Deconstructing White Privilege and Exposing the Left's Racist Attitudes

 

In 2010 I was a student in Oklahoma’s Northeastern State University social work program. The first semester was known as the pre-social work semester, and the intent was to root out students who were not ideologically aligned with the profession. The class was asked to write a position paper on Peggy McIntosh’s essay White Male, White Privilege. Upon completion of our papers, students were asked to give a brief presentation discussing what they learned about their own racist attitudes. I watched in absolute amazement as the students, one by one, stood in front of their peers and went along with the program ̶ ̶ admitting that they were not aware of their own racism until reading Mcintosh’s essay. I refused to capitulate to such nonsense and was later told that I was not fit for the profession because of my oppositional attitude.

Social work, as a profession, is politically motivated. The primary purpose is advocating for social change which best helps the fields primary constituency (Gray, 1996). Dominated by the left, social workers believe that capitalism is the root cause of poverty, inequality and most importantly, racism.  Social workers are trained to view socialism as a core ideal of the profession while also viewing it as being a fundamentally correct worldview (Duarte, 2017). To effectively accomplish their goal, social workers need to “see society as a struggle between groups with competing interests” (Duarte, 2017) to deconstruct what they view as, systems of oppression.

The term hegemony refers to the power of a dominant group. Social workers, and the left in general, view white America as an oppressive system. There has been a mass awakening to the indoctrination taking place in our universities with the teaching of concepts like white privilege and critical race theory. CRT, as it has come to be known, defines racism in terms relating to social status and power. What used to be defined as a hatred for someone based on the color of their skin, or their nationality, is now a politicized term which equates racism to any dominant social structure. Advocates of CRT claim that our society is built for the benefit of white people and, for the purpose of perpetuating whiteness while leaving others behind or forcing them to conform. It stands to reason then, that if social workers intend on dismantling what they view as an oppressive power structure, they must deconstruct whiteness altogether.

This is what LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) Cristina Combs intends to do with her Twelve steps to recovery from whiteness program. Based on the tenets of white privilege philosophy and critical race theory, this twelve-step program attempts to break down the sickness (as they see it) of whiteness for the purpose of creating a more equitable world. Step one of course, is admitting you are racist. I watched my fellow classmates do this at NSU. Step two involves acknowledging that as a white person, you will never know what it is like to walk in the shoes of a person of color. Step three is understanding the need to be gentle with yourself as you come to grips with the horrible things you have done to perpetuate white supremacy. The whole thing reads like an alcoholics’ anonymous program where admitting you were wrong and weak is the first step to recovery.

In an article entitled Owning Whiteness: The Reinvention of Self and Practice, Blitz (2006) discusses the Helms racial identity model where whiteness is broken down into six distinct phases ̶ ̶ contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence, immersion/emergence, and autonomy (Blitz, 2006). These phases start with a white person being aware of racial differences but being satisfied with the status quo (Blitz, 2006). The next phase involves the realization that there are social implications to whiteness which cause feelings of guilt (Blitz, 2006). The reintegration phase involves adopting the attitude that whites have it better than people of color and denying any responsibility for their own racism (Blitz, 2006). The next phases, which could be identified as recovery phases, involves white people becoming dependent on persons of color to help them define their racial identity (Blitz, 2006). Finally, white people who recover from whiteness (if you will) emerge with new ideas on morality, and how to approach discussions about how other white people deal with their own racism (Blitz, 2006).

There are some serious implications in the way the left, and those in the social work profession, (if it can be called that) are defining racism and systems of oppression. There is a stark contrast between the worldviews of the left and right. First, leftists are largely atheistic and hold a Darwinist view of man’s origins. Many of the beliefs associated with white supremacy can be traced back to evolutionary thinking. Francis Galton, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, was an English psychologist who was related to Charles Darwin and shared many of his views concerning his theory of evolution. Galton, because he believed in evolutionary science, was convinced that Africans were inferior. Stating in his book “Tropical South Africa” that they had no independent will of their own, Galton believed that Africans needed leadership and preferred a life of servitude. This belief was later used to justify slavery. In fact, Africans who resisted slavery were considered mentally ill, as it was generally believed that blacks were incapable of self-care and freedom. This disease was referred to as Drapetomania and it is the root belief in what is driving the discussion of racism today.

