It is a dangerous narcissism to suppose all ancient superstitions and cruel foolishness have been put to an end in the modern era, because it allows extreme harms to accumulate against the defenseless out of naive presumption it can't be harm one is looking at. The human capacity to engender harm and pain is a nascent capacity of the human spirit, and it is most often perpetrated not out of positive malice but simply not wanting to be bothered. It must be a despairing situation for one to seek help from any passerby, onlooker, doctor, cop, anyone, and for them to always shut out helping an obvious victim because helping the victim could bring them attention from the evil-doer, and when it comes down to it most people will not act to save or help anyone except maybe close loved ones. This is because most people are stopped from helping by the fact it would require a shift in their worldview, e.g. that a "crazy person" might be crazy because they've been assaulted and so need your help because of their derangement, and that giving said person over to the people who've perpetrated such abuses and assaults leading to their state will only further the abuse against this person. And most people - most of you - have said "I don't know, man, maybe you should see a therapist?" without realizing the therapists are the problem. It's kind of like suggesting to the wife of a cop that she should just call the cops if her husband starts beating her. We know that it is meant as a decent proposal, but it is naive to the point of neglect. Because if you neglect to protect the defenseless in society, you give all the more reason to evil to just make more people - like yourself, your loved ones, your children - defenseless.
Another presumption - that you are not potentially defenseless. But in fact everyone is. In the extreme case, you could survive a car crash that leaves you quadriplegic and utterly at the mercy of nurses that - if you're lucky - have been chosen by family members. Perhaps you suffer a serious medical issue. But there is, in our modern society, more than physical defenselessness. You can be made legally defenseless by catch-22's that double-bind you into some loss or vulnerability to potential legal or political predators. You can be targeted by unknown parties, who want to discredit you so they spread nasty vile rumors to your family, friends, and they contact all your potential employers to warn them of you - not because you've done anything wrong, but because you'd do right and they're in the wrong. I recall meeting a middle aged lady who it was obvious had walked in on her bosses doing something obviously illegal and the cops showing up in the middle of the night on claims of mental instability to put her in a mental hospital were certainly her bosses seeking to discredit her (and, if the details of her story are true, they succeeded! they shut down their business that she had been working at and started up a new one and her claims about witnessing them engaging in massive fraud were ignored by authorities because "she's crazy").
You probably presume, if you've never had any interactions with mental health institutions beyond that of the occasional meeting with a therapist, that you would obviously be able to prove you're not crazy and get out of a mental institution if you were put in there by force. This assumption of yours is incorrect. You probably assume you could just say "Excuse me, but I'm not really meant to be here, see, I broke up with my girlfriend yesterday and she threatened something vaguely like this only an hour before the cops showed up, so it seems pretty obvious to me..." and then you might notice the state psychiatrist writing down that you're dangerously delusional and need to be kept locked up lest you shoot up a school. Again - you'd assume this couldn't happen, because you're making rational assumptions about how people would try to protect people's dignity. The problem is your rationality.
Another rational assumption you might have is that psychiatrists are trained to recognize the signs of abuse, and so they would not e.g. put a kid on powerful psychoactive drugs because an abusive parent just wants them to shut up about the abuse. Once again, your rationality is the problem. Psychiatrists are not required at any part in their years of training to learn about the various forms of relationship abuse and how they might be co-opted by abusers into helping abuse their victims by putting them on drugs that makes them even more compliant and unable to resist their abuser. This paragraph is hard to write because I've known cases like this, where a child ends up the scapegoat of a bunch of nasty abusive assholes who do nothing but scream and yell and straight up assault each other all day, and the one child who just wants to get away is practically forced into a state of dull inebriation that leaves them defenseless to the predations of their abusive family members.
