Exclusive: Mychal Massie points out, ‘Evil derives power from submissive, malleable masses’
Oct 11, 2021
Well spoke Erasmus when he put pen to the adage: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” In this biblically prophesied world of today, it’s the person(s) who think for themselves and who’s very DNA rejects “groupthink” who are a threat to those who make gain on the backs of the blind.
The other evening a colleague and I discussed this very subject. I despise groupthink. Those of us who dare reject the satanic social appliance called groupthink are ostracized to bully us into conformity to the “group.” Groupthink is a utility born of Satan and weaponized throughout time by his minions to punish those who refuse to surrender their will to evil men.
The weaker and more attached to hedonism and possessions of pleasure people become, the easier it becomes to effortlessly control and direct large segments of society. Individuality has been bred out of most of society and replaced with a behavioral economy of putrefied cravenness. The weak, spineless led-through-the-nose have no understanding of how this game of control is played, and even less understanding how this portends to the coming hyper-cataclysmic period of time the Word of God identifies as the “great tribulation.”
Evil derives power from submissive, malleable masses. This is why groupthink is the principle component necessary for successful one-world globalist orthodoxy, and that’s monumentally misunderstood. It’s misunderstood because groupthink is a mental and emotional virus – a hundred times more deadly than progressive multi-focal leukoencephalopathy and not remotely as rare as said brain infection. Groupthink is a demonic pathogen treatable by the introduction of the dynamic of godly individualism, which in truth can only be brought about by a personal relationship with Christ.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines groupthink as:
- The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.
- Decision-making by a group (especially in a manner that discourages creativity or individual responsibility).
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines groupthink as:
- A pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.
Investopedia defines groupthink as:
- A phenomenon developed in groups marked by the consensus of opinion without critical reasoning or evaluation of consequences or alternatives.
The study of ethics at McCombs School of Business – University of Texas, views groupthink as:
- When people’s desire to maintain group loyalty becomes more important than making the best choices.
Psychologist Irving Janis identifies groupthink as:”A deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures. … Group members often suffer from overconfidence and hold an unquestioned belief in the group’s competence and morality. Dissent by group members may be discouraged and even lead to expulsion from the group. Because people often want to avoid these punishments, they remain silent. This creates the illusion of agreement or unanimity in the group. … Groups may also reach decisions, including moral judgments, which are more extreme than any single member of the group originally supported. Unfortunately, if groupthink takes hold, group members may not even question ethically dubious decisions and actions.”
The true demonic dynamic of groupthink in the definitions above is as unobservable as air. Investopedia and McCombs School of Business accurately define groupthink, but the malevolence of this orthodoxy hides in plain site.
Those like Janis, with ophidian cunning, cleverly lead students/those they’re instructing about the inherent dangers of groupthink – into groupthink by redefining truth through the brand vilification of a group. Here think white, male Christians and all who refuse to be compartmentalized. The primary objective being to portray Christianity as a vile construct of intolerance, as I explained in my Video Rant titled: “Wokeism: Another Name For Subjugation.”
The masters who orchestrate and manipulate groupthink are adroit in their ability to manipulate and control mental and emotional faculties. They do it by leveraging hatred and desire against the behavioral modification of biblical super-ego, which properly subscribed to, turns us toward God, “Truth,” righteousness, biblical integrity and God-given unalienable rights inherited through Natural Law. These masters conflate holding such values as being homophobic, anti-women’s rights, racist and intolerant.
Independent individuals who aren’t motivated by public acclaim, who are willing and capable of speaking their minds, and who are secure in Christ, are threats to those who plot implementation of one-world globalism. They have a reflexive compulsion to destroy such persons through vicious public ad hominem attacks intended as warnings to discourage others from speaking out. This tactic of personal destruction is a well-practiced art when it comes to discouraging righteous individualism.
I point fear-laden Christians to 2 Timothy 1:7 KJV. Of course, that goes against the repeatedly proven ineffectual mentality of: “Just elect the right person(s) and all will be well.”
Our models of success are not failed politicians. Our models of success are Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah, the Apostles, Fanny Crosby, John Newton, Nokseng of the Garo Tribe of Assam et al. Our models of success are those who are willing to live and die for Christ, not those who are skilled at manipulating opinion for personal gain.
FBI agents rounding up American parents?
Exclusive: Chuck Norris rips AG over plan for feds to investigate those exercising free-speech rights
Oct 11, 2021
Watching an episode of Tucker Carlson this past week, I was shocked to learn that the Biden administration is making plans to actually deploy FBI agents to round up American parents in every state who are disagreeing with public school boards.
Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to address what he called a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against educators and school board members.
The Washington Post explained, “In a memorandum to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and federal prosecutors, Garland wrote that the Justice Department will hold strategy sessions with law enforcement in the next 30 days and is expected to announce measures in response to ‘the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel’ in the nation’s public schools.
As Tucker commented, “So the question is: Who is threatening these teachers and school board members? Is it al-Qaida? Is it the Russian government? Is it ISIS-K? No. It is parents. Parents are angry about what’s happening in schools.”
Let me state categorically that any acts or threats of violence against school board members are wrong. But this parental “criminal conduct,” as Attorney General Garland called it, is about far less than violence.
So, what’s so threatening that it required the FBI to usurp and override local school and authorities, including local law enforcement? Garland said it’s over highly politicized issues such as mask mandates and interpretations of Critical Race Theory. Really?
