Delusions of Social Grandeur / Human-on-Human Predation

 

Ancestral humans relied on their senses. Visual memory and concrete thinking formed their perception of the world. They were animals  – and so are modern humans, except that modern humans suffer delusions of grandeur made possible by technology and magical thinking – two partners at work in creating human cultures.

Modern social people have an indirect relationship to nature, which causes big problems. Our perception of the world is moderated and modified by words; words are a valuable invention, but too often serve our egotistical notions. Scientists may have dismantled the idea that Earth is the center of the universe, but humans refuse to believe that man is not.

The integration of early humans with the natural world was more intimate than we can imagine. No other world existed. There were no written instructions, no external memory, no schools or delicatessens nor emergency medical services. Not even a bicycle. There were Master Humans, who may have been no more than teenagers, who functioned as the repositories of human knowledge for their group. Few memory aids had been invented – lines  and designs scratched into a familiar rock outcrop or fascinating lumps of rock that resembled an animal or a person; a resemblance that could be enhanced with a few strokes of a tool. Dependence on each other was literal, not social, conceptual or abstract. To live was to exist in the present moment, and one instant of distraction or of inattention and – Bingo! Your time was up. Success required absolute trust in the behavior of people one lived and died with.

Dog and baby – how cute! Thousands of years of domestication of dogs and humans have made this interaction possible, but the dog retains wild behavior, and if its instinctive buttons are pushed, the baby is in serious danger of injury. (The baby is, in fact, in far more danger from predation by other humans) Big carnivores, with whom our ancestors shared the environment, have no such restraints. Human infants, like the young of other prey, would have been easy targets. Predation held human population in check, so that scavenging and gathering were sufficient to feed human groups that remained low in number. The gradual shift to human-as-carnivore would have boosted nutrition, providing the fat and protein that fueled larger brains and bodies. Bigger and better-fed humans would have been able to reduce predation. Infant survival rates gradually increased.  

We forget or ignore that for most of existence humans were prey animals, and indeed for most humans alive today, that is the still the case. Now that we have  greatly reduced, or exterminated, our wild rivals in the hunt for food and territory, man has turned on his own kind. Man is the predator most dangerous to children (pedophiles), to women (rapists, domestic abusers, murderers), to young men (violent gangs), to consumers (toxic and dangerous products), to entire predatory economies (sociopaths in suits), to civilian populations (chronic war), to entire nations (political interference and war. )

Modern human-on-human predation is a social activity built into the foundations of the social order – a hierarchy of power and authority that determines who can abuse lesser humans without consequence.   

Thy Child’s Face / website

Thy Child’s Face is a testimonial to the sexual violence inflicted on children by predatory Roman Catholic priests. In the last 25 years, clergy sexual abuse of children has been revealed for what it is: an organized syndicate of criminal accomplices who work in concert to shield pedophile priests.

More at: http://thychild’sface.blogspot.com/

___________________________________________________________________

 

Yep! This is about as deep and complex as social feeling gets in the Good ‘ol USA. .

An alarming disconnect exists between the infantile modern social mantra that Life is a Hug and the real suffering inflicted by social institutions, including schools and the family. 

 

 

 

 

A Humane View of Autism by a Dog Trainer

http://a1harmony.com/us-6-animal-autism.htm/

I came across this site while looking for information on “trance” states in autism and Asperger’s. The site is about a method to treat behavior syndromes in dogs – the writer is a bit mysterious (incognito?) but I’m collecting ideas from “outside” the “autism industry” about behavior and their analysis is so spot on. 

I’m switching gears to “folk knowledge” – always an arena fraught with myth – fantasy, supernatural belief, hearsay, awkward repetition of “strange stories” etc, but the domain where one finds the human brain-mind-culture feedback to be ever-active: it’s a great arena in which to “see” the human mind being created as the brain interacts with the environment. It also often presents a “humane” view of human behavior – an antidote to the cruelty of social order systems.

(Comments) in italic and parentheses

Dog Autism

(Can we not substitute “child” for “animal” in the following statement; and parent, caregiver, teacher, and therapist for “owner”?)

It is one of the saddest things I personally find to have to deal with to meet an animal that has entirely shut down within itself and is no longer able to make attention energy exchange based relationships with others. Autism is a rainbow scale of a naturally existing neurological function, not an on and off switch – and autistic behaviours in animals are often, and once again, very sadly mistaken for “being stubborn” or “wilful” or “disobedient”.

As autistic animals cannot provide the owners with “attention energy” in turn (as they are trapped within themselves), the owners may actually go through the same attention seeking escalations that can end up with attacking the creature just so it will take notice, respond at last and acknowledge their existence. (This is incredibly important for understanding the CRUELTY aimed at children in Western Cultures, especially minority children, and disobedient, different or vulnerable children.)

Trance Behaviours & Repetitive Behaviours

A safety mechanism of any social creature’s neurological set up is to induce autistic-like deep trance states to protect themselves from the systemic catastrophe.

