Sunday, April 7, 2019

A Disappearing Culture of Freedom




President Trump won the presidency by promising to do something about illegal immigration. Millions of loyal followers faithfully believed his empty promises to have Mexico pay for the wall that he assured would be built. The Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency for two years, and no action was taken on the border at all. It wasn't until after the 2018 midterms, where Democrats took control of the House of Representatives that the fight for the wall began. Since that time, we have been treated to a soap opera of a government shutdown, emergency declarations and more meaningless rhetoric to close the border completely. This has all culminated into nothing more than President Trump backing away from all of this and giving Mexico one year to stop the flow of drugs and immigrants coming across our border. By the way, he isn’t playing around this time.

The question remains as to whether Trump is just incompetent, unable to fight the seemingly undrainable swamp or if he is one of them. Why wasn’t the issue dealt with when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate? The answer, while difficult to prove seems to be that the issue itself is just one of many being used to distract the population from an agenda that is steadily being advanced. The big news over the past few weeks has been the exoneration of Trump from the Russian collusion hoax. If there was any truth to any of this Trump would have the momentum and the motivation to drive on with his agenda. Instead, he is caving to the left, like always, while keeping the borders open another year under threat that that he will eventually act. That is a far cry from having Mexico pay for a wall.

The truth is that the immigration issue won’t be solved. Even if Trump was honest in his attempts the issue of immigration is being used as a tool to reshape American demographics and merge the U.S. into a global governing system. The U.N. has published a document highlighting this plan claiming that population replacement through immigration is necessary to address the issue of aging populations and declining birth rates. In the United States the fertility rate as of 2015 was 1.84 children per family, or 60 births per 1000 women of child bearing age. For the U.S. to maintain its culture, a minimum of 2.11 children per family is required. According to the Daily Mail, no U.S. state in 2017 had a birth rate among white women high enough to replace the population. Birth rates among minorities are way up, however. In fact, white babies are now the minority. This in and of itself isn’t a big deal if the United States culture was taught and appreciated. The problem comes when immigrants pouring into the country show no respect for our culture and make no effort to assimilate.

Why are Americans having fewer children? Many women feel the need to focus on career first, for sure. This isn’t a bad idea. Surely, we don’t want to have families if we can’t afford them. Could pushing the idea that having children is bad for the environment have something to do with it? What about the feminist movement that shuns the traditional family life and the role women played in it? How about transgenderism and the normalization of homosexuality? Are Americans being deliberately conditioned to have fewer children so the U.N. could replace our population? It would seem so.

The culture of individual liberty is what made America the greatest country on Earth. People traditionally have sought to come here to escape the depraved conditions of their home countries, where there is no opportunity, to build independent lives and live free. This is not a race issue; it is one of maintaining culture. The people flooding our borders now, while capable of assimilating and adapting to our culture if they choose, are being promised handouts in exchange for votes. The end goal is the elimination of individualism and the culture of freedom and replacing it with collectivism. Therefore, the Democrats insist on pandering to illegal immigrants. It is only a matter of time before they are the majority and there isn’t anything we can do about it.

Sunday, March 17, 2019

The Coming Red Flag Laws and the Changing Perception of Terror


 There is a continuing trend when it comes to the issue of terrorism. With increasing regularity, acts of terror committed by radical Muslims are ignored while the white Christian male gradually becomes the new threat. The shooting in New Zealand for example, is being called an act of terrorism. The white male shooter, being portrayed as a white supremacist, was said to be triggered by a hatred of immigrants. In the United States, when a Muslim commits a mass shooting, he is portrayed as a crazy individual who isn’t motivated by religious fundamentalism. When a white male commits a mass shooting, he is referred to as an angry right-wing extremist driven by an anti-government ideology. Don’t misunderstand, the shooting in New Zealand was most certainly a terrorist attack complete with socio-political objectives. The point of this article, however, will be to show the deliberate attempts to change the public’s perception of what extremism is and the efforts to shield Muslim extremists from any criticism.

(Personal note: This author believes all peaceful people have the fundamental right to pray without fear of violence. The real people at fault are the ones who deny law abiding people their inalienable right to armed defense. Some reports suggest it took police more than a half hour to respond to the situation in New Zealand.)