Where do I get this material about people? you might ask. A few years ago I decided to understand human nature, not just by reading books but by interacting with people and entering situations I usually wouldn't. In a city such as Los Angeles, you have almost unlimited ideal opportunities to do so, and I talked and interacted with people from all walks of life. It was truly an education of the sort you can't get at school and which most people, because they never take the time to have these experiences, just never get. I talked with people on Skid Row, hearing how they ended up on the street (many are running away from terrible family, many have a drug habit they're feeding, a few are criminals and a few are too messed in the head to have a conversation with), showing up at various local charity things so I would be in a group (and then I could also talk to the members of the charity group too). I admitted myself to a psych ward voluntarily a few times (I wouldn't recommend it) as part of my pursuit, because where else do you get such a perfectly cultivated, disparate group of people who have nothing else to do and are totally willing to talk all about their lives and how they ended up there? I met porn stars, therapists who told me the dirty details of their profession, welfare dependents, a guy who I’m pretty sure was a Chinese spy, mathematicians who were involved in cryptography and had probably run afoul of someone, former soldiers who’d been deceived into war crimes by shady commanders and then thrown under the bus and the commanders getting promoted, undercover cops, guys who’d worked as undercover cops but got too deep in it, a lady who I’m pretty sure was a Chinese spy, and a guy who told me he was possessed by thousands year old spirits going back to Enoch. I went to parties hosted for the (gay) professors who sit at the top of the academic publishing cartel, making millions annually from bilking poor students and seducing young drugged impressionable teenage students as they please. (But they support BLM, so it's okay.) I talked with artists at art shows (you may have seen pictures of me at one), from all degrees of prestige from the street artists hocking their drawings trying to make it to senior Disney animators responsible for "finding new styles for future productions." I talked to Armenian gangbangers and weapons dealers, former cops who'd retired from law enforcement to make millions selling weed because they're buddies with federal law enforcement officers and so they don't get picked up but can get other "unprotected" pot shops busted. And that’s only stuff that happened in person.
What was the point of it all? To learn. To understand why our society is the way it is. I really did learn things, gain insights I don't think I would have otherwise. I made a point to get down on my hands and knees and go underneath into the crawlspace of society, to appreciate the fringe for understanding the filter resulting in them being thrown away. I did get dirty, and I'm sure it did scare people at first when I showed up all covered in dirt and soot, so I then had to make a point to wash all that off lest the point I have to make about the poor and desperate I met gets lost. Here is the point - any improvements in mental health in our society are only going to come about through a change in the worldview of the average person about the individual's medical rights, primarily as represented in that ultimate right to refuse medical intervention. This is the most important element of all medical rights as such, because if one cannot refuse an intervention defined as medical by some doctor (that's all it takes to qualify an intervention on one's body as "medical"), then one essentially can't refuse anything any person qualified as a doctor condones or wants to do to you. A doctor has decided they want to cut off your body parts? Imagine if you couldn't refuse just because they're a doctor and it's called medicine.
Of course if people have this right, they will sometimes exercise it in a way that leaves them (or their children) without necessary medical care, and they suffer or even die. That is the nature of rights. If our right to something were to always be qualified "and only so long as everyone else agreed to it" they would not be rights. So the line must be drawn at the individual's right to refuse medicine, no matter that we or any doctor or government or private corporation should wish they accept it. The alternative is giving a license to unlimited cruelty and harm to those we know have and will use such powers (if they were given them) to cause extreme cruelty to others. Anyone who wouldn't understand this could be forgiven if they were a child, but our system cannot be built on such naivety about hoping people wouldn't seek to harm others, if it were allowed. The right to refuse medical intervention should be explicitly enshrined in the most fundamental Constitution of any decent society that respects the dignity of the human body, and anything less leaves open the possibility - sure to be exploited sooner or later, as it always has in every case - of assault on the very essence of a person, by forcing on them needless surgeries as punishment and handicap. It is not hard to imagine a Harrison Bergeron scenario where those identified as threats to the career of a politician are forced on to mind-destroying drugs that include painful and uncomfortable side effects like huge weight loss, incontinence, erectile dysfunction, mind fog, headaches, and basically just being debilitated, unable to meaningfully focus or think. (Your mind getting obliterated by drugs others forced on you is a special hell I want anyone who denies we should have such a right to medical intervention to receive, in order that they might be medically corrected (because failing to recognize such a right is clearly proof of serious mental illness meaning you are a serious danger to yourself and others and so we should lock you up until you agree to succumb, I mean, comply to the drugs we want to put you on that will make you behave the way we and not yourself want - do you understand the meaning of such slavery yet?).
