The Ice shooting in Minnesota in just another example of how divided and limited in our capacity to critically think our nation has become. The issue is dominated by the narratives representing two ideologies guiding and controlling the American mind, with little room for any perspectives outside of this box. The so-called conservative right, who for whatever reason cannot seem to accept the idea that their president isn't who they thought, views this shooting as a legitimate act of self-defense. Perhaps it is, however, there are questions that we should all be asking. The typical argument is that Ice is legitimately enforcing immigration law. Fine, but the woman shot was not an illegal immigrant. She was a protestor. A protestor mind you, that in many ways, we have been programmed to hate because their values, beliefs and attitudes towards our country are so anti-thetical to our own. Conservative commentary on this issue is rife with references to blue-haired liberals and lesbians in an attempt to justify the death of this woman. Who in all reality, isn't all that different than any of us. She was, after all, an American citizen. The left, of course, has become enraged over this and are taking to the streets in their typical fashion to continue their agitprop tactics. This, undoubtedly, is also a part of the bigger problem. Ever since Obama, and probably earlier, we have witnessed the rise of the professional agitator. Well organized and funded protest movements designed to do little more than create chaos, confusion and discontent. The American patriot has grown very weary of this and have reached a point where violence is an acceptable answer. Very few people are stepping outside the bounds of these two perspectives and discussing this incident for what it is. Another useful distraction meant to keep us fighting among ourselves while the AI surveillance system they are ready to impose on all of us, steadily advances. People are looking for solutions to the many problems we face. The problem is that no one will accept what the bigger issue is. We are living in a system designed to give the illusion of choice and freedom. There is very little difference between the so-called right and left. The differences that do exist are contrived narratives designed to reinforce the existing beliefs of each respective party, while in the shadows, the same agenda advances. It doesn't matter if a democrat or republican is in office. The bombs continue to drop, the debt continues to increase, and our liberties continue to go away. Incidents like this shooting aid in that agenda as people become more willing to surrender their freedoms in the name of safety. “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is [to the Eastern Establishment] a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, [they believe that] the two parties should be almost identical, so that [they can control the elections] … without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 1035). Doesn't that quote describe our system better than anything else? Do the political right and left really represent two opposing ideologies in a fight for the heart and soul of our country? Or are they selling cleverly contrived stories tapping into the beliefs of the electorate? I have said this numerous times, but it is worth repeating. Propaganda and persuasion work best when it reflects the pre-existing cognitive biases of the target audience. As long as the American people continue to allow ourselves to be divided by terms such as left or right, or, conservative and liberal, there won't be any real change. I am not necessarily arguing that the beliefs and opinions of people are not illegitimate. Not at all. Only that those beliefs are thoroughly understood by people highly skilled in crafting persuasive messages that are meant to keep our minds trapped in a particular frame. Cass Sunstein writes in his book Nudge, that people are mindless and passive in their decision making. By framing arguments in terms controlled within a certain “this or that” paradigm, people are forced to make choices within that paradigm. In cases such as the Ice shooting, the this or that paradigm is the political right or left. You are either on the side of government, or you are a deranged, blue-haired leftist. Another point worth repeating is that propaganda is meant to gain acceptance on issues that would otherwise be opposed. I hate to say this but conservatives, under both Trump administrations, have become very accepting of the growth of government power in the name of fighting the left. The entire premise of the conservative ideology has been flipped on its head as patriots have accepted ideas that they would have at one time, definitely opposed. Here is the point though, it all depends on the framing. For instance, there is little chance that the conservative movement would have accepted the idea of heavily armed and masked troops patrolling our streets thirty years ago. When the issue is framed as a way to deal with illegal immigration, it becomes accepted. People, and this is something else that Sunstein alluded to, cannot see the contradictions in their own thinking. Conservatives are usually the first to argue, in the face of any leftist expansion of power, that once government gains power, they rarely give it up. Why would this situation be any different? Why wouldn't they consider the possibility that the immigration issue is just an excuse to normalize the presence of armed federal troops? The answer to that question is very simple. The situation in our country, after eight years of Obama at the helm, and the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency, brought the American conservative to the point of hopelessness. In their moment of frustration and despair, they accepted anything that promised a return to normal. Any revolutionary change must be proceeded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, and 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, p. xix) If there is to be any hope of preserving our country -- restoring it back to what was intended -- we have to stop accepting everything the government or media tells us. They are telling us what we want to hear with the understanding that propaganda works best when it reflects the cognitive biases of the intended audience. Both sides of the political aisle are working to keep us fighting amongst ourselves, so we don't notice them working together to advance the same, freedom killing agenda. Take it for what you will, but there is a reason they think we are gullible, and it isn't because of our robust skepticism.

