Saturday, July 7, 2018

Normalizing Pedophilia, the Advance of the Homosexual Agenda, and the Promotion of Pornography




Chapter 14 from my upcoming book. America Under Conquest: The Psychopolitcal Assault on our Nations Character

Most Americans would agree that the life of a child is precious and worthy of extra protection through rule of law. Stories of violent abuse against children tend to conjure up rage for many of us as we struggle to understand the complexities involved that drive someone to commit violent acts against a helpless child. Whether it is neglectful parenting that may lead to the death or serious injury, or it is a willful attempt to batter, child abuse could be one of nation’s biggest stigmas. As disturbing as these incidents are there is another form of abuse we are familiar with that is likely to do nothing less than leave a gaping hole in the hearts of those who experience any aspect of it, child sexual abuse. This can range from all out sexual intercourse with a child, to fondling, making sexual comments, or exposing them to explicit sexual acts such as making them watch pornography. The thoughts of children having to experience this type of abuse whether it is from a relative or a stranger is appalling to most of us and is likely to have our stomachs twisting in knots. Unfortunately, there is not an easy explanation for child sexual abuse and there are even those who advocate for the right to freely engage in sexual activity with children. These groups believe that age of consent laws should be repealed and that young boys should be free to engage in sex with men because it is somehow beneficial to them. They are attempting to normalize the issue of pedophilia in much the same way homosexual marriage was normalized. Through incremental efforts to gain acceptance through public opinion and using the education system to push it on our children.

Gerald Hannon [1] is an individual heavily involved in turning the issue of “age of consent” into a human rights struggle and has expressed some interesting ideas of how to bring the issue to children in public schools. In fact, Hannon can be quoted as saying that there are not enough children involved in the homosexual movement and attracting young people to it should be the movement’s next big challenge.

“At present, we do not have organizations that are chock-a-block full of young people…To attract young people to the gay movement in large numbers should be the challenge to the next phase of the movement. It is a challenge we have set ourselves.” (Hannon)

This should be concerning to all of us. Once again, a person genuinely concluding that they are gay is different than being pushed into exploring the possibility. Many activists argue that bringing awareness of homosexuality to our schools is necessary to alleviate the discrimination faced by homosexual students. One of Hannon’s ideas are to discredit the family and suggest that parents of children who are questioning their sexuality are nothing but a nuisance, old people trying to push their outdated values.  He goes onto say that children’s notions of heterosexuality, which they must obey at home, should be presented as otherworldly or out of place and that adult mentors should guide young children into the belief that the traditional morality of their parents is wrong, and should be rejected. It should be noted at this point that the encouraging and promotion of homosexuality and other degenerate behavior is listed as one of the forty-five goals of the communist party [2] to destroy America’s morality.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
             41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.

The plan to push homosexuality onto our children went full speed ahead in Massachusetts in the year 2000 when Kevin Jennings, president of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network formulated a plan to bring it into our education system. Jennings knew that he couldn’t teach our kids the idea of homosexuality without a fight from the right, so he introduced it under the guise of AIDS education as well presenting it as human rights issue. Jennings was instrumental in formulating the argument that homosexual kids could likely suffer from discrimination and harassment. So homosexual education was being presented as a means of bringing awareness to the situation. They presented homophobia as a threat to the safety of children struggling with their sexual identity. (Sheldon, n.d.) In fact, he cited the rates of suicide among homosexual youth, due to harassment as a big issue. The truth about suicide among homosexual students is quite different than what statistics may suggest.  Suicide numbers among homosexual youth have been exaggerated. In a paper by Paul Gibson entitled “Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide [3]” the numbers have been suggested to be as high as 3000 for the year 1985, for example. According to Sheldon [4], that number was debunked by a psychiatrist at Columbia University who found that the total number of suicides for teens in general was only 2000 during that year, so the number was a made up to present homosexuals as victims. Even the head of National Lesbian and Gay Health Organization does not recognize the research cited by Gibson because she admits that the connection between teen suicides and homosexuality remain unknown. (Sheldon) While it is true that some teens of a homosexual orientation commit suicide, it appears it is not because of harassment but because of sexual confusion resulting from a “self-identified” homosexuality too early in their development. (Sheldon) Dr. Gary Remafedi[5] of The University of Minnesota, has discovered that there is an inherent danger in children self-identifying as homosexual too early. He claims there are several contributing factors that lead to suicide among homosexual teens, two of which are gender non-conformity and early childhood sexual experience. He concludes by saying that teens that are turned on to homosexuality at an early age end up with the belief that they are born that way and it becomes increasingly different to change their behavior. According to Remafadi the internal conflicts these teens face as they explore homosexuality without being ready to explore sexuality at all are the real reason gay teens commit suicide. Given this information you must wonder why they are pushing this agenda at all? The answer of course is that they are working incessantly to change our society and turn our values upside down.

The attempts to bring homosexuality into the classroom are becoming more brazen as children as young as four years old are now being encouraged to engage in sexual play with one another and even watch pornography.[6] A High School in Pennsylvania[7] is under fire for allowing the infamous GLSEN to show videos of a homosexual nature to students without consent of the parents. In fact, the school is denying the parents request to see these videos under the guise that they are a part of a student project. The push is on, harder than ever before, to normalize deviant sexual behavior to corrupt our youth. Unfortunately, the movement is attracting the sickest among them, those that believe that pedophilia should be a human right, or a normal sexual orientation.

