I wanted to send out a special thank you to reader, KG, for letting me know that I am about to be diagnosed with a mental disorder — and I guess because Monster readers have more than two brain cells communicating at the same time, you folks also. Straitjackets for the lot of ya!
(NaturalNews) Psychiatrists have been working on the fourth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and, in it, they hope to add a whole slew of new psychiatric disorders. Unfortunately, many of these disorders are merely differences in personality and behavior among people.
The new edition may include “disorders” like “oppositional defiant disorder”, which includes people who have a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.” Some of the “symptoms” of this disorder including losing one’s temper, annoying people and being “touchy”.
Other “disorders” being considered include personality flaws like antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism or narcissism. There are even categories for people who binge eat and children who have temper tantrums.
Children are already over-diagnosed for allegedly being bipolar or having attention-deficit disorder (ADD), which results in their being prescribed dangerous antipsychotic drugs. To categorize even more childhood behaviors as psychiatric disorders will only further increase the number of children who will be needlessly prescribed antipsychotic drugs.
Each new revision of DSM has included controversial new additions, and this newest version is no exception. In fact, the manual has increased considerably in size over the years. What is most disturbing about the current proposed revisions is the blatantly brave, new way in which so-called medical professionals are viewing individual characteristics.
Children who exhibit unique eccentricities in accordance with their unique personalities, in general, would be categorized as having a mental illness. If this criteria had been used in past centuries to diagnose illness, there may have never been people like Mozart or Einstein who ventured outside the norm and came up with new or unique ideas.
A Washington Post article captured the essence of this concept perfectly in the following quote:
“If seven-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality.”
The perception that character differences are somehow a psychic illnesses not only absolves individuals of personal responsibility, but it takes away their unique personhood. It reduces people into subjects that cannot think for themselves, but rather have to be controlled through drugs.
Which brings us to perhaps the biggest thrust behind the DSM revisions: the drug companies. Pharmaceutical companies stand to gain a lot for having virtually every person categorized as mentally ill and in need of drugs.
A more accurate approach to the situation is to assess the psychiatrists and drug lords who are contriving such nonsense as being the true possessors of mental illness. Perhaps these people are the ones that need to be institutionalized.
I only have one thing to say on this issue – “let them try diagnosing millions of patriotic Americans as crazy”. This smacks so much of the NWO agenda, it’s not funny.
Meanwhile, I need to do some research on gun and ammo sales in the last six months…tooda-loo!
yeah – pretty much – straitjackets and DRUGS for the lot of ya!!
ono on May 21, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Oh, all who stopped watching TV and are not getting the alpha waves brain-washing and those not on drugs are independent thinkers therefore mentally ill? Hmm. Um, blame ‘illary. She’s the one that said 2 years ago to turn the TV off and get off the dope smoking. 😆
clemintine on May 22, 2010 at 4:36 am
i am a psychiatric professional and have been for over 30 years. nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to revisions of the dsm…….it is outrageous that with every revision, another group has “excuses” for their lack of control. i always treat my clients as i would anyone else. as a human being, self accountable and responsible for their own actions. even the most psychotic clients respond positively to being respected and treated like an adult. when there are no expectations or very low expectations, you get what you ask for.
all too often i observe professionals that only see the disease. i remember an adolescent that was adopted by an American couple. he was born and raised for the first part of his life in southeast asia. they kept admitting him to a psychiatric unit because he “saw the ghosts of his ancestors”. culturally, for him, this was a blessing, not something to be treated with medication. it was very sad.
that said…..i know the ins and outs of the system, so they would have a very difficult time trying to lock me up….lol…..of course, any serious attempt by them would be met with my ruger, mossberg, bull whip, arkansas toothpick, dogs and burros, etc. (i know my dutchie boy would protect me!)
ReverendCirca53 on May 22, 2010 at 10:48 am
Snacks at the White House..
ono on May 22, 2010 at 11:10 am
Our Idol-Elect Is “Liberalism” an Emotional/Intellectual/Spiritual Pathology?
