I just read Laurence Dodds’ Daily Telegraph opinion piece in which he describes a stereotypical “conspiracy theorist’s” reaction to the recent discovery of what might be a section of the lost MH370 passenger jet. Dodds’ lay psychoanalysis concludes that conspiracy theorists are too psychologically damaged to mindlessly accept any sensible official account of the cause of the plane’s still unexplained disappearance.
Dodds’ claim is embarrassingly illogical on its face, since it anticipates the reaction of a non-existent homogenous group of people who, he assumes, will disbelieve a non-existent explanation of an unknown event. But that won’t bother Dodds, because his article isn’t written to persuade, rather, it’s written to reinforce a very specific and dangerous institutional lie: that only a mentally ill person would ever question their government’s actions and motives.
The institutionalization of Dodds’ lie, which kicks the legs out from under a free and democratic society, is evident in the politicization of what laughingly passes for mental health care these days, a profession that increasingly invokes the nebulous, catch-all diagnoses of so-called “personality disorders”.
e.g.
Signs of antisocial personality disorder
A person with antisocial personality disorder may:
* exploit, manipulate or violate the rights of others
* lack concern, regret or remorse about other people’s distress
* behave irresponsibly and show disregard for normal social behaviour
* have difficulty sustaining long-term relationships
* be unable to control their anger
* lack guilt, or not learn from their mistakes
* blame others for problems in their lives
* repeatedly break the law
The “sign” that immediately jars is:
* behave irresponsibly and show disregard for normal social behaviour
The apparently reasonable act of “disregarding” the “normal social behaviour” of, say, slavery, or of refusing women the right to vote, or of accepting unsupported government accounts of major events, such as 9/11, 7/7 and Sandy Hook, is now officially a sign of mental illness. The association of political dissent with mental illness is dangerous. Take the case of single mum, Melanie Shaw, for example.
Shaw was conveniently declared mentally ill because she blew the whistle on the long-term and brutal sexual and other abuse of children, including suicides and possible murder, she witnessed while under the “care” of a state-controlled children’s home. Many of the children from the same children’s home have since stepped forward to confirm her claims, and, in some cases, have received settlements.
Shaw is by no means the first dissenter to be falsely labeled mentally ill to shut them up. Mankind has a long and rich history of strategically politicizing mental health, from before Galileo to today’s CIA rendition and torture:
e.g.
Psychiatric incarceration of mentally healthy people [such as happened in China and the USSR] is uniformly understood to be a particularly pernicious form of repression, because it uses the powerful modalities of medicine as tools of punishment, and it compounds a deep affront to human rights with deception and fraud. Doctors who allow themselves to be used in this way (certainly as collaborators, but even as victims of intimidation) betray the trust of society and breach their most basic ethical obligations as professionals.
Political Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union and in China: Complexities and Controversies; Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: 30:136–44, 2002
Sadly, today’s so-called mental health professionals shamelessly collude with corrupt governments in all manner of obscene ways to conceal state crimes of all kinds, from simple deception, to torture, to murder:
e.g.
According to Sidley Austin, another motive for APA’s lead role in crafting the “ethics policy” that allowed continued enhanced torture techniques was that “APA wanted to positively influence DOD regarding this policy so that psychologists would be included to the maximum degree possible, and psychologists would not lose the lead role to psychiatrists…” and “that APA would be rewarded with a very prominent role for psychologists in this new policy.”
The politicization of mental illness diagnoses is undeniable when it occurs on a grand scale, as in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and China. Less evident, though, is the accumulation of smaller incidents of work-a-day politicization of diagnoses, such as in Dodds’ dishonest, gruesome and offensive opinion piece.
I firmly believe that a democratically engaged society should not have to strain under the dead weight of Flat Earthers, such as Dodds: if the Prime Minister announced that the Earth is flat, Dodds would immediately label the rest of us insane flat-Earth deniers, or ignorant Orbists. This would be in keeping with the same “normal social behaviour” that allows us to fail to question the need to bomb Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction we knew didn’t exist, to not care to know how a group of “terrorists” could take a cancelled train from Luton to London to plant bombs, and to honestly believe every word the government tells us, and that, and particularly that, if we don’t have anything to hide, then we don’t need protection from government overreach.
At the risk of flaunting whatever personality disorder I might be suffering from, I’d like to ask the mentally healthy Flat Earthers, such as Dodds, a question:
How do you suppose the conspiracy theorists who penned the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States managed to do so prior to the invention of personality disorders, the Internet, and tin foil?
Feel free to get back to me as soon as your government has told you what to say.
A third of all bankers are clinically psychopaths, and most politicians are egotists and power hungry. And that many of the symptoms on that list they have.
The thing about stuff that Dodds and others trip of the tongue is that you can prove almost anything with half truths.
It seems that Dodds is a conspiracy theorist, about conspiracy theorists.