Since the beginning of 2019 more than 120 Christians have been slaughtered by radical Islamic militants in Nigeria. Many people don’t know this because it isn’t reported in the news. In fact, throughout 2018 the thousands killed in the African nation have led some to believe that a literal genocide is occurring. In the United States, the left wing press has reported that anti-government, right-wing extremists are responsible for more acts of terror on our soil than radical Muslims. For instance, Time reported since September 11, 2001, more Americans have been killed by white supremacists than by Islamic terrorists. This is a ridiculous assertion as in each case the number is rather insignificant, and the September 11th attacks took the lives of thousands in the first place.

There is a worldwide effort to criminalize any criticism of Muslims. According to The Clarion Project, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has launched a global initiative to “correct” the public’s perception of Islam where one of the goals is seemingly to disconnect the images of the Islamic faith from any acts of terror. In 2011, The Obama administration pushed through UN resolution 16/18, which was pushed by the OIC. This resolution essentially criminalizes criticism of Islam by equating any negative speech to potential threats of violence. Recently, Fox News hostess Jeanine Pirro has fallen under increased scrutiny in response to her comments about Representative IIhan Omar. Furthermore, the New York City Police Department and the FBI, likely as a result of the UN resolution have removed all references to Islamic terrorism from their training manuals. The focus is now on alleged right wing extremism, or white nationalism. As time goes on, and younger generations are brought up under these guide lines, the reality of Islamic terrorism will be non-existent in the minds of our law enforcement officers.

It is ironic that one of the motivations listed in the manifesto of the New Zealand killer is immigration because according to the United States Department of Homeland Security report a concern about illegal immigration is enough to have someone considered a potential threat.

(U)  Illegal Immigration



(U//FOUO)  Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.  They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.



(U//FOUO)  Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.  Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.



(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence.  If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

It is also ironic that such an event occurred days before Senator Lindsey Graham holds a hearing on his nation Red Flag gun confiscation bill. After the shooting in New Zealand it is entirely possible that any one questioning illegal immigration could be viewed as suspect in the eyes of an ignorant public.

In the eighteen years since the September 11 attacks, Americans have been conditioned through a process called Associationism to view people who support the second amendment, oppose illegal immigration and question the government as potential terrorists. Associationism refers to how human beings learn by associating ideas. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the ideas of associative learning can be traced back to David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. Hume's theory elaborated on how a person’s perceptions are influenced by previous experience. Furthermore, Hume believed that there was no idea that existed in a person’s mind that was not first shaped by a previous experience. Associative theories of learning were later expanded on by Ivan Pavlov when he developed his theories on classical conditioning. Essentially, it was discovered that trained responses to a given stimulus can be replicated by simply replacing one stimulus with another. For nearly two decades now we have been inundated with images of Islamic terrorism (stimulus) which provoked feelings of fear and panic. This stimulus was accepted by the American people due the nature of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Slowly and ever so surely, this stimulus is being replaced with suggestions of right-wing extremism. Which, because of the already preconditioned perception of terror, is easily provoking the same pre-conditioned response. In other words, the word terror is now being associated with images of patriotic Americans standing up for their rights.

We are approaching a dangerous time. If the Red Flag laws pass and become national it will virtually create a closed society where everyone will be suspect of everyone. People will no longer speak freely for fear of being labeled a potential extremist and having a Red Flag order placed against them. They will no longer seek help if they are experiencing mental duress for the same fear. The more people resist such unconstitutional actions the more people expressing patriotic sentiment will be viewed as extremists and a potential threat to themselves or others. Every time an event like the one in New Zealand occurs the more this narrative will develop. Donald Trump not only supports the idea of Red Flag confiscation laws he agrees with Clinton on the idea of preventing people on the terror watch list from buying guns. According to the DHS you are suspected of being an extremist if you oppose immigration or are concerned about an infringement on your gun rights. How are they going to determine who or who isn't a potential terrorist? Donald Trump has also stated that he believes large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered “red flags.” Many of the Red Flag bills being passed at the state level suggest simply purchasing a firearm is enough to have an individual “red flagged.” Where is this going to end?