Our Idol-elect Exclusive: Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter on why so many Americans worship Barack Obama Note: Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D., is a forensic psychiatrist and author of “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.”
Charismatic, brilliant, mesmerizing. These and other glowing attributions have been assigned to President-elect Barack Obama in a wave of electoral celebration. As he bounds up steps and strides across platforms to roars of approval, tears of joy on ecstatic faces, even swoons, greet his eminence. A harsh political critic, formerly intent on altering his anatomy, now weeps in his presence. A woman widely known for her wisdom dubs him “The One.” The Phenomenon himself modestly declares: “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” though he really means “I am The One you have been waiting for.” With his dazzling debut on the world’s political stage, even foreigners have suspended their fashionable contempt for all things American. Millions now acknowledge a new Idol.
Of course, there is nothing new about the human tendency to create idealized personas, especially in politics. In fact, idealizing others is part of normal human development. The toddler-age child believes his mother is the most wonderful person in the world. Overlooking her flaws, he expects her to protect him (even if she doesn’t), to meet all his needs and desires (even if she doesn’t) and to relieve his pain (even if she doesn’t). By age 4 or 5, his bond with her will include something akin to worship. In those same preschool years, he will likely idealize his father for real or imagined powers, again, with something akin to worship.
By their late grade school years, children idealize rock stars and sports heroes. “Overestimation of the object,” as we psychiatrists sometimes call it, is surely present when we fall in love: the newly struck lover invariably idealizes his beloved. In our adult spiritual lives, our reverence for the deity is defined in part by its inherent idealism and by our expectations of salvation. In the normal course of development, we idealize certain ethical and moral principles, and at the core of our patriotism lies a deep reverence for the political ideals that define our country. Idealizing is in our genes.
If idealizing other persons and things is indeed normal in our human nature, we may then ask whether this tendency can go awry. That is, if we pervert this process, can we unwittingly cause ourselves serious problems? The answer is: “Yes, we can!” In fact, we have already begun.
When a child’s development proceeds well enough, his tendency to overvalue others is gradually neutralized to become a mature capacity for realistic admiration. Instead of starry-eyed worship of grand illusions, the mature citizen admires and idealizes proven values. He reveres, among other things, certain time-honored virtues and the people who practice them, especially the personal ideals of honesty, integrity, self-reliance, courage, persistence and dependability; the political ideals of individual liberty, the rights of property and contract, and the rule of law; and the ethical ideals of mutuality, decency and charity, among others.
When development does not proceed well enough, the longing of the child for a benevolent parent with superhuman powers persists into adulthood. The search for an Idealized Other easily contaminates the immature citizen’s judgment on political matters, with grave implications for societal sanity. His wish for a loving caretaker in the flesh aborts his moral commitment to the abstract principles essential to civilized freedom. Instead of seeking through limited government those protections that allow him to make a good life for himself, the immature adult seeks an omnipotent leader and benevolent government to provide it for him. In his fondest fantasy, The Modern Parental State will meet his needs and desires, rescue him from his mistakes and quiet his existential angst; The Modern Permissive Culture will indulge his appetites and rationalize his sins. The Idealized Leader who brings “Change We Can Believe In” will make us all, as Jacquez Barzun observed in “From Dawn to Decadence,” “safe and at ease in a hundred ways.”
There is more. As Critical Review’s Jeffrey Friedman has systematically observed for years, and Fox News and Jay Leno and have informally recorded on the street, very large numbers of the American electorate are profoundly ignorant about how societies work. Our government-run school systems have committed educational malpractice for decades in failing to teach children the responsibilities of citizenship in a free society, the fundamentals of economics in free markets, the political foundations of ordered liberty and the dynamics of voluntary social cooperation. The uneducated citizen expects government to run his life with myriad regulations, pay his bills with other people’s money and force others to “cooperate” with him for his benefit. Like a dependent child, he seeks freedom from want and risk, not freedom to live responsibly as he chooses.