·        Repetitive rocking in small human and monkey babies who are left to themselves,

·        head weaving in elephants and horses,

·        flank sucking in Dobermans,

·        shadow chasing and tail chasing in collies,

·        crib chewing in horses,

·        pacing endlessly in a ritualistic way in caged cats

… are just amongst the many, many examples of this. In pet dogs, spaniels and crosses thereof are highly pre-disposed to enter these trance states in moments of stress and there are many variations on the theme.

Self mutilation and ritualised howling/vocal expressions also lead to the security of a deep trance state where the individual may rest inside when external environmental conditions have become unbearable these external conditions being systemically, a short fall of energy of the correct kind to re-balance the stressed and hungry system.

It is my supposition that the individual creature’s choice of which route into trance they will take is a mixture of genetic pre-disposition and chance; I have seen many animals who have developed a chance behaviour into these rituals and the behaviours themselves, which may be quite bizarre to an unsuspecting onlooker, are, indeed, secondary to the trance state they are designed to induce.

The Harmony Programme In Brief

Let us back up here and go through the main points of the energetic circumstances and causes and effect of “attention seeking behaviour disorders” in mammals (and this includes people too) step by step. (Note how attention –seeking disorders have become pandemic; a true social problem – behavior “revealed by” the mass availability of “smart” technology, the existence of which has expanded exponentially, and with it, “attention-seeking infection” just as if it were a contagious disease. “Viral” is the correct word to describe this mass infection)

1. There is a form of energy that is exchanged between social creatures that is derived from the attention of another. This attention is focussed, direct and involves eye contact, no matter how fleetingly this takes place. (See my post on humans and open thermodynamic systems)

2. This energy form is as important to a social creature as is sleep, or food. In experiments, human babies died when attention was withheld (although the babies were fed and their physical care taking proceeded as normal). (Note how the “take over” of parenting by government programs, agencies, and policy institutions is strictly about “feeding” poverty stricken children in the U.S. and around the world. Distribution of minimally nutritious food is a gesture only – real nutrition is absent. No attention is paid to the impoverished environments the children live within; to true education, to “proper” care by parents and community. It’s the traditional Christian forced “charity” attitude: Feed and water a human being as if it’s a house plant. If it doesn’t grow and thrive, it’s time to resort to the social order / survival of the fittest “theory” behind racism and discrimination. “Unfit” humans are literally a “throw away” commodity.) Adults develop severe behaviour disturbances including rage, deep trance type repetitive behaviours, antisocial behaviours and autism under similar conditions.

3. Western humans have been trained from birth to withhold attention, especially when it is being “demanded” – possibly a learned response and set up that occurred in their own energy systems when their energetic attention needs were repeatedly and systematically refuted when they themselves were young. (Bad Old Testament “Biblical” style parenting descends through generations – a (male) human-hating theory of child development is entrenched in culture; one that prohibits nurturing of babies in the proper and natural way. See my post on how hunter-gatherers raise their children – with kindness and tolerance)

4. Companion animals (children) vary widely in how great their tolerance is to living with “not enough attention energy” being supplied. (Junk food, toys, TV and video games – cartoons and violent films, etc. are not a substitute for parental attention and engagement)

It seems to be also specific to an individual if their first choice response to a shortfall of this form energy is withdrawal towards autism or escalating fiercely in their “attention seeking behaviours” before systemic collapse and those, too, falling into autism. (A bit convoluted. I think what is said is this: Individual children are predisposed to react in different ways to “attention-deprivation” – either “withdrawal” or “battle until exhaustion and collapse”)

5. Attention Energy is Attention Energy – in general, creatures do not seem to care one way or the other if the attention energy they receive is of the loving or of the non-loving kind. Indeed, with the set up amongst the Western Human caretakers, creatures find it far easier to obtain negative attention through disturbing / annoying / ”naughty” behaviours than to obtain positive attention. Indeed, a great many caretakers “train” their animals into ever more outrageous behaviours by firstly, failing to give attention of the positive kind and secondly, trying to ignore developing behaviour escalations in the beginning stages when they are still fairly mild.

(SO IMPORTANT! This pernicious American “strategy” comes directly from psychological theory and has “taken over” control of child-rearing, education, employment, personal relationships, and all aspects of social behavior. It’s the same old vicious reward-punishment “black box” hatred of human beings that condones social status conflict as “healthy, normal behavior” – A LIE.  

6. Giving focussed attention in the beginning stages of any escalation pattern does not only stop the escalation pattern dead right there but over the long term, actually cures the individual and re-sets their energetic exchanges with everyone and not just with the owner to a natural and sociable status.

7. With the energy system balanced that needs this social love energy, a creature truly blossoms, becomes more self assured, self balanced and gains access to sleeping resources of problem solving, interaction, communication, thought and experience that were previously out of reach. (Asperger “withdrawal” at least preserves and enhances this “potential” – but, with NO “Positive” INTERACTION available with other humans, the fruits of these endeavors too often whither and die.)