Saturday, March 9, 2019

The White Supremacy of the Left




Earlier this week at the University of Boston, Robin DiAngelo, a professor with the University of Washington, gave a presentation in which she blamed white people for being “dangerous” if they fail to see people for their skin color. She claims that white people who deny the “reality of being black” while claiming to believe all men are equal are exhibiting white supremacism. What is the reality of black people that she is speaking of? Is she suggesting that they are incapable of achieving anything on their own, without the help of the white liberal welfare state? Is she suggesting they simply accept their place in society as an oppressed underclass and not even try? That is what is implied. Wouldn’t DiAngelo be the white supremacist for thinking this way?

The University of Washing recently made headlines when it was revealed their writing program is teaching students that the English language is racist. They claim there is no conclusive standard for the English language; therefore, holding people to any standard would be unfair because not everyone can be expected to keep up with its constant changes. The following is the full description of the University of Washington’s writing program.

The writing center works from several important beliefs that are crucial to helping writers write and succeed in a racist society. The racist conditions of our society are not simply a matter of bias or prejudice that some people hold. In fact, most racism, for instance, is not accomplished through intent. Racism is the normal condition of things. Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society. For example, linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent “standard” of English. Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.

Because we all live, work, learn, and communicate within such racist systems, the consultants in the writing center assume that a big part of our job is to help students become more critical of these unjust language structures as they affect students’ writing and the judgment of that writing. In particular, being aware of racism as structural offers students the best chances to develop as writers and succeed on their own terms in an inherently racist society.

Furthermore, by acknowledging and critiquing the systemic racism that forms parts of UWT and the languages and literacies expected in it, students and writing center consultants can cultivate a more socially just future for everyone. Just avoiding racism is not enough because it means we are doing nothing to stop racism at large, and it amounts to allowing racism to continue.

Is it any wonder our society is falling apart? Our universities are teaching that everything about our society, including the language we speak, is racist. The message of white privilege has become so perverted and twisted that Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a color-blind society, where people were judged by the content of their character, has been turned upside down. The word racism now implies believing that black people are equal with whites.

In a journal article entitled The English Only Movement in the U.S. and the World in the Twenty First Century it is argued by University of Arizona professor Teresa Pac that the English language has historically been used to oppress minorities and prevent them from gaining access to American culture. She also argues that white elitists enforced English as a national language because they feared minority languages would become dominant. This is a ridiculous assertion as English has never been the national language and the United States opens her doors to more immigrants from the third world than any other nation. This is an academic journal your children are reading in college.

The roots of racism can be traced back to the fields of psychology and psychiatry. These fields are heavily influenced by Darwinian/atheistic thinking, meaning that the study of human behavior is generally conducted from a scientific as opposed to a spiritual or religious perspective. Evolutionary theory then, is being applied to the development of mankind. Francis Galton, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, was an English psychologist who was related to Charles Darwin and shared many of his views concerning his theory of evolution. Galton, because he believed in evolutionary science, was convinced that Africans were inferior. Stating in his book “Tropical South Africa” that they had no independent will of their own, Galton believed that Africans needed leadership and preferred a life of servitude. This belief is what was later used to justify slavery. In fact, Africans who resisted slavery were considered mentally ill, as it was generally believed that blacks were incapable of self-care and freedom. This disease was referred to as Drapetomania and it is the root belief in what is driving the discussion of racism today. The left’s fundamental argument, as expressed by Professor DiAngelo, is that white people who view blacks as equal, and deny their “reality” as oppressed victims are racists. They are essentially arguing that black people are not as good as white people and need the government to make sure they have an equal chance at success. Isn’t that the very nature of white supremacism? Suggesting that whites are superior and are the only ones capable of helping blacks overcome oppression?



