PSYCHOLOGY: RELIGION OR SCIENCE - Final

 The dynamic of guilt is paramount in both psychology and Judeo-Christianity. First, examine guilt: “Guilt most commonly refers to an emotion that occurs when a person feels that they have violated a moral standard” (Wikipedia 2024). Those without a moral standard are emotionless. In psychology, an emotionless, non-caring person is a “psychopath.” Humane people — humans — should feel some type of emotion. If any, a psychopathic person may feel exultation.

Moral standards are required for civilization, or everyone would do what is right in their own eyes and many would be psychopathic. Not by coincidence, in ancient times, about the so-called elect of God, “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jud 17:6). Israel was no longer a religion but a conglomeration of psychopathic people that were out of control.

Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality, is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited and egocentric traits, masked by superficial charm and the outward appearance of apparent normalcy. (ibid)

In other words, whatever a psychopath chooses to do is the normative; they can hurt others with impunity, believing they will not be punished themselves. They are too smart for the law of man and since God does not exist, in their world, psychopaths are their own kings just as scripture reveals them to be.

Mobs are groups of psychopaths doing whatever they think is right. You often see the outcome of that with the “woke” crowd in big cities.

Their moral standard is their own with regard to society’s standards, let alone any divine standard. They are like the mob that crucified Jesus who were out for blood… divine blood. Anyone would not do; they required the blood of “The Man” with Authority — the Man who lived the Law of Love. It was not Jesus they sought, but they endeavored to “defund the police,” so to speak, by putting an end to oppressive laws.

Mobs are excused nowadays; they are seen as merely the oppressed expressing their anger at anyone, even statues, that differs in opinion. The woke people excuse their behaviors and they are “awake” because of good-meaning psychologists.

Note that psychologists are not mean people. Those in schools of psychology are taught empathy, just like the Christian catechism: “As you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). Christ said to have empathy. It is okay to protest against injustice, but it is not okay to violently, or destructively protest. The woke crowd, conditioned by the DSM, are showing empathy, but the law of the land and the Law of God does not condone violence to show empathy!

In thought, modern-day mobs think they are empathetic. They hold all types of empathetic signs so that those who are sound asleep know just how empathetic they are. Although they think good thoughts their actions speak otherwise; they tear down what good people have made to show their empathy.

With that said, people are like Adam and Eve who were cunningly manipulated to do immoral acts. Just as the cunning Devil used pleasantries to instigate lawlessness, “children of the Devil” (John 8:44) use the same tactics to get the masses to do the unthinkable.

The DSM is a manual with good intentions. It provides standards to identify who needs help to overcome life in this world. (It is the capable giving to those with needs in a Marxist way.) The DSM is meant to be for good just like the Communist Manifesto was intended to be good, but in practice they can harm.

It is not bad to help people, but it is bad to “help” them with bad advice. The problem with the DSM is not the paper, but those behind the standards written on the paper. The writers of the DSM have written their own standards of normalcy whereas the Bible is written by those inspired by God, to wit: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

Just what is so bad about sharing doctrine to correct bad thoughts and behaviors to live right and joyful lives? Because the Bible already provides safety, asking its adherents to refrain from dangerous behaviors. Indeed, The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Doing sinful things leads to death. For instance, insobriety and non-vigilance is dangerous in any doctrine. However stupid those two things are, people will still do them because of enjoyment, just as children do not fear danger because they want to explore.

To keep mankind sober and vigilant for their own safety, God wrote standards of safe behavior. The Bible is His “DSM” in a manner. It identifies abnormal behavior that might be dangerous to you. The problem with the DSM is that their standards are not God’s Standards because their thoughts are not His Thoughts (Isa 55:8). The DSM is not written by righteous men who desire that you live forever, but that you merely cope in this world.

It is not mean to want people to cope! They encourage you to do what they feel is best for you.

Stress is the most prevalent killer of mankind, so it is logical for empathetic people to want you not to have stress.

Is stress from God or is it from Satan? that is the question. Stress is what the world imbues upon its people. Stress, according to scripture, is the outcome of sin, ignoring the standards of God. From where does that come? Genesis 3:16-19 wherein the woman got pain, and the man got toil. Who is to blame for that? Satan, cleverly disguised in some image, did not force Adam and the woman to do anything, and God forbade them to get into trouble with the Law.

In other words, mankind was a free agent to do as he pleased, and both the man and woman chose stress.

God had a plan to alleviate stress: do what is right and avoid stress. So, God wrote down standards; His “DSM” is written on stone to endure forever, and it does include empathy (Commands five through ten) for others and empathy for God (Commands one through four).

So, both psychology and Judeo-Christianity shares the concept of empathy. The contrast is the punishment for failure to be empathetic.

In Genesis chapter three God provided the consequence for coming short of empathy — stresses of all sorts, or “tribulations.” 

The DSM lists no penalties for sinful (abnormal) behavior at all but encourages pride. Rather than ashamed of nakedness like Adam and the woman (Gen 3:10), it is okay to come out of the closet with about any type of trans-behaviors.

Adam and the woman were naked before and were not ashamed. Their nakedness was not their flesh but their innermost being — their two souls with God within them. After sin, they were ashamed of what they had become. Eve was trans-mutated by an alien in the Garden. She was ashamed that her divine chromosomes had become stained by alien actions… behaviors that were alien to God.

God did provide a “pressure valve” to relief the stress of mankind. God is the Author of “guilt.” Satan had not sinned; he (it) had persuaded mankind to sin and when the woman did, she became another kind that Adam named “Eve” (Gen 3:20).

Since “guilt” refers to an emotion that occurs when a person feels that they have violated a moral standard, then eliminating moral standards suffices in the viewpoint of psychiatry. The DSM removes religions viewpoint of morality from their standards; it matters not what God says, but what the APA says. Oftentimes they say the same thing, but increasingly so, they are saying very different things.

Paul wrote to Christians to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thes 5:1). (I am not implying that all the DSM, nor all the APA, is bad, but to warn people to test all the things in their lexicon and hang onto what is good.

The problem is that the modern Church, and even well-meaning Christians, allow the DSM and psychology to have precedence above God. In a sense, the DSM is a new invisible god in violation of the First Commandment.

Now examine a psychiatric appointment: you talk; they listen, then they direct your thoughts. Their intention is for you to have a ground-breaking repressed thought emerge from your mind.

That is the method of Christianity as well. You speak, God corrects with scripture, and you are guided to a better Way. Finally, the Word speaks to you in the same manner as the psychiatrist.

In whom do you trust… mammon or God? The problem with Christians is that they now trust the therapist more so than God. Sin is not necessarily abandoning God but putting another God before Him (Exod 20:3).