The left argues that African Americans need the protection of the welfare state to give them an advantage in capitalist America, which they claim is a system of oppression. As mentioned earlier, for social workers to accomplish their mission, they need to see society as competing groups with a dominant social structure oppressing people of color for its own benefit. It is because they view white people as being superior that they feel the need to advocate for policy changes which they claim, will create a more equal footing in the first place. It is the very meaning behind Joe Biden’s slip of tongue when he said, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Joe Biden believes that black people can not compete in white America and that they need his handouts to make it fair. The very idea that “whiteness” is something that must be de-constructed to make the world more fair is an admission that they believe white people are better and, they are self-projecting their own misguided feelings of guilt onto the rest of us. They are the one’s suffering from a mental illness. They are obsessed with the idea that white people are superior, and they need to make concessions in their pursuit of total equality. What they are really doing is creating and maintaining a steady stream of victimized people to keep a voter base and, justify their agenda.  

 

Blitz, L.V. (2006) Owning Whiteness: The Reinvention of Self and Practice. Journal of emotional abuse, 6(2) pp. 241-263

Combs, C. (N.K.D) Recovery from White Conditioning https://practicetransformation.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Recovery-from-White-Conditioning-PPT.pdf

Creating racism: Psychiatry’s betrayal. Citizens commission on human rights. http://www.cchrstl.org/documents/racism.pdf

Duarte, F (2017, February 6) Building a political agenda for social work. https://swhelper.org/2017/02/06/building-political-agenda-social-work/

Gray, M. (1996). Social work and politics. Social Work/ Maatskaplike Werk, 32 pp.1–8.

Gray, M., Van Rooyen, C. C., Gavin, R. & Gaha, J. (2002) The political participation of social workers. International journal of social welfare, 11, pp. 99-110.

McIntosh, P. (1988) White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf

 

 

 

 

Inducing compliance in education: Persuading students to accept socialism

 

Most Americans are familiar with the term social change. It is recognized as a methodology used in our colleges, under the guise of critical theory, to convince young gullible kids that our country desperately needs, as Barrack Obama once put it, a fundamental transformation. There are an untold number of stories where conservative parents send their children to prestigious universities, only to realize when they come back, they have been thoroughly brainwashed into leftist thinking. Even in public elementary education, it is becoming evident that there is more of an indoctrination taking place than anything that resembles learning. The role education has taken in society has changed from one of creating free thinkers, to a system focused on changing attitudes and restructuring what it is viewed as the old world, into a new global society. To get people to go along, they must be persuaded into believing it is in their best interest. Sadly, most Americans are unaware that this has been taking place since before the beginning of the twentieth century.

Donald Trump recently made a big move by signing an executive order targeting the use of critical race theory in public schools. There is little doubt that the use of such a theory, which aims to teach young children that America is a racist nation, has contributed to the hatred and resentment many Americans feel towards their own country. Unfortunately, this will have little effect as they have been discretely shaping opinions and attitudes in schools for over one hundred years. The main goal has been training students into a socialized form of education, envisioned by John Dewey, where they sought to change the national morality and attitudes towards their country. The Progressive Education Association for example, was founded in 1919 (Iserbyt, p. 11) for such a purpose.  In 1927, according to Deliberate Dumbing Down of America author Charlotte Iserbyt (p.14) the state of Maine education commissioner, Augustus Thomas gave a speech in which he highlighted the process of change that would have to occur in education to bring about their new order.

If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands. This means that the world must await a long process of education and a building up of public conscience and an international morality, or, in other words, until there is a world-wide sentiment which will back up the modern conception of a world community. This brings us to the international mind, which is nothing more or less than the habit of thinking of foreign relations and business affecting the several countries of the civilized world as free co-operating equals.

The point is that for the past one hundred years or more, there has been a tremendous effort to research human behavior and what methods work best to persuade people to change their positions, and their attitudes. Many of these persuasion theories bare similarity to psychological doctrines, like operant conditioning. For instance, social exchange theory is primarily known for being a theory of economics in so far as it examines the relationship between individuals and what they are willing to pay in exchange for economic goods. In an article entitled Social Exchange Theory: An Integrative Approach to Social Conformity, published in The Psychological Bulletin 71(3), the authors note that when it comes to social behavior, social acceptance can be viewed as a “social good” which people will be willing to pay a price for. The price of course, is conforming to other’s viewpoints to feel accepted in a group of some kind. This bears resemblance to B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity when he states that social acceptance is a more powerful form of control than a police state.