Sunday, February 24, 2019

The Mental Health Myth and the Danger of Red Flag Laws

"Placing some physically healthy persons in the class of sick people may indeed be justified by appeals to ethics or politics; but it cannot be justified by appeals to logic or science." (Szasz, T. 1974. The Myth of Mental Illness)

The National Association of Gun Rights has reported that President Trump's White House has endorsed the use of red flag gun confiscation orders. To the average person, perhaps even the average gun owner, the idea of passing laws restricting access to guns for those diagnosed with mental illness has merit. People have a tendency, according to Thomas Szasz author of The Myth of Mental Illness, to show an intolerance to uncertainty. Therefore, in the minds of the public, it is rational to allow law enforcement to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens if there is any question pertaining to their behavior. Over the past several years, American's have been exposed to a rash of mass public shootings followed by an unending barrage of anti-gun propaganda. These stories were certainly designed to raise consciousness of the dangers of mentally ill people obtaining firearms. Many stories highlighted the failure of the background check system and of local authorities to identify persons who may pose a "danger to themselves or others." The desired effect has been gaining public acceptance of an infringement against the second amendment and the due process rights of those who may be considered mentally unstable.

The question no one is considering is the legitimacy of mental health diagnoses. Take ADHD for example. Millions of children are diagnosed and prescribed powerful drugs for a so called disease that no one can prove is real. According to neurologist Dr. Richard Saul, the disease as defined in the DSM simply does not exist because the described symptoms are so broad that the entire U.S. population could be diagnosed with them. Of eighteen possible symptoms listed in the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) an individual only needs to exhibit five. These symptoms include everyday behaviors such as forgetfulness, being easily distracted or being unorganized. Another good example is Operational Defiance Disorder, or ODD. According to the DSM V an individual only needs to display disagreeable behavior one day a week for a period of six months to be considered operationally defiant.

The truth is that science has no idea what happens to the brain of a person diagnosed with mental illness. According to Psychology Today, it is understood that mental problems can develop from traumatic instances or drug use; however, there are no biological indicators which prove there is abnormal functions in the brain, and most disorders are diagnosed through observations of behavior rather than pinpointed, scientific tests which are used to identify physical illness. The same is true when it comes to schizophrenia, a disease that many people associate with psychotic behavior. According to Loren Mosher, a psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health, there is no medical evidence that supports the idea that schizophrenia is caused by chemical abnormalities in the brain. Thomas Szasz alludes to the idea in the Myth of Mental Illness that psychiatry, as a profession, fell into the habit of classifying behaviors that were misunderstood as mental illness simply because it is in man's nature to classify things. He says that if we fail to take into account the rules made in classification systems, which according to him do not occur naturally and are always made by men, we run the risk of mistaking our own systems for naturally occurring events. In other words, psychiatry over the years has become to dependent on their own systematic way of understanding; therefore, we have a system where illnesses are diagnosed off of observed behavior instead of something that can be proven to exist through medical tests.

This is important to understand because under many of these red flag laws the ability to quickly assess behavior and make determinations of some one's mental status is being left in the hands of law enforcement. This is troubling in many ways because according to the Crime Prevention Research Center psychiatrists and other mental health specialists routinely miss the signs that may, according to the government, indicate someone may pose a danger to themselves or others. Their research shows that many of the recent mass shooters we have bore witness to have been in the care of psychiatrists and determined to not pose a threat to society. Furthermore, they highlight that only 13 out of 25 mass shooters were known to have mental health diagnosis' such as schizophrenia. This means that the probability of a schizophrenic committing a mass shooting is one out of 123, 077, according to The Crime Prevention Research Center.

"To put it differently, if a psychiatrist was asked to screen 100,000 people with schizophrenia and identify the 1,000 most dangerous people from that group (the most dangerous 1 percent), less than 1 of that 1,000 would actually commit this crime and this assumes that you did accurately pick the 1,000 most dangerous individuals.  To put it differently, you would have hopefully caught at most one real dangerous person, but at the expense of 999+ “false positives.”  Again, note that this is 999 false positives out of 1,000 people is an overly optimistic number.  The true false positive rate will be much, much higher." (The Crime Prevention Research Center)

What this means is that it is incredibly difficult, even for mental health professionals, to identify dangerous people based on the methods used to diagnose mental health. Under the current system of observing behavior, people can be deemed mentally ill for any action that may seem questionable to anyone with authority to make such a determination. If mental health professionals have had difficulty in determining the intentions of their own patients, how can law enforcement or any other part of the justice system do so successfully? If we drive on with this idea then we will be setting a precedent that will leave us with no freedom at all and a society diagnosed as crazy.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Anti-Gun Narrative Continues to Develop Against Laser Sights

