Groupthink and Totalitarianism: Mechanisms, Manifestations, and Historical Comparisons

 Groupthink and Totalitarianism: Mechanisms, Manifestations, and Historical Comparisons

---

Introduction

The phenomena of groupthink and totalitarianism are deeply intertwined in the history of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Groupthink, a term popularized by research psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970s, involves a psychological drive for consensus at any cost, resulting in rationalized conformity, suppression of dissenting ideas, and a collective aversion to critical evaluation. Totalitarianism, meanwhile, refers to political systems that strives for total control over all aspects of public and private life, as well as over the economy using ideology, propaganda, terror, surveillance, and often with a single charismatic leader to enforce strict obedience and, crucially, to make groupthink the prevailing social norm.

Today’s blog examines how groupthink functions as a foundational psychological and socio-political mechanism within various totalitarian contexts. It delves into its theoretical roots, syndromes, and operation across iconic regimes—fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, post-revolutionary Iran, and military juntas—using a broad base of web sources and contemporary scholarship. Special attention is given to how groupthink enables ideological conformity, the suppression of dissent, and the durability of centralized control. My blog also contrasts groupthink with the various mechanisms of authoritarian rule, probes failures and breakdowns of groupthink within totalitarian systems, and considers the implications for contemporary societies.

---

Theoretical Foundations of Groupthink

Classic Definitions and Evolution

Groupthink is defined as the deterioration of "mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment" as a result of group pressures for harmony or conformity, particularly in highly cohesive groups. Irving Janis, who conducted seminal studies on foreign-policy fiascos such as the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam War escalation, outlined eight core symptoms: illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalization, belief in inherent morality, stereotyped views of out-groups, direct pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, the illusion of unanimity, and mindguards shielding the group from dissenting information.

Dr. Irving Janis identified several antecedent conditions that make groupthink more likely:

• High group cohesiveness
• Insulation from outside opinions
• Lack of impartial or methodical decision-making procedures
• Homogeneity of members’ backgrounds and ideologies
• Strong, directive, or charismatic leadership
• High stress from external threats or recent failures

These conditions foster an environment in which maintaining the cohesiveness of the group or regime is prioritized over rigorous evaluation of alternatives, often resulting in irrational or dangerous decisions.

From Psychology to Political Sociology

While groupthink initially described small-group decision-making, it scales up in the context of totalitarianism. As Hannah Arendt, Erich Fromm, and later Right-Wing Authoritarianism theorists have noted, the suppression of dissent and deference to authority are not just traits of individual psychology, but can become the defining features of entire societies under totalitarian rule. Social psychologists Professors Duckitt, Altemeyer, and Jost further emphasize that groupthink mechanisms gain particular power when in-group identification is threatened by perceived external enemies or internal uncertainties, increasing both authoritarian submission and aggression towards out-group "enemies".

---

Mechanisms and Symptoms of Groupthink in Totalitarian Regimes

Core Mechanisms

In all totalitarian regimes, groupthink is actively engineered via overlapping psychological and institutional means:

• Suppression of Dissent: Dissenters are stigmatized, silenced, or eliminated, leading to pervasive self-censorship.
• Internalization of Ideology: The regime's narratives become internalized, making disagreement feel morally or existentially dangerous.
• Mindguards and Informants: Both formal (secret police) and informal (peer denouncers) mechanisms ensure negative feedback is filtered out before it reaches leadership or the public.
• Manipulation of Threat Perception: Real or imagined crises are used to stoke conformity—external enemies, internal traitors, or existential threats to the nation or faith.

Janis’s eight symptoms have been repeatedly observed in totalitarian contexts:

Symptom	Description	Operationalization (Totalitarian Regimes)
Invulnerability	Excessive optimism, risky decisions	Exaggerated confidence in military or policy plans
Rationalization	Discounting warnings, justifying actions	Portrayal of purges or wars as necessary/inevitable
Morality	Unquestioned belief in group’s (regime’s) righteousness	Ideological campaigns, moral denunciations
Stereotypes	Mislabeling/othering of enemies or dissenters	Demonization of targeted minorities/“class enemies”
Pressure	Direct suppression of dissent	Punishments, show trials, re-education campaigns
Self-censorship	Individual suppression of doubts or criticisms	Conformist culture, fear of reprisal
Unanimity	Illusion of consensus	Rituals, mass democracy, “unanimous” party votes
Mindguards	Information filtering/protection of leader/group from dissenting input	Secret police, censorship, “loyal” intermediaries

Self-censorship, the illusion of unanimity, and mindguards are especially pronounced under totalitarianism, where not just formal dissent but even private doubts become dangerous.