By Brandon Smith When I think of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk I see the event as symbolic of...

Unnamed Deep-Staters planting claims Putin bent on reconstituting USSR...

"None of the big three broadcast networks [ABC, NBC, CBS] opted to go with the slideshow. CNN did not show the slides either."

Christmas has not been ‘saved’ when the government turns it into a branding exercise for state power. What we are witnessing is not religious freedom but government propaganda.

Tulsi Gabbard recently made an interesting statement that surely resonates with the conservative audience. She said that Operation Mockingbird was alive and well, and still being used to undermine President Trump, and all of the wonderful things he is accomplishing. Operation Mockingbird is believed to be a propaganda operation involving the CIA's infiltration of the mainstream media, and their attempts to shape and manipulate public perceptions. Started in the 1940s by a man named Frank Wisner, an undercover foreign service operator for the State Department, Operation Mockingbird was a psychological warfare operation originally aimed at using propaganda to influence foreign governments through media outlets. Wisner, however, had controlling interests in American media as well. He later recruited Philip Graham, owner of The Washington Post, and graduate of the Army intelligence school, to oversee Operation Mockingbird. The effects of media broadcasts on the American psyche have been studied for many years. A massive study took place following The War of The Worlds radio broadcast which sought to determine why so many people believed it to be a real event. The study was conducted by Hadley Cantrill, who was then head of the Office of Strategic Services, which of course, was the forerunner to the CIA. Cantrill was also involved in something called the Princeton Radio Project, which was also meant to study the effects of American propaganda being used overseas. These studies were largely funded by the Rockefeller foundation. One of the major findings of The War of The Worlds study was that people had a natural tendency to trust media figures. The study provided so much insight into people's behavior during times of panic that Cantrill said it may very well be the prototype for future studies. This occurred at a time when propaganda and persuasion were being studied as a new way to influence public opinion. Tulsi Gabbard isn't lying when she says Operation Mockingbird is alive and well. She is targeting the audience with a message that resonates with their emotions, attitudes and beliefs--the mainstream media is against President Trump. This message, however, is being used as a deceptive tactic to keep drawing people away from an issue they once cared deeply about. With each passing day the Epstein issue drifts further away from public consciousness, as the conservative media is working frantically to disassociate Trump, in any way they can, from the Epstein mess. In other words, while there is truth in Gabbard's comment, it is--in its own way--propaganda that reflects the beliefs of the targeted audience. The American people are living in a delusion. They are mesmerized by a misguided belief that the media exists to keep them informed of daily events that have an impact on our life. This is simply not true. According to the book Media effects: Advances in Theory and Research, the media exists largely to overcome the psychological barriers to social change. This applies to conservative media as well. There is a high level of cognitive dissonance among conservatives who believe that Fox News is presenting them with the truth when Rupert Murdoch is known to have contributed millions to the Clinton's, and other prominent Democrats. Some people may not see that as being problematic; however, it doesn't align with the perception that Fox News tries to maintain. The bigger truth here is that the conservative and liberal media outlets exist to keep the illusion of conflict between the left and right alive. American's who are engaged and committed to this perception of all out cultural war are unknowingly taking part in something called participatory propaganda. The active participation in the conflict itself helps solidify a perception of reality through the control and propagation of information related to this deliberately created social strife. By engaging in the conflict at all, the public is allowing the propagandist to manipulate the attitudes and beliefs of those engaged while using social media as a means of thrusting these beliefs into the public sphere, which are then shared by those who hold similar views. This is referred to as the socialization of conflict. We are living in a time when our perceptions of reality, and our beliefs, are formed through our social media experiences. Every day we see memes depicting Donald Trump infuriating the left, at times to the point where the snowflake breaks down in tears. Or we read stories where the framing detracts from anything negative and only reflects the commonly held belief that only Trump can save us. More recently we have seen an attempt to move people away from Epstein with influencers hinting at the idea that all of Trump's other accomplishments outweigh the Epstein issue, and we need to keep supporting him despite the fact that he lied. The more these types of social media influences are shared or liked by viewers, the more they become cemented in the minds of the targeted audience. Have