Freedom of Choice or Environmental Manipulation? By David Risselada

While pursuing my bachelor’s degree in social work, I took a class called positive psychology. At the time I was very excited as the study of the human mind was very interesting to me. I still find it fascinating, just not in the same way. I came to learn, over time, that psychology is a study that concerns itself with controlling human behavior, not simply learning from it. In positive psychology the emphasis seemed to revolve the creation of a standardized happiness. This was very troubling to me because happiness is generally understood to be an individual pursuit. Different things in life make different people happy, we are individuals. To define happiness in scientific terms, in a collective, uniform fashion deprives human beings of their individuality, in my opinion. The study of human behavior has been placed under the microscope of psychologists who tend to view man in evolutionary terms. Most psychologists do not believe in God; (or at least psychology’s origins are absent the belief in God) therefore, the idea that man is in control of his behavior is generally rejected in favor of more collective, secular explanations.

  "If we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behavior is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions. This possibility is offensive to many people. It is opposed to a tradition of long standing which regards man as a free agent, whose behavior is the product, not of specifiable antecedent conditions, but of spontaneous inner changes of course. Prevailing philosophies of human nature recognize an internal "will" which has the power of interfering with causal relationships and which makes the prediction and control of behavior impossible. To suggest that we abandon this view is to threaten many cherished beliefs—to undermine what appears to be a stimulating and productive conception of human nature."^[1]

The above is from B.F. Skinners Science and Human Behavior. He is saying that the traditional, spiritual view of man must be rejected if the study of human behavior is ever going to be conducted from a strictly, scientific viewpoint. Skinner held a Utopian view of life believing that psychology and the study of human behavior could be used to push society in a more collective direction. According to Deborah Altus and Edward Morris, writing for the Association of Behavioral Analysis International^[2], Skinner viewed American life as mundane and felt people should be motivated to experiment with more communal types of living. This is important to understand because Skinner’s influence is deep and wide ranging in the study of human behavior. To study human happiness, for example, from the perspective that man is not in control of his behavior and there is no God, could have its consequences. Especially when you consider the study of psychology itself focuses on controlling human behavior, not merely understanding it. This, however, is exactly what is happening.

In 2005, Time Magazine published an article entitled The New Science of Happiness^[3]. The field of positive psychology has taken on the study of human happiness to determine how to make life better for all of us. In my opinion this can only be accomplished by viewing man through Skinner’s perspective. To determine what makes man happy while considering man’s individual characteristics would be a daunting task. Therein lies the problem of studying human behavior. Conclusions that seek to explain man’s actions can only be reached if man’s individuality is absent from the equation. Science, in its search for definitive answers must set an agreed upon standard from which its study will be conducted. In most cases, the study of human behavior is done from Skinner’s viewpoints, which is based on Darwinian 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"^[4].

This means, essentially, that any study that sets out to determine what causes a certain human behavior is going to be done from a secular, collective viewpoint that offers a one size fits all explanation. The findings presented in Time Magazine’s article seem to reflect B.F. Skinner’s biases towards communal living and Utopianism. One of the first points they make represents the leftist, anti-capitalist view that the pursuit of wealth does not lead to happiness. This is something we all understand. We don’t need psychology to tell us money doesn’t buy happiness. Their bigger point however is that once an “individuals basic needs are met,” the pursuit of additional wealth does nothing to raise our happiness levels. Who determines what constitutes our basic needs? So, all we need to be happy is to be fed, have a roof over our head and feel a general sense of belonging to a community of some kind?  They also suggest that pursuing a higher education has no affect on a person’s general happiness. This may be true for some people. I’m currently pursuing a master’s degree in professional writing and since I have taken this challenge on, I feel more fulfilled in certain areas of my life. Finally, they assert that religious people have a higher level of happiness, but they can’t ascertain whether that has “anything to do with the God part,” or if simply being a part of the community accounts for it.

They then treat us to an obvious no brainer by suggesting people with a lot of friends and ties to the community have higher levels of happiness than those that don’t. Seriously? How long did it take for them to figure that out?