With this part of the energy system balanced, an individual will be radically better placed to face any kind of stress challenge including showing a greater tolerance to environmental poisons, toxic energy systems and all immune system stressors. (No attempt at balance is made –“Asperger’s are systematically “excluded from humanity” and participation in society; instead of “help” from the autism industry, Aspergers are “pathologized” – their special (even gifted) talents are demonized as symptoms of “disorder”. Bullying is encouraged, prejudice reinforced, and lies are told.)

 Love, Not War – Turning The Dog (CHILD) Training World Upside Down

Back in 1993, I formulated the “appalling” idea, based on my theoretical musings and practical observations, that instead of playing power games with a companion animal, one should try and give positive attention right away, as soon as the animal would indicate a need by a small behaviour such as coming up, looking at the owner, or trying to make contact in any other shape or form. (Forbidden in modern psychology: the infant-child must “perform” on schedule, and in the “approved way” or it is discarded as defective.)

This contradicted everything I had ever been taught or learned to do; for example, it was common practise to let small puppies howl and cry all night until “they had learned that no-one would come”and “thus never to reward this appalling attention seeking behaviour”. (Isn’t this the basis for TRUST on which all social interaction depends? Trust has been obliterated in American society and hatred has erupted) 

So it must be said that it was not without trepidation that I began to experiment in earnest and put my theory to the test.

And here’s what happened in actuality. (See website for more)

 Or better yet, send them to a “therapist” who will “carpet bomb” their brains with psychoactive  drugs. That’s experimentation on human subjects without legal or ethical constraint. That’s a “living” HELL.

Psychotropic Drug Prescriptions / Link to Suicide, Violence in Military

Let’s face it: The “helping, caring, fixing” industry has a policy of “carpet-bombing” American children and adults with dangerous and lethal drugs and with absolutely no regard for human life – WHY?

PDF : https://http://www.veterans.senate.gov

A REVIEW OF HOW PRESCRIBED PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATIONS COULD BE DRIVING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND VETS TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE & SUICIDE

A Report by Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, April 2014

INTRODUCTION

The recent tragedies at Fort Hood and the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard are deeply concerning because of the increasing reports of military and veteran violence and suicide in our Armed Forces. Though there can be many reasons for killing oneself or others, the possible role of psychiatric drugs in these tragedies has not been effectively explored. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this factor.

  • Researchers have identified 25 psychiatric medications disproportionately associated with violence, including physical assault and homicide.
  • There are 22 international drug-regulatory agency warnings about these medications causing violent behavior, mania, psychosis and homicidal ideation.
  • There are almost 50 international drug-regulatory agency warnings about psychiatric drugs causing suicidal ideation.
  • One in six American service members were taking at least one psychiatric medication in 2010. More than 110,000 Army personnel were given antidepressants, narcotics, sedatives, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs while on duty in 2011.3

2008-2010

  • Between 2005 and 2011 the military increased its prescriptions of psychoactive drugs (antipsychotics, sedatives, stimulants and mood stabilizers) by almost 700 percent, according to The New York Times.
  • Prescriptions written for antipsychotic drugs for active-duty troops increased 1,083 percent from 2005 to 2011, while the number of antipsychotic drug prescriptions in the civilian population increased just 22 percent.5
  • The Department of Defense Suicide Event Reports (DoDSERs) for 2012 reported that the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES) found that as of 31 March 2013, there were 319 suicides among Active component Service members and 203 among Reserve component Services members. 92.8 percent of the Service Members were male, with 39.6 percent aged between 17 and 24.
  • DoDSERs were only included in this report if they were submitted by April 1, 2013 and thus there are discrepancies between the fi gures reported by the AFMES and the number of DoDSERs included in the DoDSER 2012 report. In addition, there were some DoDSERs that were submitted for events that were still pending a final determination as a suicide.
  • A total of 841 Service members had one or more attempted suicides reported in the DoDSER program for CY 2012.
  • Some 134 suicide DoDSERs (42.1 percent) and 452 suicide attempt DoDSERs (52 percent) indicated a history of a behavioral disorder.
  • The reports also indicated that “93 decedents (29.2 percent) were reported to have ever taken psychotropic1 medications. A total of 63 decedents (19.8 percent) were known to have used psychotropic medications within 90 days prior to suicide.” However, this is likely to be much higher as almost 21 percent of both the “Ever Taken Psychotropic Medication” and the “Use of Psychotropic Medication last 90 days” questions were answered with “Data Unavailable.” Potentially up to 50 percent of those committing suicide had at some point taken psychiatric drugs and up to nearly 46 percent had taken them within 90 days.6

Psychotropic: A term coined in the late 1940s by Ralph Waldo Gerard, an American behavioral scientist and physiologist to medically describe medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior—from the Greek, “mind-turning.”