The Jewish problem in ancient days was that they trusted themselves more than God. They preferred to wonder in the wilderness under the pretense of following God all the while their route was chaotic as Moses allowed them to wander wherever they might go. In a symbolic manner, the Israelites were following the “Wanderer” Cain in the land of Nod. In a sense, those directing themselves on the psychiatric couch are going where they want to go, and about anyplace they would rather go than to follow God.

It is important to understand the concept of guilt. It took the Israelites forty years to find their way to sanctity and peace, when if they had followed God, they would have arrived there quickly.

God threw all sorts of tribulations to the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt to serenity. He truly stressed them out. He put up all sorts of stressors to shorten the way to serenity: war, famine, more war, thirst, and on and on. They were pretty much apathetic, even pathetic; they failed to see that God was providing for them the same perils as Adam and Eve. He was testing them to determine to whom their hearts belonged.

On each occasion, the Israelites felt the emotion of guilt. To resolve their guilt, God blessed them for them to understand that they failed with God’s standards. He loved them anyway. God did not empathize with their unrighteous behaviors and thoughts, but that they were worth correcting. It took forty years to correct their dysfunctionality, and God took them to serenity, not in Canaan, but serenity in heavenly Paradise.

If only people would live the standards of God, tribulation would not be required. Stress and the response to it — guilt — is more of a guidance to the Way to sober thinking rather than an impedance. Why would Satan want you to feel guilt for bad behavior? He would not; he would want you to feel free.

That is the same outcome expected of your empathetic therapist. He tries to direct you to shortcut to serenity by traveling his way. The objective of a psychiatrist is not for you to reject stressor-inducing behaviors but to continue on your merry way as you are. Of course, that is not in all cases, but with people that they think are born that way.

We are all “Born This Way” as the song goes. The song itself is a song of pride.

James wrote to “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up” (Jas 4:10). Pride is of the Satan, Lucifer, his “pomp” (Isa 14:12). Flamboyant people are pompous; you must accept them as they are. Their type of love is no different than God’s agape, caring love. You were “shapen in iniquity” (Psalm 51:5), you were born this way, coming short of the glory of God in all way!

Sure, we love them, but not their ways because their ways will destroy them. Sincere love is wanting better for them. To cherish them as they are, is condoning their behaviors. To be honest, we want them to change. We are much like them in a manner of speaking — they want us to be like them without a standard, and we want them to be like us... that is to God’s standards.

The argument condenses to whom does your heart belong? Does it belong to Freud, Jung, Maslow, or even Marx; or does your heart belong to God?

Indeed, psychology does some good things, but like the tree of the same name, they can do great evil as well. They are indeed a religion that is cleverly disguised as a science. However, even their name gives them away — psychology — the “study of the soul.” That is the very purpose of reading the Bible, but most people spend a hundred-fold more time studying books of psychology rather than the one good book that covers all normal and abnormal behaviors using the metrics written by God Himself.

When I asked Dr. Fong, "Isn't psychology just another religion?" she responded, "Are you just now figuring that out?" Are you just figuring that out now?

picture credit: humanwindow.com

PSYCHOLOGY: RELIGION OR SCIENCE - Part 2

 I last discussed psychology as a tool for making everyone alike; not equal, but acceptable as if everyone is of the same moral “fabric.” In other words, there is nothing wrong with anyone; some are just different than others. There is no right or wrong, truth is in the mind of the beholder. Nobody is to judge anyone else by their own metric and those with loose moral fiber are as good as those whose minds are tightly knitted.

That there is not wrong extends to the idea that everyone is basically good and that they should not be criticized for having something out of tune with the normative. They believe that to the extent that even hardened criminals should be excused for the crimes they commit. Thus, the laxity of so many prosecutors against the criminal element.

In the religion of psychology, there is no such thing as good and evil. The pedophile even deserves satisfaction as much as the heterosexual. The APA has tacitly approved the degeneracy of man-boy love as just a sexual preference, although, due to the public outcry, a “typographic error,” they said, was made in the DSM-V manual:

The DSM-5 initially described Pedophilic Disorder as a sexual orientation, which caused some members of the public to take offense, and express concern that this would pave the way for reduced criminal culpability (American Psychiatric Association, 2013a). The American Psychiatric Association later indicated the word “preference” was a typographical error, and should have read “interest” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013b). The APA (American Psychological Association) clarified their position on Pedophilic Disorder in response to a statement released by the American Family Association. The APA indicated that they do not “classify Mental Disorders or publish the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as the release incorrectly stated”, the APA holds the position that acting on pedophilic desires is a crime, and adult -child sexually contact is always wrong (American Psychological Association. 2013). However other sources concur that Pedophilic Disorder is a sexual preference, (Harvard University, 2010), and differentiate between deviant desires, and acting them out cognitively or behaviorally. (Porter 2024) 

Typos have become common these days, not fat-fingering and autocorrect, but because people are caught in their unacceptable beliefs. Society still hides the fascination of old men for young men and women. The North American Man/Boy Association (NAMBLA) no longer hides out in schoolyards but executive offices. There is nothing that money cannot buy, and the silence of “professionals” seems to be one!

The APA has a “Bible,” and even fail to admit that the DSM tacitly belongs to them. Judeo-Christians enthusiastically claim their Bible. Perhaps the belief of the APA is not how their fingers do the walking on the keyboard but about how their narrators disregard the stalking.

So far, this commentary has been about the laxity of those in the field of psychology to acknowledge that because so many do whatever, does not make whatever right. Repetition by the many does not make the behavior acceptable.

Somewhere along the way, alcoholism went from uncontrolled behavior to a “disease.” Of course, nobody can help that they have a disease even though behaviors are controllable if enough effort is expended. The disease model for alcoholism forgives alcoholic behavior, thus establishing another class of oppressed people.

Too many good people have been oppressed by the majority. The religion of psychology has a very communistic component: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Karl Marx). That alcoholics and others with bad habits are incapable of helping themselves to sobriety, society — the rest of us — must live their lies for them. Alcoholism is not a disease but a series of very poor choices just like any habitual sin. The APA has written an excuse for their failure: they cannot help it, so ignore their insobriety.

Now we are on the way toward making marijuana use the normative just as those with the love of money made tobacco an institution. Finally, some are wising up; they now admit that the continued use of marijuana causes psychosis, but when have you heard that from the media?

Finally, the DSM added cannabis use disorder, but how many young people have they reached? Few, until they have the disorder so strongly that change is unlikely! They are arriving later in the “game” and still expect to win! By indicating that the disorder is limited to only a few prevents the masses from including themselves. Each person is brought to believe that casual use is acceptable, and they surely will not become two very different people in one body!

Any strong desire is dangerous, according to our Bible: 

Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then, when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. (Jas 1:14-16) 

Science has a different definition of death than God. Over the years the scientific definition of death has changed from the cessation of the heartbeat to the decay of the mind’s impulses. In God’s Lexicon, “death” is the dysfunction of the soul.