Here is where things get a little contradictory. Numerous psychologists have come to agree that a person does have it within their control to change their happiness levels if they do it in one of three ways that they have determined will make you happy. One, you can make a gratitude journal and keep track of things that you are grateful for. What if you are grateful for the additional wealth you don’t need because your basic needs are met? What if you are grateful for the opportunity to pursue a higher education? Second, perform acts of kindness. Visit a nursing home, mow a neighbor’s lawn or helping someone with a project of some kind. It is suggested that doing five kind acts a day will drastically improve happiness. Finally, make a list of your personal strengths and how to use them. Personal strengths are defined as generosity, humor and gratitude. The contradiction here is generosity. What does a person have to be generous with if happiness is simply having basic needs met? What if a person is happy because he is working his tail end off knowing that he is providing for his family? Well, here we are at Skinner’s biases. In the book “The Shaping of a Behaviorist^[5]” Skinner describes the traditional view of American life as being “lockstep;” meaning that people are just mundanely following along with the ideas of marriage, home ownership and raising a family. The basic idea is that science is telling us that they know what is best for us and if we simply surrender our outdated views on what we think makes us happy we will all live much happier more fulfilled lives.

Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s former regulatory czar wrote a book called Nudge^[6]. Essentially, this book is about how people can be “nudged” or pushed into making better decisions for their lives. Or, to put it more bluntly, nudged into freely making the decisions that government and science think would be better for their lives.

"But our basic source of information here is the emerging science of choice, consisting of careful research by social scientists over the past four decades. That research has raised serious questions about the rationality of many judgments and decisions that people make. To qualify as Econs, people are not required to make perfect forecasts (that would require omniscience), but they are required to make unbiased forecasts. That is, the forecasts can be wrong, but they can’t be systematically wrong in a predictable direction. Unlike Econs, Humans predictably err. Take, for example, the “planning fallacy”—the systematic tendency toward unrealistic optimism about the time it takes to complete projects. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever hired a contractor to learn that everything takes longer than you think, even if you know about the planning fallacy"^[7].

This is alarming on many levels. Some people may see the rationality in having government dictate choices for our own good. In fact, this is the rallying cry of the political left. It is, however, very dangerous and denies human beings their individuality and ability to live free autonomous lives. Again, we can draw on the words of B.F. Skinner and his theories on operant conditioning.

"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"^[8].

What Skinner is saying that man’s behavior can be changed and guided in a certain way through the manipulation of the environment around him. People can be “nudged” into behaving into what the government would consider to be a politically correct, acceptable way by subtly enforcing a behavior standard through the environment in which we live. This is the study of human behavior from a scientific perspective absent of God. What we could end up with is a scientifically enforced definition of happiness which is used to dictate every aspect of our lives for our own good.

The main point of this article isn’t so much about Time Magazines article or the study of happiness in general; but the fact that science is investing in the manipulation of the environment to control our behavior. The government obviously doesn’t believe we can make choices in our best interest. If they did, they would leave us alone. The very principle of our nation is based on the premise that people, when left to their own devises, will make decisions that are in their best interest and more importantly, in the best interest of society. This thinking is what led to the most prosperous and free society the world has known. A society that incidentally, the left despises. The possible implications of a science of behavior which controls our actions through environmental manipulation are many. In the book Nudge, Sunstein refers to what he calls a choice architect. This is a person who controls choices we make. The examples given have to do with market decisions such as healthcare choices, or how we choose the foods we eat but there is a potential to apply this concept on a much larger scale. For example, are our elections set by choice architects? Are our choices for president controlled? Is the economy controlled to a certain extent to control the economic decisions we make? These are possibilities that must be considered given the information provided. The ability to control behavior through environmental manipulation strips us all our individual autonomy creating a dangerous precedent for the concept of individual freedom.  