you ever asked yourself who created the memes you are sharing? The use of social media for propagating information has come to be known as a do-it-yourself misinformation campaign, as the state can rely on the citizenry to spread the lies being fed to them. In other words, there is a reason the government thinks you're stupid. How does all of this work? Propaganda is deceptive form of mass persuasion that attempts to influence the audience to accept the propagandist's point of view. It has been found when a message can be framed in a way that best aligns with the audience's pre-existing beliefs and attitudes, it is easier to gain compliance. For instance, the article, Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion states that mass persuasion is more effective when tailored toward an individual or a group’s psychological traits, beliefs, and behaviors. This is something that is repeated often within the literature on the subject. When a message aligns with pre-existing beliefs, it becomes easier to manipulate that message, and guide people in a certain direction. We see this happening every day. The dominant belief among Trump voters is that he is draining the swamp and playing a game of four-dimensional chess. Another popular belief is that Trump is despised by the left, and the more they feed that perception, and frame the narrative from that point of view, the stronger the support becomes. Another example of this idea comes from the book Media, Propaganda, and Persuasion. The authors state that publicists must understand what the public thinks and feels in order to create an effective, resonating message. This alludes to the idea that before developing a persuasive message, the messenger must first study the beliefs and behaviors of the audience to effectively craft an appeal that has the potential to guide audiences in desired directions. Tulsi Gabbard, and the Trump administration for that matter, know that the conservative audience does not trust the liberal media. When stories are framed in a way that aligns with this belief, there is what researchers call--an anchor of resonance. This is a manipulation tactic that attaches itself to the beliefs of the audience so they can be guided in different directions. To give one more example, the book Persuasion and Propaganda, cites a paper called Persuasion and Democracy: Strategies for Increasing Deliberative Participation and Enacting Social Change. Propaganda attempts to move a recipient to a predetermined point of view, the authors state, by using simple images and slogans that truncates thought by playing on prejudices and emotions (p. 190.) This is something we also see every day, on both the left and right. Slogans like MAGA, Hope and Change, and drain the swamp, are simple messages meant to captivate the group consciousness and subvert logical thinking. They attach themselves to the emotional makeup of the targeted audience, acting as a resonating anchor, while being used to reinforce the intent of the message. The average person will not stop to ask themselves what the real differences between those two messages are. For example, what type of change were people hoping for? To restore America to their own perceptions of greatness. In essence, they were also wanting to make America great again, only from their point of view. MAGA and Hope and Change were the same message made to resonate with different audiences and their pre-existing attitudes. Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely telling the truth. Operation Mockingbird is alive and well and can be traced back to early twentieth century when propaganda and persuasion were falling under the same academic umbrella of study. It was more than simply lying to the American public but lying with the intent of understanding how the public reacts. Once the general attitudes and beliefs of the audience are understood, messages can be better framed to induce compliance. The conservative audience is enthralled with the idea that Trump is some kind of superhero who has the power to infuriate and befuddle the left, expose the deep state, and outsmart world leaders on a scale never seen before. If you are ever unsure about this, all you have to do is listen to Trump talk about himself and he will tell you how great he is. Gabbard's comments not only reflect the beliefs of the audience, but they also reinforce these beliefs as people are desperately trying to justify their continued adoration with a man who just days ago, told them he no longer wanted their support if they believed the Epstein hoax. Voter attitudes are studied, and messages are created to resonate with those attitudes in an effort to get the voters to turn their brains off and just follow along. For example, one way they do this is through a data mining company called Cambridge Analytica. For as hard as they try to portray Trump and Obama as being complete opposites, the one thing they have in common is they both employed this company to collect data on your attitudes, beliefs and behaviors so they could better propagandize you. For more information on propaganda and the psychology of persuasion visit www.defenseofournation.com or you can check out my books. And Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion. A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy, now available in paperback.

Hungary has some of the strongest laws against LGBT propaganda in the West and bans dissemination of pro-homosexual content in schools and media.