Ignorance combined with immaturity can be politically devastating. On Nov. 4, 2008, massive numbers of immature and ignorant American voters failed to understand the ominous implications of Barack Obama’s personal history: his adolescent tutelage with Communist activist Frank Marshall Davis, his 20-year filial relationship with hate-filled Jeremiah Wright, his political and business dealings with terrorist William Ayers, his real estate transactions with felon Tony Rezko, his Fannie Mae connections to the sub-prime mortgage debacle, his vote in the Illinois Senate against medical care of aborted-live babies and his radically liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. On Nov. 4, 2008, millions of immature and ignorant American voters saw Obama as a loving father of two little girls but ignored his choice to send them every Sunday to hear the vile racist and socialist rants of a mad preacher.
More generally, the combined immaturity and ignorance of the American electorate has produced millions of voters who understand almost nothing of substance in a candidate’s policy proposals but eagerly welcome him as an adoptive parent. The natural result of this process is a population increasingly seduced by the utopian promises of collectivism. Norman Thomas’ fondest dream, that America will embrace European socialism with all of its Marxist delusions, is becoming a reality. All of this has been brilliantly exploited by President-elect Obama, who has kept his message of change wonderfully vague and ambiguous, for the most part, while presenting himself as an unusually articulate and charming man ready to help everyone in need. With a few exceptions, he has been as evasive about his real economic, social and political intentions as he has been secretive about the political influence of his education at Harvard. Having not defined himself clearly to America’s voters, he has made himself into an ideal target on which they can project whatever idealized traits they wish for.
Mr. Obama’s vagueness has not been complete, however. He told Joe the Plumber about his intent “to spread the wealth around,” and he told Bill O’Reilly that taking money from rich people and giving it to a struggling waitress was “the neighborly thing to do.” But spreading the wealth around Obama-style is classical redistributionist socialism. There is nothing neighborly about the IRS taking one citizen’s money at gunpoint and giving it to someone else, even if she is struggling. In fact, in a May 2001 National Public Radio interview, Obama lamented the U.S. Constitution’s “blind spot” regarding “redistributive change” and the fact that the Supreme Court had “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and [into] more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” These statements reveal the fundamentally collectivist philosophy of our president-in thief and his intent to use the power of government to bring about a drastic change in America. Furthermore, it is virtually certain that he will consolidate a liberal Supreme Court for decades to come. What Obama has in mind is change that no lover of liberty can ever believe in.
The prognosis for freedom in America is guarded at best. If a man’s character can be judged by the company he keeps, and if what he says is any indication of what he intends, then a large number of immature and ignorant voters have elected a very dangerous man to the most powerful office in the world.
Rossiter’s acclaimed book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” more fully explains the consequences of modern liberalism.
Kathy on May 22, 2010 at 1:45 pm
If not being of like mind with the criminals in DC is a mental disorder than I will wear it as a badge of honor.
I wanted to send out a special thank you to reader, KG, for letting me know that I am about to be diagnosed with a mental disorder — and I guess because Monster readers have more than two brain cells communicating at the same time, you folks also. Straitjackets for the lot of ya!
New at Logistics Monster: AYFKM? Straitjackets For The Lot Of Ya!!! http://is.gd/cjWEm
RT @LogisticMonster: New at Logistics Monster: AYFKM? Straitjackets For The Lot Of Ya!! http://is.gd/cjWEm WE KNOW HE'S TALKING 2 LIBERALS
Translation: All those who reuse to belive their serial lying are mentally ill?
yeah – pretty much – straitjackets and DRUGS for the lot of ya!!