---

[1] http://www.bfskinner.org/newtestsite/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ScienceHumanBehavior.pdf

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778813/

[3] http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015832-1,00.html

[4] https://selfdefinition.org/psychology/BF-Skinner-Beyond-Freedom-&-Dignity-1971.pdf

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778813/

[6] file:///C:/Users/driss/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/Richard_H._Thaler_Cass_R._Sunstein_Nudge_Improv.%20(1).pdf

[7] file:///C:/Users/driss/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/Richard_H._Thaler_Cass_R._Sunstein_Nudge_Improv.%20(1).pdf

[8] https://selfdefinition.org/psychology/BF-Skinner-Beyond-Freedom-&-Dignity-1971.pdf

Fabianism and the gradual acceptance of the Socialist agenda

Where are we as a nation? To most people on the right it seems that we are teetering on the edge of full-blown socialism, open borders and gun confiscation. While this is certainly the goal of the hard left, we are not quite there yet. Many people attribute this to Donald Trump. They feel he is the only thing standing between us and the Democrat’s goal of fundamentally re-making this country. This isn’t to say that the election of a Democrat in 2020 wouldn’t usher in their realization of a Socialist America, it most likely would. It would also, in all probability, initiate a less than desired backlash from the nation’s center-right majority. A back lash the left would rather avoid because it would be an unwinnable mess. What is going on then? What is the purpose of the hard drive to the left the Democrats have taken? This writer would argue that it is a Fabian agenda to make the more moderate left acceptable and move the right in their direction. This is exactly what is happening.

Most people are familiar with socialism; however, they probably have never heard the term Fabianism. This is a method of implementing leftist policies through democratic means as opposed to all out violent revolution. Fabian Socialists tend to view the state as a necessity for implementing their agenda; whereas Marxists usually view the state as something that needs to be abolished because it is the instrument of exploitation. Fabians also believe in the incremental approach to avoid the counter-revolution which would most certainly come in response to the abrupt initiation of Marxist Socialism. They believed they could move people towards the acceptance of socialism by getting them involved in the Democratic process through voting, protests and bringing pressure to force reforms on what they viewed as the unjust capitalist system. In other words, this is a step by step, inch by inch approach to transforming a nation and it is accomplished so steadily most people don’t even realize it.

“Evolutionary socialists (read Fabian socialists) were optimist about the founding of socialism through democratic methods. The logic of the democratic method appeared to the evolutionary socialists irresistible. They were also optimist that revolution or armed struggle or violence can ensure temporary benefit or relief but in the long run revolution may cause disastrous results such as it may destroy the good or normal relations among various sections of people, or it may cause havoc.

For thesereasons the Fabian socialist laid stress on the democratic methods. Suchmethods are absolutely gradual in nature. In gradualism, it has been asserted,there is no place of abruptness. The socialists will proceed step by step andin every step, people will participate in the gigantic task of buildingsocialist society. The workers will fight for the extension of democraticrights such as franchise, periodic election etc.”

Much of this philosophy stems from Antonio Gramsci’s prison notebooks, otherwise knowns as the Long March Through the Institutions. Gramsci was an Italian Marxist who rejected the authoritative views of Lenin and Stalin and believed that all men could be brought to contribute to the development of a socialist system. This would be done through a slow, gradual infiltration of the institutions that make up society and re-educating the population to adopt a socialist consciousness. One of the main areas of focus was of course, the education system. Today, we have generations of people who possess this “socialist consciousness” whether they realize it or not. They have been indoctrinated against the founding principles of the nation and into acceptance of big government power on one level or another. At the very least many of us accept government as our leaders and simply follow along with their dictates. Where does all of this leave us now? We have a Democratic party that has moved so far left they appear to be criminally insane. Many talk show hosts refer to congresswomen like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her band of communist radicals as a gift to the conservative movement, almost ensuring Donald Trump a win. Again, this idea that the 2020 election is the most important of our lifetime is permeating our consciousness. We must back Trump or lose our country forever. Trump’s the only thing between us and socialism. Is this true? Whether Donald Trump is America’s savior or even a true conservative is debatable, at best. Many people are at odds with this position because they are so conditioned to the “us vs. them” argument and the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency were grim indeed.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.” (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals)

While many people would argue that Donald Trump has accomplished great things it is hard to argue that on several key policy issues, nothing has changed. Obamacare is still in place. He has accomplished more in the way of gun control than Obama could have dreamed. Most gun owners still have no idea how deeply the bump stock ban will affect the second amendment. The ATF unconstitutionally redefined the term machine gun in the 1968 National Firearms Act. Across the country states are passing unconstitutional Red-Flag gun confiscation laws after the president signaled his support from the oval office. There is still no wall and illegal immigrants are being deported at a lesser rate than the previous administration. We are once again looking at the prospects of another unwinnable, middle eastern war. Conservative Americans are being led to believe that we must accept these things, swallow our pride and support Donald trump or lose our country. Maybe so, but we will be left with a nation where Red-Flag laws and the loss of due process are accepted as normal, a border that is still wide open and a nation that has accepted Obamacare is here to stay. Whether it was done purposefully as part of a master plan or not, Trump has moved the center-right to the left. They will accept all the things mentioned above if they believe the radical left has been defeated, and they will believe the country has been saved.