The child who has learned what to say and how to behave in getting along with other people is under the control of social contingencies. People who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state. Orthodoxy controls through the establishment of rules, but the mystic is no freer because the contingencies which have shaped his behavior are more personal or idiosyncratic. Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products. Those who learn in the natural environment are under a form of control as powerful as any control exerted by a teacher.

A theory called induced compliance posits the idea that positive or negative emotions, presented in association with information that contradicts one’s views, is a powerful factor in changing attitudes. In an article entitled Induced-Compliance Attitude Change: Once More with Feeling, published in The Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1979, the authors cited a study in which stimulants or tranquilizers were given to students while being asked to write essays that countered their typical beliefs. It was found that students who were given the stimulants were very easily persuaded to change their position. From this experiment, social scientists came to believe that when people are in a state of arousal, their attitudes and beliefs can be changed. How is this applied in the classroom? Charismatic teachers, skilled at trapping the attention of unsuspecting students, entertain them with meaningless jokes about parents or whatever, and then present information that is intended to sway their traditionally held beliefs. This is also known as values clarification education. It is in this state of arousal, where children are most likely to go along. Especially considering the theories mentioned earlier about wanting to be socially accepted.

A more recent article entitled Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence reinforces the idea of social conformity as a change motivator. It highlights long held notions that social change can be affected when there are concerns about one’s self fitting in, feelings and beliefs being coherent and viewed in a favorable light, and maintaining positive relationships with others. In fact, the need to fit in can be such a strong driver of attitude change, it is not uncommon to see people change their positions primarily based on the company they are in.

These change strategies are employed against society everyday not only in education, but through any means of mass communications. The right works just as hard to persuade people as the left. Consider the concept of arousal influencing attitude change and apply it to Donald Trump’s bump stock ban. First, be honest and admit that if a democrat had done that conservatives would have opposed. Because the action was associated with a positive, arousal creating stimulus known as four-dimensional chess, people accepted the infringement against the second amendment in a passive, if not, positive way. Another example of persuasion, that was highly effective no less, was Barrack Obama insisting his views on homosexual marriage had evolved. When running for president, he was opposed because he knew the attitude of the country towards the controversial subject was not favorable. His charismatic attitude and positive character image were useful in persuading the American public to accept homosexual marriage because he claimed he had evolved to see it in a positive light. This is the same way they are presenting socialism, homosexuality, transgenderism, and even critical race theory in the classroom.

If we are going to get into the education system and make corrections, we must understand that the behaviorists have been researching human behavior for many decades. They know more about your behavior than you do. Their goal was to create an education system devoid of individuality and one that trains people to be subservient to the state. They have by far surpassed that goal and are very adept at persuading the masses into accepting things they may have never thought they would. Just look at every one wearing a face mask over a virus with .02 percent mortality rate.

 

Iserbyt, C. The Deliberate Dumbing down of America: A chronological Paper Trail. (1999) Ravena Ohio. Conscience Press.

Nord, W. R. (1969) Social exchange theory: An integrative approach to social conformity. Psychological bulletin 71 (3) pp. 173-208

Rhodewalt, F. & Comer, R. (1979) Induced compliance attitude change. Journal of experimental social psychology 15(1) pp. 35-47

Wood, W. (2000) Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual review of psychology. 51 (1) pp. 539-570

. 

The problematic science defining child sexual abuse and the normalization of pedophilia

 

The normalization of pedophilia is being pushed to the forefront of the American consciousness. Our schools are introducing children to sexually explicit education at earlier ages and television programing is taking the issue to new horizons with shows like the Netflix production of “Cuties.” People have argued for years that the normalization of homosexuality and legalization of gay marriage would be the catalyst for such a movement. The acceptance of these alternative lifestyles was introduced incrementally through subtle suggestions, and the portrayal of gay people as being righteous and upstanding while those opposed, bigoted and hateful. The same tactics are being used concerning pedophilia. The term, “minor attracted person” is being used to take away the negative connotations of sexual abuse against children. Disturbingly, the issue is being studied from a social science perspective, and academic journals are publishing findings which no doubt, are contributing to the movements claims that pedophilia is a normal sexual orientation. One such article is entitled “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.”