Now, you might be wondering what the soul might be. It is your inner person that has a compass to direct you through life. Things that disrupt the innate moral compass causes people to die. They may not physically die but just as if dead, and so goes the marijuana, cocaine, and fentanyl zombies. Your name is written on the joint, snort, or pill, so the warning, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet 5:8).

That is not metaphoric or even symbolic. Carelessness of any sort makes you vulnerable to death, both biological and spiritual death. We all know the “pothead” who is as good as dead and the alcoholic who may even wish that he was dead.

Us sane people cannot excuse the insane ones! Knowing that drugs, alcohol, and even overeating will kill you, and continuing to do so, is insanity.

Lust (in the verse above) is that strong desire for something that satisfies. Nothing that is made is satisfying. The only lust that is efficacious is a lust for God and eternal Paradise. Psychology does not offer that, and their textbooks admit that they have no power to fix anyone.

On the other hand, Jesus (the man who is God) fixed a woman with a big problem: 

A woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any, came behind Him, and touched the border of His garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched. (Luke 8:43-44) 

The doctors could not heal her of that medical condition, and neither can doctors of psychology heal your abnormality. Sure, they can provide drugs to make you oblivious to the issue and teach you how to ignore what is wrong, but that woman would have bled to death. However, Jesus did not tell her to live with it as if it is normal, but He made her whole (Mat 9:22).

“Wholeness” in Holy Scripture is wellness within both the body and the soul; that the two very different facets of your being live is symbiotic. The body cannot be well and the soul sick, nor the opposite; all can be well with both the body and the soul.

Physicians can often work on the body, but God fixes it. Psychologists can only work on the soul, often messing it up without accountability, but Jesus is the true Fixer of the soul and holds Himself accountable if you only take the remedy.

Psychologists admit they cannot fix anything; only direct you the way to live with it with as little discomfort as possible. For instance, rather than cessation of what makes you feel guilt, many psychologists direct you how to live with your guilt. For instance, that extramarital affair that is stressing you out… learn to live with it if it makes you happy. Why should you feel guilty for only performing the call of nature? Of course, you can get killed doing such a thing, and of course the death of the soul will only come later, if at all in their viewpoint!

Jesus made the woman whole. Whether it was a genetic condition or not is unclear, but even if she had been born that way (hemophilia-C), Jesus made her whole. He dried up her blood by the use of virtue from His own blood.

Psychologists excuse the LBGT+ community as born this way. They were not born queer, bi-queer, flamboyant, nor trans-anything. They were born in inequity like King David (Psalm 51:5), and lusts direct them toward acting out their fantasies. David did not blame his lust on God for being born that way, but himself for behaving that way. The same goes for anyone.

Drug users ar4e generally not born “druggies” but are born with the lust for things to make themselves feel whole. However, drugs and even fornication end making you feel empty; even many times empty enough to make a person suicidal.

Smart people kill others cunningly, even in the manner of the so-called “Serpent.” Lucifer never killed anyone, not even Job. He outsmarted the two non-vigilant humans into trusting him; they ate, and they died, so slowly that they never knew they were dying until they were old.

Drugs work the same way; your drug pusher should not be excused and released either. The pusher is as guilty as his father, the Devil. The “Woke” professionals excuse the infractions of the criminal element because rather than punishment, they should be catered to.

“Wokeness” is “the quality of being alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination” (Oxford Languages 2023). Note that the writers were biased; they wrote of it as a “quality.” For most, wokeness is far from a quality but an impedance to their own well-being. Wokeness is a Marxist initiative, and that narrative comes from operationalizing the DSM.

What is injustice to those who are woke? That things are not diverse, equitable, and inclusive enough. DEI is Marxist. The media, educational, and business sectors, as well as the military and industrial have been convinced, or provoked, into believing that everyone can benefit their organization however bizarre they are and that those institutions have the obligation to make sure that even abnormal people be given, not the opportunity, but the objective, just because they exist. That is the religion of humanism, and its “preachers” are psychologists whose “Bible” is the DSM.  

Who brought wokeness to the world? The religion of the world — humanism — is the agency of human beings rather than by the sovereignty of God. The annunciator and mediator of that new religion is the APA which promotes so many of the woke objectives. However, humanism is as old as time itself, “You shall be as God,” (Gen 3:5), said the Devil. speaking to the first two humans.

Psychology cannot be questioned! Right now, many of you are seething because you only want to help people, and I am criticizing your avenue. Indeed, helping your fellow man is a noble idea, but not the way God had in mind.

The rich young man of the New Testament was a humanist. He did so many things for his fellow man, but he had not done anything for God (Luke 18:18-23). He was an early “Marxist” and his religion, like Marx, was humanistic.

Psychology is a humanistic religion without God as well, or at least some “unknown God” like the philosophers of Athens (Acts 17:23). Psychology is the derivative of humanistic philosophy and in Athens there sat the “doctors” trying to fix the minds of those who were lacking wholeness.

Now for some comparison of sameness and contrast between religions and psychology (to be continued).

WOKENESS ON DISPLAY

IS PSYCHOLGY A RELIGION OR SCIENCE

Some look at me with disbelief. It has been so engrained in everyone since childhood that it is good. Even most parents use it to form the personality of their children. Some of the most persuaded are those who raise their children from birth in this religion. I am not writing of Christianity, but the “religion” of psychology.

Although there is no God in this newfound religion, it remains a bonified religion. If that makes you uncomfortable, please flee from it now. In fact, this religion propagates fleeing from things that make you uncomfortable. By fleeing from the truth, you are operationalizing the religion of psychology.

A religion is, according to Merriam-Webster, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Parents raise their children using psychological principles because they have faith that what they have been taught is scientific. With that said, psychology is “scientology,” and in fact, L. Ron Hubbard endeavored to get Scientology accepted as bonified psychology, even using an E-meter to audit emotional reactions. If anything, it would do nothing more than measure stress. In fact, the purpose of psychology is to eliminate stress. For psychologists, if something is stressful, flee from it; not the cause of stress but the stress itself.

The unidentified psychologists of Wikipedia defined stress: 

In psychology, stress is a feeling of emotional strain and pressure. Stress is a type of psychological pain. Small amounts of stress may be beneficial, as it can improve athletic performance, motivation and reaction to the environment. Excessive amounts of stress, however, can increase the risk of strokes, heart attacks, ulcers, and mental illnesses such as depression and also aggravation of a pre-existing condition. 

Stress can make you perform better in some cases but can kill you in other situations. In fact, the expectation that you must perform better induces stress. Eastern religions are used regularly by psychologists because they allow the practitioners of yoga and such to escape stress for a few minutes each day… not escape the root causes of stress but stress itself!