 This is how Fabian socialism works. It is such an incremental process, being initiated one small step at a time. In most cases, the propaganda being fed the nation causes people to get involved and advocate for things that contribute to socialisms advance, and they don’t even know it.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Seeking God to be free

My country is of thee, oh sweet land of  liberty.

Thrown down the trash bin, of our cherished, forgotten history.

Our children taught lies, schoolings deceptive disguise.

A country’s pride and honor, from within slowly dies.

Love of freedom there is no more. Personal responsibility; such a task, such a chore.

Free us from consequence they shouted in vain; save us from misery save, us from shame.

Save us from our self and the choices we make.

Let us live in illusion, in freedom that’s fake.

For where are the principles that set men free?

Where is the understanding of what freedom means?

It can’t happen here they said, I’ll fight to the death!

I will defend my rights with my dying last breath!

Yet here we are, right on the line.

Dangerously close, so out of time.

We must seek God and not the words of men.

This is the only way that freedom, can ever reign again.

When I first started writing.....

When I first started writing in 2013 it was largely due to my experience in social work education and the clear connection between the Obama presidency and what I was being taught. For example, the constant push for universal health care in class, the idea of white privilege and a general dislike of America among my classmates. I noticed very early in this program that many of these people had no idea what they were so angry about or why they hated America beyond what they were being indoctrinated with. All they could do was recite mainstream talking points and passages from the textbooks.

Back then it was easy to become a conservative writer. Taking my school experience and devoting some time to studying the fundamentals of Marxism and Obama’s dispositions to it, was pretty much all it took. Through the Obama years it was easy to get caught up in this idea that the Democrats were the evil ones and Republicans were the good guys. Most of my writing at that time was devoted to exposing the Marxist connections behind everything Obama said or did. Many people likely saw my articles as being conspiratorial in nature; however, much of what I wrote was based in truth. If people took the time to research the material I provided, concerning the Hegelian Dialectic, Alinsky, psychological warfare and other topics pertinent to the socialist takeover of our country, they would have likely come to the same conclusion.

As time went by, and Trump won the 2016 election, I remember vividly suggesting that we would have to switch gears and start focusing our efforts on holding Republicans accountable because they now held all three branches of government. Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do? Hold government accountable? Americans are incensed at outlets like CNN and MSNBC for their blatant bias towards the Democrat Party and their failure to do just that, hold them accountable. I have always believed that it was up to the general public to defend and uphold the principles of liberty and I felt this is what I was doing through my writing.

When Trump won the presidency, I started pointing out some strange anomalies that made me question his genuineness. First and foremost, the Clintons were at Trumps wedding. Second, Bill Clinton, in a private phone call, encouraged his good friend Trump to run for president in 2015. It has always baffled me how the conservative right doesn’t see this as problematic. Either they really don’t believe the things they claim about the Clintons or Alinsky was right. People will accept anything if they become desperate enough. Furthermore, after making promises to arrest Hillary Clinton during his campaign, which is surely one of the reasons he won, he went back on his word by describing Bill and Hillary as good people!

Throughout the Trump presidency we have seen him appoint people that can best be described as swamp dwellers while proclaiming to drain the swamp. He has voiced support, on national television for all to see no less, for stripping people of their constitutional rights before being afforded due process. He has instituted a bump stock ban in a way which allowed the ATF to classify a piece of plastic as a machine gun and now, he may go after silencers! Something already on the NFA list.

We still have Obamacare.

Trump has signed spending deals, increasing our debt ceiling and providing continued funding to planned parenthood with Pelosi and Schumer when the Republicans still controlled all three branches! He then stands in from of the whole country and promises to never do it again. Trump, after promising to reduce the national debt has increased it one trillion dollars in his first fourteen months as president. We are now at twenty-two trillion in national debt!