 Researchers[8] are now claiming that it is normal for men to feel a sexual attraction to young, pre-pubescent children.  As the homosexual rights movement continues to gain ground, we hear increasingly about the normalization of pedophilia in our culture.  There is a definite agenda to normalize sexually deviant behavior while pushing for pedophile rights. Pedophiles are actively seeking to lower the age of consent laws when it comes to lawful sexual behavior with another. They claim that sex with children is not only a natural desire felt by adult males, but that in many cases, the children affected may benefit from it as opposed to experiencing harm. Many gay rights activists also push the idea that child sexual abuse committed against young boys is not a homosexual problem, but one of heterosexual males instead. This is a sick, twisted agenda being pushed under the guise of a human rights campaign backed up by fallacious research supporting the desires of sodomites.  If not stopped, this could have dire consequences for the future of humanity.

It has long been understood that children who have suffered from child sexual abuse were likely to experience severe trauma from the event. Researchers have long concluded that feelings of sexual confusion, worthlessness, depression, and suicidal thoughts were associated with sexual abuse. In many cases, even post-traumatic stress disorder has been thought to be a consequence. The rates for reported mental health issues, according to a report published[9] in the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, is higher for people who self-report for child sexual abuse. The rates are higher for women, 56% as opposed to 47% for men. The rates for mental health issues among those with no history of child sexual abuse are significantly lower, 32% for women and 34% for men. This report also finds that boys will most likely experience a fifteen-fold increase in suicidal tendencies as opposed to those who have not experienced sexual abuse while girls have a threefold increase for suicidal behavior. This is generally after introducing treatments for depression and other symptoms. Based on these findings, and what has generally been known about child sexual abuse, children suffer greatly when abused by adults. This is the reason pedophilia has long been treated as a crime. Things are rapidly changing. Pedophilia is now considered more of a “sexual orientation” among many in the scientific community. The latest edition of the DSM, the DSM V, was going to classify pedophilia[10] as a sexual orientation but revised its decision after receiving backlash from the public. This doesn’t change the fact that there are still those seeking to normalize sex with children.

Lately, many academic papers have been surfacing which claim to dispute the findings that sexual abuse is harmful to children. In fact, many of these papers claim that there is a benefit to children under certain circumstances and that harm is generally only experienced when a child is molested against their will.  The Journal, Pedophilia Unbound: Theory, Research and Practice[11]  is a collection of these types of fraudulent “scientific papers.”  In the first chapter entitled “Tabooed Child Sexuality,” the author writes that the sexual experiences of children are not less important than adults and that children, like adults, are normal sexual beings. The chapter itself seems to suggest that because pedophilia is a common occurrence around the world, it is normal, and child sexuality should be studied.  The author comments on the difficulties of taking on such an endeavor when child sexuality is hampered by so many taboos. This is the type of sick, demented thinking that is currently plaguing our society. Just because sex between adults and children may be a normal occurrence across the globe does not make it right. On page 79 of this publication is a paper published by Bruce Rind and Robert Bauserman entitled An Estimate of Consequences of Adult–Non-adult Sex for the Non-adults in the General Population. This paper claims that sex between adults and children can be beneficial, especially between men and young boys.  They cite studies which claim that the effects of adult child sex are based on several different factors including, how knowledgeable the child is about sex, the level of willing participation, and the child’s personal views on the negative connotations about sex, especially in the western world.  This of course implies that the western world’s views on sex, particularly sex between adults and children is outdated.  This paper further suggests that studies proving harmful effects of child sexual abuse are based on the biased samples of the population, meaning that the studies proving harmful effects are all from children who have “self-reported” child sexual abuse, and that they were likely to already have problems. Children who have allegedly experienced no harm from adult child sex generally do not see a clinician; therefore, few studies are conducted on the benefits of such experiences.  Other studies cited by this paper also claim that many boys benefit from sexual relationships with older men because it provided the opportunity to have a positive, influential relationship.  To Rind and Bauserman’s credit they also admit that such samples are also based on a bias because researchers that support this may be deliberately seeking out people who have had positive experiences.  The fact that sexual activities of children is even studied, encouraged, or considered a normal part of their being is indeed, disturbing all together.

Homosexuals have claimed that pedophilia is a heterosexual problem as opposed to a homosexual problem.  According to Steve Baldwin in his paper entitled “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,[12]” homosexual activist groups claim that the accusations of child molestation being a homosexual issue lends credibility to the idea that there is an effort to demonize and discredit the homosexual movement.  This would be an example of the homosexual activists playing the victim role if you will. Research on the subject, according to Baldwin, suggests however that male homosexuals are far more likely to molest young boys as opposed to heterosexuals.  After all, as Baldwin writes in his paper, it is generally gay men that advocate for the lowering of age of consent laws and not straight men.

“Using twisted logic, pro-gay academics argue in various social science journals that the molestation of boys is not a gay lifestyle issue and that such men are not really homosexuals. It is simply amazing that gay propagandists and sexology "experts" are successfully bamboozling the public and the media into believing that a man’s exclusive focus on young males should not be defined as homosexuality! But if an exclusive attraction of a male to other males of any age is not homosexuality, what is?” (Baldwin)

In a study featured on the Family Research Institute’s website entitled Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order[13], written by Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, and Kay Proctor, the authors also note that child molestation against young boys is committed primarily by homosexual men. Using the fact that the homosexual population of the U.S. is roughly 2% this research concluded that seven percent of gay males have admitted to having sex with boys that were younger than 13 years old. (Cameron et,al) The percentage of same sex molesters compared to the percentage of the population is huge, nearly 40% of all molestations are same sex molestations and given the fact that over 90% of molesters are adult males it would appear that the vast majority of them are homosexual.

Furthermore, gay rights groups, according to Baldwin, are actively seeking to lessen the penalties for sexual activity with under aged boys claiming that it is a violation of civil rights. This is the consequence of moral relativism and multiculturalism coming home to roost. The fact is that attraction to young boys is almost exclusively a homosexual problem. Baldwin writes that very few homosexuals are attracted to older men, and that according to the journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior[14], cited by Baldwin, 86% of pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual.

