Ticket to Heaven Daily Dose

[Hrvatski Noahid]

The well-meaning adherents of these philosophies, who are outraged at the indignities of colonial-industrial society and want to do something about it, are often taken in by the more cynical and ruthless elements of leftist movements. Indeed, organizations like Black Lives Matter captured extraordinary public attention for their stances on racism in the United States, but after years of enjoying tremendous public support, collapsed into corruption and embezzlement scandals. On smaller scales, influencers and grifters like Meghan Markle exploit pre-existing grievances about race to increase their own visibility, or hustlers like Amber Heard attempt to make false accusations of domestic abuse on behalf of all women everywhere.

Shockingly, corrupt postmodernist professionals have even infiltrated and co-opted entire professional organizations to accomplish the goals of their beloved interest groups. This extraordinarily dangerous plow has already resulted in the sterilization and mutilation of North American children, as well as institutionalized sexual interference in schools and psychiatric practices. These crimes and many others, facilitated by the systematized nature of Western knowledge and an over-reliance on experts, have confused generations of people and are a hidden factor in the ongoing mental health crises flummoxing Western experts. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 62)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Despite taking great pains to emphasize the progress they have been making with their technology and science, the high modernists are now scrambling to correct for the externalities of their grand visions. With the mental health of North America now destroyed by overwork, overplanning, and substandard living conditions, the system is falling apart at the seams and spending enormous amounts of money to keep people mentally functional enough to perpetuate the project.

The accumulated pain that Western populations carry can be seen most clearly in the youngest generations, who, more than any other generation of human beings, have grown up with social media and smartphone technology – both of which have proven to be highly addictive and mentally destructive if overused. Moreover, the optimization of all aspects of human life, taken to extremes in the age of hyper-competitive Ivy League admissions processes and extracurricular activities, have reduced childhood from a time of play to a series of checklists and accomplishments, depriving the youngest generations of the very important experiences of play, free exploration, adventure, and even teenage risk-taking.

Indeed, the high modernist belief in the perfectibility of nature has long been extended to childhood, beginning with mandatory state education centuries ago and reaching new heights in the age of scientific parenting, tiger moms, microaggressions, and overprotection. Yet the youngest generations, who should be the happiest and most able given the unprecedented resources spent on childcare and education, are proving to be afflicted with maladies like anxiety, depression, and ADHD at rates never seen or heard of in human history.

Although many experts place the blame for this mental health crisis squarely on technology, and more erudite thinkers also condemn the over-systematization of childhood, the full truth is that the psychological professions and their governing bodies were infiltrated decades ago by Marxist activists. Weaponizing the “science” of the invisible mind against Western society, these utterly corrupt professionals have intentionally perverted the modern understanding of human nature, leaving modern people defenseless against sickening levels of therapeutic malpractice and outright scientific fraud.

If anyone asks a scientist what the best thing about science is, and their answer is anything other than the scientific method, that answer had better be uniquely insightful and thought-provoking. Indeed, the rigorous kinds of examination developed by Western civilization and its influences have facilitated a slow grind towards truth, which in turn have afforded the West many modern luxuries, unbelievable creative capacities, and a genuine chance at achieving technological utopia. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 63)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

The scientific method can be summarized as follows:

You are humble enough to be unsure about something and willing to investigate it

You establish what is currently known about the topic

You develop a hypothesis about what might be true

You design an experiment to test your hypothesis fairly, rigorously, and creatively

You execute the experiment and collect your data

You impartially and honestly examine the data to draw conclusions

You share your results with others for review and replication

One of the strengths of this method is its impartiality – by creating a hypothesis beforehand and then testing it with a predetermined experiment, the result is independent of the wishes or preferences of the experimenter. Therefore, the experiment can be considered a glimpse of unadulterated reality, which is further confirmed by other scientists replicating the experiment in their own contexts. This crucial part of the process, known today as peer review, is the backbone of the scientific method as it applies in social contexts.

