The Fallacy of Mental Illness and Red Flag Gun Laws

Once again American's are dealing with the after math of another shooting where the shooter, David Katz, was under the influence of powerful anti-psychotic drugs. It has become the common tale across the country as all mass shooters are discovered to have been prescribed these drugs. In this case, Katz has been dealing with issues concerning his mental health since the early 1990's, and despite being prescribed a variety of psychiatric medications, was able to legally purchase the weapons he used in the shooting. Federal law already dictates that if an individual had been adjudicated mentally deficient they are to be barred from gun ownership. Taking a psychiatric medication doesn't mean one is adjudicated by a court of law to be a mental defect, which explains why he was able to purchase the gun. On the other hand, if you're a veteran or a senior citizen and need a little help managing your finances, get ready to hand them over because you will be declared incompetent to handle your own affairs.

The issue of mental health is something that America needs to pay closer attention to, particularly the relationship between psychiatric care and gun rights. More and more we hear arguments about the need to deny an individual their constitutionally protected right of due process if they are known to suffer from some kind of mental illness, or have been deemed to be a "danger to themselves or others." The Trump administration has gone on record and encouraged states to pass what are becoming known as "red flag" gun laws which enable authorities to seize guns from such people before they can commit a crime. This may have gone unnoticed by the larger Trump fan base as he had backed off several other gun control proposals which infuriated the left. This of course, could be a dialectical process which gives Trump the appearance of being a gun rights supporter but needing to make a tough decision to do something about mass shootings and dangerous people obtaining firearms. 

Sorting it out, the president’s “gun plan” consists of assisting the states in providing training for school staff in the defensive use of firearms, $50 million a year in federal grants under his proposed STOP School Violence Act, pushing for a NICS “fix” that has gotten bogged down in Congress, approving the banning of so-called bump stocks that the Department of Justice had already announced, improvements to the FBI “tip line” following the apparent failure of that service to warn of the possible threat from the Florida shooter, and a commission to come up with additional suggestions over the next 12 months. In addition the president lent support for “red flag” laws by the states. (Adelmann, The New American)

Following Trumps lead, states have been passing these laws, which infringe upon due process rights at an alarming rate. Ironically, the state of Florida recently passed such laws and since that time they not only dealt with the shooting in Jacksonville, they had shootings at two separate high school events as well. Luckily at one of these events a man legally carrying was able to stop the shooting.

The larger point being that despite the misguided efforts to stop violent crime, red flag laws do nothing to stop murder and only work to disarm people inclined to follow the law.

Conservatives are too quick to jump on board the mental health bandwagon in an attempt to put the blame of mass shootings somewhere. The left blames all gun owners and indicates a willingness to disarm everyone of everything in order to solve the problem. The right, in a defensive reaction to this, is quick to go along with the mental health narrative without a real examination of what the real agenda may be. That real agenda is the use of mental health/mental illness as a tool for the eradication of the second amendment. Every time a shooting occurs, pro-gun websites are quick to publish articles highlighting the shooters mental health problems without realizing how they are serving the dialectical process. By pointing out the shooters mental health, or the fact that they have legally purchased firearms despite being barred from doing so, they are strengthening the lefts argument for gun control. In other words, the left wants us all to believe that the current laws in place don't work, and there is a need for an honest open debate about gun reform. The left wants you to argue that the current gun laws are not effective, it serves their purpose.

When it comes to mental illness the question arises as to why the psychotropic medications that are so readily available and prescribed at an alarming rate, all come with the warnings of possible suicidal/homicidal behavior attached to them. This is where it gets disturbing. In 1967 the worlds prominent psychiatrists met in Puerto Rico to discuss the future of their profession. Their ultimate objective was the subjugation of the human mind and enslaving it to the pharmaceutical industry, for profits of course. They set out to make a plan which would ultimately mandate the use of powerful psychiatric drugs for so called mental diseases which no one could prove existed. To this day mental health is considered by many to be a pseudoscience as opposed to an actual medical profession. In any event, one of the psychiatrists present, Dr. Wayne O Evans is quoted as saying the following-

“We see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning, and will to act.”

Given the fact that one out of six Americans are currently taking some kind of psychotropic drug you have to wonder if there is something to this. Think about it a moment. One out of every six has been diagnosed and prescribed a psychiatric medication. This could be used as the basis to push for further gun restrictions in the future, and if it is successful millions of Americans will lose their rights. Or grow up without them seeing as though many of these people are drugged in elementary school for fictitious diseases such as ADHD.