As the gay rights agenda moves forward little attention is being paid to the possible consequences concerning the safety of our children, and more attention is being paid to the idea of feeling like we are not being overly judgmental. Homosexuality is not conducive to good health as they are more prone to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases and environments that may not be clean and sanitary. According to the Family research Center, these facts point to homosexuality creating risk for others as well.

We certainly do not want to create a hostile environment toward homosexuals in general; however, it must be recognized that there is an element of that population that has in its sights, the lowering of age of consent laws and normalizing pedophilia to satisfy their sexual desires. If there is not an effort to stop this, and the idea that this is a human rights issues moves forward we could be causing untold damage to generations of children who should look to adults for protection, not live in fear of them, or have sexual relationships with them.

In the book Brainwashing, A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics [15] there is an interesting paragraph pertaining to the use of academic papers. Papers should exist, wrote Beria, no matter how fictitious, that legitimize the left-wing world view. The paragraph itself is dealing with the issue of psychiatric cures for made up mental conditions; however, the application is relevant here as a means of trying to legitimize sex with children. The bigger point being that academic papers don’t necessarily lead one to the absolute truth but to the existing bias of the left wing controlled academic world. 

Technical papers should exist as to the number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious, should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a background of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who has ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology. (Beria)

These papers, presenting pedophilia as normal, are being used to do just that, build a library of academic evidence which could be used to change the age of consent laws in the favor of the homosexual movement. The push for homosexuality and pedophilia in America are deliberate efforts to destroy our Christian culture and the foundations of individual liberty.

In an article by Mallory Millet entitled Marxist’s Feminists Ruined Lives, [16] the attempts to use homosexuality as a means of destroying the nuclear family are revealed. Millet claims she was once part of the radicalized women’s liberation movement which was started, in large part, by her sister. Kate Millet [17] has become known for her book Sexual Politics where the idea of destroying the so called male patriarchy first took root. She is responsible for the women’s studies curriculum, which is devoted to this idea, in many of our universities. Mallory tells the story of her sister’s transformation into a radical communist and her legacy as starting the National Organization for Women. The larger point is that Mallory is telling a story in which she witnessed the origins of the push to normalize homosexuality and destroy western culture take root as early as 1969.

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a "consciousness-raising-group," a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.  We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
"Why are we here today?" she asked.
"To make revolution," they answered.
"What kind of revolution?" she replied.
"The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
"By destroying the American family!" they answered.
"How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
"By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly.
"And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
"By taking away his power!"
"How do we do that?"
"By destroying monogamy!" they shouted.
"How can we destroy monogamy?"
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?
"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!" they resounded.


They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.  It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was "to invade every American institution.  Everyone must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’": The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

Again, it must be noted that goal number 26 of the forty-five communist goals is to present homosexuality as normal and healthy. Which is exactly what our education system has been doing. While many pushing this agenda claim it is being done to increase awareness and promote tolerance for those who live different lifestyles, it is likely being done to corrupt our youth and destroy our culture. Exposing children to sexually explicit material, whether it be of a homo or heterosexual nature has lasting consequences that can be potentially harmful. For a society that claims males are sexual predators and that “toxic masculinity” must be curbed you would think exposing kids to sex at such a young age would be discouraged. Studies have concluded that children under the age of fourteen who have been exposed to explicit sexual material are more likely to become sexually aggressive as they mature, or even become victims of a sexual assault. [18]  Young girls exposed to pornography, or explicit sex ed may develop an unhealthy understanding of her role in sexual relationships, making her more vulnerable. Children are also more likely to be exposed to and contract sexually transmitted diseases. (Ross, n. d.) Its ironic that those pushing this sexual agenda do so under the guise of preventing diseases such as AIDS when in fact what they are doing is increasing the risk of children contracting these diseases. It is believed by this author that the negative connotations of exposing children to sexual material at such a young age are fully understood by those pushing the agenda. For example, under what circumstances would it be appropriate to expose fourteen year olds to a homosexual act known as fisting [19] in a public education setting? This is exactly what happened when GLSEN, led by Kevin Jennings, who would later become President Obama’a appointed safe school czar mind you, put on a state sponsored teacher conference in March of 2000. The Massachusetts State Department of Education is quoted as saying the following-

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap.... It's an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

Again, this type of explicit sexual behavior is being taught under the deceptive term “safe schools” intended to give the impression that creating tolerance and acceptance of people who are different is the goal. How are young teenagers, barely old enough to understand their own emotions supposed to take this? How does this promote healthy sexual relationships? It doesn’t, and that’s the point.

Schools aren’t the only place where sexually explicit material can be viewed by children. The internet has millions of websites which offer unfettered access to pornography. While many people believe that pornography sites should be censored the first amendment has been used very effectively by those seeking to change our culture. Below are goals number twenty-four and twenty-five from the forty-five goals of the Communist party.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. 

 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

Many people ridicule and scoff at conspiracy theories; however, an honest assessment will lead one to the conclusion that this isn’t a conspiracy. The effects children suffer from exposure to inappropriate sexual material at young ages are well documented, yet there is an effort to expose them nonetheless. The effects of pornography on the adult brain are understood as well, yet pornography websites as well as advertisements and television shows which promote unhealthy sexuality permeate our culture. Why? The first amendment is used to protect these types of programs and websites, but the truth is that it is all part of agenda to corrupt our morality, which makes us easier to guide and control.

 The human brain has a natural drive for sexual activity. One, for the obvious need to reproduce and two, create intimacy and lasting bonds between loving couples. According to William M. Struthers of the Christian Research Institute[20] pornography takes its toll on the ability of people to create intimate bonds.