A group of school board members said in a letter to Mr. Biden that “much of the vitriol has involved policies focusing on mask mandates to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The [National School Boards Association] likened the harassment and abuse over face coverings in schools to domestic terrorism.”
Are American parents now domestic terrorists because they disagree and dissent? Are parents really a national security threat? The feds are potentially criminalizing parenting because of protests!
How excessive is federal government overreach when American parents can’t even disagree with school officials about subjects pertaining to their children that they conscientiously object to? Will the American public tolerate every breech of the federal government, even when the Biden administration gets it wish for the IRS to track every bank account with $600?!
“If this isn’t a deliberate attempt to chill parents from showing up at school board meetings, I don’t know what is,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said to Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco. “You’re using the FBI to intervene in school board meetings. This is extraordinary.”
By deploying the FBI on local community school matters across America, Biden and Garland are steamrolling the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with its separation of powers between state and federal governments. Moreover, what does it say about local school officials, mayors, community leaders and law enforcement? Are they all so inept that they can’t handle disagreements about mask mandates and Critical Race Theory without involving the FBI?
Garland himself needs to reread his memorandum when he wrote, “Spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution.” Dare I say that even hate language is protected by the First Amendment. If not, “free speech” is no more than “nice chat,” but the Constitution protects far more than that.
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
At its core, the First Amendment clearly prohibits government from making any law hindering the right of the people to peaceably assemble for any of myriad of reasons, including protests.
I need to repeat something I wrote in a previous column so as to educate Garland and other officials about the real meaning of the First Amendment.
If you didn’t know, the freedom to protest or assemble peaceably had its background in the First Continental Congress and the grievances the American people had against King George III and Parliament. In their document called, “Declaration and Resolves” (Oct. 14, 1774), the Congress stated that the people “have a right to peaceably assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king” (something they were not allowed to do in the motherland.)
Benjamin Franklin wrote, “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” He also said, “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”
Even a young 16-year old Franklin, in his Dogwood Papers, written in 1722, stated wisdom: “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to public traitors.”
Alexander Hamilton, in People v. Croswell, Feb. 13, 1804, stated during the presidential administration of Thomas Jefferson: “The liberty of the press consists, in my idea, in publishing the truth, from good motives and for justifiable ends, though it reflect on the government, on magistrates, or individuals. If it be not allowed, it excludes the privilege of canvassing men, and our rulers. It is in vain to say, you may canvass measures. This is impossible without the right of looking to men.”
George Washington, in his Address to the officers of the army, March 15, 1783, couldn’t have stated it better: “For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”
Washington would have concurred that freedom of speech included dissent even against “the king” or president, as long as it didn’t lead to his demise. Theodore Roosevelt wasn’t a Founding Father but his words about criticizing even presidents are powerful, especially since he was one: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.”
My point is that our founders secured our rights in the First Amendment for even vehement dissent and the use of what many today would call hate language, which the U.S. Supreme court again affirmed just a few years ago. But let me again be clear: Our founders did not condone or endorse violent or destructive dissent, until of course they realized that separation and war with the Crown was the only way forward and inevitable – a sentiment Thomas Jefferson even echoed for the preservation of our own republic in the latter half of the Declaration of Independence.
Many attribute the following statement to Thomas Jefferson: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” But even his Monticello estate has concluded that: “To date we have found no evidence that he said or wrote this.”
Jefferson may not have literally said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” but I think it’s fair to say that he and the other founders believed it was indeed a high form of patriotism. I do, too. In my opinion, it captures the essence of the First Amendment.
We do know that Jefferson was very clear when he wrote in a 1787 letter to James Madison: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
The truth is, modern progressivism, leftist ideologies and our politically correct culture have obliterated the true meaning of the First Amendment. We need to go back to our founders’ original intent if we are to move forward and heal the divisions across our land. Censorship and suppressing free speech (whether in the public schools, workplace, the halls of Washington or on social media platforms) is un-American and unconstitutional.
America needs to resurrect the real First Amendment, as I did in my New York Times bestseller “Black Belt Patriotism.” And in so doing, we need to reconsider and reeducate others on what the term “peaceably” meant to our founders and should also mean to us. We must retrain our younger generations on the freedoms in the First Amendment and how to agree to disagree agreeably. So many today are on the wrong track, and the unpatriotic messages about America they receive in public schools aren’t helping.
Katie Gorka who serves as director of the Feulner Institute’s Center for Civil Society and the American Dialogue, wrote a great column last November that stated: “Many young Americans seem to have a growing disdain for our country. According to a Gallup poll, pride in our nation has declined, especially among young adults. Young adults are taking to the streets and not merely protesting but wreaking havoc, rioting and looting, tearing down statues, and shutting down anyone who doesn’t share their perspective.”
And what about politicians? Gone are the days when strong leaders and politically differing personalities like 1980s Speaker Tip O’Neill and President Ronald Reagan were friends and reached across the aisle in order to lead our country. Today’s politics are all about pitching polarities, demonizing your opposition and casting blame to justify one’s own divisiveness, rage and inability to bridge gaps. But what we need like never before are leaders at the state and federal level like those decades ago who knew how to agree to disagree agreeably, confronted tough challenges together and advanced our nation forward with American exceptionalism despite their differences.
Let me conclude with having you ponder again a 250-year-old question. On Sept. 17, 1787, while leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the delegates had produced: a republic or a monarchy? He allegedly said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” The question still stands.