It has long been understood that in traditional medicine, a scientific process of detecting symptoms that can be attributed to biological anomalies, which cause illness, is employed. In psychiatry, there is no scientific process of detecting biological anomalies because no biological test or blood work exists to prove their existence. It is all guess work based on subjective opinions of people who study, for the lack of a better term, human behavior. Dr. Russell Barkley of The University of Massachusetts Medical Center has all but admitted that no scientific test exists to diagnose the presence of a mental disorder. This also includes the nearly three hundred fictitious disorders used to label an individual mentally ill due to some emotional trauma we all experience from time to time, found in the DSM V.

In the book, The Myth of Mental Illness by Dr. Thomas Szasz M.D. the idea of psychiatry being a profession that is dishonest with its subjects is discussed. Szaz states the following concerning psychiatry-

No science can be better than its linguistic apparatus allows it to be. And the language of psychiatry (and psychoanalysis) is fundamentally unfaithful to its own subjects: in it, imitating medicine comes before telling the truth. (Szasz, T. S.  (1974) The Myth of Metal Illness)

What Szasz is saying here can be, theoretically at least, attributed back to the 1967 meeting in Puerto Rico. The profession itself set about the work of controlling the human mind, not healing real diseases. As a result, an entire profession has been built based on the fundamental premise of wanting to appear scientific but having no scientific validity in the method in which it diagnoses diseases they desperately want to prescribe medications for. As mentioned earlier, one in six Americans are now taking these medications. The common argument today is that mental illness or depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. How is this chemical imbalance detected without any lab tests? Unfortunately, the truth is slowly revealing itself and evidence is suggesting that the use of the prescribed psychotropic drugs is actually the leading cause in rising rates of mental illness. In other words, the side affects of the drugs, which warn of suicidal or homicidal behavior, are what's causing the chemical imbalances in the brain, not a mental illness. This is even the case with people suffering from known diseases such as schizophrenia, which is recognized around the world as a disease as opposed to many of the disorders in the DSM, incidentally.

"Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known "chemical imbalance." However, once a person is put on a psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function …  abnormally."

The use of psychotropic drugs, according to Mercola.com, can actually interfere with your brains neurotransmitters which prevent your brain from performing its normal biological functions. In turn, this produces the same type of symptoms which mimic the so called mental health conditions people are prescribed drugs for in the first place. Often this can result in a patient being prescribed several psychotropic medications at once, which is often the case with mass shooters.

 "After several weeks on psychoactive drugs, the brain's compensatory efforts begin to fail, and side effects emerge that reflect the mechanism of action of the drugs. For example, the SSRIs may cause episodes of mania, because of the excess of serotonin. Antipsychotics cause side effects that resemble Parkinson's disease, because of the depletion of dopamine (which is also depleted in Parkinson's disease). As side effects emerge, they are often treated by other drugs, and many patients end up on a cocktail of psychoactive drugs prescribed for a cocktail of diagnoses. The episodes of mania caused by antidepressants may lead to a new diagnosis of "bipolar disorder" and treatment with a "mood stabilizer," such as Depokote (an anticonvulsant) plus one of the newer antipsychotic drugs. And so on.

Given the information presented in this article, passing red flag laws and denying someone due process based solely on the preconceived notion of mental health is no solution to the problem of mass shootings. Examining the psychiatric profession on the other hand may be a start. Unfortunately we have reached a point in this nation where being a conservative, or a Christian is becoming viewed as a mental health issue. In the article Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, it is argued that conservatives suffer from a form of mental illness because of their alleged rigidity to change and a willingness to tolerate inequality in order to perpetuate their own power structure. We seem to hear a lot about conservatives fear of change and the so called institutional power of the "white supremacist" system we all cling to. Is this going to be enough to get an individual red flagged and deemed a danger to society? Time will tell, as red flag laws continue to gain momentum in states across the nation they are surely going to be abused. If this momentum isn't stopped, innocent people will be stripped of their rights without any real proof they were ever going to commit a crime. While in the meantime, people intent on committing murder will continue to do so.  