Another strength of the scientific method, and particularly the peer review system, is that any scientific claim is open, at least in theory, to challenges from new experiments and new data. This is what happened at the turn of the twentieth century, when Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity brought powerful new perspectives to physics and changed science forever. However, whereas collaboration between Western scientists used to be more organic, with the peer review system providing a level of rigor to what were otherwise folkloric chains of transmission, modern science is conducted largely through centralized mechanisms like universities, peer-reviewed journals, and governing bodies.

Indeed, whereas the history of scientific discovery is filled with stories of polymathic prodigies like William Herschel and self-taught geniuses like Michael Faraday, the colonial-industrial system known today as “science” relies on networks of journals and professional organizations, tightly managed by credentialed authorities and funded by governments to support progress and economic growth. Although this modern approach to science provided the necessary infrastructure for many sophisticated discoveries and the centralization of vast amounts of human knowledge, the historical record shows it has left the West’s “scientific” understanding of reality open to systemic corruption and institutional malpractice. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 64)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Although scientists of generations past worked collaboratively and organically, in modern times the verification and distribution of scientific knowledge has become, like everything else in the West, highly systematized and subject to centralized influence. Many academic circles are notoriously difficult to break into for even career academics, and the publishing costs of independently submitting research for peer review are so prohibitive as to discourage scholarship outside of government-funded university settings.

The career track for researchers in almost every field is linear to the point of being a railroad, with aspiring scientists or arts scholars looking forward to a four-year undergraduate degree, a two-year graduate program, and a four-to-six-year doctorate as the table stakes for entry. Following this, many academics experience a harrowing process of finding a post-doctorate position, and eventually a teaching position. After several decades of navigating highly political postsecondary environments, one can finally obtain tenure and release research relatively free from the fear of career sabotage – although not entirely.

Obviously, while this system affords the Western intellectual effort with certain kinds of rigor and standardization, much like other kinds of organizations, the modern academic machine has many weaknesses. Among them are the petty squabbles and personal feuds common to the corporate world, falsified or corrupted research submitted for career advancement, and political maneuvering at the expense of metaphysical clarity. Indeed, the authority structures now instantiated within the scientific method have afforded tremendous subjective influences to governing bodies like the College of Midwives of Ontario, legislated into existence in 1991 to standardize the thousands-year-old practice of midwifery, part of an ongoing effort by industrial medicine to exclude traditional female birth workers from practice and make birth “safer”.

The same is true for the American Psychiatric Association, originally a loose collection of asylum superintendents and now one of the governing bodies that defines, among other things, what a mental illness is and the different kinds of illnesses that exist.

One of the most important works regarding the philosophy and history of science was produced by Thomas Kuhn, an American historian and philosopher who developed the concept of a scientific paradigm. Defined as an underlying framework or worldview that influences the entirety of someone’s thought on a topic, a paradigm constitutes the accepted body of literature in a field, the kinds of questions that are asked, and the acceptable standards for investigation. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 64-65)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Whereas mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and the computer sciences seem to have largely settled into a comprehensive understanding of their domains and well-tested methods of investigation, the so-called “science” of psychology is a relative newcomer to the Western intellectual project, first gaining prominence with the release of Sigmund Freud’s work in the 1890s and early 1900s. A field characterized by fierce disagreements between kaleidoscopic schools of thought that have not yet cohered into a paradigm, psychology is paradoxically the least-developed and most subjective of all the Western sciences, but arguably the most powerful.

Largely developed in the wake of the Industrial Revolution and thus subject to its values of systematization and optimization, the unquestioned assumptions held by “experts” in psychology have famously been the motive behind institutionalized violence against people who do not fit easily into colonial-industrial society, such as “hysterical” women treated with genital massage or schizophrenic and bipolar patients treated with lobotomies. Owing largely to its deep interconnections with social work and therefore government funding, this upstart prodigy of a science conceived not two centuries ago has obtained the power of law in many countries, with the ability to confine “mentally ill” people on wards temporarily or indefinitely, physically restrain them to their beds to the point of asphyxiation or cardiac arrest, medicate them against their will, and do all sorts of other things for their own good – and for the good of society.