This article examines studies from all around the globe attempting to pinpoint exactly what the effects of child sexual abuse (CSA) are on children. The common belief, which is undoubtedly true no matter what the studies claim, is that children suffer great trauma and long-lasting psychological problems from CSA. Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman are attempting to make the claim that the effects of CSA are not as traumatic as commonly believed and that in some cases, based on the studies cited in the article, other factors such as family environment and relationships with adults could contribute more to the psychological problems associated with CSA, than the act of sex itself. They also suggest that many methods in which CSA has been examined may be faulty by assuming every case involving sex with an underaged person is automatically considered abuse, which of course it should be. They compare a 5-year-old girl being forcefully molested by her father to a fifteen-year-old boy who may consensually agree to have sex with an unrelated adult. Of course, the five year is more likely to have long lasting psychological harm than the fifteen-year-old; however, that does not make it right. The implication being made here is that sexual abuse through a coercive act is more likely to cause harm while a consensual agreement to engage in sex with an adult does not. The article suggests that a fifteen-year-old boy agreeing to engage in sexual activity with an adult male is more of a violation of social norms than something that can be considered CSA. In which case, the issue is not something that can be studied as a case of causality because violating social norms is not known to cause psychological distress.

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

This is the biggest problem with science, there is no definite. Sex with children is wrong no matter which way you look at it. Unfortunately, social science journals are filled with bias. This writer is making no claims pertaining to the authors beliefs on child sexual abuse, only that there is a possibility of severe bias in any one of the studies used in this article. In fact, the article Bias in Research by Ana-Maria Simundic claims that many journals will not be published without positive findings. This means that if a study finds results not consistent with the beliefs of those conducting the study, the results will not be made public. If this is true, it is highly possible that the people publishing these findings are supportive of normalizing pedophilia.

Rind’s study concludes in a disturbing way. Not only is the claim made that there is no substantive evidence that CSA causes long lasting harm based on the methods traditionally used to define and study it ̶ ̶ there is the subtle suggestion that meaningful results can only be obtained by examining the young person’s willingness to participate in the sexual activity. If a young person perceives themselves as being a willing participant, then the encounter should only be labeled adult-child sex and not CSA. The only way to end child sexual abuse is to have a definite method of identifying what it is and holding people accountable whether a minor may have perceived themselves as being willing or not.

 

  

Gun Culture and the Warrior Mindset

 

Years ago, when I first began martial arts training, I read a book called Living the Martial Way, by Forrest Morgan. Even though the martial arts featured in the book were not of my liking and have lost considerable popularity in today’s mixed martial arts world, Morgan still laid the foundation for the way I approach my own practice. On how to develop that warrior mindset if you will. It differentiated between those who view martial arts as just another hobby they do on Tuesday, while perhaps Monday and Wednesday might be bowling nights, and those who devote their lives to the warrior lifestyle. The larger point of the book was that every day should be devoted to some type of training that hones and sharpens your skills and mindset.

As time went on, I gradually came to realize that any serious dedication to self-defense training would have to involve firearms, so I pursued that as well. This opened the door to the realities of fighting more than anything else. For years I lived in the false security of practicing pretty flow drills and compliance techniques. I trained Jeet Kune Do and Filipino Kali with vigor and it was not until I explored weapon retention from the concealed carry perspective that I realized the training methods I was using would not save my life. I had spent years practicing knife and stick disarming and trapping techniques, all in the context of flow drills that are practiced to “develop skill in real-time movement.” All it took was a skilled grappler to demonstrate how flawed my thinking was. I am not saying there is not any usefulness in Filipino Kali or Jeet Kune Do techniques, I have just learned to apply them to more realistic training methods. Grappling for control of a weapon will certainly change your perspective on things.

Where am I going with this? America is experiencing a surge, to the delight of many no less, in first-time gun owners. In response to COVID-19 and the out-of-control riots, concerned Americans are exercising their constitutional freedoms and buying guns in droves for the first time. This is great news on one hand, and a little concerning on the other. Don’t get me wrong, all Americans have the unalienable right to self-defense. How many of them realize the realities of fighting with a weapon? How many of them are taking the time to get training?

In an article entitled The sociology of U.S. gun culture, David Yamane notes the differences between our current gun culture and the one of fifty years ago. Firearms training was once sought after primarily in hunter’s safety classes, and leisure gun activities involved target practice and skeet shooting. There was not a culture of concealed carry that revolved around the idea of training strictly for the purpose of stopping an attacker. That is the primary mindset of those engaged in gun culture today, the use of firearms in self-defense situations. This makes some people nervous and leads some to believe there should be licensing requirements to prove you have received an adequate amount of training. I will never be one to advocate that the government require permitting, I will however say that if you are not willing to live the warrior lifestyle you should reconsider your choice to carry a firearm.