  • The majority (55 percent) of service members who died by suicide during 2008-2010 had never deployed and 84 percent had no documented combat experiences. In the 2012 DoD Suicide Event report on suicide, 52.2 percent of completed suicides had not been deployed in the recent wars and 56.5 percent of suicide attempts had no reported history of deployment.
  • The suicide rate increased by more than 150 percent in the Army and more than 50 percent in the Marine Corps between 2001 to 2009. From 2008 to 2010, military suicides were nearly double the number of suicides for the general U.S. population, with the military averaging 20.49 suicides per 100,000 people, compared to a general rate of 12.07 suicides per 100,000 people.10
  • There are hundreds of “sudden deaths” among veterans that have been prescribed massive cocktails of psychotropic1 drugs, which a leading neurologist says are “probable sudden cardiac deaths.” Yet the practice of prescribing seven or more drugs documented to cause cardiac problems, stroke, violent behavior and suicide (to name but a few of the adverse effects) is still prevalent.

PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS: ACTS OF VIOLENCE

  • FORT HOOD GUNMAN IVAN LOPEZ, 34, was taking Ambien, a sleep agent, and other psychiatric drugs for depression and anxiety when he shot dead three colleagues and injured 16 others before killing himself on April 2, 2014.11
  • WASHINGTON NAVY YARD SHOOTER AARON ALEXIS, 34, had been prescribed Trazodone killed 12 people and wounded 8, before being killed by police on Sept. 16, 2013.12
  • SOLDIER PFC. DAVID LAWRENCE, 20, and MARINE LANCE CPL. DELANO HOLMES were both taking Trazodone and other psychiatric medications when they killed a Taliban commander in his prison cell and an Iraqi soldier respectively.

PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS: VIOLENCE RISKS

  • It is important to understand that the mental health system for our Armed Forces and veterans often involves the use of psychotropic and neuroleptic2 drugs. Between 2001 and 2009, orders for psychiatric drugs for the military increased seven-fold.14 In 2010, the Army Times reported that one in six service members were taking some form of psychiatric drug.15
  • A National Institutes of Health website warns consumers to report if while taking Trazodone—one of the drugs prescribed the Navy Yard shooter—they are “thinking about harming or killing yourself,” experience “extreme worry; agitation; panic attacks…aggressive behavior; irritability; acting without thinking; severe restlessness; and frenzied abnormal excitement….”
  • Psychologists have blamed the surge in random acts of violence among U.S. military on the heavy use of prescribed drugs. “We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now …And I don’t believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence,” states Bart Billings, a former military psychologist and combat stress expert.
  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MedWatch system that collects adverse drug reports revealed that between 2004 and 2012, there were 14,773 reports of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,531 (10.4 percent) reports of homicidal ideation/homicide, 3,287 (22.3 percent) reports of mania and 8,219 (55.6 percent) reports of aggression.
  • Dr. David Healy, a psychiatrist and a former secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology estimates that 90 percent of school shooters were users of antidepressants. These same medications are prescribed to at least 6 percent of our servicemen and women.

Supporting Information

“We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now… The current increase in suicides and homicides is no coincidence.”

-Dr. Bart Billings, Fmr. Col. & Army Psychologist

This PDF has 34 pages of horrifying information, charts and statistics KNOWN to the VA, Congress and the “empathy experts” who are drugging our soldiers and destroying families.

 

 

How U.S. Corporations Pay “ZERO” Tax / Legal Loopholes

Overview

Many U.S. corporations use offshore tax havens and other accounting gimmicks to avoid paying as much as $90 billion a year in federal income taxes. A large loophole at the heart of U.S. tax law enables corporations to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits until they are brought home. Known as “deferral,” it provides a huge incentive to keep profits offshore as long as possible. Many corporations choose never to bring the profits home and never pay U.S. taxes on them.

Deferral gives corporations enormous incentives to use accounting tricks to make it appear that profits earned here were generated in a tax haven. Profits are funneled through subsidiaries, often shell companies with few em­ployees and little real business activity. Effectively, firms launder U.S. profits to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Loopholes used to shift U.S. profits to tax havens

  • U.S. firms can set up a subsidiary offshore, channel billions of dollars of profit through it and make the subsidiary “disappear” for U.S. tax purposes simply by “checking a box” on an IRS form.
  • Corporations can sell the right to patents and licenses at a low price to an offshore subsidiary, which then “licenses” back to the U.S. parent at a steep price the right to sell its products in America. The goal of this “transfer pricing” is to make it appear that the company earns profits in tax havens but not in the U.S.
  • Wall Street banks, credit card companies and other corporations with large financial units can easily move U.S. profits offshore using a loophole known as the “active financing exception.”
  • A U.S. corporation can do an “inversion” by buying a foreign firm and then claiming that the new, merged company is foreign. This lets it reincorporate in a country, often a tax haven, with a much lower tax rate. The process takes place on paper — the company doesn’t move its headquarters offshore and its ownership is mostly unchanged — but it continues to enjoy the privileges of operating here while paying low tax rates in the foreign country.

More: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-offshore-corporate-tax-loopholes/

________________________________________________________

How Much Would Apple Owe in U.S. Taxes If It Brought Its Money Home?