Be sure to check out my latest book to learn more. Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest

Paperback

Not on my Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education

The Hegelian Dialectic and the Delphi Technique

The Hegelian Dialectic [1]has become well known among many conspiracy researchers as the problem-reaction-solution strategy. It is believed that many problems in society are deliberately created by government for the public to demand a solution, which is already predetermined. For example, gun control is believed to be a result of the dialectical process by many people who believe that the government seeks to disarm us and eradicate the second amendment. Gun violence is deliberately allowed to grow out of control with shootings continually being shown on the main stream media, so the public demands more gun control, which is already a predetermined solution. This process is based off something called Dialectical Materialism.[2] This theory suggests that all progress in the world, or all change that occurs does so through a struggle of opposites. Scientists in Communist Russia were expected to be able to fit all their conclusions and hypotheses into this framework. This might explain why Communism is such a disastrous system because it is not based on reality.

The Hegelian Dialectic was formulated to guide men’s thoughts into accepting economic Communism. Economics, being a creation of man, was viewed as a means of exploitation and a way to divide society into different classes. These different classes were viewed as the catalyst of implementing Communism because they were used to create conflict and struggle with the end goal being the elimination of classless societies. It is important to understand the framework of this dialectical process because everything from education to mass media is designed to give the appearance of a conflict of opposing ideas and the process is guiding the masses incrementally towards one possible outcome, total control over our lives.

Fox News and CNN are prime examples of this conflict of ideas. Fox is supposed to represent the “right wing” or conservative point of view while CNN, and quite frankly, the rest of the main stream media, tend to represent the liberal view. This is the illusion they want to sell you anyway. The one thing they both share is a constant display of narratives that keeps the public focused on the wrong arguments. In other words, arguments that guide the debate towards government solutions. While there appears to be an actual debate taking place the truth is that certain arguments are discredited and people making them are often put on the defensive or made to appear in the minority while making their argument.

Every important issue in American society is guided by this process. Two sides of an argument where the same people tightly control the narratives are beat into the heads of the public while opinion is guided into accepting certain solutions. Another good example to demonstrate this is again, the gun control debate.  This author is not suggesting that the recent mass shooting experienced in America were deliberately staged by government, though false flag events are historically real, it is being suggested that the media, in collaboration with government anti-gunners are using the dialectic to guide public opinion in only one direction, the total elimination of private gun ownership. Every time there is a mass shooting the media focuses on very specific things that shape the argument. For instance, the fact that the shooter was taking psychotropic drugs, or the fact that in the most recent examples the guns used in the shooting were purchased legally even though they shouldn’t have been. This leads to demands for more government solutions when in fact, it is government failure that led to the shootings in the first place. In the Parkland Florida shooting, which occurred on Valentine’s day of 2018, it was widely reported that the FBI had visited the shooter on numerous occasions to investigate possible threats allegedly made by the shooter. The overall developing narrative is that the system is broken and must be reformed. It is already against the law to purchase a firearm if you have been ruled mentally defective, are a fugitive from justice, have a restraining order against you, or if you are addicted to illegal substances. When the media presents these problems and highlights the shooters getting their guns legally despite them, the only possible solution that starts to present itself in the minds of the gullible is the full banning of firearms for everyone.

 Ironically, an old radio talk show host and author of the book “Behold a Pale Horse,”[3] William Cooper, predicted that the government would allow the issue of gun violence to grow out of control, so a scared public would demand an end to the Second Amendment.

“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far, is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.” (Cooper, 1991)

The above quote was from 1991, before the hysteria of the present-day mass shootings we have recently witnessed. There is little doubt that the gun control debate is working to create a demand for civilian disarmament. The AR-15 type rifle has become America’s most popular firearm for sporting and defensive use. They have also become the most demonized, and their capabilities have been greatly over exaggerated by the main stream media to keep the ignorant masses in a state of fear. The term assault weapon has been attached to them very effectively even though a weapon that has only a semi-automatic function is not standard military issue or would be virtually useless as an actual assault weapon.  They were banned for a ten-year period where a study was conducted which concluded their banning had little effect on violent crime. Because of this determination George W. Bush lifted this ban. Looking at the above quote it kind of makes you wonder if there was a more conspiratorial agenda to this, since this time the manufacture of AR style rifles has sky rocketed along with the production of after market accessories. All of which by the way, the general masses who are ignorant about firearms all consider to be “scary looking.”

