mindset associated with the second amendment needs to be set aside for the safety of our communities. This is the same argument being made with mandatory vaccinations. As noted earlier, people with deeply rooted convictions who are actively engaged are generally not the targets of persuasive communications. Most patriotic Americans who understand the significance of the second amendment will not fall for this tactic. Many people who see gun ownership in terms of hunting and collecting, however, will. They are the target of such an article, and many of them can be persuaded into changing their views on gun ownership. The more of them that comply, the easier it is to label those that don’t as uncaring extremists.

The general, overarching theme in the study of persuasion is that people are not aware of their own cognitive processes to think about what they are doing. The study Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory also incorporated the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. This model is working from the preconceived bias that people fall into two categories. Those who give a thoughtful analysis based on their own experiences, and the merits of the information before changing their position, and those who do not. This is known as taking the central or peripheral routes of persuasion. The peripheral route suggests that attitude change can occur because people’s ability to process the information is low, and all it takes is a simple stimulus to produce the desired change in attitude. The central route is just the opposite and requires tweaking of the message to meet the moral base and political orientations of the target. According to the book Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, it is necessary to separate the public into those who may have a genuine interest in the message, and those who do not, when it comes to crafting the information meant to shift attitudes and change opinions.

The political elite have an objective that a large portion of the population object to. In our nation, the term “the consent of the governed,” holds a lot of meaning. They can not push their agenda on us without our willingness to comply. Countless hours of research have gone into the study of psychology and persuasion, with the goal of understanding what motivates individuals to change their political opinions. It is more than a simple assumption to say these techniques are being used to push attitudes to the left. The authors of Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory fully admit that the knowledge gained from their study would be useful in helping Democrats win elections. This shows the explicit bias in those conducting the study and what their aim is. Another aspect of their study showing their bias was the lack of an attempt to shift liberal opinions to the right by framing right-wing issues within the moral foundations of the left. They clearly have no interest in doing that as the left-wing worldview is presented as the morally correct position.

The bigger point of this article is the importance of studying and researching the issues. The people conducting these studies believe most of the population is not able to do so. If Americans understood the depth of this research they would likely be infuriated.

“If we are to survive as free men, we must face up to the problem of politically inspired mental coercion, with all its ramifications.”

To learn more about this topic check out my book Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.