When it comes to illegal immigration, another issue which surely won him the presidency, Trump is deporting less immigrants that Obama did and they continue to cross the border at unprecedented rates. Why was the issue of a border wall, one of Trumps biggest promises, not brought up while the Republicans controlled all three branches of government? Why was it not brought up until the Democrats took control of the house? I know why, but it is an answer no one else wants to consider. We are being DECIEVED!

So now the issue is the census question. Trump promised to put the question of citizenship back on the census then reversed this decision because it would not be viewed favorably by the judicial system. Who cares? Trump is now claiming that he has a new way to identify and track illegal immigrants using various data collecting techniques among several federal agencies. Forgive me if I seem less than enthused. Immigration is controlled by the federal government and Trump has it within his power to close the border, build a wall and stop illegal immigration all together.

I understand that the choices in the 2016 presidential election were Trump or Clinton. I voted for Trump too. I never imagined however, that writing articles pointing out these facts or suggesting that maybe Trump isn’t the conservative we thought he was would be such an issue. Afterall, we must hold our politicians accountable, right? Instead I have been lambasted, shunned, called a never Trumper, mocked for my ideas and even called a liberal. I have watched as people professing to be die hard patriots with their “don’t tread on me” apparel and “it can never happen here” attitude claim he is playing a four-dimensional chess game with our second amendment rights. Ridiculous, to say the least.

My contention is the same now as it has been. We must put principle over party and hold the president accountable, even if he is our guy. We must admit that not everything the man has done has been what he has promised. If we don’t, we will continue to lose our country. That is my contention.

Confusing America through the over-abundace of information

American politics is reaching a boiling point. Mass amounts of disinformation are continually being presented to the American public and most of us have no way of knowing the truth. Truth has come to be defined by our politics instead of objective reasoning. The right, for example, has viewed Fox News as their fair and balanced source of information. It is certainly safe to say that Fox is creeping ever so slightly to the left while they parrot talking points which keep their base trapped in their ideological box. In short, Americans view the truth as either being this or that, left or right, Republican or Democrat.

Consider the simple fact that Donald Trump has reversed his decision to put the citizenship question back onto the census. Instead, he claims he will be using his federal agencies in new ways to track and identify illegal aliens. While the mainstream “right-wing media” presents this as positive step in the right direction it does little to change the fact that keeping the question off the census nullifies your vote. If illegal aliens can avoid this question they will be counted, and their numbers will be used for apportionment in the House of Representatives. This is something that Trump can stop legally but is choosing not to, for whatever reason. Furthermore, the citizenship question shouldn’t even be a debate. It stands to reason that on a U.S. Census, a form designed to decide the number of representatives each state should get, only U.S. citizens should be counted.

Now we are getting to the main point. The powers that be have taken something as simple as a census citizenship question and weaponized it to the point where we are fighting about it. People on the right will continue to make excuses for Trump even though absolutely nothing is being accomplished in the way of reducing the number of illegal aliens coming into our nation. Even if it were to come to a dead halt today, there are enough non-citizens already here that our country will be forever changed.

Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB agent with extensive knowledge on psychological warfare, warned Americans years ago of a process called ideological subversion. This is a four-stage process of demoralizing the nation, creating destabilization and crisis and finally, normalizing the final solution. Which is of course, communism. In many ways we are at the crisis stage just waiting for it to all come crashing down.

One of the steps in demoralizing a population is, as Bezmenov describes it, changing the perception of reality so that no one understands what is going on. Despite the overabundance of information, no one can come to any sensible conclusions on how to best defend their principles. Wouldn’t it be safe to assume that we are at that point in America when a citizenship question is controversial? Consider for a moment what we are exposed to daily. Forget about the left, we know what they are. All day long from supposed right-wing media, which is supposed to promote freedom of thought, speech and expression, anyone who criticizes Trump in the slightest is a so-called “never Trumper.” Why? This goes back to identifying the truth. Should we not be concerned about illegal aliens avoiding citizenship questions on the census and Trump doing nothing to change that? It doesn’t matter what he does outside of that, or whether his intentions are noble or subversive. The truth is the truth. If illegal aliens are avoiding the citizenship issue on the census, we will lose our vote.