Stress is the measurement of tension. Just as the stress of metals are measured by their tensile strength, your nerve-strength is measured by how much tension they can take without ripping you apart.

The E-meter is basically a test of the tensile strength of the auditee. In like manner, psychology evaluates the tension in the person, and the “auditors” endeavor to find a manner to relieve the tension. They do so, not by changing the “metal” of the “patient” but by changing the calibration of the tool. The “tool” used by that profession is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It is the “Bible” of that profession.

Whereas the manual of God was written in stone for perpetuity, the DSM is written on paper and ROM for easy alteration. If some people feel sick because of stress, it is as simple as recalibrating their tool, and voila, the broken spirits are made whole again. In psychology, “wholeness” is broken but content with it. The root cause is not removed but adjusted so that the sick person is no longer defined as or feels “sick.”

The best example of the APA adjusting the tool was in DSM-III: 

Key points:

First published in 1968, DSM-II listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In 1973, members of the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM. (Burton 2024) 

Note that there was no reason to change. Professional people just changed their minds about it. Whereas most religions have tenets that are foundational to the people, psychology is not founded on principles but what society will accept as normality. 

Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities; Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations. (Conger 1975) 

In this example, psychologists fixed the problem by removing the stress. Note that homosexuality remained a “mental illness,” but their expectation was that society, even employers, just live with mentally ill people. In other words, not to ever fix the problem but make mental illness acceptable. With that said, as they recalibrated their tool, they fixed millions of people who were still mentally ill!

Not only, that, but in subsequent years, laws were passed to prevent anybody from even trying to fix the mental illness. Any counselor who tries to fix the mental illness of homosexuality are discriminated against themselves by virtue of laws around the nation. As such, if you perceive homosexuality as a mental illness, what you think is a crime. Commerce can now be withheld from those who fail to go along with the narrative. So, the psychology religionists use the same tactics as the adherents of Sharia Law. You must either believe their ways or be forbidden commerce.

Those who disagree with the opinion of the APA are ostracized. Note that the APA voted on the resolution. It was an opinion, and now anyone who does not share their “doctrines” is shunned by their religion.

Next, because the LBGT+ community may feel stress, the APA changed their “Bible” again, making those who disagree with their autocracy thought criminals: 

Lesbian, gay and bisexual people who encounter homophobic attitudes experience increases in heart rate, blood pressure and stress hormones, potentially putting them at risk for multiple health problems, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

 

“This study shows the potentially toxic impact discriminatory attitudes can have on lesbian, gay and bisexual people’s health,” said lead author David M. Huebner, PhD, associate professor of prevention and community health at The George Washington University. “This is just one more, among many, corrosive effects of homophobia.” (Huebner 2021) 

The LBGT+ community experiences stress. Others who disagree that their mental state be fixed, now have become the new mentally ill. Now, “homophobia” makes normal people the sick and the sick people the well!\

The APA did not fix the abnormality of the sick but made society so that homosexuality and such are the new “normal.” They did not make the sick whole again as Christianity proposes but made the whole sick as well.

Psychology nearly always fixes the problem of mental illness, not by making them whole again but by changing the environment. Those with rational thoughts are not allowed into their fantasy “paradise” that they have made; only the sick and their enablers can live in their ideological beautiful “garden” wherein all things are acceptable with nobody there to judge in their “judgment free zone,” ala Planet Fitness. ^®

Most religions would go for the root cause of maladjustment. Most religions have a central figure whose standards the religionists must adhere. Basically, psychology has no standards; they merely achieve their goals by making as many sicknesses “normal” as possible to remove stress.

At one time homosexuality was abnormal to the APA. When so many revealed their mental illness, it was easier to change their prognosis than fix that many people.

Why did the APA vote to change the rules for abnormality? Because homosexuals revealed just how pandemic their mental illness had become when they picketed the APA to change their tool. The members of the APA changed their metric to alleviate the stress that they were feeling. They did not fix the sick but relieved their own stress. Now, the APA has lost their courage. They can no longer even try to fix the sick. Thereafter, LBG rights have been extended to include LBGT+ to include any dysfunction that anyone might have. In other words, so that the sick can enjoy their mental illness without any interference from sane people.

In psycho-babble, they have transferred the sickness of the sick onto those who were not sick, and now the DSM has essentially made everyone sick. Is it for the love of money or what? Do they really believe the tenets of the religion that they have established? No, they have just made everyone more comfortable in their depravities.

Next, I will compare psychology — the manmade religion of man for man — to the truth. (To be continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABOUT RELIGION AND POLITICS

 Many people prefer to not discuss religion and politics on social media or even in person. On the other hand, they select entertainment that is both political and religious. What is forgotten, politics and religion both have directions.

Good politics are civil in direction. Civics are how societies exist without strife. Everyone should favor a civil society. That is a political viewpoint. Others prefer chaos. To be honest democracies are meant to be civil self-management but when groups of people assemble, most oft4en chaos ensues. 

The perfect example of a democracy existed during the days of Micah who resided on Mount Ephraim and who made a society to his liking. He became "king" there on that mountain, made idols from the treasury, and appointed a priest. Micah established a "House of Micah," for-Micah to be clever. That is politics at its worst, but Micah was free to create any society he wished because of the lack of a formal political agency:

And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Jud 17:5-6)

A country without a king or any other type of civil government is a pure democracy. Micah did what he wanted to do without any constraints. He established "The House of Micah: and the first thing he did was to create his own gods and established his own priesthood atop that mountain. 

Every man could have done the same thing because there was no political order, so Micah did the natural thing; he became king of the mountain. He had lived in a democracy wherein each man did what was right in his own eyes, and then he did what arrogant men do; he made himself a king.

 A "democracy" is a state wherein the people rule. A "state" is more than an area of land but a principle. Everybody seems to favor the "state" of a democracy, except "isms" such as socialism, but it is the living conditions in which people exist. 

For Micah, he had the mountain, the treasury, and the power, so Mount Ephraim became his state, and he was doing what was right in his own eyes in a very democratic manner.

There the people ruled, and he was that person. He ruled, not his mother who quickly began to take orders from her powerful son, doing everything that he wanted her to do; then he selected a priest who was to administer the new kingdom to ensure the gods that Micah created were obeyed. 

The graven images could not speak, so the people had to have a mediator between them and their gods. The mediator was the priest. He was to be the "mouth" of the silent gods, and Micah would be the invisible "god" whose "puppet" was the priest. 

Micah did that, but so could anyone who had the land, power, money, and stupid followers. Micah depended on the stupidity of the people on Mt. Ephraim who could have assembled against him, but they did not. 

As Jonathan Gruber admitted, Obama's initiative "depended on the stupidity of the American voter," and so did Micah's. Along came the people of the tribe of Dan of Israel to Micah's kingdom. How stupid would the Danites be?