---

Groupthink and Ideological Conformity

Groupthink operates not just as a passive byproduct of totalitarianism, but as its active psychological engine. Ideological conformity is achieved when regime ideology is so pervasive that alternatives become literally unthinkable. The feedback between groupthink and totalitarianism is reciprocal: totalitarian states breed groupthink, and groupthink enables totalitarian structures to sustain themselves.

Mechanisms Promoting Conformity

Language Manipulation: Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984 is the archetype—limiting vocabulary constrains thought, making dissent logistically impossible.

Institutional Indoctrination: Education systems, youth organizations, and media enforce orthodoxy from childhood, rendering the regime’s worldview unquestioned.

Ritual Displays and Mass Events: Mass rallies, salutes, uniforms, and public confessions create an illusion of unanimity and reinforce conformity.

Peer Surveillance: Citizens are expected to report on one another, eroding trust and enforcing self-censorship even in private spaces.

Rewards and Punishments: Loyalist behaviors are materially rewarded, while dissent is severely sanctioned, often by means of secret police, labour camps, or ostracism.

Moral Reframing: Regimes present their policies as morally correct, labeling dissent as evil, treasonous, or existentially threatening.

Comparative Table: Groupthink Across Totalitarian Regimes

Regime	Groupthink Symptoms	Mechanisms Employed	Examples/Outcomes
Fascist Italy	Illusion of unanimity, self-censorship, mindguards	Propaganda, Blackshirts, OVRA	Suppression of opposition, public loyalty rituals
Nazi Germany	Invulnerability, rationalization, morality, pressure	Propaganda, Gestapo, cult of personality	Holocaust, expansionist war, persecution of dissenters
Francoist Spain	Stereotyping, mass mobilization, mindguards, suppression of dissent	National Catholicism, secret police	Long-term dictatorship, censorship, repression of regional identities
Stalinist USSR	Purges, pressure, mindguards, rationalization	Show trials, NKVD, purges, censorship	Gulags, famines, elimination of opponents, scientific stagnation
Maoist China	Unanimity, self-censorship, mass mobilization	Red Guards, struggle sessions, re-education	Cultural Revolution, mass purges, anti-intellectual campaigns
Post-Revolutionary Iran	Suppression of dissent, religious policing, moral reframing	Revolutionary Guards, Guardian Council, theocracy	Suppression of minorities, ideological vetting, execution of political prisoners
Military Juntas	Pressure, hierarchical obedience, control of media	Martial law, censorship, secret police	Human rights abuses, silencing civil society

In all cases, groupthink is a multi-level process: it occurs within the leadership, the party apparatus, in the academy then downstream to society at large, reinforced by both formal institutions and social norms.

---

Groupthink in Historical Totalitarian Regimes

Groupthink in Fascist Italy (Mussolini)

Mussolini’s Italy offers one of the first explicit conceptualizations of totalitarian groupthink. Mussolini, once a socialist, cast fascism as a “third way” focused on unity, anti-liberalism, and the myth of the leader as embodiment of the nation.

• Ideological Control: Fascist ideology was promoted through schools, media, and meticulously orchestrated youth programs (Opera Nazionale Balilla, Avanguardisti, etc.), designed to instill collective loyalty and suppress independent thought.
• Suppression of Dissent: The OVRA secret police monitored, arrested, or exiled opponents. Opposition media was shut down, censorship was pervasive, and even cultural activities were brought under state oversight.
• Cult of Personality: “Il Duce ha sempre ragione” (The Leader is always right) became a ubiquitous slogan.
• Public Rituals: Mass rallies and rituals created an illusion of consent—silence was treated as affirmation.
• Mindguards and Violence: Blackshirts, functioning as “mindguards,” violently suppressed dissenters, enforcing unity by fear and actual threat.
• Propaganda: The Ministry of Popular Culture centralized all messaging, glorifying both the regime and Mussolini’s infallibility.