America is turning into a nation of party worship. Principles are cast aside in the hopes that the lesser of two evils which we swallowed our pride and voted for, will fix things. The information being thrown at us is part of a carefully contrived narrative designed to, as Bezmenov says, keep us from coming together. As conservatives we have to consider the possibility that it is us standing in the way of the fundamental transformation so desired by the left. Derogatory terms like never Trumper are just that, derogatory terms designed to discredit anyone that sees through the daily dose of propaganda just as the term racist is. We absolutely must stop paying attention to the made-up narrative and the notion that not supporting this president equates to not being a conservative. Defending principled truth must come first, even it means admitting Trump isn’t making America great again. This is detrimental if America will truly be a place where “it can never happen here.”  

The Abortion Poem....David Risselada

This poem will be included in my up coming book: Poems, Short Stories and Politics. Each poem will be followed by a short story from my past or a social issue connected to the poem and pertinent to humanity. I am in the very beginning stages of this project and will be working on it while pursuing my master's degree, as time allows.

Of what value am I, sitting idly by; the most precious amongst us,

they so savagely let die?

Of what value are we, sweet land of liberty; throwing away the most cherished,

of our responsibilities?

The preserving of life, our most cherished of rights; gone to the wayside,

vanished without a fight.

We cannot take a stand, cannot express what we believe. They hear not truth, for the lost they do

not grieve.

It is our right they scream! Our right to choose;

thinking absolutely nothing, of the precious life we lose.

Our bodies our choice they so proudly decree;

not seeing the pain, they pour on humanity.

There will be no right to life, not for you and me;

If we fail to fight for those that we have yet to see.

If a newborn baby they can stand and watch die; what is it you suppose,

they think of you and I?

Psychology or Religion? The rising tide of Atheism in America

The following was submitted as a school assignment.

The United States was originally founded by a religious people seeking to flee tyranny and religious persecution. Throughout most of her 243 years, America was recognized as a Christian country where people practiced many of the religion’s different denominations. While Christians still make up seventy percent (Pew Research Center) of the population there is a disturbing trend where Americans are turning to atheism instead of God. Over the past twenty years the number of people in the United States claiming to be atheist has jumped from only eighteen percent to thirty-four percent. (McFarland) This will have consequences for liberty because the nation was founded on the idea that a religious and moral people can self-govern (John Adams Center) and that the natural liberties defined in the Bill of Rights are unalienable and granted to us by our creator. With more and more of the population growing into adulthood devoid of belief in a divine being, the definition of freedom and the value we place on human life is sure to change.

Writing for Psychology Today, Nigel Barber Ph.D. suggests that atheism is a phenomenon occurring mostly in large industrialized societies. Religion was often turned to as a means of getting people through hard and uncertain times. (Barber) Today’s modern society, however, provides many safety nets. In many ways, the state has replaced religion in the sense that people facing difficult circumstances often have their problems solved by turning to government welfare programs. (Barber) Modern medicine is also contributing to the rise in atheism as people are finding relief to their anxiety in psychiatric pills and psychoanalysis instead of spiritual healing. (Barber) In this sense psychology is replacing religion. This is a dangerous trend because psychology itself is based on the premise that man’s behavior can be controlled as some psychologists believe we are devoid of a will of our own. Psychologists have thoroughly studied human behavior for the purposes of establishing systems of control. (Carrette & King, 60)

A common theme among religious people is that God gave us free will. Galatians 13 clearly states God’s intentions for us for us to freely choose between good and evil. “You, my brothers and sister were called to be free. Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.” Psychologists such as B.F. Skinner refute the idea of free will by claiming that the manipulation of the environment can control human behavior. This is called operant conditioning. In the book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” Skinner mocks the idea of man having the inner capacity to solve the problems we face as a society. Only through what he refers to as a “science of behavior” can human behavior be changed. (Skinner, 15) Skinners views are largely influenced by the theories of evolution as he viewed human behavior as not being in our own control, but the result of evolutionary processes.

"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. (Skinner, 101)

In this quote Skinner is completely rejecting the idea of free will as an explanation for human behavior and instead, attributing it to environmental circumstances and the evolutionary history of our species. By suggesting that further study of human behavior be conducted from what he referred to as the scientific era of human understanding, he is advancing the idea that man is not responsible for his actions. This is the anti-thesis of traditional Christian thought and could have dire consequences for the future of humanity.