A staggering amount of money is legally not getting paid to Uncle Sam.

Daniel B. Kline / The Motley Fool, Oct 13, 2015

American companies keep an enormous amount of cash overseas as a not-at-all-subtle way to avoid tax liability at home. 

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) leads all other multinational corporations in employing this practice, holding $181.1 billion in offshore accounts, according to a recent report released by Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy group. The iPhone maker is not alone in doing this, according to the report. Most of America’s largest corporations maintain subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. At least 358 companies, nearly 72% of the Fortune 500, operated subsidiaries in tax haven jurisdictions as of the end of 2014.

Apple has booked $181.1 billion offshore — more than any other company. It would owe $59.2 billion in U.S. taxes if these profits were not officially held offshore for tax purposes. A 2013 Senate investigation found that Apple has structured two Irish subsidiaries to be tax residents of neither the United States, where they are managed and controlled, nor Ireland, where they are incorporated. This arrangement ensures that they pay no tax to any government on the lion’s share of their offshore profits.

 

Eugenics in Psychiatry and Psychology/ A Contemporary Issue

From the website: “Saybrook University was established to challenge the idea that human beings needed to be broken down into parts and isolated from the rest of the world to be understood. Instead, our founders declared that human beings are complex, and to understand them, one must understand the interconnectivity of everything that they experience. Committed to helping students achieve their full potential, our community is deeply rooted in this humanistic tradition.”

https://www.saybrook.edu/newexistentialist/posts/09-12-12/

My highlights in bold; comments in green. 

Eugenics and Psychiatry: A Brief Overview of the History

In my casual observations in conversation with colleagues, I find that very few mental health professionals are aware of the historical link between psychiatry and eugenics. I was not aware of this history until relatively recently, when I read Robert Whitaker’s groundbreaking and brilliant text, Mad in America. When I read that section of the book, I was utterly devastated and filled with righteous anger. How could this have happened? How could it be that medicine, with its benevolent intentions, could be used so easily in the service of dehumanization and oppression? Eventually, I wrote my own account of this history in the book Drugging Our Children: How Profiteers are Pushing Antipsychotics on Our Youngest, and What We Can Do To Stop It. In my chapter in this text, I make the case that the over-medicating of our children is part of a longer history of abuses by psychiatry, and it is a biologically reductive approach to dealing with human suffering.
x
The history of eugenics is a story we all need to know and understand, or else face the penalty of dooming ourselves to repeating it once again. But first things first: What exactly is eugenics? Eugenics was a movement that began in the late 1800’s. It was influenced by the ideas of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin, as well as by selective breeding in the farming of plants and animals. At that time—the dawn of the Industrial Age—populations within urban areas were swelling at breakneck speed, and it became increasingly difficult to feed these populations. It took government intervention and strategic planning to find ways to innovate farming in order to be able to feed the growing and hungry masses. Selective breeding of crops and farm animals allowed farmers to maximize the potential of the land, so that it could feed many more people than had previously been conceived. Selective breeding was so successful, many powers-that-be began to raise the question: if selective breeding can be beneficial with crops and farm animals, why not apply this new technology to shape the genetic future of the human species? This was the birth of eugenics. Those who began to study eugenics took it that the human population can be separated into two genetic classes—the eugenic, or those who were deemed to have “fit” genes that should be perpetuated into the future, and the cacogenic, or those who were condemned as having ill-fit genes that were believed to be toxic to the future health of our species.
Given that rich, white, Anglo-Saxon males were the ones with wealth, power, and influence, it was predictable that, of course, they deemed themselves to be the ones who were “fittest,” and anyone who threatened their power were conveniently situated on the cacogenic side of the eugenic divide. (Actually, many non-Anglo Saxon males saw themselves to be superior models and jumped into Eugenic activity) Those deemed cacogenic at this time included blacks, immigrants, criminals, the poor, the mad, the disabled, the mentally retarded, those with drug and alcohol addiction, and gays and lesbians, among others. The eugenic movement viewed individuals in these social classes (females are and were considered to be cacogenic by default – see The Bible and other foundational religious texts) as persons who were victimized by disease that must be cured by eliminating these people from the population, whether through segregation, sterilization, or extermination. (And still are)
x
Few people will be ignorant of the fact that the eugenics project came to its fullest realization with the Final Solution of Hitler and the Nazis in WWII Germany. What many do not realize, however, is that it was in fact America that led the international movement toward eugenics, and it was only because of America’s example of putting eugenics successfully into practice that Hitler was able to persuade the Germans that their own eugenics project was the way to go. The end product of eugenics in Nazi Germany was the death of somewhere between 11 and 17 million human beings—6 million Jews (a quarter of them children under 15), about 270,000 gypsies, 3.3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million non-Jewish Poles, 250,000 disabled, 15,000 homosexuals, and many others. Those who were targeted first were those who were considered to be mentally unfit—the mad and the mentally retarded. These unfortunate individuals were corralled into rooms, and succumbed to exhaust fumes (the tail pipes of trucks had been connected by hoses to vents in the room). The result was the first mass killings by the Nazis. How could this happen?
x
In America, the eugenics movement was funded by big money (and still is! – and by average Americans who invest in bio-tech companies): Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and the widow of Edward Harriman. At this time, for example, Victoria Woodhull stated, “imbeciles, criminals, paupers, and the otherwise unfit…must not be bred,” and supported the forced sterilization of American citizens. (Control over reproduction of “unfit” humans is being promoted today as genetic repair of defective fetuses and selective engineering of “designer” fetuses, sold as the “right of parents” to select for “perfect children”. Hence the crazed search for arrays of  genes linked to Autism – no proof of cause is necessary; just bogus science that legitimizes a vast array of “defects” bundled into the Autism grab bag of socio-developmental disorders)
x
Charles Davenport, a Harvard-trained biologist, was appointed head of the Eugenics Record Office on Long Island, and Davenport and his team of heavily funded researchers began to investigate and maintain files on family lines in the general population who they considered to have defective genes. Meanwhile, money and influence was used to manipulate politicians and judges in order to make eugenics legal and to put it into practice. (It is, de facto, legal today, due to legislation and protection of industries such as Big Pharma and vast research funding by governments around the world. )
x
Connecticut has the dubious distinction of being the first state to ban marriage among those deemed “unfit.” By 1914, more than 20 states had followed in the footsteps of Connecticut, and by 1933, every single state in the union had fallen into line. At this time, those deemed to be disabled or unfit were segregated into populations in order to prevent them from reproducing in the general population. These “asylums” were later rationalized to be “treatment” centers rather than the concentration camps they were originally intended to be. Between 1907 and 1927, the United States had victimized over 8,000 people with eugenic sterilization so that they could never again reproduce.
xCalifornia took the evil of involuntarily sterilization to the level of an art form. Faced with the problem that involuntarily sterilization is a form of medical intervention that is intended to harm—that is, intended to destroy the ability to procreate—it was in violation of the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm.” To remedy this problem, California medical doctors quickly rationalized their behavior by claiming their eugenics project was actually a form of treatment that would ‘cure’ the patient of his or her mental illness. (But then, it was discovered by the “helping, caring, fixing industry” that incredible profits could be made by “increasing” the number of “defectives” by  mass diagnosis, an almost infinite supply of psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and chronic subjection of the American population to ever-expanding theories and applications of “mental health” therapies. Promote addictions … bingo!) In the case of Buck v. Bell, the “right” of California to sterilize its own citizens was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision in 1927.The American eugenics project, with the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court and supported by the huge pockets of the robber barons, inspired Europe nations to initiate their own eugenics programs. Soon, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland were sterilizing citizens the elite deemed to be “unfit” according to their classist, xenophobic, sexist, and racist standards. It was only later that Hitler came to power and used these movements to initiate Germany’s own eugenics program, which took the American eugenics project to its logical conclusion with the extermination of those deemed “unfit.” No public outcry against the Nazi extermination of the disabled could be heard. In fact, American publications from the New England Journal of Medicine to The New York Times sang Hitler’s praises as “progressive” for his “humane” extermination of “unfortunates.” Reading these articles in American academic journals and in a publication such as The New York Times, I became nauseated and could barely read on. Yet, one can go to these publications and read for him or herself how easily and skillfully hatred can be rationalized and disguised within the false benevolence of a medical discourse.