Despite these efforts, counter-evidence suggests that groupthink was not total: the monarchy, Church, and some social elites retained autonomy, and popular compliance sometimes reflected opportunism more than real belief.

---

Groupthink in Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany operationalized groupthink on an unprecedented mass scale, producing not just collective obedience but voluntary ideological alignment.

• Ideological Indoctrination: Hitler Youth and education reoriented children to Nazi axioms; propaganda portrayed Jews, “Bolsheviks,” and “enemies of the Reich” as existential threats to be exterminated.
• Social Conformity: Ordinary Germans participated in atrocities not due to compulsive terror alone, but due to genuine alignment with regime beliefs—a sophisticated form of groupthink in which “voluntary” action conceals underlying pressure and manipulated consensus.
• Propaganda and Mass Mobilization: Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine flooded media with images of Hitler as infallible; mass rallies invoked ecstatic group identification, making dissent not just dangerous, but socially unthinkable.
• Secret Police as Mindguards: The Gestapo, aided by informants, enforced compliance not by constant visible terror but by making everyone fear denunciation—a form of internalized mindguarding that blurred the line between public and private introspection.

In Alan Woolf's analysis of Nazi leadership during the Holocaust, groupthink was explicit: euphemisms, secrecy, and plausible deniability were coordinated to produce consensus on policies that most would otherwise resist. Dissent (even if only in private diaries) was minimal; doubts were suppressed, and alternative views treated as betrayal.

---

Groupthink in Francoist Spain

Francisco Franco’s long dictatorship (1939–1975) exemplifies groupthink both in structure and cultural effect.

• Ideological Foundation: Franco fused militarism, Catholicism, and Spanish nationalism into a single narrative, suppressing regional identities, languages, and all political pluralism.
• Control through Surveillance: The regime relied on secret police, single-party rule (FET y de las JONS), and comprehensive censorship. Education and mandatory participation in youth organizations ensured ideological indoctrination from an early age.
• Unity through Fear and Ritual: Public life was militarized, with regular parades, Church rituals, and state symbolism. Expressing dissent was not only criminalized but became socially dangerous as well—a classic groupthink effect.
• Suppressing Dissent and Reinforcing Loyalty: Opposition was equated with treason; fear of denunciation and the presence of informants led to self-censorship and the illusion of unanimity in support of the regime.

As Franco’s regime aged, partial liberalizations led to cracks—“families of the regime” (Falange, Carlists, Catholics, Monarchists) began to diverge, and by the 1970s, the system’s ideological rigidity could not prevent mounting opposition, demonstrating the limits and breakdown potential of groupthink when societal pressures shift.

---

Groupthink in Stalinist Soviet Union

Stalinism represents a paradigmatic instance of enforced groupthink at both elite and mass levels.

• Suppression of Internal Debate: The Communist Party purged itself, suppressing dissent through the terror of the NKVD. Nearly all competing narratives within the Party and society were systematically eliminated.
• Collectivization and Orthodoxy: From the Five-Year Plans to collectivization, opposing economic or scientific outlooks (e.g., genetics vs. Lysenkoism) were declared counter-revolutionary; those who resisted were eliminated physically or professionally.
• Cult of Personality: Stalin’s image became synonymous with the Party and the state. Loyalty to Stalin replaced previous communist ideals.
• Propaganda and Censorship: Socialist realism became the only permitted art; historical revisionism erased political rivals. Diaries from the Stalin era show even private writing became a space for rehearsing regime-approved narratives and self-surveillance.
• Mass Mobilization and Fear: The ever-present threat of the Gulag, self-censorship, and a culture of denunciation created the ultimate mindguard system, making even skepticism a thought crime.

The homogenization of thought and personal risk for dissent sustained the system for decades, but at the price of massive inefficiencies, intellectual stagnation, and increasing societal mistrust—a classic groupthink aftermath.

---

Groupthink in Maoist China

Mao Zedong’s China—especially during the Cultural Revolution—shows groupthink not just as mass coercion, but as mass participation in ideological extremism.

• Campaigns of Thought Reform: The Hundred Flowers Campaign initially encouraged open criticism, only for the regime to violently suppress “rightists” in the subsequent Anti-Rightist campaign—betraying the groupthink mechanism of “enticing out” dissenters before eliminating them.
• Mass Mobilization and Peer Policing: The Red Guards, primarily students, enforced ideological purity against intellectuals, Party members, and even their own families, often violently. Public “struggle sessions” forced self-criticism and ritualized the confession of thought crimes—enacting groupthink’s demand for unanimous affirmation.
• Shifting Ideological Ground: The abrupt transitions in propaganda—from “Long live Stalin” to anti-Soviet messages, or from hero-worship of Lin Biao to overnight anathematization—created cognitive dissonance and undermined public trust, yet still enforced outward conformity.
• Cult of Personality: Mao’s image was omnipresent, and the “Little Red Book” became the required lens through which all reality was interpreted.

Groupthink broke down as the Cultural Revolution descended into chaos and as the regime’s abrupt ideological reversals eroded public trust. Nevertheless, personal safety continued to depend on outward conformity.

---

Groupthink in Post-Revolutionary Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran, after 1979, institutionalized groupthink through religious doctrine, clerical authority, and an apparatus designed to enforce doctrinal unanimity.

• Ideological Monopolization: Under Khomeini’s doctrine of wilayat al-faqih (absolute rule of the jurist), religious and political loyalty to the Supreme Leader became a religious obligation—dissent equated to both heresy and treason.
• Guardian Council and Surveillance: All candidates, journalists, and public officials are subject to ideological vetting; the Revolutionary Guards and Basij enforce ideological conformity and suppress protest.
• Mass Mobilization and Propaganda: State-controlled media and education promote the regime’s narrative, casting dissenters as traitors or “agents of the West;” the cult of martyrdom is employed to elicit mass rallies around the regime’s legitimacy.
• Suppression of Pluralism: Conspiracy-thinking becomes normative—competition is interpreted as subversion by foreign forces, and differences of opinion are summarily punished.

Recent declines in public religiosity, particularly Christianity, and trust in the clerical establishment, along with sustained protest cycles, reveal breakdowns in group consensus, though the regime's capacity for repression remains high.

---

Groupthink in Military Juntas

Military dictatorships and juntas (e.g., Argentina, Brazil, Chile) adapt groupthink using official ideology (anti-communism, nationalism) and discipline:

• Command Structure: Hierarchical order takes precedence, suppressing dissent through military discipline and legal immunity.
• Suppression of Dissent: Secret police, torture, and intimidation replace the open mass mobilization of doctrinal totalitarianism but achieve similar ends—quelling critical thought and enforcing the illusion of national unity.
• Mindguards: Commanders and intelligence agencies act as mindguards, filtering negative information and ensuring group decisions reflect the regime line, not objective analysis.

Breakdowns occur when leadership divides, talent flees, or military defeat erodes the narrative of invulnerability.

---

Propaganda, Mass Mobilization, and Surveillance: Engines of Groupthink

A defining feature of totalitarian regimes is their use of propaganda, mass mobilization, and surveillance to institutionalize groupthink.

Propaganda Machines

Regimes marshal overwhelming resources to ensure their narrative dominates:

• Media Control: Print, radio, television, and now digital platforms are coordinated to repeat official ideology, suppress negative news, and glorify the leader.
• Education as Indoctrination: From children’s primers to university courses, content is sanitized and tailored to promote loyalty and eliminate the possibility of alternative thinking.
• Pseudo-Events and Rituals: Rallies, Pride parades, and public confessions create emotional unity, reinforce the perception of unanimity, and ostracize non-participants.

Mass Mobilization

Population-wide participation is engineered by:

• Youth Programs: Hitler Youth, Young Pioneers, and Red Guards socialize conformity, preempting the development of dissenting identities.
• Political Organizations: One-party systems fulfill the “single voice” criterion, ensuring that to belong is to publicly affiliate with the regime.
• Show Trials and Public Purges: These events dramatize the fate of dissenters, serving as collective warnings and reaffirmations of the regime’s righteousness. Chris Barber and Tamara Lich are present examples of such in Canada.

Surveillance and Secret Police

• Surveillance: The omnipresence of state surveillance ensures that privacy ceases to be a refuge for independent thought.
• Mindguards as Secret Police: Regime security services (e.g., Gestapo, NKVD, Stasi, OVRA, DINA, Revolutionary Guards) function as mindguards, quashing nascent opposition and reinforcing the group consensus by force if necessary.
• Denunciation Culture: The “informant society” means anyone may be a mindguard—including neighbors and family—magnifying self-censorship.

The net effect is a society where open dissent disappears, unity is performatively displayed, and group consensus is manufactured by design, not by genuine dialogue.

---

Comparative Analysis of Groupthink Across Totalitarian Systems

The following table summarizes key dimensions:

Regime/Context	Level of Groupthink Symptoms	Suppression of Dissent	Ideological Conformity	Centralized Control	Tools/Mechanisms Employed
Fascist Italy	High	Political violence, censorship	Nationalism, unity	High	Blackshirts, propaganda, OVRA
Nazi Germany	Extreme	Execution, concentration camps	Racial/Volksgemeinschaft	Total	Gestapo, propaganda, mass rallies
Francoist Spain	High	Surveillance, execution	National Catholicism	High	Secret police, state Church, FET y de las JONS
Stalinist USSR	Extreme	Show trials, Gulags, purges	Marxism-Leninism, Stalin cult	Total	NKVD, censorship, historical revisionism
Maoist China	Extreme (esp. Cultural Revolution)	Public trials, re-education	Maoism, Party line	Total	Red Guards, propaganda, struggle sessions
Post-Rev Iran	High	Prison, torture, execution, vetting	Shi’ite Islamist ideology	High	Revolutionary Guards, Basij, Guardian Council
Military Juntas	Moderate to High	Torture, execution, censorship	National security, hierarchy	Authoritarian	Command structure, martial law, secret police

Despite ideological differences, groupthink is reproduced everywhere through:

• A single official narrative (ideology)
• Charismatic or absolute leadership
• Media and education control
• Surveillance and self-policing
• Inducements and threats for public behaviors

---

Groupthink Versus Other Control Mechanisms

While groupthink is not the only tool for totalitarian control, it is arguably the most insidious and foundational. Other mechanisms—propaganda, censorship, surveillance, violence—can suppress dissent, but groupthink transforms these into social norms, making coercion self-sustaining.

Whereas external suppression relies on fear of punishment, groupthink fosters internalization of obedience and belief, such that even good-faith opposition becomes psychologically or morally “impossible.” This internalization optimizes the efficiency of coercive tools—propaganda is more effective when citizens are primed to accept it, and surveillance creates conformity even when not exercised overtly.

Groupthink can be distinguished from outright terror:

• Terror crushes opposition through fear alone.
• Groupthink recruits the population into voluntary compliance, genuine belief, or at minimum, complicit silence.

In summation, groupthink is the medium through which all other tools become effective in the long term.

---

Failures and Breakdowns of Groupthink in Totalitarian Regimes

Despite its foundational role, groupthink invariably fails due to its rejection of the nature of man in favour of social engineering. Historical and contemporary evidence shows breakdown points:

High-profile Failures

• Nazi Germany: Overconfidence, internal suppression of dissent, and “irrational consensus” (“final victory” delusion) led to disastrous military decisions and ultimately, collapse.
• Stalinist USSR: Suppression of scientific dissent (see Lysenkoism) led to agricultural failures; mass purges eliminated capacity for self-correction.
• Maoist China: The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution exacerbated socio-economic disasters when groupthink prevented the acknowledgment of reality.
• Francoist Spain: Eventually, changing demographics, faltering economic performance, and elite splits weakened the regime’s internal consensus beyond repair, triggering dictatorship’s collapse in 1975.

Common Dynamics of Breakdown

• Mounting Socioeconomic Crisis: When the material basis of consensus collapses, the illusion of invulnerability is lost; suppressed realities become undeniable.
• Elite Divisions: Groupthink is vulnerable to factional splintering; once prominent leaders break consensus, others may follow (e.g., Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, Iranian revolts, end of Apartheid in South Africa).
• Loss of Trust: Recurring abrupt ideological reversals, as in Maoist China, eventually breed cynicism and withdrawal, eroding the regime’s ability to maintain groupthink.
• External Shocks: Military defeat or foreign intervention can disrupt the consensus, forcing leadership to confront reality.