The education system, teaching the theory of evolution as the premise for human origins, could also be contributing largely to the growth of atheism in America. Highly educated nations tend to have higher rates of non-believers (Barber) than poor third world countries.

Darwin’s theory of evolution of course posits the idea that man is not of divine origins but evolved from apes and other primates; meaning we have no special significance and are no different than other animals. Darwin, having been raised a Christian later concluded that the Book of Genesis as an explanation for human beginnings was essentially false.  

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. (Darwin, 86)

Darwin’s evolution theory also came to be the predominant worldview of atheistic communists, such as Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin who used the idea of man’s descension from animals as opposed to God as justification for mass suppression of human rights and dignity. (Bergman 89-95) The view that man is no different than any other animal led to the mass termination of millions under atheistic, communist regimes.

As American society grows increasingly secular and atheism gains in popularity, is it possible that we could face such a loss of value for human life that led to such atrocities? Is there a correlation between atheism and the problems we see in society today? With the study of human behavior focusing on the manipulation of the environment, the idea that man cannot control his behavior and the prevalence of Darwinism as the explanation for human origins, the answer seems to be a resounding yes. Psychology and Darwinism are examples of men’s false doctrines seeking to answer questions and solve problems beyond man’s limited understanding. The Bible clearly warns of these false teachings of men and the dangers of turning from God.

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8

Bergman, J. The Darwinian foundations of communism. The Journal of Creation. 15 (1) 2001. 89-95 Retrieved from https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_1/j15_1_89-95.pdf

Barber, N. Why atheism will replace religion. Psychology Today. May 18, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201005/why-atheism-will-replace-religion

Carrette, J & King, R. Selling Spirituality: The silent takeover of religion. New York. Routledge, 2005 Retrieved from http://www.urbanlab.org/articles/religion/Carrette%20King%202005%20-%20Selling%20Spirituality.pdf

Darwin, C. The autobiography of Charles Darwin (with original omissions restored, edited with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow) London, 1958. Retrieved from http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=1

John Adams Center. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. http://johnadamscenter.com/why-john-adams/

McFarland, A. Atheism on the rise? Growth of disbelief signals danger for America. CNSnews.com April 17, 2015. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/alex-mcfarland/atheism-rise-growth-disbelief-signals-danger-america-0

Pew Research Center Religious land scape study. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Social Work Education, The Alinsky Method and the Fomenting of Social Revolution

Seven years ago, I sat in a college classroom simply awestruck at what my professors were saying. It was being suggested in an ever so subtle manner that anyone who didn’t vote for Barack Obama did so out of an unconscious bias against black people. What they were pushing of course, was the theory of white privilege; a theory which suggests white people are inherently racist and the beneficiaries of a system which affords them privileges at the expense of all minorities. For decades now, our institutions of higher learning have been teaching students that America is an oppressive nation that favors only the rich white man and the problems which our society faces are due to our inherent greed and white supremacism. My professors used my opposition to this theory as an excuse to target me and suggest I wasn’t fit for the social work program, along with my disagreements on social justice. Social Work, being political in nature and dependent upon the redistribution of wealth almost requires that students and workers have a liberal ideology. I challenged these assertions fiercely and even suggested by teaching such falsehoods they were in fact, doing nothing more than sowing the seeds of discontentment and creating hatred towards America. They were deliberately discrediting our nation while focusing that dissatisfaction upon the white man. In short, they were training students to organize for a social revolution, the very social revolution we see taking place now.

The field of Social Work includes the profession of community organizing. Community organizers work to stir up the masses, spurring them into political action for the purpose of obtaining political power and affecting social change.^[1] In a sense, it could be argued that social work in the academic setting is a form of community organizing as the students are presented with nothing but social problems allegedly caused by the white man’s political system and in effect, being presented with socialism as a solution. According to the publication Social Work Helper, a social workers values should be shaped by socialism and social democracy.^[2] A social workers purpose is to de-construct systems of oppression by evaluating power structures and systems of inequalities which the left equates with America’s capitalist system. A community organizer’s purpose then is to organize people into pushing for socialism by creating anger and resentment towards the existing system. This is exactly what has been taking place and the consequences of the lies being pushed are starting to show themselves in the form of violence.