Yet another blatant example of this process at work is the revelation the social media giants such as Facebook and Google and have been collecting mass amounts of data on their users to determine social attitudes on political issues. Cambridge Analytica, a data collection firm created in 2013, was according to The New York Times[4] working in collaboration with the Trump campaign to determine the personalities of potential voters and attempt to target them. Of course, there is a social outrage over these accusations however, this type of data collection was also happening under the Obama Administration and they bragged about it according to post by Accuracy in Media.[5]

“The Obama presidential campaign boasted and bragged about their use of Facebook data in order to win re-election. As our own Don Irvine wrote, a former Obama staffer tweeted that the Obama campaign used Facebook user data similar to Cambridge Analytica. The same staffer said that Facebook let the Obama campaign use their data because Facebook “was on our side.” (Accuracy in Media)

The end goal is predictable, the demand that government impose regulations controlling fairness in social media[6].   Even Mark Zuckeberg, owner of Facebook, has said he is open to government regulations governing social media[7]. Of course, he is playing the victim here, pretending that he wasn’t aware of how The Obama Administration used their data for their own aims. This is intended to portray to the general, clueless public, that he is re-thinking how he operates and that he feels shame over what has happened. The end goal, as stated above, is the acceptance of government control over what is said and expressed on the internet, period. It is working like a charm as well because both the left and right are upset over these revelations.

In August of 2018, Facebook, Google, Apple and YouTube virtually eliminated Alex Jones, founder of Info Wars, from any of their search drives. This is being viewed as outright censorship of alternative views and a violation of the first amendment. Alex Jones of course is a shock jock of sorts who works to expose the workings of the New World Order conspiracy and was allegedly banned because of his insistence that the Sandy Hook School shooting was an elaborate hoax designed to persuade Americans into demanding gun control. Many on the right are claiming that this has nothing to do with the first amendment and that private corporations can ban whom ever they wish, while others still are demanding government act to prevent these corporations from censoring anyone based on their political viewpoints. Again, this plays right into the hands of government because behind the scenes the left is planning an all-out takeover of the internet.[8] The claim of course is that the internet needs to be regulated to prevent foreign influence in our elections however, the truth is that the internet has been a powerful tool in exposing corruption and offering alternative viewpoints to the false mainstream media. To create a socialist paradise, the information must be controlled, and all Americans must base their beliefs on the same information. This creates quite a conundrum because the American government was created by, for and of the people to protect the rights of American citizens. Rights which our founders have described as inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken from us because they exist in the natural state of being human. If governments job is to protect these rights, then where else do you go when they are being infringed upon by corporations who seek to eliminate points of view which differ from their own? Was the banning of Alex Jones a deliberate ploy to get the masses to demand government intervention, paving the way for government control of the internet? It certainly is possible because that is exactly the way this is playing out.

This is how the dialectical process works and it is present in nearly all social issues confronting America.  From global warming to health care, from gun control to wealth inequality we are being led to believe that we are overwhelmed with problems that only government can solve, and to solve them they need us to relinquish more of our God given liberty.

The passage of Obamacare is probably the best example of all. The creation of a massive entitlement which forces people who can afford to do so to pay higher insurance premiums so the people who cannot, can get cheaper healthcare. Furthermore, there was a fine imposed by the IRS for not purchasing a healthcare plan[9]. Ironically, the fine was never more than the cost of an Obamacare plan which inevitably meant there was more of an incentive to not purchase an Obamacare plan because it was cheaper to pay the fine. The result is an unsustainable system which we were told would pay it for itself. The failure of Obamacare would force the government to implement the much desired by the left, single payer healthcare system.

Another method of guiding popular consensus is the use of the Delphi[10] technique. This method encourages the open debate between two or more opposing ideas with the intent of pushing the discussion in the direction of an already agreed upon solution[11]. This solution is usually based on the opinions or objectives of a panel of so called experts on whatever subject is being discussed.  Often, this is done in a public setting where the appearance is given that public opinion is valued on whatever subject is being discussed. The leader is often a trained change agent who is very skilled at identifying the types of people who are generally opposed to the already agreed upon consensus. They are also skilled at humiliating them and making their positions look foolish, which in turn, encourages those in the audience to keep quiet or go along to get along.  In the end, the opinions that favor the desired outcome are made to appear as if they are the majority. This could be done by dividing people into groups and having them submit their ideas on paper to a facilitator where they have no idea if they will even be seen. Or, people paid to express support of the desired outcome could be present in the audience giving the appearance they are in the majority. This technique is frequently used in the classroom as well to push socialist ideas such as socialized medicine and solutions to climate change.