As it turned out, the tribe of Dan became like the House of Micah with their hand engraved images as their gods. As anyone can see, doing what is right in your own eyes is contagious. Democracy is doing what is right in your own eyes... everybody's. 

Everyone thinks of a democracy as a good thing, However, democracy can be good under God, or it can be not so good with false gods. 

Democracies are hard to make work because everyone doing what is right in their own eyes can be chaotic. The only time in scripture that people assembled in one accord was when the Holy Ghost was revealed (Acts 2:1). In most situations, those of one mind had on their minds one thing -- to undermine God. 

In the case of Nimrod who built the tower to reach God, they were of one accord against God; according to the Book of Jasher only Abraham was not in accord with them.

Democracies seldom work because of two things: (1) the parties have different goals or (2) there is dissension among the party's members.

Democracies, to work, must be of one accord. even when they disagree, as Dan showed Micah, there are always two factions. Dan even stole Micah's gods and priest. There are almost always factions within democracies which undermine one another. 

The only "democratic" institution that ever had a chance of working was founded upon Christ, "when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). All of them were of one mind with one passion, indubitably to see their King Jesus again. He did not come in person but in Spirit and Power. 

Jesus was not a king as we think of them in this age, or even that age. Those assembled were democratic in their selection of the only King to whom they would adhere. There was finally a King in those days who was recognized as such by the people. Not only was Jesus a king like Micah but He also was the royal Priest. Jesus was even the only true Image of God that was made by the hands of God!

Jesus had set up His own kingdom on Earth in the manner of Micah, but unlike Micah it was a democratic-monarchy wherein all the citizens of that kingdom freely chose Jesus as their Sovreign.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost of Jesus returned to set up a democratic republic on Earth, not on Mount Ephraim but Mount Calvary. Thereon was the throne of God on Earth that was the King's "footstool" (Acts 7:49).

In the Kingdom of God on Earth, there were no laws because those in accord with God and each other required no laws. Indeed, that kingdom is the "Church" -- "a body or organization of religious believers: such as the whole body of Christians" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). 

The Church was meant to be the only virtuous democracy. The body of believers choose to be not only in Church, but the Church for the Church is the body of believers in Christ. Nobody makes a Christian go to Church because they assemble, even a few in the Name, Jesus, for there goes the Church, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mat 18:20). 

Those who are gathered in the Name of Jesus have no rules to follow. The Ten Commandments cease to be commandments but a list of privileges to demonstrate accordance with God and others. They are no longer rules but only the "Constitution" of the Church and the written covenant in the hearts of men to either do or not to do, as they please. 

God never disassociates the body of believers from His democratic-republic, but they remain as free agents in a democracy where they are free to leave or remain. There are no walls around the true Church to bar entry or egress, People are free to come and go as they please, and even to not to go. 

Churches once made laws to force attendance under the threat of "gaol" (jail). The colonial church was not a Church at all, but a prison of sorts wherein even the non-believers were required to go under the threat of punishment.

The early Church became a dictatorship on the order of Herod the Great. Those who had wealth were the "church" and those who had little were the servants of the leadership. With no king in Judah, the chief priests of the House of Annias became the dictators and assumed the role of kings whose bidding all the body of believers must do.

In a democracy, the majority rules. Unfortunately, the majority is often those with significance. Generally, they have been property owners who have the means to pay taxes and who are forced to share the wealth. For those who trusted the government, they would pay their taxes because it was a fair system in their own eyes. However, those who were not significant were forced to pay taxes for services that only a few could enjoy. Nobody in a pure democracy looked out for the small guy, so slavery was acceptable for it took the insignificant few and made then useful to those who had greater advantages in the government.

Perhaps the reader is by now noticing the type of "democracy" favored by the Democrat Party. They made the indignant people useful by harnessing their powers. 

Plantation systems like the idea of states' rights, but on their estate, it was the rights of the privileged. Uncontrolled democracy put fetters on those considered inferior. On their "mountain" inferior races (to them) were put in a mobile jail of sorts. They could come and go as if they are free, but all the while there were boundaries with invisible high fences never to be crossed. 

A Democrat "democracy" was, and still is, wherein lesser people are controlled. Slaves even felt safe serving on plantations because their masters were the "gods" who took care of them from cradle to the grave. 

Marxism was created, not in Germany or Russia, but on the plantations of Democrats in America. Even Marx toured them and saw the good in that insane ideology and wanted the world to be like plantations. His vision is near completion. 

In my book, A Day on the Democrat Plantation, I reveal how urban cities are the modern-day "plantations" and the Democrats who are assembled there are slaves to Democrats who trade their freedom for care from cradle to the grave. All the work that they now need do is to vote regularly for their Democrat masters because they think they are happy where and how they are!

All the while they think that they are happy in a democracy, the newly created "race" of people (the poor of any color) remain chained to the confines of urban dwelling wherein only a few ever get out. No longer are slaves just black but come in all colors who reveal their inner selves by voting for Democrats even when caged within the high walls of big cities. Democracies of the evil sort always imprison people in contrast to the only virtuous democracy (Christianity) which frees them from their invisible chains. 

Membership in the socialist plantation system comes from voting. Just as blacks were paid to vote for Democrats during the Jim Crow era, they are still given meager gifts to vote for Democrats, and usually payment is made via government checks and welfare cards wherein they cannot even buy what they want to buy.

The Big Lie is that you are better off in a democracy. It is certainly better for them than you, but they depend on your stupidity; all the while thinking you are free but are chained in accord with Democrats, and not even noticing the chains that keep you handy for them during elections.

The United States was not Constituted a democracy. It is a republic. Our Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the few. Representative government was not to protect their own rights but those who govern for the lesser of us. In a sense, they are us when the real votes are counted. They are not to vote for what is better for themselves and what they want to do, but for us, -- we the people which includes even the Clintonian "basket of deplorables."

The problem with democracies is democracies. We the people trust a system that is prone to failure. In whom should we trust? Not the government but only God. 

Democracies represent the most. Whoever gets the most votes hold allegiance to their voters. People naively vote for Democrats all the while thinking that they are doing what is best for them, but that is not a democracy, it is a republic. To whom do the benefits go in a democracy? That should be obvious because even poor politicians obtain wealth while you live on in even more poverty. Inflation steals your money as surely as the thieves grab your wallets. 

Democrats to remain democratic must provide handouts to those who are easily persuaded to vote their way; people who are so poor that anything is more valuable to them than nothing. But in the end, because of inflation, naive voters get nothing all the while, the elite few in government become rich.

Why has your life not improved? Because just like the Democrat Plantations, fear of the outside and that the other side seems alien to you. You have become conditioned like any farm animal that always comes back at the end of the day for just a little more grain!