As many mentally ill people can attest and is often memorialized in popular culture like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest or Patch Adams, the treatment from these systems is harsh, authoritarian, utterly rigid, and belligerent to the point of keeping patients with religious delusions in confinement without actively seeking support from religious practitioners. However, not only have these deeply ignorant and arrogant oversteps on facilitated some of the worst medical crimes in history, following their takeover by Marxist activists in the mid-twentieth century, the governing bodies that manage psychology now instantiate and enforce malpractice, sexual interference, and the corruption of children in service of disruptive Marxist objectives. While some of these metaphysical and epistemic frauds are beginning to gain awareness in Western society with the release of documentaries like Daily Wire’s What is a Woman?, the frightening reality is that the psychological sciences have been weaponized against common people for decades and mental illness is now masquerading as love.

Modern psychology, as many are aware, begins with the psychoanalytic techniques and theories developed collaboratively by Sigmund Freud, Josef Breuer, and “Anna O.”, which were based largely on links that were discovered to exist between childhood traumas and adult discontent. Their school of thought, known as psychoanalysis, focused on traumatic memories and incestuous family dynamics, the revelations of which were largely responsible for the explosion of psychology’s popularity in the early twentieth century. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 65-66)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

However, psychoanalysis was soon disputed by behaviorists like Ivan Pavlov and Alexander Luria, who were concerned primarily with brain activity and the resulting behaviors that were driven by them. The incompatibilities between these schools of thought, as well as some of the existing problems within psychology in the early twentieth century, catalyzed the development of third force psychology or positive psychology, an attempt by luminaries like Abraham Maslow, Erik and Joan Erikson, and Carl Rogers to reform and humanize the field by focusing on human well-being instead of traumas or reflexes.

As the twentieth century progressed and computing technology was invented, scientists and researchers began drawing many connections between the brain and their new machines. Both processed and stored information; both could make decisions, albeit the computers required instruction; both used electricity to function. In addition to many exciting research opportunities, this also created many metaphysical problems for psychologists and philosophers, as some began wondering if computers could become conscious. This catalyzed new questions in psychology, largely intertwined with philosophy and metaphysics, which sought to understand the causes and functions of human consciousness, develop an understanding of the human self, and determine the nature of human decision-making.

Despite the many genuine contributions it has made to the West’s understanding of the human condition and its improvement, the subjective nature of psychology’s research methodologies have not only laid the groundwork for endless amounts of fraud, but allowed for the corruption and misuse of otherwise-useful discoveries.

Psychoanalysis, for example, is rooted in and focused on the role of trauma in human life, a historical reality that has cascaded into the use of trauma, a clinical term, for things that do not fit the definition. Much of Western life, at least in North America, is focused on the discovery and healing of trauma or the alleviation of negative feelings – for example, it is estimated that almost thirty percent of Americans saw a therapist during the pandemic and that about one in ten Americans engage with a mental health professional within any given year. Unbeknownst to many laypeople, however, the psychological literature on trauma indicates that most people grow from traumatic events and become stronger.

This detail seems to have escaped notice from general social discourse, where traumas are used as justification for reparations and apologies, and rarely if ever framed as growth opportunities. Aside from questions of justice, which are entirely salient, the general trend began by Freud and Breuer following their collaboration with O. is a dangerous and subtle usurpation of human autonomy and robs unsuspecting laypeople of growth opportunities. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 66-67)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Whereas the psychoanalysts favored introspective methods and subject interviews, the behaviorists discarded those techniques and focused strictly on observable material outcomes of brain activity. Although this is generally not known, Pavlov and many other behaviorists were skilled surgeons, and often obtained their discoveries by way of subtle or drastic alterations to the bodies of their animal subjects. Their discovery that much of the mind’s activity could be attributed to the brain’s functioning very quickly led to what is known as the “mind-body problem”, a central dispute within psychology which, taken alone, disqualifies it from being a paradigmatic science.

Essentially, people in the behaviorist camp believed that there is nothing in the universe aside from matter, and that what people experienced as the “mind” was largely irrelevant to the study of human behavior. This is known as monism, or the belief that the universe only has one kind of stuff. Their opponents, which include almost all religious people, believe in dualism, which holds that “mind” is something separate from matter and should be studied and treated differently. This issue has never been resolved in psychology and many researchers have stepped past it, adopting elements of both depending on their context and focus.