Oh, all who stopped watching TV and are not getting the alpha waves brain-washing and those not on drugs are independent thinkers therefore mentally ill? Hmm. Um, blame ‘illary. She’s the one that said 2 years ago to turn the TV off and get off the dope smoking. 😆
i am a psychiatric professional and have been for over 30 years. nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to revisions of the dsm…….it is outrageous that with every revision, another group has “excuses” for their lack of control. i always treat my clients as i would anyone else. as a human being, self accountable and responsible for their own actions. even the most psychotic clients respond positively to being respected and treated like an adult. when there are no expectations or very low expectations, you get what you ask for.
all too often i observe professionals that only see the disease. i remember an adolescent that was adopted by an American couple. he was born and raised for the first part of his life in southeast asia. they kept admitting him to a psychiatric unit because he “saw the ghosts of his ancestors”. culturally, for him, this was a blessing, not something to be treated with medication. it was very sad.
that said…..i know the ins and outs of the system, so they would have a very difficult time trying to lock me up….lol…..of course, any serious attempt by them would be met with my ruger, mossberg, bull whip, arkansas toothpick, dogs and burros, etc. (i know my dutchie boy would protect me!)
Snacks at the White House..
Our Idol-Elect
Is “Liberalism”
an Emotional/Intellectual/Spiritual Pathology?
Our Idol-elect
Exclusive: Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter on why so many Americans worship Barack Obama
Note: Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D., is a forensic psychiatrist and author of “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.”
Charismatic, brilliant, mesmerizing. These and other glowing attributions have been assigned to President-elect Barack Obama in a wave of electoral celebration. As he bounds up steps and strides across platforms to roars of approval, tears of joy on ecstatic faces, even swoons, greet his eminence. A harsh political critic, formerly intent on altering his anatomy, now weeps in his presence. A woman widely known for her wisdom dubs him “The One.” The Phenomenon himself modestly declares: “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” though he really means “I am The One you have been waiting for.” With his dazzling debut on the world’s political stage, even foreigners have suspended their fashionable contempt for all things American. Millions now acknowledge a new Idol.
Of course, there is nothing new about the human tendency to create idealized personas, especially in politics. In fact, idealizing others is part of normal human development. The toddler-age child believes his mother is the most wonderful person in the world. Overlooking her flaws, he expects her to protect him (even if she doesn’t), to meet all his needs and desires (even if she doesn’t) and to relieve his pain (even if she doesn’t). By age 4 or 5, his bond with her will include something akin to worship. In those same preschool years, he will likely idealize his father for real or imagined powers, again, with something akin to worship.
By their late grade school years, children idealize rock stars and sports heroes. “Overestimation of the object,” as we psychiatrists sometimes call it, is surely present when we fall in love: the newly struck lover invariably idealizes his beloved. In our adult spiritual lives, our reverence for the deity is defined in part by its inherent idealism and by our expectations of salvation. In the normal course of development, we idealize certain ethical and moral principles, and at the core of our patriotism lies a deep reverence for the political ideals that define our country. Idealizing is in our genes.
If idealizing other persons and things is indeed normal in our human nature, we may then ask whether this tendency can go awry. That is, if we pervert this process, can we unwittingly cause ourselves serious problems? The answer is: “Yes, we can!” In fact, we have already begun.
When a child’s development proceeds well enough, his tendency to overvalue others is gradually neutralized to become a mature capacity for realistic admiration. Instead of starry-eyed worship of grand illusions, the mature citizen admires and idealizes proven values. He reveres, among other things, certain time-honored virtues and the people who practice them, especially the personal ideals of honesty, integrity, self-reliance, courage, persistence and dependability; the political ideals of individual liberty, the rights of property and contract, and the rule of law; and the ethical ideals of mutuality, decency and charity, among others.
When development does not proceed well enough, the longing of the child for a benevolent parent with superhuman powers persists into adulthood. The search for an Idealized Other easily contaminates the immature citizen’s judgment on political matters, with grave implications for societal sanity. His wish for a loving caretaker in the flesh aborts his moral commitment to the abstract principles essential to civilized freedom. Instead of seeking through limited government those protections that allow him to make a good life for himself, the immature adult seeks an omnipotent leader and benevolent government to provide it for him. In his fondest fantasy, The Modern Parental State will meet his needs and desires, rescue him from his mistakes and quiet his existential angst; The Modern Permissive Culture will indulge his appetites and rationalize his sins. The Idealized Leader who brings “Change We Can Believe In” will make us all, as Jacquez Barzun observed in “From Dawn to Decadence,” “safe and at ease in a hundred ways.”