Politics is in all aspects of life whether you hide your eyes or not. Crafty politicians are out to steal what little is in your wallet even though you cannot feel the hand that lifts it from your pockets. 

Religion has joined the fray! The church is no longer a "Church;" it uses the talents of democratic ideas. It indeed is "WOKE" to how to get rich at the expense of the poor. 

Look at the royal palaces that are built for use on one day in general. do you need that grandeur worship God? The Jews worshipped under tents when they followed God wherever God led them, but now the churches keep people where they are. You are comfortable in church because therein you are expected to do noting while a select few does your worship and teaching for you.

We are not to go to Church. We are the Church going to the world. How can you go to the world while you sit comfortably with others who mostly already believe? 

Christians are comfortable doing nothing! Most of you are happy so long as you get what is in it for you. 

The church seems very democratic, but while you sit there silently, the few who lead the church services often steal the glory of God for themselves. Preachers have stolen valor, they are like the great hunter, Nimrod, whose goal was not really to visit God but to make a name for himself (Gen 11:4).

Just as I was shoved at work because I stood in the doorway of my boss, I have been pushed away by a preacher for just praying for a downcast sinner. I was stealing his glory and was in his way to achieve it. The signal was that he was not my minister but my boss to whom I was not a person but a barrier to be overcome. 

The Church was meant to be democratic and virtuous. Is it now? How many people in your church facility are you in accord? Not very many. Just see who sits with who at church gatherings. 

I have "Church" with those I meet during the week. God directs me to them and often uses the occasion for religion to come up. Indeed, Church is just a religion until those who meet anywhere have accord with God and each other. 

One former member of the mafia that I know became a Christian. He told me that he felt more love from that family than he did from his church family. Many of us feel more love from our neighbors than we do from our church "family," and I use that term loosely.

There are good churches but few great churches. We are expected to speak highly of our church but if you examine it closely, are we all of one accord, and does the Holy Ghost appear regularly as so many endeavor to make a name for themselves? 

For those who think I am criticizing my church, I am, but that is because I am criticizing most churches. We are just one of the many, and to be truthful, wherever I go, I lack as you do. We all diminish the church because none of us are perfect. 

Life is political, even the Church (the Ecclesia). If we do not talk politics or religion, we care little for life nor for God. 

Religion is two-sided just as politics. Because you do not believe in God does not mean you are not religious. Paul spoke to the men of Athens who worshipped an Unkown God (Acts 17:23). He declared to them that the God who they knew not is Jesus, 

The philosophers were making a name for themselves... who was right in their thinking. As such, each had become their own god just as Micah had become the "god" on Mt. Ephraim. 

You are religious! Your idols are not of stones nor woods, but your own fleshes. You are a religious person whose unrecognized god is you, so please do not ask others not to speak of religion when you are the gods and goddesses of your own religion.

iStock; "MegaChurch"

The Deception of Hatred

  This is not political but the nature of men. People hate others without even realizing that they are hating. Deception is the tool of instilling hatred. Most people think they are loving. However, love does not come easily; it is the hardest work that anyone can ever do!

How people perceive love is that it is an emotion. Of course, emotion is a response to a stimulus, but without the stimulus it is difficult to emote a feeling.

  It’s easy to feel emotion for a loved one, but how can emotion be felt for an enemy? Of course, it is in practice that hating enemies is acceptable behavior. Who could not hate a child abuser? They are easy to hate, and consequently are most difficult to love! However, loving people must love those who are easy to hate or they by default join the haters.

  Is it acceptable to hate anyone? Most find it easy to hate Adolph Hitler. What if Hitler has repented of his atrocities as evil Peter the Great of Russia did on his deathbed? Does that make hated people easier to love? If Hitler had publicly repented in his bunker, would the world still hate him? Surely, they would!

  That’s because people think of hatred from an emotional standpoint. It seems okay to hate Hitler-types because of what they have done. That’s because people are rightfully emotional. They feel hatred for the individuals because of their atrocious behavior. Because of bad behaviors, love becomes even harder work.

  From a psychological standpoint “love” is an attraction to something. “Lust,” on the other hand, is a strong desire to have something. Love is the fulfillment of lust. For instance, a man may want to be with a woman so intensely (lust) that he desires perpetual habitation (love). Lust is the stimulus and love is the response. Of course, without emotion, then sex is the only response.

  Who could possibly lust after evil people? Only those attracted to their evil behavior. Secularists accept some amount of evil as normal behavior. It depends on whose metrics for acceptable behavior is used. In the humanistic world of Nazi-era Germany, evil behavior became acceptable because a new norm was established. People there were either so self-absorbed that they were apathetic to the plight of others, or their basic instinct for evil allowed them to accept new standards of morality. Even Henrich Himmler was considered “humane” by some of his peers at that time because he sought ways to “humanely” kill the Jews.

  Himmler’s idea of “humane” was to take the lives of Jews without them knowing they were dying. That was the original sin, if you remember.