Has psychiatry today fully exorcised the demons of it’s past? I think not. Children in poverty, especially those on public welfare and in foster care, are much more likely to be drugged with harmful antipsychotic drugs. I see this kind of psychiatric abuse as an extension of the eugenics project, and it needs to stop. Psychiatry is also still used to perpetuate racism. Today, we still see that black men are misdiagnosed with schizophrenia five times more often than white people. It is easier to label a person with madness and force his compliance with antipsychotic drugs than to endure the difficult job of listening to a man who lived with the darkness of a lifetime of victimization by racism. Until we see such patterns disappear from psychiatry practice, I will remain unconvinced that psychiatry has fully escaped the weight of its shameful eugenic legacy.

— Brent Dean Robbins

Read more stories by Brent Dean Robbins

Keep up with our community – follow us on Facebook and Twitter

List of Mental Disorders DSM 5 / Aye, yai, yai!

Symptoms & Treatments of Mental Disorders, or LIFE AS PATHOLOGY

 

I was going to highlight those symptoms-disorders that the average person (foolishly) believes are merely variations of “normal” behaviors, physical conditions and/or disease, but the list is bat-crap crazy The categorizing of child academic difficulties with math and reading / writing as “mental disorders” is astounding! I’m amazed that constipation and diarrhea haven’t been sucked in by the DSM vacuum cleaner.

Links are live.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

The symptom lists below have been summarized from current diagnostic criteria most commonly used in the United States by mental health professionals (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). We’ve divided the disorders into three broad categories below: adult, childhood, and personality disorders; some disorders may fall under more than one category.