The development of third force psychology, in some respects, can be seen as a successful attempt to correct for some of the worst excesses of the problems of earlier schools and a movement away from a trauma focus. In a 1968 memorandum to the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, Abraham Maslow shared his experience with psychological problems that were impossible to resolve within the values-free domain of traditional scientific inquiry. He expressed a level of frustration and disappointment that psychology was predominantly focused on the sick and unwell, rather than on the thriving and fulfilled. This memorandum, and the work of people like Maslow, Rogers, and the Eriksons, gave birth to what is now the positive psychology movement and a focus on becoming one’s best self.

However, there is a problem here – what is the self? Much like the mind-body problem, which led some psychologists to logically conclude that there is no such thing as mind in the universe, the self is a nebulous concept in psychology, with several definitions competing for dominance in the field. Even more problematically, neuroscientists engaging with Buddhist ideas have put forth the idea that there is no such thing as a “self”, citing resonances between Buddhist no-self doctrine and some discoveries in their domain. This is another problem that has been largely stepped over, with many therapeutic workers implicitly assuming that there must be a self – otherwise, their work to improve others would make no sense.

The advent of possibly-conscious computers created many difficult questions for psychologists and philosophers. In some respects, the machines served as a mirror with which humanity could examine its own consciousness – and largely come away with no real answers. Indeed, psychologists do not know how we are conscious, why we are conscious, what consciousness is for, or even how to define consciousness and differentiate between “conscious” and “unconscious” brain activity. Put simply, anything to do with consciousness is wrapped up in complicated philosophy, and some of the brightest minds consider at least one of the problems unsolvable. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 67-68)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

The final conceptual problem of psychology is the deepest and lies with the inappropriate fusion of methods used to obtain information by psychological researchers. Historically and currently, psychology has been a mixture of introspective methods and observational methods yielding two different kinds of data. However, these subjective and objective findings will remain incompatible unless a brain-scanning device is invented which can confirm, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the self-report of a subject or patient is indeed reflective of the activity going on in their brain or “mind”. Without that, the discoveries from these two types of inquiry will remain, at some level, disjointed, meaning that even if the mind-body problem, the self problem, the consciousness problems, and the issues identified by Abraham Maslow are solved, psychology will never have a hope of being a truly objective science.

Given psychology’s competing and contradictory schools of thought, combined with its history of barbaric practices and “failures to replicate” famous findings, it is probably unsurprising that psychology is a field rife with all kinds of fraud, from individual research fraud to extensive institutional deception on important matters.

One area of reasonable suspicion includes the close relationship between pharmaceutical companies, hungry for lifetime customers, and the psychological industry. Concerns have been raised, for example, over the fact that ADHD-like “disorders” have been skyrocketing in young boys over the past couple of decades, demonstrably because of psychology-aware teachers who notice “symptoms” in their classroom like fidgeting, excessive talking, and impulsivity.

While folkloric common sense would hold that these behaviors are quite common in young boys full of energy, the helping professions, concerned with academic compliance and good behavior, push these boys into lifetime subscription to Ritalin or Adderall. Only in recent years have the actual experts in child psychology concluded that ADHD is over-diagnosed, and that these children’s “symptoms” are being treated unnecessarily with pharmaceuticals. Because the demographics most affected by the medicalization of childhood are predominantly lower-class and without the kinds of influence needed to question or challenge these diagnoses, some Afrocentric thinkers now assert that special education systems, with their plans and their pills, are destroying black American children for systemic efficiency. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 68-69)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

In terms of outright research fraud, some of psychology’s biggest names have been incriminated in outlandish schemes, sometimes only after decades of successfully perpetrating their lies. Philip Zimbardo’s famous Stanford Prison Experiment, which seemed to suggest that human beings were naturally prone to mistreating each other, has been found to be the result of undisclosed manipulations that created the famous outcomes. The Implicit Association Test, which purports to measure levels of subconscious bias towards people of different demographics, does not meet any of the standard definitions for diagnostic reliability in psychology, and even one of its founders has retracted the bold claims made about the test. Even the popular and seemingly intuitive concept of power poses, taught to young people everywhere as a confidence hack, becomes a placebo when the data is rigorously analyzed and replicated.