Carrying a gun is more a responsibility than a right, in my opinion. As noted earlier, all Americans have the unalienable right to the defense of their life. And once they make the decision to exercise that right, they have the responsibility to ensure they are proficient in handling their firearm. Proficiency requires constant training, not just a basic pistol 101 class. Living the “martial way” in our current climate requires that developing your skills becomes like a second job. Physical fitness, the ability to shoot under pressure, situational awareness, ethical wherewithal about different situations, and the proper use of force are all important considerations when carrying a gun. I am not suggesting that everyone has the responsibility to devote precious time to martial arts training ̶ ̶ but if you are carrying a gun, you should at least seek out instruction on how to retain it in close combat. Retention is also an implied responsibility of carrying.

Consider the attack that took place in a Wal-Mart the other day. There was nothing out of the ordinary. Wal-Mart is a comfortable, familiar place where everyone generally feels safe. A young, mentally distraught boy picked up a butcher knife that was on display and murdered someone in cold blood. Nothing could have prevented this. The most trained among us would have been taken by surprise in such a situation if not paying attention. We can all convince ourselves that we would have reacted properly to such an attack by what iffing it to death, but we do not know. I will say that after twenty years of training knife, this is a scenario I hope I never have to face. This is where we as warriors, must admit the flaws in our thinking and ask if we are really prepared for such a thing. Is standing in an air-conditioned, indoor range shooting at a target ten feet away really preparing you for the psychological vigors of fighting? Are you one of those people who have simply taken an Intro to Handgun course and figured you’re good because you have a gun?

To develop the warrior mindset, to truly live the “martial way,” training must become a lifestyle. Even if it is only for ten to twenty minutes a day. Some of us, including yours truly, can not afford to shoot live ammo every day. Once a week, combined with physical fitness, and dry fire training is good. I devote two days to fitness, four days a week to martial arts training and every Sunday I work on my conceal carry tactics at the range. Throughout the week, after my workouts, I practice drawing and dry fire. If you are at the level where you are comfortable shooting on your own, get that heart rate up by doing pushups or sprints before each round of live fire and look at the difference in your shot groups.

Carrying a gun is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Once you make that decision, other people’s lives are potentially in your hands. Therefore, living “The Martial Way,” the lifestyle of the modern warrior, in my opinion, is a must.

 

 

 

Employer Mandated Vaccines Coming?

 

An irrational fear is still gripping the American public. Cities across the country increasingly continue to enforce mask mandates despite the admitted low fatality rate of .26%. City governments are not the only enforcers of these unconstitutional dictates. Local businesses, as well as national chain stores are also requiring people mask up before patronizing their establishments. A good example is the Oklahoma grocery chain, Reasors. Shortly after Tulsa and Oklahoma City imposed their mask policy, Reasors announced statewide, their stores would do the same.  Sadly, this is a reality across the country as major retailers like Walmart, Lowe’s, Kohl’s, and Target are also buying into the hype. Most people, even if they realize the ridiculousness of mask mandates, willingly comply because they need to get on with everyday life. There are, however, larger implications to this that many are blissfully unaware of.

In my last article I discussed the 2014 mask compliance study which determined how easily people could be persuaded  into wearing masks based on The Health Belief Model. Looking at this from the perspective that we are constantly being studied, it is important to understand that there is always a larger agenda and, a purpose for everything. Many people, for example, believe that the masks are merely a means to an end, and that they are being used to condition the public for mandatory vaccinations. This is true but it goes much deeper than that. The reason major businesses have been co-opted into complying with this nonsense is because they are one of the possible routes of ensuring everyone complies with vaccination policies. This to some, will seem like a no-brainer. The idea of having to prove you are immune to Covid-19 through vaccinations has been discussed since the beginning. It is very much becoming a situation where you will not be able to buy or sell without proof of vaccination. The question is, what is the best method of enforcing compliance?

The New England Journal of Medicine, the same journal where Dr. Fauci admitted that Covid-19 has an extremely low fatality rate back in March, has some interesting insight on this. In an article entitled Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, they discuss some of the possible ways of ensuring vaccine compliance. The authors acknowledge the “constitutional” difficulties of legally pushing vaccine requirements and makes suggestions on how to achieve the best results. They say that the imposition of fines and other legal penalties face too much risk of being challenged on due process grounds; therefore, other methods should be used.

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

One of these methods is through employer directives. Employers, for example, could suspend employees who refuse vaccinations, and ultimately, even fire them. Another method would be state directed stay at home orders or forced quarantines of those in so-called ̶ ̶ high-risk groups who refuse vaccinations. You have not been vaccinated; therefore, you pose a danger to society. Of course, the question here is why would one pose a danger if everyone else is vaccinated? In any case, these are the things that are literally being discussed. This is not some conspiracy theory.  