---

[1]http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/EmbattledPropertyOwnerStories/What%20is%20the%20Hegelian%20Dialectic.pdf (3-3-18)

[2] https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/philosophy-and-religion/philosophy/philosophy-terms-and-concepts/dialectical-materialism (3-3-18)

[3] http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/William_Cooper-Behold_a_Pale_Horse1991.pdf (3-31-18)

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html (4-1-18)

[5] https://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/obama-bragged-about-facebook-data-so-why-the-outrage/ (4-1-18)

[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/tighten-regulation-over-use-of-consumer-data-nasscom/articleshow/63518426.cms (4-1-18)

[7] https://thinkprogress.org/mark-zuckerberg-is-open-to-facebook-regulation-as-long-as-its-the-right-kind-5840313de140/ (4-1-18)

[8] https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked (8-11-18)

[9] http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7 (4-8-18)

[10] https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html (3-3-18)

[11] http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html (3-3-18)

A Nation Gone to Pot

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues currently facing America is the push to legalize Marijuana. Several states Including Colorado, California and Oregon have legalized recreational use of what many consider to be the gateway drug, while a total of thirty states have legalized it for medical purposes. Oklahoma being the latest. Proponents argue that most U.S. citizens favor legalization or at least, decriminalization of the drug; however, its use has shown to increase risk for mental illness’ such as schizophrenia among heavy users, especially those under twelve years old. One thing is for certain, the legalization of Marijuana is set to earn the Marijuana industry a whopping 31.4 billion dollars by the year 2021 according to Forbes.[1] Bethany Gomez, a researcher for the Brightfield Group[2], an agency that researches markets for legalized Marijuana sales, suggests that the U.S. has a larger market than the rest of the world combined. That’s not hard to believe since twenty-four million Americans use illegal drugs. If the Brightfield group projects the U.S. to be a large market and sales are expected to boom to over thirty-one billion then they are going to have to increase users, meaning they will market the drug with the intent of creating new users. This could mean marketing to children.  

Many people argue that Marijuana has positive medical properties that aid in the healing of cancer and other chronic illnesses. Many people suffering from chronic pain claim that it eases their suffering. The truth is that there are two different properties to the cannabis plant CBD and THC. There is a vast difference in the way the two chemicals affect the brain. Both chemicals affect the endocannabinoid system[3] which controls functions such as pain, appetites, moods, immune response, and sleep. The big difference is that CBD does not produce the euphoric feeling of being high like THC does. THC binds and acts as an agonist with the brains CB1 cannabinoid receptors (medical marijuana inc.news, n.d.). This is responsible for the feeling of being high and causes the negative effects generally associated with Marijuana use. Slowed reaction time, decreased cognitive function, hallucinations and so on[4]. CBD on the other hand does not bind with the CB1 receptors and acts to counter the effects of THC on the CB1 receptors.

According to Gary L. Wenk of Psychology Today[5] the medical benefits of using CBD alone are very minimal because studies have shown the potency of the compound has little effect on the brain at all without the use of the entire plant. This means that to have any medical benefits at all the potent property of the plant, THC would have to be present as well. Or, CBD would have to be administered in such high doses to have any healing effects, leading to the possibility that the feeling of being high could be created.  What is the truth? It is likely that there simply has not been enough research to indicate one way of the other whether CBD oil has any real health benefits. A medical website called Healthline,[6] which is reviewed by medical doctors, lists all the possible benefits of CBD oil by suggesting it “may” help with chronic pain, or it “could possibly” be useful in treating anxiety. In other words, studies are preliminary, and they simply don’t know.

What is the real purpose of the push to legalize Marijuana? After all, it is thought to be the gateway drug which leads many people to more serious addiction problems. Besides the obvious earning potential for those in the industry the purpose behind legalizing Marijuana is to aid in the creation of an idle, non-caring population that is incapable of taking responsibility for their nation or themselves. Aiding in the creation of government dependency.

By making readily available drugs of various kinds, by giving the teen-ager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her the practices at the Sexpol, the Psychopolitical operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness, and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution which will give the teen-ager complete freedom everywhere-Communism. (Beria)

While most people will refuse to see a connection with the above quote, discrediting it as an old discredited conspiracy theory, the truth is that there was a documented attempt on the part of the communists to flood our nation with drugs. The book “Red Cocaine[7]” lays it out quite simply.