Perhaps the most unfortunate kinds of deception within psychology are the lies perpetrated over decades by governing bodies, which make claims about human nature that are then cascaded down into law and therapeutic practice. If a psychological lie makes its way into a professional relationship, it can have catastrophic outcomes for patients and clients, and may even be dangerous, as neither the client nor practitioner will be aware of the deception perpetrated by the governing body. This is, sadly, the case with homosexuality, considered since 1973 to be a positive and healthy expression of human sexuality to be treasured and protected in the same way as heterosexual relationships.

The story of homosexuality begins in the 1950s, with early research on the psychological nature of homosexuality conducted by people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey which formed the foundation for later discussions. Around this time, a psychiatrist named Robert Spitzer was involved in developing the third edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, a document published by the American Psychiatric Association that provides a centralized list of all known mental disorders and the symptoms most commonly associated with them.

People working with Spitzer on the project relate that it was largely driven by his singular vision, with a process that was often opaque and autocratic, although the DSM-III was an undeniable success that provided professionals with coherent language for describing many psychological maladies. However, these problems of subjectivity, and others like them, eventually led some researchers to advocate for different ways of classifying disorders, like the Power Threat Meaning Framework.

Spitzer’s leading role within the DSM made him an idea figure to weigh in on the issue of homosexuality, an urgent topic in the 1950s and 1960s which erupted into marches and riots after the Stonewall incident of 1969. At this time, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder, which created systemic barriers for queer people as well as tremendous prejudice. Indeed, at this time, some of the barbaric methods within psychology, such as morphine-induced nausea treatment and electroshock therapy, were being trialed as potential cures for homosexuality, making it a burning-platform issue for the then-nascent gay pride movement. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 69-70)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

As a result, the gay pride activists at the time began engaging in highly aggressive protest tactics at psychological conferences, shouting down speakers, being generally disruptive, and delivering the ultimatum that their lifestyle be removed as a mental disorder in the DSM. In response, Robert Spitzer proposed a revision to the DSM-II in 1973 which was not a scientific proposal, but another opaque and autocratic move guided by his personal vision for the document. As is documented plainly by the proceedings of the American Psychiatric Association, Spitzer elegantly defined “mental disorder” as a psychological condition that impairs general function or is unwanted by the patient, thus removing homosexuality from consideration as a mental disorder and removing it by fiat from the DSM-II. Many professionals at the time disagreed with the decision.

In all fairness to the gay pride movement, many of their concerns regarding the treatment of homosexuals at work and in society were quite valid. There are many stories of brutality and violence, countless stories of rejection at the hands of friends and family, and the kinds of invisible tragedies and hardships only made known to the mainstream through brilliant queer artistic works like RENT or Sense8. Indeed, although it is not well-known, the author of The Ugly Duckling, Hans Christian Andersen, was himself bisexual and wrote the parable as a kind of autobiographical tale.

Yet, a deeper look into the lives of Hans Christian Andersen, Robert Spitzer, Alfred Kinsey, and many others part of the poorly-defined “LGBTQ movement” reveal a number of troublesome patterns in childhood, which are reflected in a body of scientific literature that has been systematically hidden, discredited, and outright denied by the psychological mainstream since Spitzer’s 1973 redefinition of mental disorder.

Hans Christian Andersen, as related by popular sources, was born in Danish slums to humble parents and may have been dealing with alcoholism, the prostitution of family members, and potentially even sexual abuse as part of his childhood. In nonfictional autobiographical accounts, Andersen relates that he was abused at school for purposes of character improvement and was discouraged from pursuing creative outlets by the faculty. This mixture of experiences, juxtaposed with his relative success later on in life as a weaver of tales and imaginations, is roughly the narrative espoused in The Ugly Duckling. Sadly, Andersen’s love life remained unfulfilled, with persistent problems in finding a female mate as well as same-sex attractions that remained mostly unexplored.