No wonder the Torygraph keeps sacking people, they probably don’t want to supplicate themselves before the Barclay Bros conspiracy theorists.
Now there’s a conspiracy theory to deny Dodds……………….
If you’re not a conspiracy theorist, you’ve lost the plot.
“Conspiracy Theory” should be taken much more seriously than it is. Some are almost considered to be suitable for the straitjacket for believing some or even any of them, but most conspiracy theory, ends up becoming fact, as official secrets are released and people in offical positions come forward and spill the beans on coverups and government conspiracies.
I have a little theory about many of the “conspiracy theories”. If you want to hide something out in the plain sight, where do you put it? For example where do hide a tree? answer; in a forest. Some of the Conspiracies maybe genuine, I suspect most are not, but sorting out the wheat from the chaff is easier said than done.
Conspiracy is the engine of human kind and most events in history have involved at least one conspiracy, maybe several . It is everywhere in all walks of life, in the boardroom, in the courtroom, in the bedroom and certainly in the corridors of power. Wherever a group (2 or more) of people get together in secret to organise something immoral or illegal to benefit the group.
The thing is this with conspiracies, some politicians make the laws, so it’s possible to make whatever they do in secret legal and what they think they do is for the good of mankind and the highest of morals, in their opinion.
What more incentive is there for politicians to get together for more power, more money, more influence and dare I say it, for world domination and ideological reasons.
I’ve grown to question EVERYTHING the government says, especially what Cameron says, because everything he comments on is so obviously a lie or a half-truth. You can almost see his nose grow. I don’t know how he holds a straight face with what he tells us. Everything the government does has an agenda behind it, and it uses coersion and deception to achieve its aims. That’s not conspiracy theory, that’s common sense to not roll over and accept what they tell us to be the whole truth.
Well said.
How absolutely stupid does someone have to be to believe that the wealthy and powerful, those who have caused so much harm to the world for so long, will ever sit back and say “Well, That’s enough wealth and power for me. I’ll let someone else have a turn.”
His nose doesn’t grow he just get bolder.
A comment I made about the eight signs of anti-social personality disorder has just been pulled for ‘moderation’. Is it anything to do with saying that they describe many politicians, past and present, including Blair?
Seems that all the sleazy paedophiles in public positions that are now being exposed suffer from personality disorders too. We seem to be constantly electing either criminals or mentally deranged perverts.
Please, Mister, don’t censor this – you’re infringing my right to free speech.
You were moderator-cleansed for abusing politicians?
I think that might be a first in the entire history of moderating.
I’m not blaming ukipdaily’s editor Brian Otridge. It’s disqus that’s to blame. Once you allow this virus parasite into your online world, they have every post you write scrutinised. And trying to shake them off is like trying to ban colds from your life – you get over one, but you’ll catch another sooner or later.
I thought that moderating was done by the site hosting Disqus, not by Disqus themselves.
I’ve seen a lot of very, very offensive comments let stand in Disqus on other sites …
To be honest, I don’t know how it works. Let’s just say I did my best not to use offensive words to describe politicians, but it seems that paedophiles, pederasts, perverts, molesters, sexual deviants, whoremongers and dope fiends were considered offensive by someone/something.
To be honest, I don’t know how it works. I tried my best to avoid offensive words to describe politicians, but it seems that p**do**iles, p**eras*s, p*rv*rts, mo*est**s, d*vian*s, wh**emon*ers and dope f**nds are found offensive by someone/something.
This is the second time I’ve posted this, the first time without asterisks, and it was immediately swiped. Will it get through this time?
Yay, it did! Now I know the way forward to beat the censor that doesn’t like naughty words – not swear words, just the nouns and adjectives that best describe far too many of our politicians, past and present.
Just play crossword puzzles with the ukipdailynews readers and hope they’re good at it.
Well, I see it as of now …
I checked the Disqus Web site, and it says that moderation is conducted by the administrators of the individual sites you post to. Which, presumably, is Ukipdaiily’s administrator on this site.
I read somewhere in a post that if someone wanted to be a politician etc. they should be on banned list. The fact is anyone wanting a seat of power and wealth isn’t to be trusted. If you don’t want to vote for these types don’t vote!!!
That 8-point asterisked list you provided – “Signs of Anti-Social Personality Disorder”. It sounds like a good description of past and present politicians, political leaders, MPs, Lords and statesmen here and around the world. It fits Blair very well and applies to Muslim terrorists too.
This could be the explanation for our global f*****-up state.
It also accounts for the shocking number of ”the great and the good” now slithering out of the slime, exposed as paedophiles, pederasts, perverts, abusers, molesters, rapists, whoremongers and sexual deviants. The latest of these is Edward Heath, who is now doubly disgraced as a traitor and alleged child-abuser.
Pity he’s dead and has escaped the ignominy.