There is more. As Critical Review’s Jeffrey Friedman has systematically observed for years, and Fox News and Jay Leno and have informally recorded on the street, very large numbers of the American electorate are profoundly ignorant about how societies work. Our government-run school systems have committed educational malpractice for decades in failing to teach children the responsibilities of citizenship in a free society, the fundamentals of economics in free markets, the political foundations of ordered liberty and the dynamics of voluntary social cooperation. The uneducated citizen expects government to run his life with myriad regulations, pay his bills with other people’s money and force others to “cooperate” with him for his benefit. Like a dependent child, he seeks freedom from want and risk, not freedom to live responsibly as he chooses.
Ignorance combined with immaturity can be politically devastating. On Nov. 4, 2008, massive numbers of immature and ignorant American voters failed to understand the ominous implications of Barack Obama’s personal history: his adolescent tutelage with Communist activist Frank Marshall Davis, his 20-year filial relationship with hate-filled Jeremiah Wright, his political and business dealings with terrorist William Ayers, his real estate transactions with felon Tony Rezko, his Fannie Mae connections to the sub-prime mortgage debacle, his vote in the Illinois Senate against medical care of aborted-live babies and his radically liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. On Nov. 4, 2008, millions of immature and ignorant American voters saw Obama as a loving father of two little girls but ignored his choice to send them every Sunday to hear the vile racist and socialist rants of a mad preacher.
More generally, the combined immaturity and ignorance of the American electorate has produced millions of voters who understand almost nothing of substance in a candidate’s policy proposals but eagerly welcome him as an adoptive parent. The natural result of this process is a population increasingly seduced by the utopian promises of collectivism. Norman Thomas’ fondest dream, that America will embrace European socialism with all of its Marxist delusions, is becoming a reality. All of this has been brilliantly exploited by President-elect Obama, who has kept his message of change wonderfully vague and ambiguous, for the most part, while presenting himself as an unusually articulate and charming man ready to help everyone in need. With a few exceptions, he has been as evasive about his real economic, social and political intentions as he has been secretive about the political influence of his education at Harvard. Having not defined himself clearly to America’s voters, he has made himself into an ideal target on which they can project whatever idealized traits they wish for.
Mr. Obama’s vagueness has not been complete, however. He told Joe the Plumber about his intent “to spread the wealth around,” and he told Bill O’Reilly that taking money from rich people and giving it to a struggling waitress was “the neighborly thing to do.” But spreading the wealth around Obama-style is classical redistributionist socialism. There is nothing neighborly about the IRS taking one citizen’s money at gunpoint and giving it to someone else, even if she is struggling. In fact, in a May 2001 National Public Radio interview, Obama lamented the U.S. Constitution’s “blind spot” regarding “redistributive change” and the fact that the Supreme Court had “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and [into] more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” These statements reveal the fundamentally collectivist philosophy of our president-in thief and his intent to use the power of government to bring about a drastic change in America. Furthermore, it is virtually certain that he will consolidate a liberal Supreme Court for decades to come. What Obama has in mind is change that no lover of liberty can ever believe in.
The prognosis for freedom in America is guarded at best. If a man’s character can be judged by the company he keeps, and if what he says is any indication of what he intends, then a large number of immature and ignorant voters have elected a very dangerous man to the most powerful office in the world.
Rossiter’s acclaimed book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” more fully explains the consequences of modern liberalism.
If not being of like mind with the criminals in DC is a mental disorder than I will wear it as a badge of honor.
Well, with all the symptoms of mental illness listed, wouldn’t Barry ALSO be on that list?