However, there are resonances between Andersen’s childhood and the experiences carried by Alfred Spitzer. During Spitzer’s childhood, he reportedly dealt with a “professional patient” for a mother and a “cold, remote” father. He attended therapy as a teenager for these issues, as well as an outlet to talk about his fascination with women.

In fact, as noted by Sexual Personae author and lesbian dissident Camille Paglia, there is consistently a pattern of childhood disturbance present in the male homosexual community, and in one of her public opinions offered on the subject went so far as to say this was ubiquitous across all gay men she had ever known. Juxtaposed against these allegations, which would likely be decried as genocidally homophobic in the post-Trump era, is the American Psychological Association’s website, which states that there is “no consensus about the exact reasons” and that “most people experience little or no choice” in their sexual orientation. The LGBTQ movement has since rallied around these ideas, expressed succinctly in Lady Gaga’s smash hit Born This Way, and claim that their orientations are innate, biologically determined, a fundamental part of who they are, and therefore inviolable. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 70-71)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

But what does the science say?

A 2019 study on the relationship between genetics and homosexuality which involved almost half a million Europeans found that genes can only account for between eight and twenty-five percent of homosexual behavior. Although this is not a perfect comparison due to differences in the studies, genetics have been found to drive forty percent of divorce behavior and the majority of bipolar predisposition, strongly indicating that homosexuality is not driven by genetics. Investigations into intrauterine factors that might drive homosexuality such as fetal hormone exposure, as well as theories about evolutionary origins such as kin group optimization, remain inconclusive, unproven, weak, or implausible.

However, much more in line with Paglia’s estimation and the lives of Andersen and Spitzer, a study published in 2012 found that homosexuals were significantly more likely to have been sexually abused as children when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and that this likely plays some kind of causal role. These findings were foreshadowed by another high-quality study published four years earlier and seem relevant to the treatment of LGBTQ individuals given the trauma that would cascade into other mental health issues typical for victims of childhood sexual abuse, which are many.

Furthermore, Canadian-led research on over one thousand male homosexuals in the twentieth century found a pervasive trend in the male homosexual’s family dynamic where the mother was inappropriately close, controlling, smothering, and inappropriately emotionally bonded with her male child, sometimes even becoming sexually inappropriate in similar ways that she would with female friends. Meanwhile, the father was cold, abusive, competitive, and rejecting – much like Robert Spitzer’s was reported to be.

These findings, too, have been corroborated by studies of homosexual clergy members, as well as a 2005 study involving two million Danish subjects, but have been flatly, aggressively, and even violently denied by activists who are adamant that there is nothing wrong with them whatsoever.

Given the context of homosexuality’s removal from the DSM and Spitzer’s own life history, these findings are extremely troubling and indicate there is a tremendous amount of unrecognized and unresolved pain in the homosexual community. This hypothesis is supported by a significant amount of literature on LGBTQ mental health, including studies that find homosexual and bisexual men are nearly three times as promiscuous as heterosexual men, are more likely to have been paid for sex, and engage in extreme sexual acts significantly more often. Non-heterosexuals are much more likely to be dependent on drugs and are more likely to have a diagnosed disorder such as bipolar, panic disorder, borderline personality disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 72)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

In the context of monogamous same-sex relationships, which are rarer than admitted despite the fierce fight for their recognition, homosexual relationships are more unstable and likely to be plagued by infidelity as well as more violent: male-male partners are just as likely to be violent as heterosexual couples, if not more, and lesbian pairings are the most violent kind of relationship.

The metaphysical switcheroo perpetrated by Robert Spitzer in 1973 was not entirely a terrible thing, as it catalyzed the general acceptance of not only homosexuals, but people with all kinds of diverse attributes, including disabilities and other mental illnesses. Today, homosexuals are celebrated for their many achievements – predominantly artistic, likely but not confirmedly due to genetic predispositions to extraversion and openness – and even gender-diverse people are beginning to find acceptance. At the very least, there is more room for different kinds of masculine and feminine expression and some aspects of rigidity during formative years has been relaxed.