“The West has been the unknowing victim, for the past several decades, of long-term Soviet-Chinese strategic intelligence operations using drugs as a means of procuring the progressive demoralization of Western society and a concomitant degradation of the gene pool - with youth the prime target of this satanic offensive.” (Douglass, 1999)

Why the word satanic when referring to this agenda? Communism, as mentioned by this author many times before, is an anti-God ideology and as referenced in the first chapter is likely influenced by the fact that Marx, once a devoted Christian, became a Satanist.  Communism is an ideology that pits the natural state of human being against God for destroying society and remaking it in Marx’s view. Which is weakening man to the point of complete dependence on the state, where the state in fact, becomes God. What better way to do that than to alter the consciousness of a nations population with mind altering drugs?

Communists have long used drugs, since the early twentieth century, as a weapon to control populations. In 1928, Communist Mao Tse-tung cultivated opium for weakening the resolve of non-conforming populations within Communist China. (Douglass, 1999) Of course, this was done to weaken their will to resist and as soon as the job was accomplished all supplies of opium were cut off as to be able to maintain dominance over production and, likely create dependency upon the Communist government. Furthermore, the nationalization of opium production and trafficking to non-communist states became a paramount activity once Mao had taken control of the whole country in 1949. (Douglass, 1999) They were also manufacturing heroin, hashish, marijuana, and cocaine. In 1951 the United States began seizing large quantities of heroin which was later identified as being produced and manufactured in Communist China. Mao’s culturally decadent “Great Leap Forward” saw a steady rise in heroin production in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s. Ironically, this coincided with increased usage and deaths from overdose in the United States. (Douglass, 1999)

Not only were the Chinese using drugs against non-communist countries, the Soviet Union was as well. According to congressional testimony cited by Douglass, the Korean war was funded solely through the illicit sale of illegal drugs on the part of the Soviet Union and China. These drugs were used against America troops to among other things, study the effectiveness of American forces and the effects of the drugs by experimenting on prisoners of war.

“The experiments were justified as preparations for the next war. American and South Korean POWs were used as guinea pigs in chemical and biological warfare experiments, in physiological and psychological endurance tests, and in testing the effectiveness of various mind-control drugs, which were used to make US servicemen renounce America and speak of the benefits of the Communist system.”[8]

Surely, the effects of these drugs were well known and could have very easily led to strategic planning concerning the undermining of American culture. As mentioned in a previous chapter concerning psychotropic medications Dr. Wayne O Evans at a conference concerning the future use of psychotropic drugs stated the following-

“We see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning and will to act.”

Were these findings the result of some of the experiments conducted on U.S. troops by communists? Could be.

Sadly, Nikita Khrushchev took notice of these experiments and concluded that an effective strategy of weakening the imperialistic, bourgeoisie nations despised by the communists could be formulated.

News of the physically debilitating effect of the drugs captured the imagination of the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev. Drug and narcotics trafficking, he reasoned, should be viewed as a strategic operation that would directly weaken the enemy, rather than merely as a financial or intelligence tool. Accordingly, he ordered a joint military-civilian, Soviet Czechoslovak study to examine the total effects of drug and narcotics trafficking on Western society; this included its effects on labor productivity, education, the military (the ultimate target at that time), and its use in support of Soviet Bloc intelligence operations. Nor was this study approached as a question of tactics or as simply an opportunity for exploitation. The narcotics potential was examined in the context of long range strategy. Costs and risks, benefits and payoffs, integration, and coordination with other operations, were all examined. Even the effects of drugs over several generations, were analyzed by scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences. The conclusions of the study were that trafficking would be extremely effective, that the most vulnerable targets were the United States, Canada, France and West Germany, and that the Soviets should capitalize on the opportunity. The study was approved by the Soviet Defense Council in late 1955 or early 1956. The principal guidance from the Defense Council in approving the action was to direct the planners to speed up the timetable of events, which was possible because of certain operational experience with narcotics that already existed within the Soviet Bloc intelligence services but about which the people who had prepared the basic plan were unaware. This plan was formally approved when the Soviets decided to begin narcotics trafficking against the so-called bourgeoisie, especially against the 'American capitalists' - the 'Main Enemy. (Douglass, 1999)

What does any of this have to with the legalization of Marijuana in the United States? Many people would argue that the legalizing, and the decriminalization of the drug wouldn't have a debilitating effect on society. This isn’t true in any sense. The effects of Marijuana on the brain cause serious cognitive functioning problems such as difficulty with problem solving, slowed reaction times, psychosis, loss of IQ, and impaired memory.[9] These are generally to be considered side affects of the drug taken in high doses. What people may fail to realize is that todays Marijuana has much higher levels of THC content than what was in the plant years ago. In fact, todays pot is specifically cultivated to produce higher rates of THC. According to the website Live Science[10] authorities have discovered that there has been an average eight percent increase in THC levels between 1994 and 2014. In 2015 NBC News ran a story highlighting the potency of legal Marijuana sold in Colorado and the levels are insanely high. In some cases, it is as high as thirty percent![11] Andy LaFrate, president of Charas Scientific[12] states that he sees little medical value in the Marijuana being cultivated for commercial sale and, has expressed concern that there appears to be a tremendous number of contaminants in the product. It makes sense that the increased amounts of the potent, psychoactive chemical in the drug would result in higher rates of dependency and psychosis.

