President Biden recently announced his executive actions on gun control. While they may not appear to have any substantial effects to the casual observer, the stage is being set to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Many of the actions taken by Biden, and the previous administration no less, violate the constitution’s ex post facto provisions. It is against the law to criminalize something which has been legal. The government cannot, for example, make owning an AR pistol brace, or a bump-stock, a criminal offense when they have been available to the public for years. Furthermore, unconstitutional agencies like the ATF have no legislating power to enact such laws. Any rule change they attempt to enforce is null and void unless congress passes a law. Taking it one step further, all laws which are not in sync with the constitution themselves, are meaningless and unenforceable. In typical fashion, people are responding to these executive orders, and any threats of gun confiscation, with vows of non-compliance. Will America be able to resist the coming push to eliminate the second amendment, or will they fall in line and comply? The past year has been a good indicator of America’s inability to resist tyrannical dictates.

The coronavirus psyop has shown the global elite that a well-crafted fear message, coupled with a massive media campaign, can influence and control behavior. Covid-19 was presented as a life-ending global pandemic which virtually no one questioned. Almost immediately, people across the country willingly complied with unconstitutional mandates to close their businesses and lock themselves in their homes. Shortly thereafter, local governments and major chain retailers began enacting mask requirements. The big lie meant to persuade people into compliance was asymptomatic carriers being the biggest spreaders of the mysterious new coronavirus; therefore, masking up meant you were saving lives. Throughout the course of the past year, Covid-19 data has proven to be controversial, at best. Numbers were constantly readjusted, hospitals were closing due to a lack of patients while we were told they were overflowing, the CDC admitted that all deaths were being labeled as Covid-19, and the PCR tests proved to be producing false positives. In Tulsa Oklahoma, (this writer’s hometown) The Health Department officially announced they would be adding “probable positives” to the case count which would inflate the number of cases, proving the whole thing is a lie. Despite the abundance of contradictory information and the lack of evidence proving forced mask mandates slow the spread of a virus, Americans continued to comply with the absurd. They simply did not take the time to investigate anything for themselves. If people refuse to research anything in the interest of their rights to not cover their face, how will they resist gun confiscation when the right crisis presents itself?

Americans have not yet realized they are subjects of an ongoing experiment in gaining compliance and are considered nothing more than stimulus-response animals. They fed us the stimulus of Covid-19, for example, watched how we responded and took notes. The human response to fear and crisis is well documented, and it has been proven the mind can be subjected to enslavement and submission through the creation of chaos and uncertainty (Meerloo, 1961, p. 19). Keeping people in a state of fear and hopelessness is essential in developing the conditions necessary for people to abandon their own sense of reason, and demonstrate a willingness to comply with tyranny (Meerloo, 1961, p. 30). This is a concept that can also be seen in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, where he says people will chance the unknown if faced with an uncertain, hopeless future. The susceptibility of the mind is a trait of human behavior which according to Meerloo, (1961, p. 8) has been understood since the 1930s. Through torture, belittlement, confusion, and isolation the spirit of resistance in most men can be broken and their behaviors, reduced to animal-like traits (Meerloo, 1961, p. 11).

America’s founders, in the declaration of Independence, recognized a fundamental truth of human nature that has proven itself to this day. People are willing to endure oppression as long as it is sufferable. Meerloo (1961, p. 18) suggests this is because men fill their minds with delusional thoughts of their tormentors letting up. As if no one can believe people would be so ruthless. When it comes to the coronavirus, it is hard to believe, for example, people could have the will to force society to mask themselves and dictate people close their businesses. It is just as hard to believe, when it comes to gun control, anyone could suggest passing laws that would empower criminals and punish only the law-abiding. The techniques of oppression were not as refined in the founder’s day as they are now.  Through Pavlovian and Skinnerian conditioning methods, control of the mind, as well as behavior, has become much more subtle. Coronavirus mandates, for example, were not forced on anyone. There were no laws passed making it a criminal offense for refusing to comply. People voluntarily agreed to follow unconstitutional dictates and eventually, it became the perceived norm.

Meerloo (1961, p. 36) states people find emotional relief when participating in some common action that is perceived as the greater good. Very few people were willing to step outside of the box and defend their liberty when it came to masking mandates, because the common perception was wearing masks saved lives. Asymptomatic carriers were spreading the disease, and according to the government, any one of us could have the virus and be completely unaware we are spreading it. This, as mentioned earlier, was the big lie. The fear of standing out and going against the grain became the control mechanism. B.F. Skinner (1971, p. 92) states the fear of disapproval can, in some instances, be a more effective form of control than a police state. When people put great effort into a certain action, it becomes a control mechanism. People were led to believe wearing masks was the virtuous thing to do. This created a dissonance of sorts and people solved this by justifying the action of wearing masks as a higher virtue. A willingness to surrender their own freedom for the benefit of others. This is referred to as effort justification (Maich, 2013). People, when feeling conflicted over issues often feel conflict. This conflict causes discomfort which people naturally seek to alleviate (Maich, 2013). The term effort justification describes the action of justifying the choice made, even though it may not align with the individual’s beliefs (Maich, 2013). People initially knew wearing masks was not the right thing to do. It became a justified action because people didn’t know what else to do and wearing a mask when you know how ridiculous it is, requires great effort.

There are certain truths pertaining to human behavior that seem to repeat themselves. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler write in their book, Nudge (2008, p. 37), people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves when coming across information that contradicts their previously held beliefs. They claim that people simply do not think deeply enough about complex situations or every choice they must make and because of this, their behavior and choices are easily persuadable. They even allude to something that Skinner discussed. People have a tendency, according to Sunstein and Thaler (p. 58), to allow themselves to fall into established, predictable patterns for the sake of adhering to normality. This is referred to as collective conservatism and it is something we see every day, driven by the need to be a part of the group or perceived norm.

Another subtle, yet deceptive form of mental entrapment is something which is known about the human response to fear. In the textbook, The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21^st Century, the technique of fear-then-relief is discussed (p. 464). It is described as the persuader deliberately placing the targeted individual(s) into a state of fear and then abruptly removing that fear. Research has continuously shown that people are more compliant when in a state of relief. According to Meerloo (p.31), conditioned responses to fed stimuli may be accelerated when associated with this state of relief. In other words, people who are experiencing a great deal of stress or anxiety are much more likely to go along with tyranny if it relieves them of this comfort. Meerloo (p.18) alludes to the idea of Chinese peasants accepting communist doctrine because their life became so much easier opposed to resisting it. There was a sense of relief associated with no longer fighting the system because fear of being targeted by the communists had been alleviated. This concept of fear-then-relief fits well with the others mentioned above. It is a fundamental truth of what is known about human behavior. People are afraid to stand out and feel a sense of relief when they can just fit and go along with the crowd (Meerloo, 1961, p. 36).

Read the rest at Defense Of Our Nation