Sunday, February 7, 2016

Psychology has Brought Communism to America By David Risselada

commie_ed-300x180

Many Americans are awakening to the fact that we are watching the demise of our beloved country. Slowly but surely American sovereignty is slipping away, and to the shock of America’s most diehard patriots, the masses seem willing to accept it. The people are bogged down in the illusion of debate, blaming each other’s politics under the false pretext of a two party system, of which we were duly warned to avoid by our founding fathers. Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans, while those claiming to be intellectually superior sit in the middle as independents. With the help of the television media, the powers that be keep us distracted with petty issues which demand solutions that when enacted, only further enslave us and strip more of our liberty away.  Americans are unable to determine what’s really happening because they are deliberately being misinformed, misled and marched into a state of confusion where the goal is to make it impossible for them to know what the real heart of the issues are.  They are being trained to depend on the words of an alleged “intellectual elite” telling them what to think. If one were to find out what was really going on in our country they need to look no further than their local college psychology class; because after all, psychology is communism.

In the book “Brain-Washing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics” Laventia Beria, former KGB agent, admits that psychology is used as a means of teaching the tenants of communism under the guise of mental health programs. He also goes on to admit that the goal is to condition the students to accept these principles as being a part of their own understanding and that of sound scientific principle. Furthermore, he also admits to the deception of it all as he goes on to say that the methods of “stimulus-response” conditioning  must be carefully hidden from the students until that time they become fellow workers in the field of psychology.  To demonstrate this further, in chapter 11, The Use of Psychopolitics in Spreading Communism, Beria writes the following-

“In the United States we have been able to alter the works of William James, and others, into a more acceptable pattern, and to place the tenants of Karl Marx, Pavlov, Lamarck, and the Data of Dialectical Materialism into the textbooks of psychology, to such a degree that anyone thoroughly studying psychology becomes at once a candidate to accept the reasonableness of communism.” (Beria, pp. 53)

Many may argue that not all people going into psychology will automatically accept this, and that people have free will. This is true; however, most of the people in the mental health field believe that human beings can be conditioned and that collectivism or communism is a superior system compared to capitalism. This is because most of them do not believe in God, and despise all aspects of religion. There was a time when religion was turned to as a means of healing the mentally ill. One of the goals of communism is to destroy religion all together and portray psychology as the superior method of affecting mental healing.

“You must work until religion is synonymous with insanity. You must work until the officials of the city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce on religious groups as public enemies.” (Beria, pp. 60)

With this being said, the people in charge of most psychology programs across the country, as well as mental health treatment centers are of this frame of mind and likely to be communists, or pyschopolitical operators. This, according to Beria, guarantees that students, and those seeking mental health treatment, are exposed to communist principles; thus, moving society away from their traditional values, and further to the left.

“As every chair of psychology in the United States is occupied by a person in our connection, or who can be influenced by a person in our connection, the consistent employment of such texts is guaranteed. (Referring back to the quote on textbooks) They are given the authoritative ring and they are carefully taught. (Beria, pp. 53)

In many colleges across the country, as well as high schools, a basic course in psychology is required to graduate. It is believed by those adhering to the collectivist world view that once exposed to communist ideals, students can be brought about to see their reasonableness, especially when compared to capitalism, which Beria admits is of their own definition.  What this essentially means is that in psychology and sociology classes across the nation, capitalism is being portrayed as an evil, selfish system that only benefits a privileged few while communism is being portrayed as the system that acts with compassion towards all people, while standing for human rights. The only problem is that they are hiding what their real view on human rights are while also hiding the horrifying history of what happens when societies are governed by science and not a belief in a higher mortality. It is believed by communists that those that do not adhere to their worldview are somehow mentally defective, and are standing in the way of a perfect society where the state dictates what is right and wrong. Concepts like freedom, individualism and personal responsibility are abhorrent to them and the purpose of using psychology and psychiatry is to rid men of these undesirable traits.