Although state vaccination mandates are usually tied to school and day care entry, that approach is not appropriate for SARS-CoV-2 because children won’t be a high priority group. In addition, state mandates should not be structured as compulsory vaccination (absolute requirements); instead, noncompliance should incur a penalty. Nevertheless, because of the infectiousness and dangerousness of the virus, relatively substantive penalties could be justified, including employment suspension or stay-at-home orders for persons in designated high-priority groups who refuse vaccination. (New England Journal of Medicine)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the New England Journal of Medicine is in on some grand conspiracy to force vaccines. There are, however, some other correlations that deserve some attention. For instance, there are several criteria which the journal suggests need to be met before even recommending mandatory vaccines. There is a total of six, but two are of interest. One, the virus must present an ongoing threat. It must be proven reasonable that forcing vaccines is a necessary step. Has this been proven? As mentioned earlier, the CDC, and even Dr. Fauci both admitted that Covid-19 has a miniscule fatality rate and, over ninety-eight percent of the people infected, survive. Throughout the past six months there have been some interesting developments where the CDC admitted that case numbers were inflated due to hospitals receiving funding from the government. Furthermore, there have been many stories concerning the inaccuracy of the tests being used to diagnose Covid-19. This is because, according to Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, the FDA dropped the standards in developing the test.

Data sheets (e.g. Roche, 2020) rushed out from the test manufacturers and fast-tracked for clinical use by the US Federal Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization have dropped the requisite caveats that such tests MUST be confirmed by comparison with purified infectious virus – and not just from bits of RNA, the so-called ‘RNAaemia’ of Huang et al (2020 p499) assumed to come from a ‘novel Coronavirus’ based only on molecular/genetic similarity. (Kevin P. Corbett, MSc PhD)

What Dr. Corbett is arguing is that the test fast tracked for approval by the FDA is not testing for an isolated virus, but RNA particles that suggests a similarity to the virus. In other words, any coronavirus could potentially be mistaken for Covid-19. Given this information, is the criteria for an ongoing threat being met? Not even close. So according to the Journal of New England Medicine there is no need to mandate vaccines at all.

Another interesting criterion suggests that mechanisms be put in place in the event of mandatory vaccines, that enable those injured from the vaccines to collect just compensation. The authors cite the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a potential example. This is interesting because it acknowledges the potential danger of vaccines while also bringing into question who is responsible for paying out the compensation. The smallpox compensation program was administered by the federal government, meaning the American taxpayer flipped the bill. Vaccine companies, by law, are protected from prosecution due to the injuries their vaccines cause.

 No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22)

  Americans must decide how much more of this they are willing to put up with. It is no secret that they are working on a vaccine and if they could, would mandate it for everyone. They are keenly watching how people are willingly complying with mask mandates and are not anticipating any major resistance to the vaccine at all. This will be especially true if major employers require the vaccine to stay gainfully employed. This is a possible route as it has been determined that requiring school children to receive mandatory vaccines for entry into public schools has been effective. If there is going to be any resistance to mandatory vaccination it needs to start against the unnecessary mask mandates right now.

About the author

David Risselada earned a bachelor’s degree in social work from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma and is currently a student in Liberty University’s Master of Professional Writing Program.

The Facemask Study and The Health Belief Model: Understanding How Science Views Us

 

Can people freely choose their behavior? Or, are we controlled by environmental circumstances which can be traced to our so called, evolutionary past? This is the debate that seems to be dominating society, whether we realize it or not. God vs. science if you will. Certainly, human behavior can be influenced by many factors, including the environment around us. When presented with extenuating circumstances people can be forced to make certain decisions. Some of us will make more informed choices based on past experiences, while others, will make more erratic ones. Behaviorist’s attempt to whittle this reality down to an exact science claiming that our choices are nothing more than ingrained evolutionary responses to environmental factors, honed by thousands of years of instinct. The unfortunate reality is that science views man as little more than a stimulus response mechanism. Animals who have no control over our behavior, only able to react to whatever stimulus we are receiving.