The vaccine mandates are a terrible human rights abuse worse than the Holocaust. When the Jews were slaughtered, that was terrible beyond measure - but no one took away from it the lesson that states should be allowed such a right to liquidate their citizens - in fact, people concluded the opposite. The vaccine mandates represent a legal precedent giving the state virtually unlimited powers to do to people whatever they want. That's not hyperbole. If people don't have a fundamental right to refuse medical intervention, than anyone's life exists only at the leisure of everyone else. This should be clear to those who desire certain interventions, but have found that both such interventions are alternatively withheld or threats to force them to abandon such desires made. I am speaking of trans people. If people don't have the right to refuse medical intervention, then it follows that any sufficiently conservative country would simply force any would-be trans people on to other drugs that prevent them from transitioning and try to, in effect, change their mind by just subjecting their minds to mental oblivion. In fact this is what occurs. It is not unreasonable to suppose, even in a country like Canada, if the government has enshrined the right to force "medical" interventions on people (because they'd rarely actually be medical in purpose!) that in 20 years the same trans individuals vociferously promoting vaccine mandates are forcibly injected with testosterone to make them de-transition under a government with all the same powers as Trudeau is currently assuming but controlled by a different political party. I am forced to conclude such individuals, who must certainly recognize they would be literally defenseless if culture changed in practically any direction - but then again, these same also promote immigration of people with values that hate them, so who knows? Perhaps they secretly want to be forcibly de-transitioned and their transitioning is just a shit test of some kind. I don't know any reason why people whose lifestyle depends on such fragile cultural conditions would seek anything but entrenching their rights going forward. I think many liberals have concluded that hurting conservatives just is the same as doing good, and politicians have encouraged this because it helps them win elections, never mind it divides kin against kin.
The historical record is clear that any power to the state to do to people whatever they want - just so long as any doctor signs off on it - results in horrendous, cruel abuses of the absolute worst kind. Being forced on to drugs that obliviate your mind is literally chemical torture, and we should treat no differently the forced injections of "medications" than any other drug used by e.g. the CIA to torture and interrogate unpersoned "terrorists." It's kind of like rape and murder, in that they are terrible things and we should hope they never happen but it is also dangerous to actually believe they never happen. People are forcibly injected with drugs every day to force behavior out of them someone else wants - whether that's the victim revealing information about themselves or others, stopping acting out against their parents' sexual predations, or discrediting someone so their testimony won't hold up in court. This happens every day, and I believe some people simply need to face that reality so we can finally have a conversation about this. It is not enough to simply argue it won't happen to you, because that is turning your back on victims and makes you actively complicit with the abusers, because you are representing the behavior that motivated the abuser to fuck up their victim just the way they did in the first place so you'd abandon them because they’re crazy. Ironically enough, getting abused breeds the very behavior that makes it harder for victims to get help because people just think they’re “crazy,” which to be honest you probably would if you’re a child getting preyed on every night and every adult tells you you must be lying because you were admitted to a psych ward by that same parent because you were making those claims. (Happens every day and psychiatrists are happy to go along with it because, hey, they make $250k/year - you want to risk losing that kind of salary by pissing off someone who is so evil as to sexually abuse their own child, what might they be willing to do to you? You’ve seen what they do to their own child. So psychiatrists write the prescription that makes the kid shut up and comply with their continuing abuse.) I know this makes many uncomfortable but your comfort shouldn’t be bought by someone’s lifetime of medical torture. I’ve spoken to too many people this was very obviously what happened to them and the “medicine” was part of the problem for them and continues to be.
People who have been diagnosed as crazy still have rights. I'm not talking about gray areas where people are required to help someone's too mentally debilitated to reasonably have or articulate their own desires, I'm talking about loopholes that exist in the way our rights are written into the law and constitutions and the policies around healthcare. Only vigilant and pro-active defense of the rights of the defenseless can secure them, because evil is always vigilant and pro-active by nature and so only an equivalent defense could prevent it. Right now politicians (and many of their constituents) in democracies are obviously pushing the vaccine mandates because they clearly believe it will lead to many of their political opponents being disenfranchised, and I've seen nothing but salivation by liberals over Trudeau's plans to just throw all his political opposition in jail and/or financially unperson them (e.g. leave them defenseless). It's a little scary seeing society tear itself apart like this, because of knowledge of history and my own personal experience with the underbelly of doctors giving diagnoses at the behest of others who just want to discredit the testimony of another against them. We are perhaps already over the edge into a cycle of conflict that will not de-escalate without a significant shift in people's worldviews. It seems to me many liberals would ordinarily get the fundamental need of the right to refuse medical intervention, but they have entirely forgotten because they are blinded by hate, too delighted at the prospect of crushing their enemy to consider what license they give power to assault basic human dignity.