“The tenants of rugged individualism, personal determination, self-will, imagination, and personal creativeness are alike in the masses antipathetic to the Good of the Greater State. These willful and unaligned forces are no more than illnesses which bring about disaffection, disunity, and at length the collapse of the group to which the individual is attached.” (Beria, pp. 9)

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Conditioned to Accept Their Own Demise By David Risselada

Liberals insist that minorities in America are oppressed, and that blacks in particular, suffer disproportionately. This means that because their population is so much lower than the white majority; the high numbers of incarceration, or those addicted to drugs, for example, are disproportionate to their population.  Another good example is the unemployment rate. Breitbart.com reports that black Americans, despite living under the nation’s first black president, are suffering from the highest unemployment rate among all of America’s diverse populations, 8.8 percent to be exact. This represents an increase in black unemployment while other populations actually saw an alleged decrease in the same time frame.  An 8.8 percent unemployment rate is disproportionate, and the question as to why blacks are suffering the most under the nation’s first black president must be asked.

Democrats claim to care about minorities while positioning themselves as the ones who will bring them out from under the oppressive boot of “white privilege.” The truth however; is the exact opposite. The policies of Barack Obama have done little more than portray the average African- American as a violent thug who is willing to burn their own city to the ground over a misperceived injustice. This hardly lifts them out poverty and does more to further isolate them from mainstream society. Barack Obama, being a community organizer, has deliberately inflamed racial tensions and encouraged this type of behavior through his inflammatory rhetoric. The question is why? If he really set out to help them, then why encourage them to behave in a criminal manner when they claim to be tired of that stereotype? The possibility that there is a darker agenda must be considered, and to understand this you have to know the history of the Democrat party, and a little bit about psychology.

The Democrat Party is, without a doubt, the party that bears the scars of America’s racist history. They founded the KKK and were the party of segregation. In fact, the purpose of the KKK wasn’t just to hunt down and kill black people, but more specifically, Republicans. At the time, it was well known that all black people voted Republican because the Republican Party is the party that supported civil rights legislation. White Republicans were hunted down and lynched just the same; however, not all whites were Republican; therefore, there was a possibility that indiscriminately killing a white meant there was a possibility they were killing a Democrat. Black people suffer in poverty today due to racist policies of Democrat President, Lyndon B. Johnson.  Johnson is responsible for the oppressive welfare system that tore apart the black family by creating the entitlement mentality in his “Great Society Programs.” In the movie “Run Away Slave,” Reverend C.L. Bryant tells the story of how Johnson hijacked civil rights legislation earlier proposed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.  Johnson is on record as saying “I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” He was referring to his Great Society program and his plan to enslave them to free handouts in exchange for votes.  (A strategy mind you, that is in play concerning the influx of illegal immigrants coming into the country today.)  Ask yourself why black people predominately vote Democrat despite the fact that Democrats govern nearly every inner city ghetto across the nation.




Abortion is another black eye for the Democrat party because its history reeks of an agenda based on eugenics and a plan to rid the world of so called “undesirables.” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, is quoted as saying that the purpose of abortion is to rid the world of the black population. This is no secret; however, the entirety of her quote is indeed shocking. She planned on enlisting the help of black preachers to teach black people that abortion wasn’t being used to reduce their numbers. Here is the entirety of her quote-


Barack Obama is also a big proponent of abortion. As an Illinois senator he voted against a bill that would have saved the lives of babies that survived a botched abortion attempt.  Black people do suffer disproportionate abortion rates as most Planned Parenthood clinics can be found in poor, minority neighborhoods.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats truly care about the black population then why do they support, or enact, policies that hurt them? Is it possible that the Democrat party is still carrying out an agenda based on eugenics, and plan on reducing the numbers of the black population? Think about what has been discussed a moment. Barack Obama has encouraged young black men to burn down cities by teaching them they are oppressed. They have convinced the inner city poor that killing their own is a fundamental right, and, they have destroyed their initiative through a dependency creating welfare system.  This isn’t all. In many colleges across the country we see black students demanding to be segregated from white students based on the idea that they are being oppressed by “white privilege.” Segregation was a policy of the Democrat party, not Republicans. It seems that the Democrats have found a way to convince the black population to demand the type of policies they have always wanted, and they have used psychological manipulation to do it.

Through the use of educational conditioning, they have convinced the black population that they are oppressed victims, unable to succeed because of white racism, without government.  This has created a self loathing attitude and a belief that the whole world is against them which, in and of itself, sets them up for failure from the get go. Social psychologists long ago learned that by gaining control of a child’s education at an early age, they can condition them to believe anything.  With the majority of the black population being forced into poverty and onto welfare in Johnsons “Great Society,” most of them grew up without fathers in the house and were very susceptible to this type of programming in government schools. Social psychologists, believing what they do, could have very easily conditioned this population to be successful, contributing members of society. Instead, they hammered into them the idea that they are not as good as everyone else and that they were oppressed.

"Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are 'obstructive' and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective ... It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen." (Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810)

Is it possible that the policies being enacted are designed explicitly to keep black people in an oppressed state so they can be used as foot soldiers to start a conflict where the real goal is the reduction of their own population?  Looking at the history of the Democrat Party, and the fact that young black people are begging to be re-segregated, the answer to that question could actually be yes. Barack Obama’s policies are not only keeping black people poor, they are also enraging much of the population as he continually blames their predicament on conservatives and the Republican Party.  He is trapping all of us in a box where racial conflict seems to be inevitable. The damage he has caused to the black people in America is undeniable, and yet instead of reflecting, and changing course, he doubles down with the same divisive agenda. If he cared about the plight of black people he would not be doing this, that’s for sure.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Community Organizing: Stirring up Dissatisfaction on Guns By David Risselada

On January fifth, President Obama took enormous pleasure in signing his executive actions on gun control.  The vitriol and utter disgust he displayed towards gun owners was never more clear than it was on this day. In his usual fashion, President Obama surrounded himself with friendly faces who were more than happy to watch him tear down the fabric of our nation as he defied the constitution, and took law writing into his own hands. Being a community organizer, he skillfully played on the emotions of the crowd while simultaneously attempting to whip them into a state of action against all of those who stand in the way of enacting his "common sense" reforms. Of course, this is the explicit job of community organizers. Consider the following quote from the college text book "The Practice of Macro Social Work."

“To destroy the structure of apathy by stirring up dissatisfaction and discontent; disrupt existing complacent expectations, and breaking down the individualistic orientations of community residents."

This quote is a "social change" strategy of community organizers and is taught in social work programs across the country. The goal, as we have seen in many other instances, is to convince the people that they are somehow being oppressed, and that by coming together under the right leadership they can overcome this oppression. This is the strategy we saw in play in Ferguson Missouri and Baltimore as so called civil rights activists burned both cities to the ground in protest of alleged police brutality. This is the same strategy President Obama is employing on gun control. He is stirring up dissatisfaction and discontent against a Republican Congress he tells the people are standing in the way of a better, safer world. He has no problem with lying to the people because as far as community organizers are concerned, there is only the gaining of political power at stake, and the ends justify the means.

President Obama, being a follower of the Alinsky model, is operating on the principle that there is no absolute morality and that the ultimate objective of his collectivist utopia is worth corrupting himself. Alinsky taught his followers that corrupting themselves in pursuit of political objectives was in fact, a higher level of morality because they were not concerned with individual salvation but rather, collective salvation. Consider the following from Saul Alisnky's Rules For Radicals.




"To say that corrupt means is to corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles."
"He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of personal salvation; he does not care enough for the people to be corrupted for them."

This is the mentality the left operates on. They believe they are creating a better world, and the corruption they engage in is inconsequential because it is the good intentions of their actions that matter the most. As far as gun control goes; we all know it is about control, period. President Obama does not care about the saftey of children or communities, he cares about power. Being the expert organizer he is, he will ride on the dissatisfaction of the uninformed until he gets exactly what he wants, a disarmed, helpless population.

Social Change and the Delphi Technique By David Risselada

"Any revolutionary change must be preceeded 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 accpetance is is the reformation essential to any revolution." (Alinsky, Rules For Radicals)

President Obama has promised to make his last year in office all about gun control. In the first week of the new year, he not only signed illegal executive orders, he also held a televised townhall meeting where he hoped to sway the opinions of the masses to see his view and demand congress take action to pass stricter gun laws. Therein lies the point; President Obama knows his executive actions hold little weight when it comes to enforcement, that is why he keeps telling his followers to put the pressure on congress.  President Obama knows that the only way he will get what he wants on the federal level is if he can convince the people to surrender their liberties. This is the concept known as "consent of the governed." President Obama is acting as an agent of social change in an attempt to "psychologically disarm" the people to accept his views. He is attemting to portrait himself as overly emotional and deeply connected to the issue of gun violence in order to change the social attitudes towards guns in America.