 It is here more than anywhere else that pornography takes human sexuality out of its intended purpose—the establishing and deepening of intimacy between two human beings—and makes it a product to be consumed. Human beings become objects of consumption rather than individuals requiring dignity and, in this process, those involved in its production and its consumption are harmed. This harm is not only sociological and psychological, but also spiritual. The product, another human being’s nakedness, or intimate moments, is consumed for another’s benefit. Searching for a video, magazine, or website that has just the ideal effect offers the promise of euphoria and connection. It has the potential to become a fixation, a compulsion akin to chasing the ever-elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The pornographic selection may be consumed once, occasionally, or on an ongoing basis, for as often as you would like. Whenever it fails to meet your standards for beauty or excitement, whenever it fails to stimulate your fantasy, or if you just become bored with the images, the people within are disposed of. Free from the need to recycle or acknowledge that real human beings were exploited, the law of supply and demand drives what the market will bear. (Struthers, n.d.)

Pornography addiction in adult males works much the same way as any other addiction. Overtime, a tolerance is developed and an adult male could actually become incapable of sexual performance.[21] According to Mike Tucker from madaboutmarriage.com[22] pornography addiction can have devastating consequences on the family. It can create feelings of inadequacy in wives whose husbands continually view porn. It can lead to wives feeling unattractive and in some cases, depressed. It creates unrealistic expectations in men who in many cases, may expect their partners to engage in activities they have seen while watching porn. When the wife refuses this causes men to withdraw further into the harmful world of pornography.

Why would pornography and other sexually driven content be made so readily available if it has such lasting and harmful effects? The only possible answer is that sex is being used as a weapon to de-moralize society and corrupt our culture, while destroying the traditional understanding of family and the role sex plays in society. Pornography viewing reduces human beings to nothing more than a product meant to be consumed for our own personal satisfaction. Sex is a gift from God meant to bring new life and solidfy bonds between loving couples. The nuclear family has long been understood to lay the groundwork for a free, self-governing society. The promotion of pornography and promiscuity is a direct assault on that concept.





























at No comments:

Thursday, July 5, 2018

The Merging of Education and Labor Must be Opposed


While many Americans find themselves enthralled with the Trump vs. the left charade, steadily fed to them as a distraction; a surreptitious, leftist agenda drives on.  While campaigning President Trump promised to eliminate the Department of Education, an over bloated government agency that works to brainwash our kids against our values more than anything else. Trump has stated that education should be governed at the local level and even tweeted his intent to get rid of common core. The promise to eliminate the Department of Education has been replaced with an initiative to merge it with the Department of Labor. While many people may initially see this as a good move, one that would effectively prepare students to enter the work force, they fail to realize that this is the fulfillment of a socialist agenda.

During the early 1900's, (Americas progressive era,) educators became convinced that the Soviet model of education was superior to America's. Instrumental players like John Dewey, who is considered by the left to be the father of modern education, worked to turn America's education system into one where students were trained to be socially acceptable members of a democratic society as opposed to free thinkers able to exercise their own free will. Schools were designed to create the ideal citizen as opposed to the next great inventor, or entrepreneur. Dewey believed that the school system was to take over the functions of old, crumbling institutions within a failing society. Institutions like the church and the family that once rooted children in a system of traditional values were replaced with a system that taught social, collective values. Dewey also believed a system that encouraged individual thought and free thinking would stand in the way of the ideal society, contributing to independence and individuality. In Democracy and Education, he wrote the following concerning his thoughts on individualism.

When the social quality of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows. Moral individualism is set up by the conscious separation of different centers of life.  It has its roots in the notion that the consciousness of each person is wholly private, a self-enclosed continent, intrinsically independent of the ideas, wishes, purposes of everybody else.

He also writes-

A being whose activities are associated with others has a social environment. What he does and what he can do depend upon the expectations, demands, approvals, and condemnations of others. A being connected with other beings cannot perform his own activities without taking the activities of others into account. For they are the indispensable conditions of the realization of his tendencies.

What he is saying in these two paragraphs is that a society based on individualism is detrimental to a social state where societal needs are bound together by common experiences of those sharing the same environment. By merging the Departments of Education and Labor, where a school to work pipeline would undoubtedly be created, Dewey’s vision of a collective social state is being fulfilled as people would be trained to fit the needs of society as opposed to being taught to think for themselves and make their own path.

America was founded as a nation where the individual was sovereign to government power and free to pursue their own ambitions. It is inevitable that the merging of these two over-bloated bureaucracies will lead to the impairment of the free-willed pursuit of happiness as the needs of society will unavoidably dictate which career choices a student can pursue. When a student is taught how to think they can adapt to changing environments and are able to tend to their own needs. Contrarily, when they are taught to do a job based on a system of competencies, as opposed to an ability to problem solve, it is all they know how to do. It is not uncommon for people to continually return the outcome based technical schooling programs to learn how to do a new job because the previous one they were trained in no longer exists, or they simply have not been trained well enough to do the job.   

Patriotism and religion are other aspects of individualism which must be undermined for a system like this to work.  In 1932, William Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party of the United States wrote the book Toward Soviet America, where he described his vision of American education, which is strikingly similar to what we see today as much of what he describes has been accomplished.

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

While Trump is calling for the merging of these two departments, his education secretary, Betsy Devos, is suggesting our education system be reformed to be more like Europe’s. That is the last thing America needs if we are to survive as a free republic as opposed to a social democracy. This initiative as well as the merging of two unneeded bureaucracies should be opposed by all freedom loving Americans. Unfortunately, much of this communist education system has been implemented years ago which is why Americans are so easily distracted by the mellow dramatics of a circus sideshow designed to keep them distracted from the fact that despite Trump winning the election, a leftist agenda slowly drives on.












at No comments:

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Don't Fall for the Civil War Rhetoric: Let the Left Own the Violence


Is America really on the verge of another civil war? Has the political divide become so deep that conservatives and liberals can find no other alternative to settle their differences that they must be settled through violence? Some people would have you believe this to be the case, people with an agenda that is. Allowing ourselves to fall for this propaganda gives the elites all the excuse they need to put the final nail in the coffin and institute a full blown, technocratic police state. The infrastructure is all in place, all they need now is the consent of a scared public, and a barbaric civil war would do the trick.

