The nation’s top psychologists, entrusted with executive decisions on the treatment of mental health, are exposed in private email exchanges obtained by The Gateway Pundit pathologizing all conservatives as mentally ill and untreatable.
No amount of therapy can remedy “ignorant,” “paranoid,” “strange” “delusional,” “stupid,” “narcissist” conservative Americans who support “corruption and incompetence,” the executive board members of the National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers contend.
In a June 4 email, executive director of NAPPP Dr. John Caccavale warns: “Trump supporters may share some of the narcissistic traits that were exhibited by the former president himself during his 2020 re-election campaign.”
If you ever feel a sudden pang of hunger as you drive past one of the millions of fast food chains across the US, you aren’t alone — and your subconscious might be to blame. Fast food companies have been using color psychology to subtly influence customers for years, including using the color red. One commonality that seems to have been overlooked until recently, though, is that almost all of their logos use the color yellow.
According to color psychology, yellow has long been associated with feelings of contentment, happiness, competence, and comfort. One simple color is responsible for that sense of nostalgia and friendliness you feel whenever you pass by those golden arches.
Red is another color that is frequently paired with yellow in fast food company logos to instill desire. Red illustrates desire, power, and love. It’s why whenever Valentine’s Day rolls around, everything gets blanketed in a layer of rose red and why, when paired with yellow, you might suddenly start salivating for a cup of perfectly cooked golden french fries.
Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?
History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound. We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms – that corruption surrounds us. We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice. We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour. We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people, and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.
So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension? Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy? What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world? The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won’t limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous. Why?
In a plan that easily could be called the “head shrink job protection bill,” Democrats have proposed a massive and exhaustive gun-control plan that would require gun owners and their family members to undergo “psychological evaluations.”
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 “insurance” fees, the plan demands. And a long list of weapons simply would be banned.
The bill from U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, follows on comments from Joe Biden during his campaign that he would appoint to run his gun control program a failed presidential hopeful who insisted that yes, the government was coming to confiscate guns.