What does it mean to be an agent of social change? Social change agents are generally activists working for the left with the intended purpose of bringing about about a better society; i.e, the socialist Utopia we are too often promised. They are carefully placed in organizational heirarchy's and are groomed to guide opinions and social attitudes to the left. They can be found in business, educationreligion and the media working to shift the consiousness of the masses towards a new world view. They use Alinsky type organizational tactics to build a movement, and then demand that change is made. Good examples of social change agents leading these type of movements are Occupy Wallstreet and Black Lives Matter.

One of the more popular methods of guiding opinions and social attitudes is the Delphi technique, and it is something that most readers have probably experienced without even realizing it. Essentially, the Delphi technique is a certain way of facillitating a meeting, with change agents acting as the facillitators, where there is a predetermined consensus, and those that appear to be moving away from it are identified and discredited by the facillitators. This is how many classes are now taught in our universities as well. In most cases, anytime a left wing professor asks students to get into groups and discuss an issue there are other students tasked with identifying those that may disagree, and they become the target. This author has personally experienced this and discussed it in great length in the book "Not on my Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education."




Another method of pushing peoples attitudes towards a predetermined consensus comes about through the use of data mining. Nearly every aspect of our society today involves some sort of data mining in order to gauge the opinions and attitudes of society. Believe it or not, there are social scientists analyzing this data and using it to mold societies values. The most pertinent example comes from an old broadcast of William Coopers "The Hour of the Time" entitled, "The Planned Education of Your Children." Keep in mind that the technique described was employed in the 1990's before the massive use of social media. About half way through the recording Cooper describes a scenario where a local school board was trying to wrestle local control of education away from the community and into the hands of the bureaucracy. They did this through the same type of data mining being used in our education system today. Local schools were asked to give surveys to the students asking what their opinions were on certain subjects. They were able to take this information and determine the overall values of the community and then formulated a strategy where they were able to sway the opinions of the residents in favor of giving up their control.




This method of social change has its roots in psychology, coming about through the study of human behavior and its relationship to the environment. B.F. Skinner wrote in his book, "Beyond Freedom & Dignity" that human behavior can be easily manipulated through the appearance of public approval.

"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." (Skinner, 91)

Barack Obama, with the help of his left wing media and the liberal controlled education system are trying to give the  perception that there is a great deal of malice and discontent when it comes to the gun issue. They are giving the illusion that there is a mass movement demanding civilian disarmament while simulateneously using techniques against the public explicitly designed to distract and mislead in order to change the hearts and minds of those who may otherwise, have no opinion, or, displays one that leans in an opposite direction. One could argue that the entire establishment and its institutions have been reworked into a massive agent of change as everything they do revolves around reinforcing the liberal narrative. This is how you affect fundamental social change in a nation of rugged individualism, you tell them lies and manipulate their opinions.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

The U.N, Immigration and Gun Control By David Risselada

Since the elections in 2014 we have the watched Republican majority  sellout to the Obama agenda on one issue after the other. First it was the budget due to fears of being blamed for a potential government shutdown, then it was the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty, and finally, it was the Iran deal. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties require two thirds vote of all senators present in order to be ratified. The Iran deal changed that with the passage of the so called Corker Bill. Under this new law the Iran deal would require two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented. What we have witnessed is a gradual conditioning process where lawmakers are incrementally implementing an international agenda in order to surrender U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and the next item on the chopping block is your right to keep and bear arms, in case you haven't noticed.

One thing the Republican controlled Senate seems to have done right is refuse to ratify the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Signed by John Kerry, the Obama administration seems intent in ensuring its ratification by passing gun control laws that push towards the treaties ultimate end; gun confiscation. While the Republicans may have taken a bold and brave stand against Obama by refusing to ratify, it doesn't change the fact that they have caved on every other issue, and as of today, have done little to stop Obama's executive actions against the second amendment. Could this be part of the conditioning process? Sadly the answer to that would have to be yes.