Hitler Answers Roosevelt The German Leader’s Reply to the American President’s Public Challenge Foreword Of the many speeches made by Adolf Hitler during his lifetime, certainly one of the most important was his address of April 28, 1939. It was also very probably the most eagerly anticipated and closely followed speech of the time, with many millions of people around the world listening to...

One of the most loathed and privileged ‘influencers’ in America got a reality check overseas while attempting to spread Marxist lies to millions of Americans.

Israel is hoping to recover support from the conservative Christian community in the US by launching a multi-million-dollar public relations campaign. Support for Israel sharply declined amid the Gaza genocide. Documents reveal that Tel-Aviv has [...]

Tulsi Gabbard recently made an interesting statement that surely resonates with the conservative audience. She said that Operation Mockingbird was alive and well, and still being used to undermine President Trump, and all of the wonderful things he is accomplishing. Operation Mockingbird is believed to be a propaganda operation involving the CIA's infiltration of the mainstream media, and their attempts to shape and manipulate public perceptions. Started in the 1940s by a man named Frank Wisner, an undercover foreign service operator for the State Department, Operation Mockingbird was a psychological warfare operation originally aimed at using propaganda to influence foreign governments through media outlets. Wisner, however, had controlling interests in American media as well. He later recruited Philip Graham, owner of The Washington Post, and graduate of the Army intelligence school, to oversee Operation Mockingbird. The effects of media broadcasts on the American psyche have been studied for many years. A massive study took place following The War of The Worlds radio broadcast which sought to determine why so many people believed it to be a real event. The study was conducted by Hadley Cantrill, who was then head of the Office of Strategic Services, which of course, was the forerunner to the CIA. Cantrill was also involved in something called the Princeton Radio Project, which was also meant to study the effects of American propaganda being used overseas. These studies were largely funded by the Rockefeller foundation. One of the major findings of The War of The Worlds study was that people had a natural tendency to trust media figures. The study provided so much insight into people's behavior during times of panic that Cantrill said it may very well be the prototype for future studies. This occurred at a time when propaganda and persuasion were being studied as a new way to influence public opinion. Tulsi Gabbard isn't lying when she says Operation Mockingbird is alive and well. She is targeting the audience with a message that resonates with their emotions, attitudes and beliefs--the mainstream media is against President Trump. This message, however, is being used as a deceptive tactic to keep drawing people away from an issue they once cared deeply about. With each passing day the Epstein issue drifts further away from public consciousness, as the conservative media is working frantically to disassociate Trump, in any way they can, from the Epstein mess. In other words, while there is truth in Gabbard's comment, it is--in its own way--propaganda that reflects the beliefs of the targeted audience. The American people are living in a delusion. They are mesmerized by a misguided belief that the media exists to keep them informed of daily events that have an impact on our life. This is simply not true. According to the book Media effects: Advances in Theory and Research, the media exists largely to overcome the psychological barriers to social change. This applies to conservative media as well. There is a high level of cognitive dissonance among conservatives who believe that Fox News is presenting them with the truth when Rupert Murdoch is known to have contributed millions to the Clinton's, and other prominent Democrats. Some people may not see that as being problematic; however, it doesn't align with the perception that Fox News tries to maintain. The bigger truth here is that the conservative and liberal media outlets exist to keep the illusion of conflict between the left and right alive. American's who are engaged and committed to this perception of all out cultural war are unknowingly taking part in something called participatory propaganda. The active participation in the conflict itself helps solidify a perception of reality through the control and propagation of information related to this deliberately created social strife. By engaging in the conflict at all, the public is allowing the propagandist to manipulate the attitudes and beliefs of those engaged while using social media as a means of thrusting these beliefs into the public sphere, which are then shared by those who hold similar views. This is referred to as the socialization of conflict. We are living in a time when our perceptions of reality, and our beliefs, are formed through our social media experiences. Every day we see memes depicting Donald Trump infuriating the left, at times to the point where the snowflake breaks down in tears. Or we read stories where the framing detracts from anything negative and only reflects the commonly held belief that only Trump can save us. More recently we have seen an attempt to move people away from Epstein with influencers hinting at the idea that all of Trump's other accomplishments outweigh the Epstein issue, and we need to keep supporting him despite the fact that he lied. The more these types of social media influences are shared or liked by viewers, the more they become cemented in the minds of the targeted