“The human brain is not simply a switchboard by means of which one environmental event is connected to another environmental event.” (William T. Powers)

Understanding the concept of stimulus response mechanisms, also known as cause and effect psychology, is important because it is the lens from which science studies our behavior. It is in fact, the very basis of behavioral psychology (Powers). Behaviorists like B.F. Skinner have stated, and this writer has noted this several times, that any study of our behavior should be done from an evolutionary perspective. This means that the study of human behavior should always be done from the perspective that man has no control over his own choices, and that it is only the environment that motivates our responses.

 In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. (B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity)

B.F. Skinner was a behavioral psychologist known for doing experiments on his own daughter. He took the view that man is just another animal. He narrowed down the study of behaviorism to either the scientific or pre-scientific views. Pre-scientific means a time where it was believed men could freely choose their behavior and were, to some extent, in control of their decision-making processes. The scientific view takes the position that our behavior is determined. This is essentially the battle between free will and evolution. As he stated, “neither can be proven but in the nature of scientific inquiry, the evidence should shift in favor of the second.” This means that when your behavior is being studied, it is from the belief that you are an animal who has no control over your behavior. As Powers said, it is the basis of behavioral psychology.  

Interestingly, Powers refutes this thesis to some degree by saying that behavior cannot always be determined simply by the stimulus response mechanisms being influenced by environmental factors, because the right models are not always being used. Come again? To be more specific, he says the models being used are not always appropriate to behavior. Furthermore, he states that a controlled environment that determines what parameters the study will be conducted from will largely determine the results.

The apparent usefulness of variations of behavioral acts can be accepted as fact in the framework of a control system model of behavior. A control system, properly organized for its environment will produce whatever output is required in order to achieve a constant sensed result, even in the presence of unpredictable disturbances. (Powers)

Why does any of this matter? What difference does it make? As this writer noted in his article Operant conditioning and the face mask pandemic, there was a study conducted in 2014 that was done to determine the public’s susceptibility to being forced to wear facemasks. The study concluded that people could essentially be motivated to cover their face based on the perceived vulnerability of being afflicted with life threatening diseases and, the perceived benefits of wearing a mask. The study also noted that perceived perceptions of embarrassment could inhibit the desire to wear a mask. Finally, the study found that a blitz in media efforts, supported by government, to promote public health was a huge factor in encouraging people to wear masks. This study, as noted above, was done in 2014.

As all studies are, this one was conducted based on a particular model of behavior called the Health Belief Model. What is the Health Belief Model? Interesting you should ask. It is a behavioral change model developed to predict or explain behaviors related to health and health related services. It is also one of the most common models of behavior used to conduct health related studies today. All studies have independent and dependent variables, factors for which they establish controls. The Health Belief Model did not account for the following ̶ ̶

• It does not account for a person's attitudes, beliefs, or other individual determinants that dictate a person's acceptance of a health behavior.
• It does not take into account behaviors that are habitual and thus may inform the decision-making process to accept a recommended action (e.g., smoking).
• It does not take into account behaviors that are performed for non-health related reasons such as social acceptability.
• It does not account for environmental or economic factors that may prohibit or promote the recommended action.

Interesting, it does not account for persons attitudes, beliefs, or other determinants that dictate a person’s acceptance of a health behavior.  Like the ability to freely choose on their own which behavior they will engage in? This is a perfect example of B.F. Skinners assertion that all studies be done from a scientific opposed to pre-scientific viewpoint. In other words, the propaganda you are being fed about wearing masks is based on a behavioral study where an individual’s ability to freely engage, in or disregard the behavior, is completely left out. Furthermore, The Health Belief Model makes a few preconceived assumptions as well, that the facemask study surely considered.  It assumes that cues to action are widely prevalent in encouraging people to act and that "health" actions are the main goal in the decision-making process. What is a cue to action? As described in the model itself, a cue to action is the stimulus needed to trigger an individual into engaging in the desired behavior. According to The Health Belief Model a cue to action can be perceived susceptibility to illness, or a news paper article.

The study found that a blitz in media efforts, supported by government, to promote public health was a huge factor in encouraging people to wear masks.

There is an ongoing debate between those that believe humans have free will and those that believe in, for a lack of a better term, evolutionary science. B.F. Skinner said that scientific inquiry into human behavior should be conducted from the latter viewpoint even though neither can be proven. Is that the way we really want to go? As demonstrated above, the study revolving around a major issue we are facing today, the forced wearing of masks, was conducted without accounting for individual differences in the way we all perceive what is going on. The study denied us our individuality. Furthermore, the study also assumed, based on Skinners theories no less, that most of us would just accept what we are being told because of the perceived authority of media and government. This is something that the American people need to understand if they are going to live in a free country. We are governed by those who view us as nothing more than stimulus response animals. When we respond to a given stimulus, they study that response and learn from it. Over the past five months they have come to believe that we are a very compliant population. In many ways, we have been. They will continue to push until we assert ourselves in the name of our free will to choose our own lives. To do that however, we must first understand the lens from which we are viewed. This writer believes the facemask study and the Health Belief Model provided a good base from which to show an example we can all relate to.