2a

Another issue that Americans are furious about is immigration. President Obama signed executive orders granting amnesty to nearly five million people which are here illegally. This is another hot button item the Republicans have done nothing to stop. Several Republican lawmakers, in an effort to appease to a broader voter base, have actually voiced support for amnesty in one form or another. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Obama's amenesty case in the coming months; however, this is the same Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Obamacare and homosexual marriage. The Supreme Court's opinion on amnesty may have little to no bearing because the Obama administration has been turning to the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees for assistance on this matter, as if they are the final authority. Therein lies the point, we are being conditioned to gradually view the U.N. as the world governing body. It won't matter what laws are passed or not passed, if people accept U.N. authority, their rule will be the law of the land.

kofi anan

What does this have to do with gun control? Article 16 of the Small Arms Treaty explicitly states that members who are unable to implement the treaty in their countries should apply for enforcement assistance through the U.N. One more time in case you didn't catch that. Article 16 of the Small Arms Treaty recommends nations that are having difficulty implementing the provisions of the treaty, in other words, disarming their people, should apply for enforcement assistance through the U.N. They have even gone as far as setting up a trust fund in order to help nations in need of assistance. Is it possible this is the framework being used to establish Loretta Lynch's Strong Cities Networks with the U.N?
Article 16: International Assistance
  1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request.
  2. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.
  3. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.
The United Nations has no authority over the United States in any capacity; however, the Obama administration and other big government elites seem intent on surrendering our sovereignty to their rule. While turning to the U.N. for assistance with refugees may have no direct correlation to gun control, the fact that they are looking to them at all assists their efforts to condition the public to accept their final say in our affairs. They will come to be seen as a body that can solve the issues that the left deem to be problematic. In the case of immigration, they stop the big mean conservatives from preventing refugees from entering our country. In the case of gun control, they could very well be seen as the necessary force able to come in and achieve the lefts life long dream; total gun confiscation. Either way, if the people of  this country don't stop allowing ourselves to be divided over such petty issues, the oppressive boots of the New World Order, with the U.N. as the worlds governing body, will be attempting to squeeze every last ounce of  individual liberty away from us. Molon Labe!

bulletholes

COINTELPRO, False Flags and a Patriot Down BY David Risselada

On January 26, 2016, the FBI shot and killed rancher LaVoy Finicum in what appeared to be a deliberate setup. This brought the 25 day stand off between federal agents and militia members protesting for restored property rights, to an end. Controversy surrounds the shooting as it appears that LaVoy may have reached for something around his waistband after appearing to take a bullet; however, there is no sound in the video released by the FBI so no definate conclusions can be made. LaVoy Finicum, along with other militia members are portrayed as terrorists by the main stream media and were treated accordingly by federal law enforcement officers.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration there has been an all out effort to label anyone of a right leaning ideology as a potential extremist.  In the report published in 2009 entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," references are made to economic hardships, proposed weapon bans and the election of the first African American president as things that may ecourage rightwing violence. The report also expresses concern that radical right wing groups may attempt to recruit returning war veterans who may be disgruntled with the government. The following paragraphs are from this report.

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Reading this report one is left with the impression that the government is deliberately planning to label people as terrorists because they know there is going to be a great deal of resistance to their agenda. This is an agenda that has transformed our nation from  freedom and prosperity to socialism and desperation, and labeling dissenters as terrorists is a convinient way to ensure no one stands in the way; and if they do, law enforcement has been trained to deal with them. For instance, in 2013 the FBI had begun target practice on targets depicting everyday American citizens brandishing firearms, this included pregnant women and children. The name of the program was "No More Hesitation" and was designed to condition law enforcement personal to shoot first and ask questions later. Comparing the targets with the quotes from the DHS report gives the impression that there will at some point be door to door gun confiscation. Another point to consider is the fact that the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies, have removed all references of Islamic extremism from their training manuals, filling the void with information similar to the DHS report. This means that all new FBI recruits are being indoctrinated into the belief that conservatives and Constitutionalists are threats to national security. This explains why law enforcement officers are so quick to pull the trigger.