The goal of the left is to rip the nations morality apart and create conditions where people see their solutions as the only alternative to the tumultuous events unfolding around them. In Brainwashing: A Synthesis on the Russian Manual of Psychopolitics Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet secret police, explains this by saying the following-

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

For years now, we have listened to the hysterics of the left claim that the right represents an ideology of violence and intolerance despite the overwhelming fact that it is the left who organizes unruly mobs in protest of whatever outrage is motivating them into action. Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter all epitomize the idea that violence against an imperialistic nation such as the United States, where white supremacism allegedly permeates the institutions, is justified. The communist left is operating from a list of declared forty-five goals they established to bring this country down, violent protests were among these established objectives. This list of goals was not only published in the book The Naked Communist, they were made part of the congressional record in 1963. In other words, congress is aware of what is happening in our country.

Goal #19 Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.

Goal #42 Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.

 The latest display of emotional virtue in which the left is displaying orchestrated indignation is the immigration debate. Massive protests are once again being utilized to feint moral umbrage towards the Trump administration, even though he is merely enforcing current immigration law. The end goal of course is the elimination of America’s lawful borders and an unending flow of immigrants who have no interest in sustaining our culture of liberty.

These issues which cause conflict among Americans are deliberately being thrust into the public exclusively for that purpose, to cause conflict. The Hegelian Dialectic is used to cause problems, get the public to demand a solution, then implement the one that’s been waiting in the shadows. Americans were supposed to see the reasonableness in liberalism and accept it as an alternative to conservatism, which is always presented as selfish and aristocratic. American’s have rejected it outright with the election of Donald Trump and in desperation, the left is working to cause as much chaos as they can to bring us to our knees. Make no mistake, the left is using everything they can, the Russian investigation, immigration, gun control and other contentious issues to keep us divided. They invent labels while insisting that their positions are morally superior, and that opposing viewpoints to collectivism should be shouted down. Leftwing politicians like Pelosi and Waters have been instigating violence by suggesting people form groups and become disruptors or surround people from the opposite political party and publicly shame them.

If there were to be another civil war in this country it would be because the left wants one. They have become so intolerant of anything other than their mystical, fabled delusions of utopia that they are enthusiastic about the prospects of staging violent protests and even setting off bombs to get their way. They have been pushing for decades to transform America into a socialist paradise and they have largely failed to bring it to fruition. They are desperate, delusional and angry, and they are operating from an ends justify the means mentality that makes it all the more dangerous.

Violence breaking out on a large scale would drive the public to demand a solution from the government to foster in a sense of safety and normalcy. This is what the desired outcome is, so before you let the violent rhetoric of the left push you to achieve their ends, realize that your reaction is what they need to control you.




at No comments:

Monday, June 25, 2018

Means and Ends Moralists Part 3: Immigration and an Unhinged Left


The left is using the issue of illegal immigration to push for open borders and the elimination of America’s national identity. They are also using it to discredit Donald Trump as he is being portrayed as a heartless dictator who is locking up poor children seeking asylum in the United States. The two Alinsky rules the left are using here are numbers eight and ten.

Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. (Alinsky, 1971)

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. (Alinsky, 1971)

What President Trump is currently dealing with is an overwhelming problem of illegal immigrants crossing our border because the left has virtually made it legal to do so. The Hegelian dialectic is in play here as this issue has been allowed to grow out of control for several decades to create a public demand for a solution, and that solution is being presented as amnesty.

For years, the Obama administration, according to the Dailymail.com[1], had been sending leaflets to Mexico advising people that they can get free food stamps and other benefits in America without admitting they are in the country illegally. As a result, millions of people are rushing to cross the border to get their fair share of the free ride. The left is taking the opportunity to discredit President Trump because of policies which have been in place for two decades which separates children and their families at the border while a determination is made pertaining on what to do with them. The debate currently rages over whether there is a federal law requiring such an action. President Trump has made the claim that Democrats passed this law. In 2002, a Democrat senate majority voted in favor of Public Law 107-296[2], which was a bill following the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. George W. Bush was president at the time, so he would have had to sign the bill into law. This bill does give authority to place illegal immigrants under the age of 18 into a detention facility; however, there is nothing in this law which specifies the separation of families. In any case, families have been separated at the border for decades, even under the Obama administration[3]. Even MSNBC was forced to admit that the policy took place under the Obama administration.[4] Whatever the case may be, the Democrats are clearly showing their hypocrisy on the issue while pulling the heart strings of the ignorant. For years, when it suited them, they advocated for strong border policies and tougher laws on illegal immigration. Many people likely remember the time when the Clinton administration sent armed Immigration and Naturalization officers to seize Elian Gonzalez from his family’s home in Miami [5]. Gonzalez was brought to the United States from Cuba under the same conditions which Democrats now champion and encourage illegal immigration. To escape the harsh realities of living under oppressive rule and third world economic conditions. The Clinton Administration made no apologies for this pre-dawn raid where they snatched young Elian from his uncle’s arms at gun point.