However, the metaphysical crimes perpetrated by corrupt psychologists have had terrible costs for Western nations. The undiagnosed mental health issues of the homosexual population, which cascade into extremely promiscuous and risky behavior, have been the root cause of the AIDS crisis that took the lives of many homosexuals as well as the recent monkeypox scare. Gay pride has since turned into an industry, with abused men, and now children, paraded as drag queens on national television instead of getting the help they need.

As disappointing as these series of lies have been, the rot goes much deeper with the psychological bodies. Following the depathologization of homosexuality in 1973, LGBTQ activists with a neo-Marxist agenda began infiltrating the field, eager to gain and wield professional power in service of a demographic that had long been poorly served by electroshock therapy and morphine. However, fifty years into the deception, what started as a push for mere acceptance has devolved into the sick and calculated destruction of entire generations of children, whose bodies and minds have been sacrificed at the altar of inclusion. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 73)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

If Hans Christian Andersen, the original ugly duckling, were alive today, there is a high chance he would be either transgendered or nonbinary. Indeed, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s definitive report on transgender science and the standards of care for transgendered individuals cites evidence that over seventy-seven percent of prepubescent boys referred to clinics for gender dysphoria ended up desisting, or no longer experiencing dysphoric feelings into adolescence. The same is true for girls, for whom seventy-three percent desisted around puberty. Most of these children were documented to become homosexuals or bisexuals instead, much like Hans Christian Andersen was believed to be.

However, despite these realities, new research in transgender “science” has since swept through Western nations to the point where gender-affirming care is now mandated by Canadian law should a child begin to express dysphoria to a parent or caregiver. In many school districts, teachers can help “socially transition” children without parental knowledge or consent. Some governments in American states like California are enacting similarly radical legislation, purportedly to benefit children given the astronomically high suicide rate amongst the transgender population.

The various issues surrounding the claims of transgender activists have led to unprecedented social turmoil in North America, becoming one of the rare social issues to become as polarized as race. The West’s concessions to the “scientific” demands of have resulted, so far, in “penised women” entering spas and disrobing in front of women and female children, female estheticians being sued for not waxing a “woman’s” testicles, a woman’s skull being broken by a transgendered individual in a martial arts bout, and dangerous male-bodied offenders being housed with female inmates.

But what of this new transgender science? Where did it come from?

Ultimately, this author personally witnessed the devolution of the LGBTQ movement during his own involvement with it throughout the 2010s. Even in universities at that time, transgendered people were quite rare, although most people on campus were familiar with them. In the mid-2010s, however, the ideas became more mainstream in LGBTQ thought and therefore in academia, which leans liberal in almost all disciplines except the hard sciences. During this time, the author joined an online group dedicated to transgender science, and after observing the academic discussions for about three years, it became clear that the group had begun seeding their studies using each other and themselves as research subjects.

These activist-academics had also come to explicitly reject the standards for transgender care as espoused by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health in favour of radical and unproven notions of gender which have since become commonplace in Western discourse. By forming loosely distributed and largely informal networks of pseudo-scholars, neo-Marxist and academics who could all cite and reference each other, they – and other activist-academics – have been able to usurp the scientific method and confuse many people terribly. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 73-74)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

The result is that about eighty percent of children, if not more, who are receiving puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries, or even gender-affirming care that does not first investigate childhood traumas like sexual abuse, are being intentionally neglected by a corrupted discipline that cares more about legitimizing its own mental illness than it does about alleviating others’ suffering. Even worse, their parents are being told that the only other option to gender-affirming care is a dead child, with the tremendously high suicide rates of gender dysphoric individuals provided as evidence that they are obliged to comply.

Furthermore, the transitioning process, which involves hormone treatments and surgeries to construct new sexual organs, is held by transgender activists to be the panacea of the condition. Yet, the suicide rate for transgendered people who have fully transitioned remains twenty times that of the population average in some studies. Additionally, the ranks of so-called “detransitioners”, or people who regret their transition, are growing. This demographic, many of whom are women on the autism spectrum, cite other issues for their dysphoric feelings and report feeling influenced by the lies propagated by activists online.