The FBI has a long history of infiltrating and discrediting organizations considered to be a threat to government power. It is a program called COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) and it dates back to the 1950's. The program was used to infiltrate groups like the Communist Party U.S.A., Black Panthers, the Klu Klux Klan and other organizations percieved to be a threat. Under the standing law of the time, "The Communist Control Act of 1954," FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used the program to spy on communists. The idea was to infiltrate targeted groups with the purpose of discrediting them and causing internal strife in order to weaken their political influence. In the 1990's the U.S. government turned its focus to patriot groups, gun owners and others who professed to be "Constitutionalists." This was due to the fact that the government feared an angry populace after outsourcing jobs and surrendering U.S. sovereignty to international interests. In 1996, at the height of the militia movement motivated by the government's excessive use of force at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the FBI unlawfully infiltrated the Georgia Militia and planted explosives devises on their property. Robert Edward Star and William James McCranie were charged with manufacturing, with the intent to distribute, “shrapnel packed” pipe bombs. This was later proven to be a deliberate set up as explained in the radio broadcast of William Coopers "The Hour of the Time" below. The idea was to portray the Constitutional Militia as a group of radicals seeking to overthrow the government.





In the Oregon standoff, COINTELPRO was in play as FBI agents infiltrated the militia group and deliberately harrassed members of the community. They even went as far as snooping around the local armory to give the impression they intended to break in. This would have turned public opinion against militia members while encouraging citizens to demand government intervention. This resulted in the resignation of Harney County Fire Marshall Chris Briels. Briels personally caught the agents snooping around the armory and was told to back off after bringing it to the attention of Judge Steve Grasty.




The U.S. government also has a habit of creating its own crisis in order to justify military action. Operation Northwoods for example, was a scenario where the Joint Chiefs of staff drew up a plan to stage fake terrorist attacks on the American public while blaming Cuba; thus, justifying a much desired attack against the Island nation. This is known as the false flag attack, and history shows that this has been used on more than one occasion to justify America's involvement in war. The Gulf of Tonkin and the Attack of Pearl Harbor were both said to be false flag attacks. What many in the militia movement fear is that there will be a deliberate attack set up by COINTELPRO agents in order to justify police/military action against those who stand for freedom, which would justify the need for furthering the police state. Is it possible that LaVoy Finicum was deliberately led to the road block with the hopes that he would attempt to fire on FBI agents; thus, justifying the further encroachment of our constitutional rights? Given the information presneted in this article it is a possibilty that should not be discounted.

It is the patriot movement that stands in the way of the Obama agenda. Slowly but surely we are watching the narrative of terrorism move from the threat of Islamic Radicalism to "right wing" radicalism. Fear and misinformation are being used to give the impression that the nation is filled with anti-governemnt extremists who are wanting to go war with the federal government. At the same time, any education concerning the principles behind the constitution has been scrubbed away from the public school system, just the same as the brutal history of excessive government control has. The government must be held to account for their subversive tactics and their deliberate attempt to discredit a movement that is only standing for the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution before history repeats itself.

The Obama administration knew there was going to be pushback against his agenda which is why they immediately began labeling patriots as extremists in order to discredit and silence them.

Deliberately Dumbing Us Down to Affect Social Change by David Risselada

As we watch the charade that is the Republican presidential race, we are allowing ourselves to fall for the same trap that got Barack Obama elected in 2008. We are willing to accept anything in the place of the current administration because we have become so hopeless and desperate for someone, anyone to fix our nation; even if it means electing a man who admittedly gave money to Hillary Clinton.  The sad reality that many have come to accept is that no matter whom you vote for, the push for global government and the surrendering of American sovereignty will continue.

In the conservative movement you will hear people refer to Ronald Reagan as the “iconic" conservative president whose patriotic fervor should be sought in all Republican candidates.  After all, President Reagan defeated the Soviet Union, right? President Reagan was a gifted actor who is remembered for contrasting American freedom and the natural rights of men to the mental slavery that is communism. If President Reagan actually defeated the Soviet Union, and communism died as a result, then why does it seem to be making such a come back here in the United States? Why do we have a president like Barack Obama successfully pushing a communist agenda? Ronald Reagan's defeat of the Soviet Union was a hoax designed to psychologically disarm the United States and merge us with the coming world order.




On July 5 1950, John Foster Dulles, who was a Republican advisor to the State Department, gave testimony to what was known as the Communist Peace Offensive. He claimed that the Soviet Union was involved in an aggressive campaign to give the illusion that it was Communism that sought peace and human equality, while capitalist nations like the United States pursued violent wars of imperialism. Fast forward to modern day America and you see this philosophy being openly taught in our universities. You have young people in this nation virtually begging for socialism as they are taught by leftist professors that capitalism is greedy and even racist. How could this happen in a nation that espouses individual liberty and the creation of wealth through hard work and initiative? The communists were given influence over our education system and our iconic President Reagan bears much of the blame. According to Charlotte Iserbyt, author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, and senior official at the Department of Education during the Reagan years, Ronald Reagan signed agreements with the Soviet Union that allowed them to have access to our schools in the name of promoting cultural understanding and world peace.