Marijuana use also induces mental illnesses such as schizophrenia[13] in some people. While the proof, like other matters concerning the drug is inconclusive, the fact that there is a correlation should discourage the production legalized weed, for recreational or medicinal purposes. Sadly, the chances of developing such diseases are greater when the drug is used by people under the age of twenty-one which raises the question. Why would anyone want to make access to this drug easier by legalizing it? Surely, the same argument used in gun control debates can be used. People will get high and have access to the drug regardless; however, when there are such huge profits at stake there is going to be a need to create new customers and the legal barrier being removed may be all the motivation needed for people who may otherwise refrain from using the drug. Children are targeted by offering the drug in edible form such as suckers and gummi bears.

While many people claim that legal pot will eliminate many of the problems associated with its previous illegality, the truth is that it is creating more addiction and more problems with those who are addicted. In fact, people experience disorders with Marijuana at a higher rate than any other drug.[14] According to Robert L. Dupont M.D.[15], sixty percent of substance abuse disorders are due to Marijuana use.[16]

According to a report entitled The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact[17] eleven percent of Colorado youth were using legal marijuana compared to a seven percent nation wide average. Again, this correlates with the idea that children will be directly marketed too and that there is no longer the legal barrier. Adults in Colorado, according to the same report, were also using at a higher rate than the national average. In the last decade, since its legalization Marijuana users had a higher rate of abuse and treatment center admissions than methamphetamine users, second only to alcohol. From 2010 to 2014 the amount of pot seized for illegal distribution outside the state of Colorado increase seven hundred twenty two percent, meaning an increase in criminal activity as the crime rate increased more than twelve percent. Finally, homeless people with no prospects for jobs have flocked to Colorado, using its welfare system, and occupying their shelters simply to be able to use legal Marijuana.[18]

Finally, referring to the use of drugs to undermine our nation it would be worth the time to examine just who is behind the efforts to push legal Marijuana on the American people. A man whose sole mission, by his own admission, is to destroy the United States, George Soros. According to RT[19] Soros has contributed eighty million dollars to the cause of legalizing Marijuana. Through his charitable donations, Soros contributes about four million a year to the Drug Policy Alliance who claims to be pushing drug reform policies based on science and compassion for human rights. If anything, the science of Marijuana uses both recreationally and medically is inconclusive at best and terrifying at worst. Why, when there is ample evidence that it destroys youth would they push this? So they have generations of kids coming unable to think for themselves, of course.

George Soros is a leading financier of the agenda to merge America into a one world order and has contributed large sums of money to destroying this nation.[20] The fact that one dollar of his was contributed to legalize Marijuana should be of concern to all freedom loving Americans.

---

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/monazhang/2017/11/07/global-marijuana-market-31-billion-investors-cautious/#52511ab67297 (7-23-18)

[2] https://www.brightfieldgroup.com/

[3] https://news.medicalmarijuanainc.com/differences-cbd-thc/ (7-23-18)

[4] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana (7-23-18)

[5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/201405/is-cbd-better-thc (7-23-18)

[6] https://www.healthline.com/health/cbd-oil-benefits (7-23-18)

[7]https://portalconservador.com/livros/Joseph-Douglass-Red-Cocaine-The-Drugging-of-America-and-the-West.pdf (7-23-18)

[8] Congressional hearings of 1975-76. See, for example, US Senate, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign Intelligence, Book 1 (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1976), pages 392-420. 6

[9] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana (7-23-18)

[10] https://www.livescience.com/53644-marijuana-is-stronger-now-than-20-years-ago.html (7-23-18)

[11] https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/legal-weed-surprisingly-strong-dirty-tests-find-n327811 (7-23-18)

[12] http://charasscientific.com/ (7-23-18)

[13] http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html (7-23-18)