These disorder lists are in the process of being updated to reflect the changes from the latest edition of the diagnosis manual, the DSM-5.

Please keep in mind that only an experienced mental health professional can make an actual diagnosis. But who, exactly, are these people?

Looking for a DSM code? The DSM 5 is designed to ensure obscene profits for the “Mental” Health Industry and Big Pharma; actual people who need help have been abandoned – 

______________________

ADULT DISORDERS

Common Disorders

Dissociative Disorders

Feeding & Eating Disorders

Sexual & Paraphilic Disorders

Sleep & Wake Disorders

CHILDHOOD DISORDERS

Childhood disorders, often labeled as developmental disorders or learning disorders, most often occur and are diagnosed when the child is of school-age. Although some adults may also relate to some of the symptoms of these disorders, typically the disorder’s symptoms need to have first appeared at some point in the person’s childhood.

PERSONALITY DISORDERS

These disorders typically aren’t diagnosed until an individual is a young adult, often not until their 20’s or even 30’s. Most individuals with personality disorders lead pretty normal lives and often only seek psychotherapeutic treatment during times of increased stress or social demands. Most people can relate to some or all of the personality traits listed; the difference is that it does not affect most people’s daily functioning to the same degree it might someone diagnosed with one of these disorders. Personality disorders tend to be an intergral part of a person, and therefore, are difficult to treat or “cure.” Learn more about personality disorders and personality traits

 Other Mental Disorders

 Disclaimers & Use Restrictions:

This listing is for personal use in education or research only. Any other use of this listing may be unlawful. Duplication or reproduction of these lists in any form is prohibited. We are not responsible for misuse of these listings. This listing is not meant to replace professional advice, diagnosis, or care from a licensed mental health practioner; its sole intent is for patient education. If you believe you may be suffering from one of these disorders, please consult a mental health professional. These symptom lists are summarized versions under the “Fair use” provision of U.S. copyright case law. They were summarized from the American Psychiatric Association’s 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disoders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5).

Links / U.S. Chemical – Biological Weapons Hypocrisy

One of the largest human experiments in history’ was conducted on unsuspecting residents of San Francisco http://www.businessinsider.com/the-military-tested-bacterial-weapons-in-san-francisco-2015-7

Veterans Used In Secret Experiments Sue Military For Answers (Mustard Gas) http://www.npr.org/2015/09/051437555125/veterans-used-in-secret-experiments-sue-military-for-answers

DDT: A Review of Scientific and Economic Aspects of the Decision to ban its use as a pesticide https://books.google.com/books?id=K9XjbKUfYk8C United States. Environmental Protection Agency, ‎United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations– 1975 – ‎DDT (Insecticide)

4 decades after war ended, Agent Orange still ravaging Vietnamese http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24751351.html

Biological warfare and bioterrorism: a historical review Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2004 Oct; 17(4): 400–406. Stefan Riedel, MD, PhDcorresponding author1 1From the Department of Pathology, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.

AND From GPF Global Policy Forum:

US Intelligence Helps Saddam’s Party Seize Power in 1963 | US and British Support for Saddam in the 1970s and 1980s

Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot (April 10, 2003)

According to former US intelligence officials and diplomats, the CIA’s relationship with Saddam Hussein dates back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad that attempted to assassinate Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. (United Press International)

A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making (March 14, 2003)

Roger Morris writes of the “regime change” carried out by the CIA in Iraq forty years ago. Among the CIA’s actions were attempted political assassinations and the handing over of a list of suspected communists and leftists that led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. (New York Times)

 

CIA Lists Provide Basis for Iraqi Bloodbath

In this excerpt from his classic study of Iraqi politics, Hanna Batatu discusses how the Ba`ath Party seized power for the first time in a military coup in February 1963. He speaks of lists, provided by US intelligence, that enabled the party to hunt down its enemies, particularly the Communists, in a terrible bloodletting.

 

The Riegle Report (1994)

This report by the Senate Banking Committee analyzes the US’s exports of warfare-related goods to Iraq and their possible impact on the health consequences of the Gulf War. The report concludes that the US provided Iraq “with ‘dual-use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.” (Gulflink)

Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas (August 18, 2002)

According to senior military officials, a covert program carried out during the Reagan Administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when US intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons against Iran. (New York Times)

Did Saddam Die for Our Sins? (January 9, 2007)

The US-backed Iraq Tribunal sentenced Saddam Hussein to death for his role in the 1982 massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in Dujail, Iraq. But the same court has dropped all charges against Hussein, post mortem, for the killing of 180,000 Kurds during the 1980s – crimes committed with Western complicity. The author of this TomPaine piece concludes that if the tribunal does not look into US and British involvement in the genocide case, it will fail “to educate the world about Saddam and his barbarous regime.”