  Satan knew that the rebellion in the hearts of Adam and Eve would kill them in the long haul, but he deceived them into thinking that they would not! Eve ate and Adam saw that she still lived, so he ate as well. Mortal death would come later, but spiritual death was spontaneous. They would have spiritually died if it were not for God’s grace, but the consequence of sin was still there. They died at an old age, although before they would never have died. The Serpent killed them “humanely” without them even knowing it!
  It seems that killing humanely is an acceptable norm even today. Millions of babies are “safely aborted.” Himmler would have liked that phrase as he “humanely euthanized” Jews and dissidents. Nazis established new norms; it became acceptable to humanely kill pregnant women, the handicapped, the mentally incapacitated, the Jews, then finally anyone who disagreed with their type of “humane” immorality. The Serpent was there in the Third Reich, and he remains alive to this day. The New World order envisioned by socialists of all creeds, remains extant to this day. Indeed, Hitler’s thousand-year Reich is more than an old dream; it is more alive than ever.
  In Hitlerian Germany, the socialist idea about the people was implemented. Rather than uses the Marxists terms “masses” and “comrades,” National Socialists (Nazis) used the term “Völker” for the German people as a group. Their ploy was concern for the masses. The Third Reich began as a democratic-republic. Americans have been taught that democracies are idealistic. As with anything, it has its good points and it’s bad!
  Cruel autocracies are generated from democracies; that is when power is vested in the majority of the common people to the chagrin of the minority viewpoint. Jews, in the Third Reich, were the minority. The German government, supported by the majority, were cruel to the minority. That’s the way socialism works!
  In Germany, the volks (majority of ordinary people) of the Third Reich set a new standard for morality. Since everyone already hated the Jews it was easy to nationalize and democratize hatred. Western society as well as the Mid-east and Russia hated the Jews, as did many in England.
Ultimately, hatred is the opposite of love. Ultimate love is the desire that none should perish, either here or in eternity (John 3:16). Ultimate hatred is wishing that all humans perish as some environmentalist imply, and nominal hatred is desiring that some should perish from the face of the Earth and even from Heaven. Anger arouses that hatred.
  Anger is derived from the desire to be emancipated from any type of authority or interference. The “ego” is the world belonging to every person. In that small world, each person is king or queen, god or goddess, or even prince and princess. When another “god” infringes on their little personal kingdoms, the wrath of their narcissistic god seeks revenge on the infringing “god.” Other “gods” who have the audacity to challenge your “god’s” ego, makes your ego angry, and the super-ego comes to its protection. The battle of the “gods” ensues and the weapon of mutual destruction is hatred.
  Each person, in their own little worlds, create governments for their little “kingdoms.” The rules protect the “gods” of those individual little kingdoms, and removes the rights of anyone alien to their self-governed worlds.
  That’s why people hate God and others. He and they intrude on many of those personal realms. The kings of those little kingdoms are you all. The rule therein is that it is okay to hate anyone who trespasses against you. That’s why it is so important for the grace to, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” (Mat 6:12).
  People hate God because He trespasses into their self-imposed realm. People hate others because others trespass into their little kingdoms, wherein they anoint themselves kings, queens, gods, goddesses, and masters. Some individuals hate God and all the people of the world.
  There is a saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Those who think alike and have common enemies develop superficial “friendships.”
  The masses, volks, citizens of democracies, etc. group together so as to hate together because unity is their strength! They all hate the notion of God then elect other peoples to hate. Because of God, Jews and Christians are hated: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake” (Mat 10:22a). Progressive Democrats (democrat-socialists) group together because the enemy of their enemy is their friend. Progressives elected God as Public Enemy #1 and zealots for God are enemy number two.
  Socialists all agree on who the enemies are, although they may hate each other as well. There is no love among haters; they merely tolerate the hatred of each other because the hated is directed to the same recipients! The Church is traditional Judeo-Christians. “Progressive” is movement away from traditional institutions. Socialists want to tear down Israel and Christianity. As such, they conglomerate like a flurry of flies on the feces of hatred on bullying butt-holes. They may hate each other, but they hate tradition even more!
  The rules on that corporate narcissistic empire is one: It’s okay to hate haters because our idea of hatred differs from that on their world. Karl Popper defined that paradox of hatred as follows, but gave it a more reputable name:

The Paradox of Tolerance: “We should… claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” (Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies, volume 1, The Spell of Plato, 1945 (Routledge, United Kingdom (1 volume 2013 Princeton ed.)

  That is the governing idea of more progressive thought championed by George Soros, the emperor of that Dark Deep State of the millions of haters. They require a way to police their most important decree, and that is:

Policing the Paradox of Tolerance: “We should claim the right to suppress them, if necessary, even by force;” ibid).

  The first method of suppression, is to castigate them. “I hate conservatives, Christians, Jews, and so forth,” is too obvious. A more refined and refrained way is to call them “haters,” “bigots,” “racists,” and so forth. Another is to create a new language that others must speak to separate themselves from traditionists. Even words such as “women” and “alien” are struck from progressive lexicons so as to identify those who are labeled as intolerant! The new language is based on a new morality (sic).
  The “intolerant” are those who fail to speak the new language and buy into the new rules. Those who fail to progress away from institutions are labeled in an Orwellian fashion as “intolerant” and deserving of hatred! As such, the doctrine of sin and vain philosophy has replaced the Law of God and the Doctrine of Christ. Just as the “positive Christianity” of the Nazi religious state, the progressive western church has become the neo-Nazi positive Christianity in that hell and punishment is the ultimate intolerance. It’s not okay to say wrong is wrong because that is hatred in the eyes of the Neo-Nazis.
  Remember, it’s okay for them to hate to create a super empire where only “tolerant and humane” citizens exist.
  The Paradox of Tolerance is the least tolerant of all doctrines and progressive hatred for those who disagree is the new norm. The government of the apocalypse has arrived. Buying and selling to those not progressive has recently been severely limited just as John the Revelator wrote!
  This New Age of hidden hatred has a solution. It is the Paradox of Love:

The Paradox of Love: Love those who hate you. (I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” (Mat 5:44).

  God wins the war. We can let him fight it on our behalf. We must not hate back, but let God dump the hot coals on their heads! How can Christians assist God in the battle against Him and His Doctrine? Don’t hate back! Our weapon is one:

Policing the Paradox of Love: “Show kindness and mercy to one another;” (Zech 12:9)

Progressivism Revealed

     I have written much about socialism, not to be political, but because there is only a one-way wall between the church and state. The government can easily penetrate the wall, but they have big "guns" to prevent Christians from encroaching upon the secular. Why socialism when I could write about the mafia, M-13, war, or even child abuse? Because although it is never heard today, socialism was always preceded by one or two adjectives: "godless socialism: or "creeping socialism." That makes sense since most things godless slowly imbues what was before Christian.
     Karl Marx had antipathy for religion - Judeo-Christianity in particular - because it stood in the way of the communist ideology and socialist Utopia. Why would men need a Paradise in Heaven when they have Utopia on Earth? When people put their faith in God, they have less confidence in the doctrine of Marx. Although, Marx and his cohort, Freidrich Engles, had much negative to say about religion, below are a few examples (Wikipedia; "Karl Marx Quotes"):

• “Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.” 
• “The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man... This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world...
• Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
• The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.
• Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.” ― Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

     The notion of an Almighty God interfered with Marx's will for mankind. His will was an illusion of contentment on earth. Of course, Marx's doctrine was one of revolution rather than Utopian, but his revolution would lead to the betterment of society. Socialism/communism - the same "ism" - in Marx's Manifesto, would provide hope to the worker, unfortunately at the expense of everyone else. 

    Marxism is the antithesis of Christianity as both claim to provide hope but only one of them can! Socialism is the application of serving the biblical "two masters:"

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (man)" (Mat 6:24).