The left is now using this issue to present Trumps actions as morally reprehensible, so they can get their voting base worked up and mobilized. While doing so they have once again shown the world just how low they are willing to go to present something as a crisis which must immediately be solved. Time Magazine, on the cover of their July issue, has run a photo of a little girl screaming at the border and President Trump hovering over her while saying the words “welcome to America.” As stressed many times throughout this blog, the left’s job is to discredit the country, so this cover makes America look like a mean and nasty place. You must wonder though, if they thought the country was such a mean and nasty place then why are they encouraging people to cross the border illegally, only to be separated from their families and be treated like animals? Shouldn’t they be encouraging the people oppressed by white privilege and imperialism to cross the border into Mexico where everyone is of such higher virtue? The truth of this photo is that the girl was never separated from her family and that her mother was not an asylum seeker. Rather, her father claims that the mother hired a smuggler to bring her across the border, leaving the father behind, and that she was looking for work.  According to an article published in the Washington Times by Stephen Dinan,[6] the mother, Sandra Sanchez was deported from the United States under the Obama administration. Dinan further argued that because she left other children behind she has no justifiable claim to asylum in the United States. If she had fears of being persecuted she would not leave other loved family members behind. This is how the left plays, they take advantage of any opportunity to discredit their opposition even before finding out any facts.

Another shocking revelation that has become known, one that of course the left is trying to use against Trump, is the fact that many of these children are being force fed powerful anti-psychotic drugs once they have been separated from their families. A report from Revealnews.org[7] reveals that immigrant children have been sent to shelters which have a history of abusing their guests with psychotropic medications since 2003. One such shelter, Shiloh, received 5.6 million dollars from the federal government and has been housing these children since 2013. Children have complained of being forced to take up to ten different medications at a time. This author, during an internship at a child welfare office can attest to this as he was witnessing shelters who engage in the practice of drugging the children after they have been taken from their parents. Ironically, many of these children were of Hispanic origin and the year was 2013. It is unknown if there is a connection between these shelters and those involved in housing illegal immigrants.

Another image that has sent shockwaves through the lefts emotional outrage machine was one of a little boy being locked in a cage, crying. It turns out that the photo was part of a staged protest where left wing agitators put themselves in a cage to demonstrate their outrage over families being separated at the border[8]. That brings us to another Alinsky rule, one that has been employed many times before.

A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it there is something very wrong with the tactic. (Alinsky, 1971)

The left has fun doing many of the things they do. They especially like to incite riots against conservatives in their attempts to portray conservatism as selfish, bigoted, and hateful. On Sunday, June 24, 2018, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, attempting to whoop up hatred against Republicans encouraged her voters to harass and intimidate Trump supporters[9] to protest the immigration issue. This is despite many of the issues she is trying to bring attention to have been proven false.

This is all indicative of the means the Alinsky moralists are willing to employ to discredit and destroy their opposition. The sad thing is that they feel no shame for doing so, they have elevated their morality with the false notion of being virtually superior to us. As mentioned in earlier articles, they have no morality except that of being willing to corrupt themselves to create their cherished Utopia. They will only come out and admit they are wrong if they fear public opinion demands they do so. In many cases, they will still find a way to justify the use of misinformation or lying to prove a point. In the case of Waters, her voters believe, because of the lies pushed by the media in collaboration with the education system, that the Republicans truly are bigoted and are working feverishly to keep the poor children from their families.

Maxine Waters isn’t the only Democrat who has become unhinged in her calls for action. MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch[10] took to the airwaves on Saturday, June 23, 2018, to suggest that all Trump voters are to blame for child separations. In fact, he suggested that voting for Trump is comparable to standing on the border and ripping children away from their parents.

What has to happen now is this can no longer be about who Trump is. It has to be about who we are, if we are working towards November. We can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms. The mistake that we’ve made in the past, is “Look at that bad guy over there. Look at that bad guy.”

What the Democrats have to do is make the next election a referendum on not who Trump is, but who you are. That’s the big difference. You can no longer now as a voter — because it’s not about taxes, it’s not even about some abstract term of immigration or nationalism; if you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going “You here, you here.”

And I think we now have to flip it and its a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, well he’s okay, but — and I think that gymnastics and I think that jiu-jitsu has to happen. (Deutsch)

The desperation to retain voters and discredit the truth is boiling over to dangerous levels and if it is not tamed by a respect for humanity, could very well result in someone getting hurt.

at No comments:

Monday, June 18, 2018

The American Medical Association Hides its Own Failures by Pushing Gun Control


The American Medical Association is jumping on board the gun control band wagon by organizing a massive push to lobby law makers to enact stricter gun laws. Among some of these proposals are a ban on so called assault weapons, high capacity magazines, licensing and registration of all firearms, and laws which prohibit anyone under the age of twenty-one from purchasing any type of weapon.  Currently, people under twenty-one are already prohibited from owning handguns. These new proposals, mirroring Florida’s new gun control measures, would make purchasing any type of rifle or shot gun illegal by anyone under the age of twenty-one. Imagine the hypocrisy of such laws, eighteen-year old’s fight for our freedom only to be denied the freedoms they believe they are fighting for. The second amendment was written to guarantee everyone’s inalienable right to self-defense. The American Medical Association has no authority to offer policy initiatives on this subject.

The American Medical Association is attempting to present gun ownership as a public health crisis. This began under President Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Murthy is responsible for organizing a group called Doctors for Obama and helped lobby congress for the passage of Obamacare. This group has already pressed for these gun control laws under the misguided notion that banning guns is a part of medicine and would result in a healthier America.

While labeling gun ownership as a public health crisis may seem far fetched to some, the fact is that conservatism have been labeled as a potential mental illness for quite some time.  In the article Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, the authors argue that a conservative’s unwillingness to change is a sign of a mental disorder. They also argue that the right generally shows a favorable attitude towards inequality while the left pushes for total equality, meaning that conservatives are intolerant bigots. This, according to the authors, is because the right believes in a hierarchal structure for society. This of course, is non-sense. The right believes in equality of opportunity, not forced out comes. In any case, the label of mental illness is being associated with political conservatism. Soon, those showing an unwillingness to accept the idea that gun ownership is creating a public health crisis could be considered mentally ill as well.

“The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.” (Beria, Manual on Psychopolitics)

The AMA may be seeking to treat gun ownership as a public health crisis; however, in doing so they appear to be hiding some of their own public health problems. For instance, a report released in 2016 by John Hopkins Medicine reveals that medical errors and malpractice are now the third leading cause of death in America. According to John Hopkins safety experts, more than 250,000 people per year die of medical errors. This far surpasses the three hundred and seventy-six people murdered by rifles in 2016. It is amazing because the AMA cites the devastating human toll of so called gun violence without mentioning a word about the numbers killed by their own errors.

Another point the AMA is failing to mention is the number of people killed annually using prescription drugs, namely anti-psychotics. Over fifteen thousand people died because of psychiatric drug use in 2014, this is more than the number of deaths due to heroin addiction. Yet, the AMA is directly involved in marketing these drugs through advertising campaigns designed to make people think the drugs are designed just for their specific symptoms. These ads play daily on television, depicting a normal everyday family suffering the effects of some illness wondering what they can do about it. The chosen drug is marketed directly to individuals who may feel they are experiencing these symptoms. Unfortunately, the list of potential (side) effects, in many cases include suicidal and homicidal behavior. It is a well-established fact that many of the mass shootings recently witnessed in America were committed by people taking these types of medications. The AMA then, appears to be pushing gun control to divert attention away from the fact that they are profiting from one of the probable causes of gun violence.

The AMA also employs a subtler tactic of using standardized billing codes. As a student in social work this author was taught this as a common method of collecting payment from Medicare. Service providers, whether they be physicians, or mental health counselors are forced to give a diagnosis and prescribe a drug and assign it a billing code to receive payment. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, for example, is nothing but a list of billing codes for hundreds of so called mental disorders for which people are prescribed drugs. The AMA established this method to establish communications between providers and insurance companies. Now, it has just become a source of income for the pharmaceutical industry whose profits are in the billions.

The AMA can push gun control all they want. It is apparent that they are doing so to hide the atrocities committed by their own greed. There are over two million defensive gun uses annually in the United States, a finding incidentally, which was hidden from public view by the Centers for Disease Control. By jumping aboard the gun control wagon, the AMA is only re-affirming the lefts commitment to leave good people helpless while empowering those who have the inclination to prey on others. The idea of gun ownership being a public health crisis without addressing the root causes of violent behavior does absolutely nothing to keep people safe. Britain found out the hard way. First they surrendered their guns, now the government is demanding people surrender their knives.








at No comments:

Sunday, June 3, 2018

Killing Us With Our Own Rules: Means and Ends Moralists Part Two




One of Alinsky’s most effective strategy’s, one that we see play out daily, can be found in the chapter entitled Tactics. This chapter highlights twelve rules of tactics, and one of them sticks out because it encourages those pushing for social change to use our own rules against us in a way that discredits everything we do.


“The fourth rule of tactics is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” (Alinsky, 1971)


What this comes down to in its most basic elements is that the left doesn’t believe that men can be free and self-governing, and that the system that allegedly believes in “justice for all” has failed. In order then, to re-organize society to their liking they must use our system against us to show that it has been a massive failure. This is akin to the discussion on means and ends morality because what they seek to do is use our morals against us in a way that makes us appear hypocritical in our most fundamental beliefs. They employ this to destroy the constitution as well as the Christian religion.

One of the best examples to point to is the mainstream media. One would think that after the constant exposure as liars and partisan hacks, along with the massive ratings drop that they would wake up and see the light. What if their agenda goes beyond simply being partisan hacks for the Democrat party? What if their purpose is to completely discredit the first amendment to the constitution by deliberately lying and hiding behind it? If this was the case, eventually people would come to see the first amendment as something that enables people to lie cheat and steal as opposed to using it for its intended purpose, which is to hold government accountable and seek truth. This would be another application of the Hegelian Dialectic discussed earlier. Create the problem so that the people demand a solution, thus ensuring the consent of the governed. In some instances, this has already proven to be the case when it comes to the issue of regulating the internet. Earlier this year we saw the issue of censorship on social media. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube have all been found to be targeting conservative views and censoring them through a change in their algorithms. This has resulted in far less people being able to access conservative sites. In fact, it led to a dramatic reduction in traffic to conservative based sites, which included sites dealing with political campaigns. Sites dealing with liberal issues or Democrat candidates saw no reduction in their traffic.[1]

“President Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts dropped 45 percent. In contrast, potential left-wing presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did not see drops. Fox News had a drop of 26 percent in its Facebook engagement, whereas CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post saw virtually no change. The only left-leaning sites that appear to be affected were clickbait sites.

Right Wing News, which has over a million fans on its page, saw such a decrease in traffic that owner John Hawkins said it was no longer profitable to keep running. He shut down the page and site (it’s still online but is not updated). IJ Review, another popular site on the right that got much of its traffic from Facebook, was forced into layoffs last week. Three other sites are depending heavily on Facebook. Young Cons, Western Journalism and Sarah Palin, saw huge decreases in website traffic in January. Some sites had to switch domain names to survive. Western Journalism renamed its domain Western Journal. Even the most popular sites on the right were affected, like Breitbart.” (Alexander, 2018)

Another tactic being employed by social media giants was the re-direction from conservative based sites to liberal ones like the associated press. According to Alexander, an article published by The Gateway Pundit featuring a pro-second amendment position by the father of two Parkland shooting survivors was flagged and re-directed in this manner. What we are witnessing is an all-out attempt to control the public’s perception of reality and what they believe. Could there be another agenda? The conservative reaction to this was to demand that the government get involved and regulate the internet to ensure everyone’s viewpoint is heard equally.[2] They are effectively using the first amendment against us in ways that could have probably never been imagined. Some will argue that Facebook, and YouTube, for example, are private entities who themselves have a first amendment right to determine what is appropriate to post on their media platforms. The result however, is the demand from a group that historically has unabashedly argued for unrestricted free speech demanding the government do something. The same is being accomplished through the television media. There is a demand to hold the major, liberal run media organizations accountable for their constant lying and attacks upon conservative beliefs. Essentially, by demanding a government solution we are giving them what they want, power over us.  What they want is a demand to end freedom, a demand to implement government control and a belief that the experiment in individual liberty and natural rights has failed.