 On Friday, February 15, just hours after the President declared a national emergency, there was a mass shooting in Aurora Illinois.The timing of this shooting, as is the case with most of them, is extremely suspicious. Not only have the Democrats been exposed in their fake Russia collusion story for trying to orchestrate a coup, there are several gun control bills in the house and senate. These bills include high capacity magazine bans, universal background checks and of course, national red flag laws. H.R 5717, for example gives the Attorney General the power to give states tax payer funded grant money to implement their own red flag laws. President Trump's pick for attorney general has just been confirmed by the senate and he is a proponent of these unconstitutional confiscation schemes. Will this shooting, under the pretext of a declared national emergency, be an excuse to push these bills through? We will see.

Gun control has proven over and over to be a failure. If it worked there wouldn't have been a shooting. Not only does Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the individual in question was convicted of felony assault in 1995 for stabbing a woman. This means he was already a prohibited person and likely obtained the gun used illegally. A study conducted by the Department of Justice has determined that fewer than 1 in 50 prison inmates convicted of gun crimes purchased their guns through a licensed dealer, meaning that universal background checks would do nothing to stop gun crime. This of course will be ignored by lawmakers because their agenda doesn't revolve around safety, but disarming the citizenry.

After every shooting there is a developing narrative designed to reinforce the notion that more gun laws are needed. For instance, we often hear that the shooter was a normal everyday guy who no one suspected was capable of going off and committing such a crime. This creates the impression in gullible minds that their gun owning neighbor is also such a person. This narrative reinforces the idea that there is a need to confiscate someone's guns if there is any behavior that seems to be questionable. Another example is the one from the Church shooting in Texas. The shooter in that case was able to purchase his gun legally because the U.S. Air Force failed to report his name to the criminal database after being convicted of domestic violence. Like most other systematic failures, this is completely the government's fault; however, it reinforces in the public's mind the idea that our gun laws need to be revamped and more back ground checks are needed. This is all propaganda aimed at  getting the general population to demand change.

The shooting in Illinois is no exception. There is a new narrative developing though and it is dangerous in the sense that it goes along with an executive action taken earlier in the year by President Trump, one that has divided the gun community to be honest. President Trump's bump stock ban is not fully understood for the danger it really presents to the second amendment. It is unconstitutional in the sense that the attorney general essentially re-defined the existing definition of the word machine gun in the 1968 gun control act to include devices like bump stocks, or anything which increases the rate of fire on a semi-automatic rifle. Machine guns are already illegal and are defined as one pull of the trigger for a continuous rate of fire. Bump stocks do not even achieve this as they only use the energy of the rifle's recoil to allow the trigger to be continuously pulled. The trigger, when using a bump stock is still being pulled every time a round is discharged.

Based on this article from CNN, it is safe to assume that laser sights will be next on the list of things to ban. Laser sights allow a shooter to acquire their targets more quickly enabling for more rapid fire. So, there you go. The CNN story describes the shooter as running down the hallway just shooting everybody with a pistol that had a green laser sight. This story is designed purposefully to create fear and possibly add laser sights to a growing list of things democrats want to ban.

The CNN article also described people in the factory running for their lives when they heard the shooting start. People panicking, not knowing what to do. In this writers humble opinion this is part of the problem. This nation was founded on the idea of being a warrior culture. A population trained in the use of arms standing ready in defense of their families, communities and nation. It was understood that firearms in the hands of good men were a necessity in the fight against evil. A relentless propaganda campaign waged by the left has changed all of that. The general public has been brainwashed to fear guns and the people that own them. If this keeps up and there isn't a massive re-education effort in defense of the second amendment we will soon be like Britain where people are reported to the police for buying hammers. This is the inevitable result of encouraging an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and banning guns. People still murder and no one can defend themselves and eventually something as innocent as buying a hammer becomes suspicious behavior.

Update: Reuters is now reporting that the shooter was able to purchase his firearm and obtain a permit legally despite being a convicted felon. According to Reuters, police are claiming that a criminal conviction in Mississippi would not necessarily prevent him from obtaining a gun permit in Illinois. This is a lie. Obviously, this is a developing narrative to justify the passing of universal background checks and eventually, a registration system.

Has there been an intentional effort to brainwash people into thinking differently about guns? Eric Holder can answer that.



Sunday, February 10, 2019

Understanding and Rejecting Darwinian Evolution

With every new sunrise we witness the world plunging deeper and deeper into chaos. Mankind seems to be taking the final steps off the edge and further away from sanity. The Democrat party, having once removed the word God from their party platform has exposed itself for what they really are, pure evil. The party that claims to be looking out for the oppressed and vulnerable has revealed it's true agenda, death. They have shown the world that they have no concern for the most vulnerable amongst us and that life, in their minds, has no value beyond their own definition.They are arguing that a pregnant mother should have the right to kill her baby right up to the point of birth and in some cases, even afterwards. How did we get to this point?

For years, our higher education system has been in the grips of those who do not believe in God. Our universities used to exist for the single purpose of teaching students how to find and pursue truth. Since the advent of Darwinian evolution and Pavlovian conditioning however, education has moved into the realm of the scientific, disregarding Gods word in this search and leaning on man's understanding instead. Once man discovered that behavior can be trained, shaped and manipulated to serve his own ends, life lost value as it was no longer believed that men had wills of their own. 

B.F. Skinner once described the study of human behavior as being either pre-scientific or scientific. Pre-scientific meaning from the perspective that man was in some way able to control his behavior and scientific, after the acceptance of Darwin's theories of evolution. 

"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, 1971)

In the above statement Skinner says that the study of human behavior should be conducted from the "scientific view" as opposed to the pre-scientific view. Looking at man through this lens has lessoned the value of human life. We have become, in the minds of scientists and behaviorists, no different than the animals Darwin claimed we are. We are not in control of our thoughts, actions and behaviors, they are controlled by the "evolutionary history of our species and the environmental circumstances to which an individual has been exposed." (Skinner, 1971)

 Darwinian evolution is a central theme in Marxist Communism. Marx needed a scientific view which justified his war against God and Darwin's theory of evolution, which claimed that humans had no divine connection or will of their own was used as that justification. 

Marx was at one time a devout Christian. He later became angry and turned against God. Many argue he was an atheist however, the book Marx and Satan by Richard Wurmbrand suggests that Marx developed Communism as a means of destroying God's creation. It is difficult to deny that Communism attacks the very nature of man and turns him into nothing more than a product of our behavior. Marx argued that class struggle was a natural part of evolution or dialectical materialism. The bourgeoise, the oppressor or "thesis" would naturally be overthrown by the proletariat or the anti-thesis, resulting in evolutionary progress of the species. Marx, according to Wurmbrand, reduced man's behavior to being motivated by economics alone. Love, along with other human emotions, was reduced to nothing more than a necessity to achieve economic success.  

It can be argued that the Theory of Evolution, combined with Marx's ideas, are responsible for the atrocities the world witnessed in the twentieth century. When the value of human life is reduced to nothing more than an accident or process or evolution, eliminating undesirables that stand in the way of other's grandiose ideas is easy. Communists killed an estimated 80-100 million people, according to The Black Book of Communism, because they were viewed as being in the way of progress, or creating a better world. 

All of this has brought us to the point where human beings are now viewed as a scourge to the planet and the young have been indoctrinated into this thinking. It is now considered moral to kill a baby right up to birth.

If things are to change in this nation Darwinian evolution must be rejected as the main basis for scientific inquiry. It appears we may be on that path. According to an article at WND.com, one thousand scientists from around the world are rejecting the main premise behind Darwin's theory claiming that there is no way it accounts for all the complexities of life. How could a Godless theory explain the complexities in a world created by God? Hopefully, more scientists will follow and our nation can return to a state of sanity. 

Sunday, January 27, 2019

A Conspiracy You Say?