In college I took a medical ethics class. This does not especially qualify my opinion - but you can say I am familiar with the literature, I know the debates involved, and I have anecdata about my peers' opinions about this very question. My peers, overwhelmingly liberal as they are, were overwhelmingly united on the question of whether people must have the right to refuse medical intervention. We were discussing in particular those cases involving Seventh Day Adventists where parents would decline blood transfusions for their children because of their religious beliefs. When asked whether such cases incline us to believe the right to refuse medical intervention should be abridged, virtually everyone disagreed, and insisted that the right to refuse medical intervention remained vital and necessary. Without those rights (among other problems) the relationship between patient and doctor is subverted to that of master over slave, because the latter would gain all rights to define what is healthy and what must be done to achieve said definition of health. It contradicts the Hippocratic oath - to first do no harm, and forcing something on someone against their will is itself a kind of harm. Again, if you let people's will be overridden just because the person saying so happens to be a doctor, you have created a sort of medical slavery. These were lengthy discussions occurring over weeks in 2 hour class sessions. This makes me fairly confident that, when I see these same peers approve of the mandates, they are mostly caught up in an intensive media-fueled collective delusion, some of this delusion fueled by the hatred of some who call themselves liberal but really just hate, and that if they were possessed of clarity they would not for a moment be deceived.
But that's really the rub, isn't it? We have all been blasted by psyops, and it's putting everyone on edge, making them forget themselves, getting sucked into a mob mentality ready to lynch a - if I must be honest, in liberals I see the same broken zeal of Southerners who'd get off on murdering blacks. I am under the impression so-called liberals have forgotten how to treat people decently as human beings, rather than as instruments of their ideology and therefore either an enemy that must be dehumanized or a pawn that can be used to hurt the enemy. Liberals have offered to minorities, in their strange racial cult, admission to Western society, but only on the grounds they submit to the peculiar cult devised by some academics in the late 70's and 80's because they were disappointed they didn't get the racewar they wanted so they had to try and start a new one. It is a very strange cult when you stop to think about it, because 1) minorities always had some form of admission to Western society in the first place, as well received as Westerners were received by others around the world and 2) the minorities are always asked to give up their own expression of traditions and values in favor of a academics and corporate executives repackaging something that seems similar but basically taxes their tradition for a neat profit of some kind (Disney didn't used to make money off Dia de los Muertos, but then they produced that one movie with the catchy songs, so now Mexicans give Disney money to celebrate their own holiday! and since Disney is better funded than all the mom's and pop's that used to define the cultural assemblage associated with the holiday, they can even get that cashflow to increase over time by basically Wal-Marting their mom and pop competition down in Mexico - suckers! academics in the various minorities studies disciplines are likewise often cannibalizing said cultures using better-funded academic resources and media projection power for quick cheap points in the culture war).
Sorry if that seems a tangent, but it's part of the whole "blasted by psyops" thing, is all these issues congeal together into one big crockpot of queso dip so you can't scoop with your chip without getting everything on it. That's why it seems, to remember the point of this essay, people have forgotten something so basic and simple such as how horrifying it is if someone were to inject an unknown active agent into you against your will. Going forward it will be important to entrench our rights to refuse medical intervention. Very fortunately for us Americans, we already have that right established by precedent, which should make it easier to further formalize said rights. The precedent hasn't stopped politicians and media and academia pushing mandates as far as they legally could - that's why the mandates were always restricted to "voluntary" private associations of business and employment, and why they never tried to push a universal mandate. In terms of disinformation, it is very apparent media has gone out of their way to keep such discussions about our rights out of the spotlight, because of how few Americans recognize we already have said right, and how few other countries in the world do anything to recognize such rights.
I recall a conversation with a family member some months ago, when Omicron was a big thing in the media. My family member, a retired boomer and avid consumer of CNN and Fox News and MSNBC was entirely unaware that exposure to covid itself was bound to confer natural immunity with equal or better protective effects than any vaccine. Given he spends all day watching TV and hours every day watching the news, I can only conclude they were deliberately remaining mum about such a fact because they were paid by pharmaceuticals to withhold such information lest viewers who know they had covid decide not to get the vaccine as a result (resulting in less profits for said companies at no cost to our collective health). I am getting a similar feeling about the right to refuse medical intervention - politicians don't want media or academia bringing it up, because if the people knew they had such grounds to stand on they might better oppose the predations of a corrupt elite. It seems that, unwilling or unable to innovate any new sources of production, many elite have turned to trying to turn the citizenry into a mass of cattle they can exploit as need-be when they're feeling low on cash, and so they are making examples - including by medical abuse, cruelty, and tyranny - of all who oppose this plan. It is hard to know how else to describe such plans as e.g. forcing people to keep their savings in banks with negative interest rates, and to not allow people to transact except through the financial network controlled by the same decrepit elites. If people are not wary of being penned in, they are apt to find the fence they walk along entirely encircles them. Our times require vigilance - evil is restless, and so good cannot rest if it is good.
from Hacker News https://ift.tt/VHtMLTW
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.