It wasn't just Reagan, another conservative icon, Dwight Eisenhower also signed such agreements in 1958. This was the same time that the Reese committee was investigating the use of tax payer money being used to fund organizations pushing for global government. In 1985, Gorbachev and Reagan signed the agreements which merged the nation’s education systems together; thus forming the indoctrination system that teaches your children that American capitalism and patriotism are bad and collectivism is good.  In a paper entitled "Soviets in the Classroom," Charlotte Iserbyt outlines the chronological order in which these events and others that led us down the road to socialism took place. It didn't stop with Ronal Reagan and Gorbachev, George Bush sealed the deal in 2001 with the signing of HR 1. S, 1, otherwise known as the No Child Left behind act.



The overall goal was to create an education system that would train an obedient work force that would follow the dictates of their masters and not question authority. This was the vision of John Dewey, who many progressives consider to be the father of modern day education. John Dewey is also the author of The Humanist Manifesto, which could be considered the American version of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Having been trained in behavioral psychology in the late 1800's, Dewey began to see education as a means of changing behavior and training children to be advocates for the type of change that progressive socialists seek. In other words, he believed children could be trained from an early age to be advocates of big government and social control. Looking at what is typically taught in American schools today puts this in sharper perspective. In an Oregon community college for example, they are teaching a white shame class while college students across the country are literally begging to be protected from thoughts and ideas they don't agree with. They have successfully employed the ideas of changing behavior and turning students into advocates of government control by using the issue of racism.



This was done through operant and classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is the concept of changing behavior by providing certain stimulus. Ivan Pavlov discovered that he could train his dog to salivate at the sound of the bell. What many people don't know is that Vladimir Lenin sought to use Pavlov's conditioning methods against the Russian people during his Bolshevik revolution. This can be seen by watching the film The Bloody History of Communism. Classical conditioning is best described as associating a certain response to a given stimulus that would then become part of the persons natural behavior; thus unchanging. In the case of Pavlov’s dogs, the sound of the bell continually produced salivation even though food was no longer being given. It has been found that changing behavior in this manner is most effective when dealing with strong emotions like fear. In our schools today there is an effort to reinforce a fear of firearms by constantly performing intruder on campus, or active shooter drills while at the same time, suspending children from school for ridiculous things such as having an action figure that has a toy laser gun.



Operant conditioning is the use of reward and punishment and is more commonly applied in the classroom today. Operant conditioning was founded by B.F. Skinner who believed that human behavior was directly related to the environment. He found that a person's behavior could be changed by manipulating the environment around them and that fear of not fitting in is a powerful motivator. Today there is a massive effort in education and mass media to portray our constitutional system as outdated and inadequate.  A great deal of pressure is being put on the public to go along with the social change envisioned by the social controllers. They are deliberately manipulating the social environment by destroying the economy, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, and turning people's social values against one another. This is forcing behavioral change in the public that enables the controllers to push society further to the left and firmly in their control. It is being done intentionally because people have allowed themselves to be fooled by this false two party system.



As we continue to watch the Republican Presidential race with hopes of great change, please realize that the choices before you could be a deliberate attempt to get you to surrender your values and principles. Ask yourself why we have a man running for president as a conservative who says Obamacare needs to be replaced with a universal, government funded health care system? He also at one time supported an assault weapons ban and longer waiting periods to purchase a firearm. While he appears to say things that people want to hear, every so often he says something that furthers the lefts agenda and the people just go along with it.  Ted Cruz has an eligibility issue surrounding him and while many on the right say it is a settled issue, what if it isn't? What if Ted Cruz isn't eligible to be president? If conservatives elect a man who is ineligible after challenging Obama's eligibility, we will have effectively nullified our constitution, which is another goal of the left.  We are being played and the end goal is to further the lefts agenda towards merging the U.S. into the coming world order and they are using psychology and behavior modification techniques to accomplish this goal.