     Marx was somewhat honest in that respect. He knew scripture well, it seems, because his ideology expounds the same idea - the masses cannot serve both themselves and God. Christianity is all about self-denial and the magnification of God. God just does not fit well in communist doctrine.
     In contrast to that, democratic-socialism presents Marxism and Christianity as compatible. They know the voters are too stupid (Jonathan Gruber) to see the incompatibility. Socialism is endeavoring to serve two masters. Communism ensues when the farce is exposed: You cannot serve yourself and God, which is a re-arrangement of what Matthew wrote in the above passage.
     Of course, the idea that people improve themselves is illusional and delusional. The real motive for socialism is for power, not to the people but for the leadership! The evidence of that is in the eventual totalitarianism of historical socialism. Marx as much as admitted that socialism is a opaque process of introducing communism. What is the difference? Socialism is "Uncle Tom's" who prefer a lifetime of meager existence out of fear of self-improvement and motivation. Communism is when "Aunt Jemima" tires of making pancakes for other people and spits in the face of her master. When that happens, communism puts her in her place. Strangely enough, the cruelty of communist dictatorships is well known, but "Uncle Tom" and "Aunt Jemima" remain happy serving others as long as they believe they are doing good things!
     Of course, I am not writing about minorities, but people of all races who serve another master without realizing that they are mere pawns for the foremen who want to own the capitalistic "plantation." Indeed, socialism has much in common with antebellum plantations; merely with different colors of slaves and brutal masters who seem really nice to the servants who survive off the crumbs of their masters' tables. To be blunt, socialism is voluntary servitude (indentured) whereas communism is slavery (forced). Both are different degrees of Marxism.
     Karl Marx wrote of the all the extant systems of socialism in Europe and America. He wasn't satisfied with any type of socialism, be it democratic or radical socialism. His initiative was never only democratic-socialism, but full-blown autocratic communism! However, he was willing to use their naivete for his own purposes. Within the Manifesto, Marx elaborated how communists would use the socialism of other countries for his own purposes.
    Marx understood quite well that the masses would not accept violent revolution and the overthrow of their governments. Therefore, in Marxism, democracy is imperative. The "masses" of which Marx writes, are the majority of people. Like Jonathan Gruber, his ideology depended on the stupidity of the people. Democracies can lead to autocracies unless tempered by republicanism.
     The founders of the United States were well aware that a democracy would lead to totalitarianism. They also knew that the righteousness of a just God would change the temperament of self-serving people. Never forget that those who favor socialism are self-serving under the guise of serving others. Their type of "social justice" is for others to pay for their notion of moral responsibility. Taxation is not charity, it is slavery to the government, but their system must be funded on the backs of others! Progressive income taxation was one of Marx's initiatives to move toward communism.
     Since most people are not willing to fight a revolution, socialism is not only creepy, but creeping. It must come about without the masses being aware. That's where the stupidity of the voter (Gruber) is used to further Marxism. The technique of creeping socialism is fairly well how any iniquitous behavior is compounded according to James, "Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas 1:14-15). 
     Socialism is based on lust; the masses want what the wealthy have without regard to how much hard work went into creating wealth. The basic tenet of Marxism is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program; 1875). That sounds fair, but it operationally it is, From each who have worked, to each according to his wants without working hard for it.
     Marx knew that socialism had to be come covertly. He knew that as stupid as people are, there is a limit to their stupidity. He developed a way of getting the people to accept godless communism gradually; sort of humanely walking into slavery:

In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn the constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat. (Engels, Freidrich; Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, pg 25)

    The "bourgeoisie" are those who have property and manage direct laborers. The "proletariats" are those who provide direct labor - the workers.

     Engels missed the republicanism in the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, before the War Between the States, republicanism was much stronger in America than now. Engels wrote that before the War. Why has the United States not become full-blown socialistic? Because it is a democratic-republic. The left at the present wants to eliminate the electoral college - a barrier to socialism because it favors republicanism.
     Marxists, for years, had their own party in America - The Communist Party, USA. Some within the movement withdrew and formed The Progressive Labor Party through the Workers Student Alliance and Students for a Democratic Society. Note that those folks remained "communists" but called themselves "progressives" and "democratic." That type of covertness was what Engels wrote over one-hundred years before!
    During the turmoil of the 1968 Democratic Party Convention, radical progressives (communists) went into hiding. They saw it more effective to be Democrats than communists or even socialists or progressives; they became a wing of the Democrat Party to influence their platform toward socialism. Just as Marx sought, it was necessary to tolerate the moderate socialism for a time before full-blown communism could be implemented. As Engels suggested, the Democratic Party (sic) was selected because it leaned more toward democratic ideals than the Republican Party. (Although at that time, the Republican Party was nearly as ripe with progressive Rockefeller Republicans.)
     Since 1968, the progressive minority in the Democrat Party has expelled all the conservatives within the party and most of the moderates. What remains are the progressives who only digress from each other minutely. The Democrat Party has become the Progressive (i.e., socialist) Party! Since Trump's campaign, they have become belligerent, quickly becoming revolutionaries with intimidating tactics and even violence. America is on the precipice of violent revolution and the overthrow of a legitimately elected president, and the left still depends on the "stupidity of the American voter" as Jonathan Gruber indicated. They created a crisis with the Russian collusion hoax to further their aims. As Rahm  Emanuel indicated, "Why let a good crisis go to waste?" Why not create a crisis? is a better question!
     What makes voters so "stupid?" They are blind to truth. They are being deceived by the cunning Serpent. This time, it's not a viper in a tree, but a snake in the underbrush. I am referring to George Soros. If you don't know who Soros is, it would be wise to find out! As the implementer of socialism in America, he is the leader of the "deep state" who controls the media and the progressive agenda. Why would Soros, a billionaire capitalist, want socialism? For the love of money! Somehow, rich philanthropists gain when socialism makes people their servants. American socialism is feudalism; just examine the number of the one-percenters who are socialists!
     Progressives use "social justice" to increase their numbers. They care little about sexism, racism, immigration, and so forth except for one thing -  votes and power. Just as the communists and progressives of the 1950s to the 1970s used the turmoil of race wars and Viet-nam protesting for their purposes, they use students, LBGTs, feminists, and minorities to further socialism. Stupid voters are content with a modestly improved minimum wage (another objective of Marxism from the Manifesto) as crumbs to tempt the people toward revolution. Somehow, progressives no longer discard their useless slaves, they convince blacks to murder their own in the womb!
     The façade of socialism is never-ending. It is not a one-act play but they fake concern so well that they deserve Oscars for their performances. One day they care about things, but when Republicans propose the same things, they no longer care, but consider their previous positions inhumane. Orwellian thought is Democrats having conflict with their own beliefs. Political correctness is Orwellian "newspeak." Democrats even have a propaganda ministry as can be seen from their daily "narratives."
     Likewise, with Orwellian perfection, they even rewrite history, as an example, as Biden just did with the Clarence Thomas accusations by Anita Hill. Democrats even have their own thought-police force! How communistic will they get before the stupid voters realize they have been had?
     Is Marxism a left-wing conspiracy? Emphatically, no! It is Satan's will they are doing. The apocalypse in scripture describes a seemingly benevolent global government with a rock-star type leader who wins the people. That sounds like socialism. Then after three-and-one-half years, force is used to get the people to fall into line.
     Christians will be beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast. I believe that Sharia Law, a type of ruthless communism, will be the end-of-time government. I believe the Antichrist will be a Muslim leader who claims to be Isa - their "Jesus" coming with a vengeance. Marxism marries Islam and their bastard child belongs to Satan.