It is difficult for many people to understand these concepts. Most Americans are still Christian; which means that they operate on a system of principles which include a universal morality and the existence of truth. Truth to the left is subjective and only useful if it is something that pushes them towards their goal. Otherwise, there is no truth. In the book “The Naked Communist”^[3] Kleon Skousen describes the denial of an absolute truth as the third premise of communist/socialist beliefs. They believe, essentially, that lying is not wrong because there is no truth. If their lie furthers their goal of what they believe is a better world, it is morally right. This is also a premise of community organizing. Saul Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals,^[4] describes this by explaining means and ends morality.

In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them. (Alinsky, 26)

What Alinsky is arguing is that the end, a transformed society, is worth whatever means it takes to achieve it because their vision of socialism is morally superior to the current system in which we live. This is tantamount to the same philosophy explained by Skousen. Alinsky, being an atheist, believed there was no moral truth; therefore, it was morally justifiable to lie if it advanced the goal of a socialist society. Morally corrupted means, he argued, do not corrupt the ends because there is no universal morality.

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conceptions of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life. (Alinsky, 24)

Where does this leave us now? Our society, as a result of an education system that has been encouraging hatred of our country is teetering on the edge of disaster. It can be argued that the principles described above, and the belief that there is no truth, are responsible for the recent violence we have witnessed. A website called Haaretz^[5] has published an article claiming that the violent actions of Antifa are justified as self-defense against a racist system of white supremacism and bigotry. The author can publish such nonsense because these lies have been spread for so long, they have come to be accepted as truth. Antifa is the perfect example of people being stirred into action by being inundated with lies about inequalities and social injustices. They are the perfect example of what I warned my professors would eventually come if they kept pushing the lies and hatred they were.

Until Americans understand and accept that what we are seeing in our country is not a spontaneous effort to create a fairer system, but a deliberate attempt to break us down and institute socialism, nothing will change. We must refuse these notions of moral relativism and fight for a return to Biblical morality or else we will not survive as a nation. Alinsky argued that corrupted means would not corrupt the ends because he doesn’t believe in God, therefore there is no immutable truth. How could the results of lying be anything but corrupted? Socialism has proven time and time again to lead to nothing but despair and suffering. The left cannot admit the truth of socialism for fear of losing support. The whole premise of what they are pushing is a lie therefore, corrupted ends are inevitable.

Our government is riddled with crookedness and fraudulent politicians. Everyday we see our politics denigrated by those in power who espouse the belief that America is an unjust country. In fact, a recent poll suggested that Americans have less faith and pride in our political system than ever before.^[6] You have to wonder, based on the information presented in this article, are they doing this on purpose to discredit our system? Are they intentionally trying to create a sense of hopelessness among the general population so when the time comes, they will be willing to accept change? This is a difficult question to ponder; one that creates discomfort or is easily discarded as a crazy conspiracy theory. The evidence in my opinion, is overwhelming when you understand the connection between social work education and the Alinsky method. It is a question that the reader must answer for themselves.

There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. (Alinsky)

I write so much about this because I experienced it firsthand. I watched, not in silence mind you, as my professors in a social work program constantly made false allegations against our country to discredit and demoralize our values. They were attempting to stir up discontentment among the students while planting in their minds the seeds for fomenting social revolution. The social revolution we see taking place today.

---

[1] https://www.phyllisschlafly.com/national-sovereignty/community-organizing-explained-612-2/

[2] https://www.socialworkhelper.com/2017/02/06/building-political-agenda-social-work/

[3] https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046/page/n37

[4] http://www.mynacc.org/Rules_for_Radicals.pdf

[5] https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-antifa-in-america-militant-anti-fascism-isn-t-terrorism-it-s-self-defense-1.7425726?fbclid=IwAR2I8-RCIpLayQEEdCKc3smbyoe_18VafdJBGNpYEg_mHDuuiJGo6Q8-k-k

[6] https://news.gallup.com/poll/259841/american-pride-hits-new-low-few-proud-political-system.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2MYI50yizTIV71zgrHDJulfraXk8pRVdjaIxncrRDVrcQRBJUctdIy8kE