audience. Have you ever asked yourself who created the memes you are sharing? The use of social media for propagating information has come to be known as a do-it-yourself misinformation campaign, as the state can rely on the citizenry to spread the lies being fed to them. In other words, there is a reason the government thinks you're stupid. How does all of this work? Propaganda is deceptive form of mass persuasion that attempts to influence the audience to accept the propagandist's point of view. It has been found when a message can be framed in a way that best aligns with the audience's pre-existing beliefs and attitudes, it is easier to gain compliance. For instance, the article, Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion states that mass persuasion is more effective when tailored toward an individual or a group’s psychological traits, beliefs, and behaviors. This is something that is repeated often within the literature on the subject. When a message aligns with pre-existing beliefs, it becomes easier to manipulate that message, and guide people in a certain direction. We see this happening every day. The dominant belief among Trump voters is that he is draining the swamp and playing a game of four-dimensional chess. Another popular belief is that Trump is despised by the left, and the more they feed that perception, and frame the narrative from that point of view, the stronger the support becomes. Another example of this idea comes from the book Media, Propaganda, and Persuasion. The authors state that publicists must understand what the public thinks and feels in order to create an effective, resonating message. This alludes to the idea that before developing a persuasive message, the messenger must first study the beliefs and behaviors of the audience to effectively craft an appeal that has the potential to guide audiences in desired directions. Tulsi Gabbard, and the Trump administration for that matter, know that the conservative audience does not trust the liberal media. When stories are framed in a way that aligns with this belief, there is what researchers call--an anchor of resonance. This is a manipulation tactic that attaches itself to the beliefs of the audience so they can be guided in different directions. To give one more example, the book Persuasion and Propaganda, cites a paper called Persuasion and Democracy: Strategies for Increasing Deliberative Participation and Enacting Social Change. Propaganda attempts to move a recipient to a predetermined point of view, the authors state, by using simple images and slogans that truncates thought by playing on prejudices and emotions (p. 190.) This is something we also see every day, on both the left and right. Slogans like MAGA, Hope and Change, and drain the swamp, are simple messages meant to captivate the group consciousness and subvert logical thinking. They attach themselves to the emotional makeup of the targeted audience, acting as a resonating anchor, while being used to reinforce the intent of the message. The average person will not stop to ask themselves what the real differences between those two messages are. For example, what type of change were people hoping for? To restore America to their own perceptions of greatness. In essence, they were also wanting to make America great again, only from their point of view. MAGA and Hope and Change were the same message made to resonate with different audiences and their pre-existing attitudes. Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely telling the truth. Operation Mockingbird is alive and well and can be traced back to early twentieth century when propaganda and persuasion were falling under the same academic umbrella of study. It was more than simply lying to the American public but lying with the intent of understanding how the public reacts. Once the general attitudes and beliefs of the audience are understood, messages can be better framed to induce compliance. The conservative audience is enthralled with the idea that Trump is some kind of superhero who has the power to infuriate and befuddle the left, expose the deep state, and outsmart world leaders on a scale never seen before. If you are ever unsure about this, all you have to do is listen to Trump talk about himself and he will tell you how great he is. Gabbard's comments not only reflect the beliefs of the audience, but they also reinforce these beliefs as people are desperately trying to justify their continued adoration with a man who just days ago, told them he no longer wanted their support if they believed the Epstein hoax. Voter attitudes are studied, and messages are created to resonate with those attitudes in an effort to get the voters to turn their brains off and just follow along. For example, one way they do this is through a data mining company called Cambridge Analytica. For as hard as they try to portray Trump and Obama as being complete opposites, the one thing they have in common is they both employed this company to collect data on your attitudes, beliefs and behaviors so they could better propagandize you. For more information on propaganda and the psychology of persuasion visit www.defenseofournation.com or you can check out my books. And Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion. A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy, now available in paperback.

Education Analyst and Policy Advisor, Curriculum Specialist

Infamous pro-abortion activist Lena Dunham is back on television with her new rom-com Too Much (streaming on Netflix), and, unsurprisingly, the series is basically a not-so-subtle ad for abortion. In fact, Dunham openly admitted to consulting with abortion giant Planned Parenthood on the show and told The Hollywood Reporter (THR) she’s on a mission to “normalize” abortion.