“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. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, 1971)

What Alinsky is essentially arguing is that by controlling the system from the inside the conditions of hopelessness can be created, thus leading to a demand for change from the people who created the hopelessness in the first place. In the case of the mainstream, and social media, the goal is to completely eradicate the concept of free speech while hiding behind it. If they can make people believe that the first amendment leads to nothing but lying, and that people’s speech must be controlled, then the work of eliminating free speech from our society is all but completed for them. 

The 2017 football season saw the war on free speech rise to new levels as players, in attempt to portray themselves as oppressed victims of American imperialism, took a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner. This tactic enraged and isolated much of the NFL fanbase as ratings took a massive hit; however, the actions of players like Colin Kaepernick were lauded by liberal outlets as heroic and courageous. The left is portraying this as an example of the exercise of free speech while many on-lookers took offense to it. Of course, anything the left takes offense to must immediately become a national televised issue with panels of talking heads telling us to be offended. When the right takes offense to something we are often called bigots and presented as people unwilling to tolerate other people’s worldviews. Here-in lies the brilliance of the tactic of using our own rules against us, how can we claim to support freedom of speech if we don’t tolerate an expression that differs from our own? That is why the left continually wins the narrative. What if the right just learned to collectively ignore the immature antics of the left and let them express themselves without the fan-fare spectacularism pushed by the media? Would any of these tactics ever become mainstream if we didn’t pay attention to them? It is doubtful. In any case, the non-sense is sure to continue into the 2018/2019 football season as the NFL has officially made it their policy that there will be no kneeling during the national anthem while players are on the field.[3] They are free however, to remain in the locker rooms if they choose. The following line from this MSNBC article proves that this is an effort to label conservatives as intolerant and hypocritical.

“The league that wraps themselves in the flag but doesn’t honor the first amendment its showing its true colors.” (Kluwe, 2018)

They are working to portray the NFL, an allegedly patriotic, pro-American organization as unable to live to the values they espouse by not allowing their players to freely express themselves as they should be allowed under the first amendment. In all truth they should let the players take a knee, they look like idiots. Nowhere else in the world can people, no matter their skin color, be paid millions of dollars a year to play a ball game professionally. By taking a knee during the national anthem these players are in a roundabout way, biting the hand that feeds them. They make millions of dollars while the very people fighting to protect their rights to do so make pennies in comparison. This is what angers NFL fans, not they are taking a knee, but that they are ignorant in the reason they are doing so.

This tactic, of employing our rules against us, is employed in almost all aspects of society to make conservative morals look hypocritical. Our constitution states that all men are created equal and that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. What this means of course is that we are all created in the eyes of God with the same rights and we are entitled to equal treatment under natural law. It does not mean that we are all equally capable of achieving the same things. This is the definition that the left has given equality to destroy the constitution and present its writers as selfish elitists.  The left knows that there is no way everyone can be made completely equal; however, they use this as their rallying call against our system claiming that the constitution guarantees equality and that it is a value we hold dear as Americans.

One thing that the Obama Administration was able to do, which is the epitome of this type of strategy, was put in place a rule which allowed the government to waive the ninety-day residency requirements for new immigrants to obtain firearms, this was rule 1140-AA44[4] signed by Eric Holder. This rule virtually allowed an illegal immigrant to come into the country and legally purchase a firearm. Technically, it applied to only immigrants here legally; however, given the fact that several states give illegal immigrants drivers licenses that would enable them to purchase a firearm under this rule.

“Rule 1140-AA44, originally signed by Eric Holder, “would finalize an interim rule published on June 7, 2012 that removes the 90-day state residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm.

Rule 1140-AA05 will “require a firearms purchaser’s affirmative statement of his or her state of residence”–although with states like California, New York and even Georgia providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, a person could enter the country illegally and then purchase a gun on the same day.

Another rule, 1140-AA08, opens the door for nearly unrestricted importation of firearms and ammunition by non-immigrants, i.e., aliens that are in the country temporarily.

Generally, the importation of firearms or ammunition by non-immigrant aliens is prohibited by law. Yet the exemptions provided by 1140-AA08 would make sidestepping this prohibition as easy as being admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, or by simply filling out a permit application and affirming that one is not in the country on a non-immigrant visa.”[5]

This was done for discrediting the belief that we are all entitled to equal unalienable rights because conservatives rightfully argue that only citizens of the United States should be entitled to these rights. The left is again portraying the conservative beliefs as being unable to stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives are unable to live up to their values therefore; the constitution is invalid because it isn’t working to ensure equality for all. That is the left’s argument. It isn’t that the conservatives don’t believe that immigrants don’t have rights, they believe there should be a certain amount of assimilation into the culture to understand where those rights are derived from. According to the Washington Times,[6] the Obama administration had also eliminated the required oath of new citizens to be willing to bear arms in defense of the nation, yet they are going to allow them the right to exercise the second amendment? Again, this is being done to turn our system against us and it works perfectly. As long as people are afraid of being labeled as a hypocrite, or accused of not standing up for the values they claim to stand for this tactic will continue to work against us.  















at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know

  Finally, here is the link to my latest book. Three hundred and twenty-five pages of solid information explaining propaganda and persuasion...