 

 

The one question that must be answered

I had awoken this morning from a dream so strange.

I had dreamt the world was different, it somehow had changed.

Just how glorious can this beautiful world be?

To find out you must become, the change you wish to see.

This morning, as I was heading towards the river to do some striper fishing, I decided to listen to Michael Savage. Friday’s podcast was of course, focused exclusively on the upcoming presidential election. Savage was instrumental in rallying the conservative base to get out and vote for Donald Trump in 2016. He is expressing some doubt as of late, whether those same people can be counted on to prevent Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick from becoming president.

The Republican party is more split now than I can ever remember. There are those who absolutely love Trump and those who do not. We must accept that he has not, despite the hype, lived up to his promises. We have no wall, Obamacare is mostly intact, the second amendment has been weakened, there have been no mass deportations and we are an additional eight trillion dollars in debt. Trump spends money as well as any Democrat, only faster. Still, people believe that this election is the most important of our lifetime. Donald Trump is once again being presented as our last hope for freedom. Wasn’t he supposed to save us from the left in the last election?

The question is, what can Donald Trump do in a second term to reverse, or stop, what has occurred over the past four years? The reality that must be faced right now is of two possibilities. One, Donald Trump is not the strong leader people thought he was. Or, he is controlled opposition. The truth is, he can do nothing that he has not already been able to do. A Trump victory in November will not stop the tide of communism that is engulfing our nation, because he is enabling it, whether he knows it or not.

This is the truth that people refuse to see. A truth that has been self-evident since the beginning of Trump’s presidency. The first bill he signed was the omnibus spending bill, which was the concoction of Pelosi and Schumer. The Republicans controlled the house and senate at the time and were completely excluded from any negotiations. Trump and Schumer have been long time friends and Trump donated large sums of money to both his and Pelosi’s campaigns during the Obama years. After signing this bill, he stood in front of God and country and promised to never do it again. Since that time, he has signed every spending bill, every piece of legislation that increases the power of the state and zero bills that secured the blessings of liberty. This is not to say he has not done anything worthwhile, but it does seem like he is advancing the Democrat agenda. 

The biggest question I have is what is the difference? Everything that has brought this country to the brink in the past few years has occurred under Trump. Of course, Obama played a major role, but Trump was supposed to stop it all. Am I supposed to believe that voting for him again is our last hope for freedom? That was the story last time, as I said earlier. What is the difference between Trump signing a bill to spend trillions we do not have, and Biden doing it? I know one thing, if it were Biden doing it, the republican base would not tolerate it. They also would not have tolerated the bump stock ban, which gave the ATF the unconstitutional authority to alter existing law by changing definitions within it, or ̶ ̶ would they tolerate any support for red flag laws. When President trump sat next to gun grabber extraordinaire, Feinstein, and said “take the guns first, go for due process later,” it was over for me. To be honest, I do not believe that half of what Trump does would be tolerated by Republicans if it were done by Democrats.

Savage made an interesting comment that caught my attention. He said that people are rallying around a strong leader to save the nation. Isn’t that the problem? America is a nation that has prided itself on its Christian heritage and yet, we are looking to men to solve our problems? Is Trump a strong leader? Savage suggests that his advisers are leading him astray and that it is their fault his poll numbers are dwindling. He suggests that some of them could possibly be saboteurs. They could very well be, I will give him that. Blaming Trump’s failures on his advisors, however, does not speak to strong leader characteristics. It suggests that he cannot think for himself while stripping him of any personal responsibility for his actions. Strong leaders face their failures and do not allow others to decide who or who is not, to blame.

Over the past four years I have been extremely critical of Trump. I have been one to believe that he is controlled opposition. The typical reaction I get is being asked if I would rather have a democrat in office. The answer to that is of course, no. Those that ask that however, are missing the bigger question. In my opinion, this question is the one that must be answered if we ever expect to fix our country. How did we get to the point where we accept the notion, that we must vote for the lesser of two evils? Only when we answer this question can we get a real understanding of what we must change. The real problem is one of the human heart and our nations disconnect with God.