 

This Was a Guilty Verdict on America as Well (November 6, 2006)

The US-backed Iraq Special Tribunal sentenced the country’s former ruler and “one-time [US] ally” Saddam Hussein to death by hanging – a verdict which came as no surprise to many. The court sought to bring Saddam to justice for crimes against humanity, but failed to acknowledge past US and British administrations’ roles in facilitating these crimes. For decades, Washington provided economic and military support – including chemical weapons – to Saddam’s regime. Therefore, in light of the court’s ruling and its positive reception in Washington, the author of this Independent opinion piece asks, “Have ever justice and hypocrisy been so obscenely joined?”

 

The True Iraq Appeasers (August 31, 2006)

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has compared critics of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq to those who appeased Adolf Hitler. The author of this Boston Globe article points out the hypocrisy of such a statement, noting the arming and financing of Saddam Hussein by the Reagan and first Bush administrations. As the article shows, many of the planners of the 2003 Iraq war supported Hussein in the 1980s during his ruthless and genocidal dictatorship.

 

Morality in Iraq, Then and Now (August 27, 2006)

This Washington Post opinion piece criticizes the historically inconsistent US policy towards Iraq. The author tracks US involvement in Iraq from the 1970s up until the trial of the country’s former leader Saddam Hussein, which began in 2005. Although the US helped to set up the Special Iraq Tribunal, contributing to the exposure of some of these crimes, the author warns against overlooking US complicity with the Hussein regime.

US Military Assistance to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (April 20, 2006)

This material highlights the various military, intelligence, and financial assistance given to Saddam’s regime by the US. In 1986, former Vice President George H.W. Bush traveled to the Middle East, repeatedly encouraging Saddam to step up Iraq’s bombing campaign against Iran. In addition, the US supplied Saddam with several big orders of helicopters and provoked a diversionary engagement with the Iranian navy in coordination with a major Iraqi offensive. (Global Policy Forum)

 

Saddam Hussein Trial: US-Iraq Military and Economic Relations (October 20, 2005)

Saddam Hussein’s trial has prompted discussions about US economic and military support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. This bibliography offers a list of sources addressing US policy towards Iraq from 1979 to 1990. (Global Policy Forum)

 

Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show (December 19, 2003)

While the US publicly maintained neutrality during the Iran-Iraq war, it privately attempted to forge a better relationship with the government of Saddam Hussein. This policy did not shift when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. (Washington Post)

 

Saddam’s Arrest Raises Troubling Questions (December 2003)

For decades Washington supported the regime of Saddam Hussein. US officials responsible for such policies could themselves be guilty of war crimes and might face allegations in an international tribunal. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus on Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein (March 24, 2003)

This report, by the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, investigates the “revolving door” between the Bechtel Group and the Reagan administration that drove US policy towards Iraq in the 1980s. The authors argue that many of the same actors are back today, justifying military action against Iraq and waiting to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction.

Britain’s Dirty Secret (March 6, 2003)

Britain secretly assisted in building a chemical plant in Iraq despite being fully aware that Saddam Hussein gassed Iranian troops in the 1980s. The warning about possibilities to make chemical weapons was dismissed by Paul Channon, British trade minister at that time, stating abandoning the project “would do our other trade prospects in Iraq no good.” (Guardian)

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The US Tilts Toward Iraq, 1980-1984 (February 25, 2003)

This extensive report from the National Security Archive uses declassified US documents to illustrate the nature of US involvement in Iraqi affairs under the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

America Didn’t Seem to Mind Poison Gas (January 17, 2003)

As part of his call for regime change in Iraq, George W. Bush has accused Saddam Hussein of using poison gas against his own people. However, in 1988 the US worked to prevent the international community from condemning Iraq’s chemical attack against the Kurdish village of Halabja, instead attempting to place part of the blame on Iran. (International Herald Tribune)

Rumsfeld “Offered Help to Saddam” (December 31, 2002)

As President Reagan’s Middle East envoy in the early 80s, current US Secretary of Defense and leading Bush administration hawk, Donald Rumsfeld, offered support to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran conflict with knowledge that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons. (Guardian)

 

US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup (December 30, 2002)

This Washington Post article discusses the US role in the military buildup of Iraq preceeding the Gulf War. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

 

Iraq and Poison Gas (August 28, 2002)

The US has always known about Baghdad’s deployment of chemical weapons and their use against his own people, especially during the Iran-Iraq War. “What did the US government do about it then? Nothing,” reports The Nation, “until ‘gassing his own people’ became a catchy slogan to demonize Saddam.”

Iraq Uses Techniques in Spying Against its Former Tutor, the US (February 5, 1991)

This 1991 article discusses the deep intelligence link between the US and Iraq in the 1980s, detailing the intelligence assistance that the US provided to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with US Envoy (September 22, 1990)

Former US Ambassador to Iraq Ms. April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein on July 25 1990, only 8 days before he invaded Kuwait. According to this excerpt from a transcript of their meeting, the two talked about oil prices, how to improve US-Iraq relations, and how the US has “no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” (New York Times)

And so much more: How does the U.S. dare take a “Holier than Thou” attitude toward the rest of the world’s nations?

 

.

 

%d bloggers like this: