Political Rhetoric, Civil Discourse and the Morality of Means and Ends

Rhetoric, as described by Locke, Campbell and other classical thinkers is something used to help men find truth and develop virtue. It is the way men use language to not only better themselves, but to better understand the world around them and the natural truths it contains. Locke, for example, argued that men should take care to acknowledge God’s truth first, opposed to other forms of knowledge put forth by men because natural religion, or God’s word, is not easily misunderstood. Campbell, basing much of his work off Locke, argued there was two types of reasoning, moral and scientific. Moral reasoning took precedence because it was based on human experience and testimony, tying the ideas of moral virtue directly to the absolute truth of God. Furthermore, Campbell also believed that the way we use our language and convey our thoughts has as much weight, or more, as the logic behind them. In other words, you could be making a factual argument but the way you are presenting it is preventing people from listening. This is called the eloquence of persuasion and relates to the issue of civility in our current, national conversation.

America is certainly at a point where two worldviews diametrically opposed to one another, are fighting for dominance. On one side is the belief that man was endowed by our creator with certain, unalienable rights which cannot be deprived of us. Proponents of this view believe people can self-govern, and that government itself, being a necessary evil, has a limited role in human affairs. On the other ̶ the belief that government should have a more prominent role in people’s lives while also, gaining power through central control of the economy. People making this argument tend to believe government should have the responsibility of ensuring resources are distributed equally. In simpler terms it is an ideological battle over the liberal nanny state and free market capitalism. These conflicting worldviews cannot realistically coexist in a world where truth exists as an absolute. The former view is based on the Christian worldview positing the idea that God created men with freewill; thus, representing an absolute reality. The latter, that government should essentially be the central power in people’s lives. The question then arises as to whether a real sense of civility can be brought back to the national debate with two views which contrast so strongly.

What is civility? Who defines its terms? Unfortunately, this is something that the opposing sides of left and right cannot even agree upon. If the terms of civil debate are not mutually agreeable, how could any consensus over such controversial issues that we face today possibly be reached? For example, Dr. John Livingston writes that civility requires first, that one respect themselves to respect and engage in civil conversations with others. This coincides with both John Locke’s and Hugh Blairs assertion that rhetoric should aim to produce men of virtue that seek the betterment of their own understandings. Dr. Livingston is arguing that there are certain virtues a man must possess to engage in civil dialogue. These are faith, hope charity, courage, providence, justice, and temperance. These virtues are largely associated with the Christian religion and reflect the inner morals of faithful men.

In the book Crisis in Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents, Anthony Simon Laden, in chapter one, suggests that civility in politics revolves around winning arguments or turning people from their previously held positions to leaning more towards yours. He hints at the uncivil nature of such strategies by pointing out the fact that politicians often turn to smear campaigns designed to discredit and humiliate their opponents. Civil discourse, he suggests, revolves around coming to agreements. He also refers to a concept known as civility of politeness which suggests, in the course of day to day life, people in a society such as ours owe it to each other to live and let live and at the very least, conduct ourselves in a polite manner towards one another. Furthermore, Laden also points out that the consequences of political discourse that take on an uncivil tone tend to create tension in society while appealing to what he refers to as man’s violent tendencies. This is ironic because the book itself seems to be defining the terms of civility by suggesting on page 24, that being civil sometimes requires the “sacrifice of political advantage in the name of fairness.” The author of chapter one also shows his political bias by suggesting that Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton and George Bush were the ones calling for national civility amongst what he referred to as the nation’s most uncivil time, the 2016 presidential election. As if Republicans were the ones calling everyone racist.

Today’s political discourse revolves around whether man can be free and govern himself, as our founding documents set forth, or, the idea that we need government to manage our affairs. Considering the concepts put forth by Laden, is it possible that the two opposing sides can come to any agreements? Would we even want them too? Our nation is founded on the ideals of self-governance, individual responsibility and unalienable rights which are naturally inherent to being human. Of the two opposing parties fighting for political dominance one side allegedly believes in these principles while the other clearly does not. The hard-political left clearly displays their uncivil nature by viciously attacking anything that stands in their way. They actively seek to rip the fundamental principles of our founding apart while replacing them with Marxist philosophies which go against the very word of God and natures self-evident truth. How can you be civil with people who seek to destroy everything you believe in?

Of the two opposing factions fighting for our loyalty and votes, one side all too often displays a willingness to compromise and seek terms of agreements while the other shows them no respect for doing so. This comes down to the nature of the philosophies driving the parties. The Republicans, which are supposed to represent the Christian right, are more likely to compromise because it is often seen as the civil thing to do.

The political discourse taking place today is driven by the perceptions each side have of the country in which we live. The definition of equality and freedom are vastly different as Republicans tend to believe in personal responsibility and equality of opportunity while the left argues America was founded on racism and only certain people are afforded opportunity; therefore, the government must intervene. They believe their visions for America represent a superior morality, and they are more concerned with winning an argument to achieve their vision, than they are coming to any compromise. They have demonstrated an “ends justify the means” morality when it comes to winning arguments and pursuing their objectives.

It is no secret that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the major playbook for the Democrat party. In the first chapter simply entitled “The Purpose,” Alinsky makes it perfectly clear the aim is to create mass organizations that can take from the haves and give to the so called have nots. In other words, take from the rich and give to the poor. Is that civil? Is that moral? Civility and morality take on new definitions when viewing things from Alinsky’s perspective. To the Republicans, wealth is earned, and all Americans share equal opportunity to pursue that which makes them happy. Some people will become rich and others will not. To the Democrats, this represents a system of inequality and unfairness. Their visions for America entail a government powerful enough to dictate equal outcomes for all. This represents a higher morality for them because it is out of a sense of general concern, so they argue, that they pursue such power. The standard definitions of civility and politeness cannot be applied with such stakes presenting themselves at the table.

Alinsky argued that morality was subjective in the sense that people should be willing to surrender their own personal salvation or display a willingness to corrupt themselves for the greater good. He writes on page 25 ̶

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

If a concept like absolute morality can be twisted like this for the purpose of pursuing political objectives, what meaning does the word civility have anymore? Alinsky views Christians as “means and end moralists” who are not willing to put their principles and beliefs on the line to pursue their goals. Democrats, being the party mostly recognized for not believing in God, continuously display uncivil behavior designed to discredit and humiliate their opponents and, persuade people to their positions through vicious lies and smear campaigns that not only attack individuals, but political processes and traditions as well. For example, House Speake Pelosi is not only attempting to institute a mail in voting scheme, which would enable fraud on a massive scale, she also has established voting by proxy policies for house members. This enables certain congressional representatives to cast votes for others in their absence. This is an example of an ends justify the means strategy. They believe their end represents a more just and moral America, and anything they can do to push towards that end, is justifiable no matter how corrupt.

The same can be said when it comes to defining the terms of civility. The Republicans, having largely a conservative Christian base, are not as willing to sell out our principles and morality in pursuit of political goals. Many conservatives certainly wish they would grow more of a spine and defend those principles, however. Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents, suggest that some people view mere disagreements as being uncivil, so there is cause for worry when presenting our party in a moral and civil manner is the main concern. The hard left, having a moral base in “means and ends morality” have no such concerns, and see the employment of strategies that seek to insult, discredit and destroy reputations as civil dialogue in pursuit of their Utopian ideals because the end is a better, fairer world where everyone is guaranteed equality from a compassionate, caring government.

When two political parties are operating from a completely different base in morality and principle, driven by ideological beliefs which totally contradict one another, is it possible to have civil political discourse? Would one side even want reasonable compromise with the other? America is supposed to be a place where the ideals of freedom, individual liberty and personal responsibility are the bonds that bring us together. Underneath those unifying principles is the belief in a universal truth, that men are meant to be free to pursue their own ambitions. We were all born with the same empty slate of opportunity and we can follow it to whatever ends our own wills and drive will allow. Under such principles there is room for civil dialogue and disagreements. Debates can take place between two parties who have at their hearts the sustainment of such a system. When they oppose each other as vehemently as they do, and one side desires radical change while the other seeks to maintain what they believe to be the last best hope for freedom, civil dialogue is unlikely to occur. That is where we are now.

David Risselada earned a bachelor’s degree in social work form Northeastern State University in 2012 and is currently two classes from completing a master’s degree in professional writing from Liberty University.

Operant Conditioning and the Face Mask Pandemic

The Coronavirus has shaken American life to its core. Not only has this alleged pandemic wrecked a booming economy, putting millions on unemployment and forcing businesses to close; it has left countless millions living a life of perpetual fear. Across the country, an untold number of Americans are fooling themselves into believing that wearing a mask will save them from a pandemic that has proven to be nothing short of an over hyped attempt to gain coercive control of our lives. Despite the over abundance of emerging information proving, for example, that the death numbers were over exaggerated, and hospitals are not as overwhelmed as the media portrayed, the official narrative presenting the Coronavirus as the doomsday threat of our lifetime persists. The consequence is a population with a diminished ability to reason for themselves, not knowing how to discern reality from fantasy while just going along to get along.

To date there has been no official study that has sought the effectiveness of wearing clothe masks, or N-95 respirators as protection from the Coronavirus. This is according Dr. Blaylock M.D. He states that because there have been no conclusive studies, the only comparable illness to compare to Covid-19 is the flu. There is no existing research which indicates that a healthy person wearing a mask is protected from any illness associated with influenza. There is substantial evidence however, according to Blaylock, that wearing a mask can cause serious problems due to low oxygen levels in the blood.  This is referred to as Hypoxia and affects our ability to fight off infections like the flu, or other diseases. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that a person who is infected with a respiratory virus could cause further harm to themselves as particles of the virus will get caught in the mask as they exhale, causing them to be re-inhaled. This leads to a build up of the virus in their system, potentially making them seriously ill.

Despite the availability of this information and other studies like the one released by The World Health Organization suggesting that healthy people don’t need to wear a mask, people across the country are masking up as if their lives depend on it. In 2014 the National Institute of Health published a report from the Singapore Journal of Health entitled “The Use of Facemasks to Prevent Respiratory Infection: A Literature Review in the Context of the Health Belief Model.” This study revolved around people’s motivations for wearing face masks. It found the following-

We found that individuals are more likely to wear facemasks due to the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of being afflicted with life-threatening diseases. Although perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance, perceived benefits of mask-wearing was found to have significant effects on mask-wearing compliance as well. Perceived barriers include experience or perception of personal discomfort and sense of embarrassment. Media blitz and public health promotion activities supported by government agencies provide cues to increase the public’s usage of facemasks.

This study suggests they knew what our reaction to Covid-19 would be and, that they knew how easily we could be convinced to follow along. This is the application of social science at its finest. They have been studying human behavior for decades and know exactly how to manipulate us to their ends. B.F. Skinner wrote in his book “Science and Human Behavior” that man’s behavior can largely be determined by the specific conditions to which he is exposed. In other words, he believed that the environment largely predicted the way men would behave.

If we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behavior is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions (Skinner, Science and Human Behavior). 

This substantiates the results of the NIH article. That study was conducted to determine what motivates people to wear face masks. The manipulation of the environment and pushing the story of a deadly pandemic was the stimulus, and people falling into compliance was the expected response. This was determined in 2014.

What Skinner is essentially saying is that people are programmable, and our behavior is not the result of our own will, or chosen course of action, but a result of environmental circumstances.

Prevailing philosophies of human nature recognize an internal "will" which has the power of interfering with causal relationships and which makes the prediction and control of behavior impossible. To suggest that we abandon this view is to threaten many cherished beliefs—to undermine what appears to be a stimulating and productive conception of human nature (Skinner, Science and Human Behavior). 

In an article entitled “The Psychological Manipulation of Universal Masking,” published by Health Freedom Ohio, the author points out the long used tactic of discrediting people who do not go along with social norms. People who refuse to wear masks are uncaring, selfish and pose a danger to everyone else. No doubt this is social conditioning for the acceptance of mandatory vaccinations. Those wearing masks have been fooled into believing that they are morally superior and that their actions show that they have some deep concern for the safety of us all, despite the evidence proving otherwise. B.F. Skinner had something to say about this as well. In “Beyond Freedom Dignity,” Skinner says that people can be persuaded into behaving in certain ways out of a fear of being rejected. “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” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom Dignity.) In other words, those wearing masks are doing so out of a deep-rooted fear that they will be perceived as contributing to the problem, or not caring about humanity. They will then viciously defend their actions because they have been led to believe that their compliance represents a moral superiority.  

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. (Skinner, Beyond Freedom Dignity.)

The social sciences have made great progress in understanding and manipulating human behavior. People can indeed be conditioned to behave in predictable ways, making it easier for those seeking to exert their control over society. Skinner’s theories on operant conditioning have attempted to prove that people’s behavior is largely determined by the environment around them, which often can force people to act in ways to save their lives. He put forth a thesis which suggests we have no control of our behavior at all, and that certain factors like the fear of rejection, or appearing to have a morally superior position can reinforce behavior patterns no matter what the truth is. Can those wearing a mask be brought to see that it is making no difference at all? Or, will they continue to do so until they are told they are safe? The one thing that proves Skinner’s theories to be incorrect is the self-evident truth that people have a choice. Just as there are millions wearing masks, there are millions who know the truth and will refuse to do so. If Skinner’s theory were completely accurate, those refusing to wear masks could be pushed into doing so by portraying them as uncompassionate or uncaring. What is the difference?

People are more easily manipulated when the foundations of truth have been ripped out from under them. In America, the concept of absolute truth has been replaced with moral relativism while the very character of our national morality has been under a vicious assault. Americans are turning to atheism at an alarming rate, making them more susceptible to the type of behavioral manipulation described by Skinner. For a person grounded in truth and following God’s word knows they can choose their behavior and not be led by fear. The very foundations of this country are based on the premise that religious and moral men can be free because they can control their behavior. B.F. Skinners theory represents a system which denies God’s truth and leans on men’s own understanding. Which is something the Bible clearly warns us against. A society living in perpetual fear of an over-hyped flu virus is the consequence of developing systems antithetical to God’s and looking to science instead of God.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not, on your own understanding.

 

 

Welfare and Marxism: A Deliberate Attack on Man's Will

America is facing potential economic ruin which could make the Great Depression look like a roller coaster ride. The so called Covid 19 pandemic has decimated a booming economy, bringing the unemployment rate up to a staggering 14.7 percent. This past week another 3.2 million unemployment claims were filed, brining the number of unemployed Americans to over thirty million. The federal government responded to this crisis by passing a six trillion-dollar stimulus bill, which provided families with twelve hundred dollars per adult and, an additional six hundred dollars per week on top of regular unemployment benefits. Many people are earning more on unemployment than they would be working. The government is insistent on passing a universal basic income as a means of helping American families through this alleged crisis. This has been a long-time goal of Democrats before Covid 19 came along. With the economy in shambles, and more people losing their jobs, will a growing welfare state solve the problem or put more Americans in poverty?

There is a correlation between government subsidies to the unemployed and the desire to work. According to a study entitled “Declining Desire to Work and Downward Trends in Unemployment and Participation,” there was a massive decline in a desire to work among those not participating in the labor force. People considered outside of the labor force are not looking for work and are therefore, not counted in the unemployment rate. Over fifty percent of this lost desire to be gainfully employed was the result of government paid benefits to those not seeking work, like disability insurance. The welfare reform of the 1990’s wasn’t necessarily a culprit because programs like the earned income credit were incentives to work in some cases. For some married mothers however, it created a seventy-one percent increase in a lost desire to find employment. The bottom line is people change their behavior when it comes to their income. If they are earning more through a government subsidy than they would through working, they are going to opt for the government payment. In another article entitled “Quantifying The Lasting Harm To The U.S. Economy From The Financial Crisis,” Robert Hall argues that the loss of benefits such as unemployment, and or disability insurance,  along with food stamps and other benefits is a contributing factor to the drop in labor force participation. This is true among those with no job or part time workers seeking full time work, or even two parent families with only one income. This is because the cost of taking work does not necessarily justify the loss of benefits. In other words, if they make more taking a government payment, they are not incentivized to find work.

Much of this can be traced to Lyndon Johnsons “Great Society” programs. Since this time, the federal government has spent over twenty-two trillion dollars on welfare programs that were designed to eradicate poverty. Johnson, according to Timothy Goeglein, believed that extending welfare benefits to broken families would rise them out of economic despair and lead them to prosperity. Citing the work of Labor Department Sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Johnson focused his efforts on black families as Moynihan argued they were experiencing severe economic hardship. The results were devastating as the benefits given were largely dependent upon whether the family was intact. The benefits also paid more than most people could earn at the time; therefore, it encouraged single mothers to remain unmarried while creating government dependence. Many people attribute Johnson’s welfare programs to high rates of poverty and fatherless homes found in the black community today.

America is founded on the ideal of individualism and reaping the benefits of your own labor. A booming economy offers opportunities for advancement and higher earnings. When people are motivated to work, they are doing so out of a desire to better themselves, which in turn, contributes to a better society for all. When working decreases your chances of upwards mobility and welfare is paying the bills, people will not be motivated to return to work. At a time when the unemployment rate is so high and so many businesses closing, is the promise of more welfare a wise move or a deliberate attempt to further crash the economy? Former Sociology professors from Columbia University Richard Cloward (deceased) and his wife, Frances Fox Piven, wrote in “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in 1966, that there is a disparity between those receiving welfare benefits and those eligible to receive them. They argued that welfare policy generally sought to shame those applying for benefits into not doing so to keep the numbers low and budgets balanced. Their proposed solution was to create a crisis by enrolling everyone in welfare, which would crash the economy and force the government to implement a universal basic income for all. This is what the government is calling for today.

Cloward and Piven, as they have come to be called, are known for their Marxist ideologies teaching at a university that is largely anti-capitalist in its philosophies. Marx hated capitalism and believed that it was the root cause of inequality among the masses. He believed a society could be made where everyone willingly worked for the betterment of others and not for themselves. The term social justice has become synonymous with much of Marx’s ideas pertaining to issues like the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots. So much so that even many Christians have bought into Marxism’s deceptive nature. Richard Wurmbrand writes in his book, Marx and Satan, that many Christians have turned to Marx’s ideas as the best way to help the oppressed overcome poverty. This sentiment is echoed in a book called The Fragile Absolute, where Marxist Slavo Zizek argues that “Christianity and Marxism have a direct lineage and should be fighting from the same side of the barricade.” This of course lends to the idea that Jesus Christ and Marx both had the same goal, helping the poor. Even today, many churches are pushing for the ideals of social justice without giving any real explanation as to what they are arguing for. Jacob Brunton writes in the Cristian Intellectual that there is a push for socialism in the churches that purport to be theologically, Christian conservative. Why would this be the case when there is so much evidence that shows wealth redistribution and welfare policy destroys a desire to work and creates dependency?

The church was infiltrated by Marxists in the 1920’s and 30’s. This is largely substantiated in an article called “Behind the Barricades with Lenin? Making Sense of the Marxist Turn to Christianity in the Literature Classroom” by Mitchell Harris. (Note: This article was available to me as a student at Liberty University). Harris pointed out that many Marxists were joining the Christian religion because they viewed Jesus as the embodiment of struggle. It was not so much that they believed Jesus died on the cross for their sins but Christianity, in its historical context, was compatible with their message of class struggle. Or so they believe. Bella Dodd, a member of the National Council of the Communist Party USA, and graduate of Columbia University admitted to infiltrating the church in the 1930’s. She believed that Marxist philosophy was more concerned with helping the poor than the Christian Church was. Dodd later left the Communist party but admitted that the goal of infiltration was to not to destroy the institution, but faith itself. According to an article entitle The Greatest Conspiracy at freerepublic.com, Dodd intended to convince the Church that their beliefs were oppressive, arrogant and close minded in the sense that they claim to be the sole institution of truth at the expense of every other belief on Earth.

Marxist philosophy is a direct attack upon man’s freewill. At one time, according to Wurmbrand, Marx was devoutly Christian but later turned against God for unknown reasons. Many believe that Marxism is inherently atheist, this is not true. Marx wrote in a poem that he sought to avenge himself against the one who rules above (Wurmbrand). This indicates that he indeed believed in God but became angry with him. In another poem Marx wrote-

So, a god has snatched from me my all, In the curse and rack of destiny.

All his words are gone beyond recall, nothing left but revenge for me.

I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.

For its bulwark superstitious dread, For its marshal blackest agony.

Who looks on it with a healthy eye, shall turn back deathly pale and dumb,

Clutched by blind and chill morality, may his happiness prepare its tomb?

Marxism is a direct attack against God himself and all he created. Man was given free will as a gift from God so that we can choose between good and evil. Marxism, wealth redistribution, the welfare state and government dependency are all the result of an ideology built from a man who wrote in his own words he that was seeking revenge against God. Marxist philosophy has led to nothing but suffering and despair because it seeks to redesign what God created. Marx believed he could create a world where man surrenders his inner inclinations to work for his own betterment. “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.” This is not in man’s nature, and just as the fear of losing government benefits contributes to a loss desire to work, the realization that you are laboring for the benefit of someone else has the same effect. When the government is taxing the working class to give benefits to those who are not working, or even seeking work, there is only one result. Economic ruin. The idea of a universal basic income is the product of Marxist philosophers who are seeking to destroy capitalism and institute a socialist state. They are doing this despite the existing evidence that it does not lead to financial equality, but further contributes to economic decline. It is indeed intentional. Through the welfare state they are destroying man’s incentive to take care of himself to place their throne above Gods.

Critical Theory and the Demoralization of the American Psyche

For the past several years, if not decades, American values, and Americanism itself has been under a vicious assault. Terms like racism, white privilege, sexism, and homophobia have been used to discredit the American ideal of individual liberty. The issue of slavery, for example, has been repeatedly pushed to the forefront of our collective consciousness to try to teach us the founding of our country was not great, and that we have failed to live up to the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Our education system, particularly our institutions of higher learning, if you can call it that, does little more than produce automatons who repeat the narrative that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and greedy country who has little concern for anything other than money. Today, with the coronavirus propaganda we see the same thing. Words like unessential worker and social distancing are being used as tools to de-moralize and de-humanize us in what can best be described as a conditioning process to break down our values and morality. The result of all of this is a population that is easily controlled and herded into a group think mentality. If men’s values are destroyed, he has little else to fight and live for; therefore, if you can reduce his values, and equate them with negativity, you can control and guide his behavior.

Ayn Rand, in her article entitled “Our Cultural Value-Deprivation” cites an experiment that was conducted at McGill University in the 1950’s. The experiment revolved around determining men’s reaction to isolation and a lack of sensory perception, if you will. The general conclusion was that man needed constant stimulation in the brain in order to feel motivation. Without it, the brain eventually shuts down. Or, his consciousness fails to work to its maximum effect. Rand herself was an atheist. She is looking at this from strictly a scientific viewpoint. The same argument could be made from the spiritual perspective as well. Depriving man of his spiritual needs and breaking down his morality would likely have the same effect. Psychologically speaking, negative thinking tends to lead to more problems like depression and agitates existing medical conditions. In other words, if your values are continually reduced and discredited as something having a negative effect on society, you are likely to eventually have feelings that make you feel less about yourself; thus affecting the attitudes you have about the society that shaped those values.

Rand goes on to argue that society in general can influence the way people think. We see this taking place every day. There is, for example, immense social pressure to conform to certain ways of thinking. Social distancing and self-isolation are terms being used to force you into compliance; failing to do so equates to not caring for humanity. This tactic is used in many other scenarios ̶ if you do not believe in reparations or affirmative action you are a racist. If you do not believe in the feminist definition of equality between the sexes you are sexist. If you do not believe in manmade climate change, you are a climate denier. All these slogan type words are nothing more than propaganda designed to get the individual to question his own beliefs at least and at best, change them to conform to mainstream thinking. Ironically, this same method of changing people’s loyalties, or beliefs based on value deprivation can be found in the book “Brainwashing: A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.”

"The first is accomplished by a steady and continuous indoctrination of the individual in the belief that his previous loyalties have been wasted on an unworthy source. One of the primary instances of this is creating circumstances that apparently derive from the target of his loyalties, so as to rebuff the individual. As part of this there is a creation of a state of mind in the individual, by actually placing him under duress, and then furnishing him with false evidence to demonstrate that the target of his previous loyalty was the source of that duress."

Many have argued that this book, which was written by Stalin’s henchman, Laventri Beria, has been discredited as a “conspiracy theory.” It must be pointed out that this is not only the same process that Rand describes but is exactly what is happening in society today. Particularly in our universities. Students are taught that America was founded on racist ideals and has failed to live up to the values which we all hold so dear. This attacks the psyche of the American student and when presented with the leftist view of American history, subdues them into accepting and demanding, change. This is accomplished through the application of something called critical theory.

Critical theory is often mistaken for critical thinking. The two are vastly different. When one believes they are employing critical thinking skills, they are doing so under the belief that it is crucial to come to the best possible conclusion when trying to solve a problem. The precepts of critical thinking revolve around finding truth. Critical theory is something altogether different. Its origins are Marxist in thinking and was founded at the Frankfurt School of Social Research. Critical theory can best be defined as a method of critiquing capitalist culture and emancipating one’s self from the so called “pathologies of modern civilization.” It was originally intended to critique Germany’s national socialism and turn their thinking towards global communism. When this was discovered, the Frankfurt School was forced from Germany and many of their scientists and philosophers settled at Columbia University in the United States. Columbia is known as a university that loathes Americanism and espouses communism.

It is through the lens of critical theory that American’s are being exposed to concepts like white privilege and being beat down with the belief that their country has failed to live up to its values. Students are presented with prevailing American beliefs and then they are smashed by equating them with negative connotations of racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and anything else that can be used to demoralize their value system. They are then presented with an alternative view, socialism. They are literally trained through techniques that can best be described as value deprivation to hate their country and once demoralized, they readily accept communism, which is presented as being morally superior to capitalism.

The following is a quote from a college textbook being used to analyze literature through the lens of critical theory. From an academic standpoint, it is believed that a Marxist interpretation is but one small aspect of analyzing a literary work, however critical theory, as demonstrated, is completely Marxist in its origins. All the sub-theories which make up critical theory have elements which seek to subvert our culture.

"Marxist theory points out, however, that our belief in the American Dream blinds us to the reality that a vast number of people have not had and do not have equal opportunity in education, employment, or housing due to such factors as, for example, their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class. And worse, the American Dream leads us to believe that poor people who are unable to significantly improve their financial status must be shiftless and lazy or in some other way undeserving of decent living conditions. After all, the American Dream tells us that all it takes to make it in America is hard work and determination, and that those who do not make it, have only themselves to blame." (Tyson, Using Critical Theory)

Rand also cites an essay entitled The Psychology of Pleasure, by Nathaniel Branden, (which can be found on page 43 of her own book, The Virtue of Selfishness) which states that men’s values can largely be derived from the pleasure they attain from the work they perform or the culture they partake in. A lack of pleasure, according to Branden, or rewarding experiences which offer stimulation or the sense of accomplishment, will result in the eventual erosion of a man’s soul and his drive to achieve anything at all. Rand goes onto argue that the fundamental life force of any society is the philosophy which drives it. In America, rugged individualism, and the idea that we can achieve our dreams based on our own efforts in life is the fundamental value we share. We are free. It is this philosophy that is under attack, and by constantly exposing us to the subversive methods of critical theory, and the lies they use to discredit our culture, they are degrading our souls and killing our love of country that once existed. It is indeed, deliberate.

We are being governed through the application of the social sciences. Critical theory is being used in our schools because through experiments like the one described in Rands article; it has been known for at least seventy years that men’s behavior can be changed once their values are diminished. They can then be easily guided into collective thinking and coerced into collective behavior because they no longer know what is right. Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, describes demoralization as-

An overt slow process to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.

Over the past several decades Americans have been beat over the head continuously by the media and our academic institutions in a manner that suggests we are not worthy of the values we espouse. The result is a population unwilling or unable to defend those values. There are those, who having been brought up from their earliest days to put their faith in God who have the will to resist. Rand describes these people as “the toughest of intellectual giants, able to preserve the unimpaired efficacy of their minds.” Again, Rand herself was an atheist; however, it stands to reason that a strong faith in God would prevent people from succumbing to this demoralizing process. Public Schools do little to teach the concepts of individual liberty and the constitution and in 1963, a decade after the McGill experiments were conducted, Christian prayer was removed from the education system by order of The Supreme Court. It could be theorized that this was a deliberate move to begin the process of undermining American values and setting the stage for what we see occurring today. A population that for the most part, has little ability to discern the truth for themselves and is willing to sacrifice their own freedom for the illusion of government provided security.

A Controlled Collapse of the Economy and the Consequences of Fear.

Many people would argue that there is more going on behind the scenes concerning the so called Covid-19 pandemic. Even though much of what was predicted through inaccurate models has proven to be untrue, and the revelation that people allegedly dying from the disease are being falsely labeled with Covid-19, city and local governments across the country are continuing with unnecessary, and mind you, unconstitutional lock down orders. Michigan’s Governor Whitmer, for example, has issued a restriction on traveling between residences. Other governors are enforcing draconian rules against church services, and in places like Philadelphia, cops are dragging people off city buses for not wearing masks. Some people are attributing this to a 5G conspiracy. While there maybe something to do this, the truth probably revolves around the idea that they are using this to cover up the inevitable, deliberate collapse of our economy, and further global government objectives.

As of right now, according to marketwatch.com, forty-three percent of small businesses will be forced to close permanently without some kind of cash help from the government. In order to provide this help, our government recently passed a six trillion-dollar stimulus bill that will offer forgivable loans and direct cash payments to those in need. Using this crisis to attack small business is a possible application of the Cloward-Piven strategy. In the article “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to end Poverty,” Francis Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, former sociology professors from Columbia University, discuss a plan that entails a deliberate crash of the economy through an overwhelmed welfare system, which would force the government to implement socialist reforms. This was a much talked about theory during the Obama years. With Trump in office this is probably receiving very little thought as most people believe he is staunchly pro-America. It is a well-known fact that most Democrats view capitalism, and the small businesses that spring from it as a form of class oppression. Forcing small business to close would be a dream come true for the Marxists in our government.

Another thing to consider is the fact that artificial intelligence is taking over many human jobs. In fact, it has been predicted for years that by 2025, automation would displace up to 52 percent of the worlds work force. That is more than half of the people who currently have jobs. Ironically, the people thought to be hit the most will be those in the food industry, and those who run machines. Could this pandemic be the smoke screen for a completely life altering event that will leave millions of people unemployed and dependent upon a socialist government? Time will tell, if we see robots begin to replace people in some of these jobs, we will have our answer.

One aspect of unemployment and a crashing economy that is being completely ignored by the media is the correlation between suicide rates and the rise in unemployment claims. According to The Economist, for every point the unemployment rate goes rate up, 21 out of 100,000 people kill themselves. At the rate jobs are being lost we are looking at a potential number of suicides far surpassing the number of people predicted to be killed by Covid-19. The fact that this is being ignored proves that the government's over reaction and, its imposition of unconstitutional policies is not about saving lives.

Another theory that lends credence to the idea that this is a manufactured crisis opposed to an authentic pandemic, is the use of slogan type words like social distancing, essential jobs and the suggestion, or in some cases the forcing of wearing masks in public. Some businesses have resorted to herding people through their stores like cattle to enforce these ideas. These words and policies have very dehumanizing effects which only serve to separate us and turn us into faceless, nameless, autonomous beings with no voice. Coupled with the lie that we are all potential asymptomatic carriers of Covid-19, this propaganda creates a mistrust among each other.

The more people become accustomed to words like “essential jobs,” for example, the more they will accept the loss of jobs that have been deemed unessential. How long will it be until the people performing unessential jobs become unessential people? Furthermore, the more we allow them to keep us separated with enforced social distancing rules, the more likely we will be standing alone when we need each other the most.

There is indeed something else going on behind the scenes with this manufactured crisis. A controlled collapse of the economy along with the slow conditioning process to get us to accept a new normal in American life. A normal where prosperity and individual liberty are a thing of the past. A new normal where a general mistrust among the people around you pervades your consciousness ̶ which will leave you unsure of whether you should be concerned when you no longer notice their presence, because after all; they could be carrying a disease. Did they get their vaccination? A new normal where people have been programmed to look to government to solve problems because we have been made dependent. This is the consequence of letting fear guide your thinking.

Americans Are Marching To Their Own Enslavement And They're Happy About It

American’s are marching to the beat of a different drummer. No longer concerned about freedom or their constitutional rights, they have allowed fear to dictate their every move. Despite emerging evidence suggesting this “pandemic outbreak” is not as bad as originally projected, Americans are still allowing themselves to be locked down in their homes and corralled in lines ̶ like cattle, while shopping. Nation wide stores like Lowe’s, Home Depot and Wal-Mart have started enforcing social distancing rules, while allowing only a certain number of people in the store per 1000 square feet. This is very dehumanizing and is resulting in long waiting lines. Church pastors are being arrested while criminals are being released from prison and more and more people are losing their jobs. Yet, Americans for the most part, insist the government take these actions because they have allowed fear and irrational thinking to control them. This is a conditioning process; a process designed to make us happy with our enslavement and accept our demise as a free, prosperous country.

Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Health and advisor to President Trump over this matter, has been preaching gloom and doom from his bully pulpit. He has advised Americans to expect a death toll possibly in the hundreds of thousands in the coming weeks. Most Americans are unaware of the paper he published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 26^th 2020. It’s as if the man is talking out of two sides of his mouth. This paper, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, suggests the consequences of Covid-19 may be no more severe than a seasonal flu with a death rate of less than one percent. He does suggest a possible two percent rate for those that develop severe pneumonia symptoms; but as new data from New York suggests, this is occurring mostly in people with pre-existing health conditions. In fact, much of the response to Covid-19 has been based on bad data. Epidemiologist John Ioannidis, from Stanford University, notes that had it not been for the massive reporting and fear mongering over this alleged new virus, it would appear as nothing more than a harsh flu season.

On one hand, for those seeking alternative information, it seems this may have been over-hyped. On the other, watching this play out as most people continue to pay attention to the mainstream media, we appear to be living in a dystopian novel. People are increasingly allowing themselves to be controlled.

The consequences of over panicked reactions are already manifesting themselves in disturbing ways. Our cell phones are being used, in some cases, to track us and our compliance with social distancing rules. People are calling the police on one another, and apps are being created to make it easier to do so. Worse than this even, is the effects this is having on the economy. There were over ten million unemployment claims in March and that number is expected to climb. Disturbingly, there is a definite correlation between the unemployment numbers and suicide rates. According to a study by The Economist, for every point unemployment goes up, 21 out of every 100,000 people commit suicide. This could mean many more hundreds of thousands dead than the predicted numbers killed by the virus. This isn’t even counting those that could die simply by losing everything and starving.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a conditioning process is described where newly hatched babies are shocked whenever they are shown flowers and books. When this is done enough, an association is created between the pain and the image being shown to them, leading to the hatred and rejection of flowers and books. This is very similar to the conditioning process taking place today. Through the media, Americans are constantly being exposed to stimulus designed to cause fear and panic. While watching television, the brains limbic system, which governs our survival responses in times of panic, is more active than the neo-cortex, which allows us to think logically. Therefore, we perceive what is being presented to us in a manner that makes us react with fear. We believe we are in the middle of a massive pandemic and turn to government for help. The government enacts draconian controls and most of us thankfully accept them under the false notion that if we didn’t life would end, and we would all be doomed. Just as the case in Huxley’s novel, any deviation from what the controllers want you to fear is met with hatred and vitriol. Americans are blissfully marching into their own imprisonment, and they are happy about it because the government is protecting them.   

A Constant State of Trauma

The coronavirus can best be described as the latest crisis the government will not let go to waste. America is in a state of panic and in a very timely fashion, the powers that be are responding with their pre-planned solutions. Unfortunately, most Americans do not see this for what it is. They are allowing themselves to be guided into a state of predictable behaviors. They are willingly self-quarantining, for example, while the government is considering using our cell phone data to track us to ensure we are practicing good social distancing behaviors. Allowing the government to control how many people can socialize in one group will only result in Americans being isolated from one another when we need to be coming together. It seems that after years of discrediting the mainstream media as fake news and propaganda, millions of Americans are now, following their every dictate. This is because of fear, and the fact that our reaction to it has been made into a science. 

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals)

Americans have been exposed to constant chaos and trauma since at least, the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The media, since that time, has been used to create a state of mind that is always reacting to a frightening stimulus. Constant shootings, economic problems, global warming and the threat of dangerous weather, war, terrorism and of course, killer viruses by the dozens. Zika, mersa, sars, bird flu, swine flu and Ebola, to name just a few in the past ten years alone. Americans are addicted to entertainment media, spending an average of thirty-five to forty hours a week in front of the television. There is research that suggests that too much television changes the way the brain functions. In an article entitled “Brain wave Measures of Media Involvement,”  by Herbert Krugman, it is suggested that the brains Neo-cortex, also known as upper region, shuts down while the limbic system, (the lower portion) becomes more active. These lower regions of the brain cannot process information the way the Neo-cortex does, therefore, the ability to discern reality from television programming is diminished.

When you’re watching television the higher brain regions (like the midbrain and the neo-cortex) are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions (like the limbic system). The neurological processes that take place in these regions cannot accurately be called “cognitive.” The lower or reptile brain simply stands poised to react to the environment using deeply embedded “fight or flight” response programs. Moreover, these lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images (a job performed by the neo-cortex), so they react to television content as though it were real, releasing appropriate hormones and so on. Studies have proven that, in the long run, too much activity in the lower brain leads to atrophy in the higher brain regions. (Krugman, 1971)

In other words, watching too much television activates the brains natural fear mechanisms. The powers that be have known this since the War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. The book “Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic” highlights this by noting the fact that social scientists immediately began studying man’s panicked reaction to the belief that Earth was being invaded by Martians. As silly as it seems, they were able to gain valuable “insight into his intelligence, his anxieties and his needs, which we would never get by tests or strictly experimental studies” (Cantril, 1940). This suggests that we are always under a microscope, with our reactions being studied, and our behaviors being manipulated.

We are being conditioned to respond to fear, and our reactions are being studied for the purpose of developing future policies and gaining control of our behavior. There are those who would call this alarmist and conspiratorial; however, in 2015 an executive order was issued which essentially laid the ground work for such an agenda.

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights -- research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them -- can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people.

While the order seems to revolve around making life better for the American people, very few could legitimately argue any of the objectives have come to fruition. Instead, society is spinning out of control. The order also proves that government studies us and uses our reactions to push us in certain directions. In the case of the coronavirus, it can be argued they knew how we would react, and they are taking advantage of our fear by encouraging us to isolate ourselves from the world while buying large amounts of toilet paper.

Fear is a powerful motivator. It could theoretically be argued that Americans are trapped in a constant state of post traumatic stress like symptoms. Since September 11, 2001, as mentioned earlier, we have been constantly exposed to media propaganda aimed at creating a state of panic. Our schools are beating our children down with an indoctrination designed to cause angst and hatred towards the country, undoubtedly causing them stress. According to an article in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, traumatic memories can be triggered when the brain receives a stimulus in the context of that traumatic event. It does not have to be the same, nor does it have to have a meaningful relationship with the original trauma. This is of course, the standard definition of post-traumatic stress disorder. Given the evidence presented in this article it must be considered that media, along with the government and other powers that be, are deliberately creating panic in order to guide and further learn how to predict your behavior. When we see a mass shooting for example, and they call it home grown terrorism, our brains are subconsciously reminding us of the horror of September 11. Furthermore, with every mass shooting that occurs our reactions to anything gun related are likely to be the same due to the created association between guns and terrorism. The coronavirus is just another panic inducing crisis that will be capitalized on by our government. The best thing you can do is shut the TV off and live your life.

 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.