Instead of allowing their ugly ducklings to grow into swans, a colonized and impatient population, deluded by mentally ill activist-psychologists, has become tragically obsessed with the defeathering and tearing-apart of these beautiful birds. The sickening history of experimentation that laid the groundwork for these modern deceptions, which includes child mutilation for purposes of research, is also deeply concerning and indicates deep corruption and immorality on the part of psychology’s governing bodies.

The author’s own life experience is proof that this rabbit hole goes even deeper. After attending regular talk therapy for work stress in 2019, the author discovered that some of his LGBTQ orientations, which included open polyamory and closeted bisexual tendencies, were almost completely alleviated and replaced with a strong desire for a wife and a vegetable garden. According to the American Psychological Association’s 2009 Task Force Report on conversion therapy, or therapy intended to change sexual orientation, this is not even possible if that is the point of the therapeutic relationship, let alone by complete accident.

The report also claimed to find “no credible evidence” for the efficacy of such practices, then concluded that people do not face a choice about their sexual orientation and that “affirmative treatments” are the only responsible option, much like was said for transgenderism a decade later. However, this task force seems to have been comprised of six activists in gay rights causes, with not a single actual practitioner of conversion therapy accepted to the committee, nor even a neutral party. Furthermore, their report conveniently dismissed every single paper documenting conversion therapy success as being methodologically flawed, allowing them to say there is no credible evidence while avoiding the inconvenient truth that evidence happens to exist. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 74-75)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

In fact, there are many papers and studies that document the efficacy of conversion therapy, and they seem more reputable than the LGBTQ activists would like to admit. One paper, which accurately described the author’s family dynamic despite being published thirteen years before his birth, found that cognitive psychoanalysis had a 30-50% success rate. Another researcher found that a similar proportion of surveyed homosexuals accessing therapy or pastoral care experienced a change from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual, and experienced positive changes in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.

Infamously, Robert Spitzer, the man responsible for the revolution of the DSM, published a study with over two hundred former homosexuals who claimed to have been cured through therapy, which he later retracted after criticism from the ideologically captured psychological mainstream.

Between LGBTQ fraud, the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Implicit Association Test, power poses, the collapse of the serotonin theory in depression, further fraud in Alzheimer’s research, and a general “replication crisis” in psychological fields, modern society seems fundamentally confused about many matters of human nature. Zimbardo’s fraud cast a deep cloud of pessimism for decades, its shocking revelations about morality spreading like wildfire. Children are being sterilized, mutilated, lied to, and intentionally confused by deranged adults desperately seeking to legitimize their illnesses. The American Psychological Association has even been implicated in torture of United States prisoners.

This leaves Western society with a deep problem. If many things commonly believed to be true about human nature are fictions, and the scientific bodies involved in perpetrating these lies have been corrupted for decades, then the true nature of human nature is very much an open question to be resolved. Indeed, to paraphrase dissident psychologists specializing in narcissism, most modern Westerners live in a world of flickering images, denied the opportunity of looking in a mirror and seeing their true self.

Despite the rampaging technicolor catastrophe that psychology has degenerated into, there have been many genuinely useful discoveries over the years. Many of the well-known luminaries like Abraham Maslow and Erik Erikson have contributed several important puzzle pieces to our self-understanding and have likely helped keep the Western psyche together despite the pernicious influences from high modernists and their subversive counterparts.

Some other examples of genuine accomplishments include Internal Family Systems, an innovative kind of auto-dialectical therapy that encourages dialogue between disparate “parts” of a person. They also include the wickedly tricky Derren Brown, a hypnotist, mentalist, showman, and stuntman who uses scientific knowledge and advanced psychological techniques to conduct experiments, teach people life lessons, and empower his fellow human beings. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 75-76)

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Moreover, Abraham Maslow’s vision for third force psychology, and in his final years an even more exciting fourth force, underlies the optimistic tones now taken by mainstream psychology. Indeed, the focus of third force psychologists on values, needs, and self-actualization is one of the pillars of the modern self-help movement, forms standard knowledge for psychology undergraduates, and will mark important waypoints on the reconstruction of psychology and the blueprint of global utopia in the second section of this document. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 77)