Years ago, anyone talking about a New World Order and an attempt to reduce the worlds population would be labeled a conspiracy theorist. While the government would likely target you for holding those beliefs, it is getting harder and harder to deny that this isn't a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact. All you have to do is look at the constant efforts to delegitimize human life itself, and it becomes crystal clear that there is an agenda.

For years we have been told that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change. Today, human beings are viewed as a scourge on the earth and many in the younger generation believe that something must be done to solve this non-existent problem or else, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says, the world will end in twelve years. Additionally, in 2015 United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, publicly stated that the world should make every possible effort to reduce the population in order to save the planet.

New York City just passed a law legalizing abortions right up to birth, and they celebrate this as an advance in women's rights? Imagine the lifelong psychological conditioning required to teach a women that it is a human right to murder her own child. It has been argued that a mother should have the right to kill her child after birth if the child would be some kind of burden on the family. In fact, Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Boston University, (a person in an influential position to shape young minds in other words) argues that a newborn has no claim to the right to life because they are not self-aware or rational beings. He goes onto say that certain animals are born with more self awareness than human babies yet, we don't place as much value on their lives. Therefore, it is justifiable to kill human babies after birth. Democrats claim to be for American values and defending the vulnerable. Whose more vulnerable than a newborn? Where's the value in killing new life?

The younger generation is being bombarded with anti-family propaganda under the guise of transgenderism. Kids across the country are being taught that there are more than two genders and that it is a human right to self identify with which ever gender they choose. Furthermore, to deny them this right or to fail to recognize their preferred gender pro-noun is considered a form of bigotry. Furthermore, there are efforts underway, through public education, to push homosexuality on our children as well. Not only does this corrupt the youth, it also prevents them from reproducing if they pursue the homosexual lifestyle. Could that be the larger agenda?

Men are under full frontal assault. Any characteristic that was once considered masculine is now viewed as toxic. The "Me Too" movement has been weaponized and turned into a vicious man hunting machine where any behavior viewed as traditional "courting rituals" is now a form of sexual harassment. Women, through the feminist movement, have been conditioned to place careers above family and child rearing as an oppressive, patriarchal subjugation of women. The American birth rate is declining drastically, enough so that it will be impossible to maintain our culture. Could it be possible that this is due to the constant propaganda and attacks on our nation's traditional values?

Gun control. The federal government is poised to pass the most oppressive form of gun control imaginable. Something akin to what the Soviet Union did. Red Flag gun laws. Under Senator Rubio's bill, the Attorney General would have the power to give grants to states that pass their own Red Flag gun laws. These laws completely deny an individual due process rights or any knowledge whatsoever that they have been deemed a threat to themselves or others. Armed law enforcement officers, under the unsubstantiated belief that you are somehow a threat, simply show up to your home to confiscate your guns and it is on you, under these laws, to prove your innocence.To deny individuals the inalienable right to self defense is on par with denying a new born the right to life. It shows that those passing the laws place no inherent value in being human. Considering that all gun laws only affect the law abiding willing to comply, and not the criminals intent on murdering gives more weight to the prior statement.

Everyone of these subjects could be elaborated on a great deal more. The one thing they all have in common is that they attack the value of human life. Little by little, inch by inch, our beliefs and traditional morals are being muddied and diluted with the objective of causing so much confusion that the general population simply doesn't know what to believe. If we don't know what to believe we certainly can't defend or argue for a particular belief. The constant attacks against our nations character, and the integrity of our people are carefully orchestrated propaganda campaigns designed to silence and breakdown our beliefs not only in ourselves, our nation and traditions but in God. Television, video games and an overall lack of having any responsibility for anything is exacerbating the problem. Too many people feel that these problems aren't their responsibility. Too many Americans, for example, will simply go along with the passing of Red Flag laws because they will feel it doesn't affect them. They are indifferent to the consequences of accepting abortion at the point of birth because they have been conditioned to believe that it isn't their place to judge. They won't stand up and defend Americanism because of the false associations made between American values and racism.

Nothing short of a mass awakening of the American conscience will turn us around and set the sails right. We have been psychologically conditioned to accept our own downfall in order to push a globalist agenda. By accepting the premise in any of these subjects we have made it easier for them to continue the devaluing of life.

To learn more about this agenda check out my book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest also available in Paperback