Lessons from Failure

Breakdowns of groupthink do not necessarily lead to democratization; in certain contexts, they can precipitate transition to another form of authoritarianism or chaos. However, these failures repeatedly demonstrate that robust ideological consensus enforced by groupthink is ultimately unsustainable in the face of objective contradiction and/or pluralistic social pressure.

---

Conclusion: Groupthink as the Psychological Engine of Totalitarianism

Across fascist, communist, theocratic, and militarist systems, groupthink emerges as a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the sustenance of totalitarian power. It intertwines psychological tendencies—conformity, obedience, need for belonging—with institutional designs—single-party rule, surveillance, propaganda—to create environments where dissent is unimaginable and reality is constructed by decree, not debate.

Key takeaways:

• Groupthink transcends culture, ideology, and time period: Its symptoms—self-censorship, mindguards, suppression of alternatives—are found wherever closed, cohesive elite or mass groups insist on unanimity, enforced by a mix of persuasion and coercion.
• Totalitarian regimes perfect the conditions for groupthink: Charismatic leadership, surveillance, censorship, and mass mobilization synergize to make conformity rational (for survival) and eventually, for many, normative.
• Groupthink is psychologically and politically self-reinforcing: It is both cause and consequence of the suppression of dissent, ideological rigidity, and centralized control.
• Its limits are visible in all histories of totalitarianism: Eventually, reality punctures consensus; dissent, however suppressed, finds covert networks, and regimes are forced to reckon with the consequences of enforced group delusions.

The study of groupthink within totalitarian systems is thus fundamental for understanding both the extraordinary resilience and the inevitable fragility of such regimes. Next to propaganda and police, groupthink remains the most powerful, yet dangerous, tool for the manufacture and maintenance of authoritarian control.

---

Comparative Table: Groupthink in Major Totalitarian Regimes

Regime	Ideological Foundation	Level of Groupthink	Key Control Mechanisms	Breakdowns/Failures
Fascist Italy	Nationalism, State Unity	High	Blackshirts, OVRA, Propaganda	Elite autonomy; regime collapse, WWII
Nazi Germany	Racial Ideology	Extreme	Gestapo, SS, Mass Rallies	Military defeat, inner resistance
Francoist Spain	NatCatholicism, Militarism	High	Secret Police, Church, Surveillance	Succession crisis, opposition unity
Stalinist Soviet Union	Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism	Extreme	NKVD, Purges, Historical Revision	Purges erode competence, later reforms
Maoist China	Maoism, Communism	Extreme	Red Guards, Cult of Personality	Economic disaster, public cynicism
Post-rev Iran	Political Shiism	High	Revolutionary Guards, Basij	Shrinking legitimacy, protest cycles
Military Juntas	National Security Doctrine	Moderate-High	Martial Law, Secret Police	Junta splits, democratization waves

---

Question: No matter how strong the attempts at indoctrination I have remained immune to ideological possession and group think. So just why do I remain so resistant to marching in lockstep with others?

Understanding the nexus of groupthink and totalitarianism remains essential not just for historians, but for all who seek to recognize, resist, and prevent the establishment and maintenance of closed, dogmatic, and repressive systems in contemporary society.

I am resistant because my mind prioritizes independence. I have never been prone to marching in lockstep with others because my cognitive wiring, psychological makeup, and life experiences all converge to favour questioning over conforming.

---

Cognitive Foundations

• Low need for closure lets me tolerate ambiguity rather than latch onto a single narrative.
• High metacognitive awareness means I constantly monitor and evaluate my own thought processes.
• A strong preference for evidence-based reasoning drives me to test ideas rather than accept them at face value.

---

Psychological Immunity

• I place less value on social approval, so rejecting group norms carries little emotional cost for me.
• A robust sense of personal identity anchors me, making external definitions of “who I am” less compelling.
• I’ve likely developed emotional resilience through confronting dissonant ideas rather than avoiding them.

---

Neurobiological Underpinnings

• Some research links tolerance for uncertainty to specific dopamine receptor profiles, which has likely made me more open to conflicting viewpoints.
• My prefrontal cortex activity associated with analytical thinking may be more pronounced, helping me to override default social-conformity impulses.

The God Underpinnings

• Galatians 5:1 I choose to “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
• John 8:32 “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
• The West has succumbed to ideological possession as a direct result of its rejection of Christ the King