[14] https://www.sanpatrignano.com/what-we-do/sanpa-international/marijuana-legalization-has-led-more-use-and-addiction-while-illegal-market-continues-thrive/ (7-23-18)

[15] https://www.rivermendhealth.com/scientific-advisory-board-robert-dupont.html (7-23-18)

[16] https://www.sanpatrignano.com/what-we-do/sanpa-international/marijuana-legalization-has-led-more-use-and-addiction-while-illegal-market-continues-thrive/ (7-23-18)

[17] http://www.rmhidta.org/html/2015%20FINAL%20LEGALIZATION%20OF%20MARIJUANA%20IN%20COLORADO%20THE%20IMPACT.pdf (7-23-18)

[18] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-marijuana-drawing-homeless-to-colorado/ (7-23-18)

[19] https://www.rt.com/usa/soros-mpp-times-marijuana-189/ (7-23-18)

[20] https://www.naturalnews.com/051869_George_Soros_national_borders_migrant_invasion.html (7-23-18)

For Guns Or Not For Guns

Conservatives are sitting on the edge of their seat awaiting Trumps Supreme Court nomination. It has come to a choice of three according to the Washington Post, federal judges Brett M. Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge are the favorites, both of which are allegedly staunch Second Amendment supporters.

According to The Federalist, Kethledge practices law from the strict interpretation of what was intended by our founders, which is what conservatives are hoping for in a Supreme Court pick. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is likely to become a key issue in future Supreme Court cases, so the more justices that view the constitution from an originalist view point, the better. Kavanagh is also said to be an originalist, when it comes to the Second Amendment he wrote a scathing dissent against the District of Columbia appeals court which supported bans on personal firearms in Washington D.C. Kavanagh wrote-

“The Heller 1 case neither requires nor permits any balancing beyond that accomplished by the Framers themselves.  That’s the bottom line:  The Framers, in the Second Amendment, completely rejected any balancing of our gun rights when they said that our God-given right to arms shall not be infringed.”

This is all great news however; Kavanaugh is also said to have supported the individual mandate in Obamacare. In fact, many conservatives are pointing out that his opinion helped Chief Justice Roberts in ruling that Obamacare was constitutional as a tax. He argued this position under the 1867 Anti-injunction Act which posited that a tax couldn’t be challenged in court until it has been paid. That is an interesting perspective to add to his consideration for the Supreme Court.

While these two picks appear to be positive as far as gun rights are concerned, Trumps nomination of Mark Jeremy Bennett is a bit more disconcerting. Bennett is a former attorney general from Hawaii who has very limited interpretations of the Second Amendment, and, Democrats are praising his nomination. Why would Trump nominate two pro-Second Amendment judges to the Supreme Court and an anti-gunner to the 9^th circuit, which is the most anti-gun appeals court there is? Furthermore, why would Trump want to nominate anyone whom the Democrats would support with the way he is being treated?

While the answers to these questions may be difficult to answer you can bet that there are some hefty Second Amendment battles coming up. There is massive campaign being organized to push for new gun laws before the November election. These laws would include the so called Red-Flag laws being passed in many states. These laws enable law enforcement to seize firearms from people considered to be a “threat to themselves or others.” That is broad terminology unto which firearms can be seized. How long until simply owning a gun makes you a threat to yourself or others? Unfortunately, this is terminology that President Trump and his administration have used after the Parkland Florida shooting.

The administration also is urging all states to pass risk-protection orders, as Florida recently did, allowing law enforcement officers to remove firearms from individuals who are considered a threat to themselves or others and to prevent them from purchasing new guns.

According to the Washington Post, Trump’s White House also endorsed a bill that would allegedly strengthen and expand the federal background check system currently in place. Universal background checks have long been a goal by the anti-gun left.

Trumps record on Second Amendment support is all over the board. This website shows a broad range of answers given by Trump when being questioned on Second Amendment issues. They range from opposing all restrictions on firearms, to supporting a ban on so called assault weapons and longer wait periods to buy a gun. Trump also stated that large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered red flags and that there should be watch lists which enable the government to determine who and who shouldn’t be able to purchase a gun. Ironically, his support for the Second Amendment appears to gain more strength the closer it gets to 2016.

The upcoming months promise to be interesting. What will happen if Trumps pro-gun nominees clash with his alleged support for red-flag gun control laws? Will a Supreme Court Justice Kethledge, for example, stick to his original beliefs concerning the original intent of the founders on the Second Amendment or will he, like Roberts, cave into political activism?  At this point it is anybody’s guess.