Archive for mental illness

Children of Darkness

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on July 7, 2017 by andelino

What happens when you make a compilation of “Social Justice Warriors” (SJW) going “insane and chimping out,” and then “replace” the audio of the video compilation with the “voice-over” of an old documentary about “mental illness?”

You end up with what can only be described as “top quality accidental comedy.”

If no one “informed” you that the video you were watching wasn’t the “original” visual image of the audio, you “probably” wouldn’t know.

Turns out that “SJW” aren’t so different from “mentally insane people.”

If you were to come across someone who “cried” in the streets, who saw the world in terms of black and white and made death threats against strangers, who “cowered” in a special room and made public displays of “naked self-harm and bloodletting,” you might conclude that they were “suffering” from some kind of “personality disorder.”

All these symptoms can be found in the “High Conflict Personality Disorder” category known as “Axis II in DSMV, including Anti-Social PD, Histrionic PD, Paranoid PD, Narcissistic PD, and Borderline PD.”

Alternatively, you might “reason” that these are the everyday “behaviors” of the modern “Social Justice Warrior.”

Of course, not every SJW has a “personality” condition, but sufferers from “High Conflict Disorders” are often drawn to extreme “beliefs and behaviors” under the illusion that they are “acting politically.”

A 2016 UK survey found that, since 1990, rates of “depression and anxiety” among the young have “increased” by 70%, while the American Counseling Association has reported a “rising tide of personality disorders among Millennial’s.”

That such disorders appear to be an “acute” problem with this generation may be an unintended “outcome” of the unprecedented experiment “conducted” in the 1990s and 2000s by “progressive” parents.

Persecution Complex and the “Safe Space”

In 2014, a “survey” of 100,000 college students at 53 U.S. “campuses” by the American College Health Association found that 84% of U.S. students feel unable to cope, while more than half experience overwhelming anxiety.

A byproduct of such “fear” has been the growth of the “safe space,” a safe-haven for minority groups and “distressed” students from what they perceive as “threats” within campus life.

Safe spaces contain “comforting” objects that evoke childhood memories like “bean bags, soothing music, Play-Doh and coloring books.” The spaces often “forbid” entry to straight “white men or political opponents.”

The idea of “running to the safe space” is a form of psychological “regression.” The safe space presents a “fantasy barrier” against imagined exterior “evils,” and so encourages “persecution paranoia and hyper-fragility.”

These are all “symptoms” of histrionic, borderline “paranoid personality disorders” that emerge from problems with the early “child-parent” bond.

The majority of “millennial” children (now aged 18-34) had two “working” parents; this was partly an “ideological” project of feminism and partly “economic” necessity.

The “downside” was the damage done by “daycare services” which grew by 250% between the 1970s and 90s (see Laura Perrins’ work on psychological trauma caused by daycare).

According to Bowlby’s “Maternal Deprivation Thesis,” babies require two years of “intimate” attention to enable them to form the “caregiver-child” bond essential for secure “ego” formation.

Any “disturbance” of this process will “predispose the children to respond in an anti-social way to later stresses.”

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has found:

“Children in full-time day care were close to three times more likely to show behavior problems than those cared for by their mothers at home. The more time in child care of any kind or quality, the more aggressive the child.”

The result is young people who, a decade and a half after daycare, “scream” at the parent/State for not “protecting” them sufficiently. It is no coincidence that “safe spaces” resemble daycare centers.

Unfortunately, “safe spaces” enforce the distressed person’s fear of the world, “trapping” them in their original trauma within a psychological frame of “permanent and inescapable victim-hood.”

“Trigger Warnings” and “Helicopter Parents”

 For the “SJW” everyday speech contains a multitude of “micro aggression’s,” or subconscious “power” dynamics which conceal “colonial or patriarchal” oppression.

Failing to use the “words” prescribed by SJW activists, most particularly in the case of “trans-people,” is seen as an act of “violence” equivalent to “physical assault.”

See, for example, a “statement” made by a protester at UC Berkeley in January 2017 at a protest event that “turned” into a violent riot: “Your free speech is raping and killing us.”

 People with “High Conflict Personality Disorders” experience similarly “paranoid” emotions about “hidden messages, omnipotent threats, and imminent violence.”

They are “hyper-alert” and live with higher than normal levels of “cortisol and adrenaline,” which in turn causes lasting “neurological” damage, affecting their ability to “reason” and to regulate “emotion.” They “panic” easily and “regress” to infantile distress.

Faced with “histrionic” students, university staff end up behaving like “Helicopter Parents”: those largely absent, full-time working parents who “overcompensated” by flying in to fuss over their child.

Attempting to assuage “parental guilt,” one of the tools they used was “positive parenting,” a philosophy created by “Social Progressives.”

Parents were taught to not “scold or punish,” and instead to use “positive reinforcement” in an attempt to “raise” their children with “high self-esteem.”

This “ideology” also became fashionable within an increasingly “progressive” school system that awarded children prizes for “non-competitive sports” and for merely taking “part in school activities.”

As they passed from “day care to through high school,” these children with artificially enforced “high self-esteem” were also told that they were “morally superior” to generations that came before.

They were “inducted” into politically correct language and were even “taught” to lecture their own parents on “racism, equality, and ecology.”

From the ages of six to eighteen, they took part in yearly multiculturalists “save the planet” projects. They were told they had a heroic destiny as “agents of change.”

A “false” picture of the world and a vastly “inflated” sense of self-importance did not “compensate” for the foundational trauma of “parental neglect.”

Instead, as Dr. Jean Twenge has explained, “Positive Parenting created young people with a ‘narcissistic wound’ for whom the real world would be perceived as a threat to self-worth.”

Border Violation and Self-Harm

The “Positive Parenting” movement expounded the beliefs that “there is no boundary between you and your child” and that “you are friends and equals.”

For the child growing up without “paternalistic laws and boundaries,” the only way to find “limits” was to attack the only boundary it knew: “its own bodily boundaries.”

In this light it is worth “exploring” why the Fourth Wave feminist/social justice activist group known as “Femen” should mimic the outward signs of the “BID” sufferer.

Their “trademark” form of protest is public “toplessness,” with slogans written over the “belly and breasts” in fake or real blood. One classic Femen image is of an “almost-naked” woman holding a protest sign that reads: “Rape Me. I’m a Slut.”

The “intention” may have been to “demonstrate” that no matter how “sexually” a woman dresses she is still not “asking for it.”

But public “nudity” as a protest against sexual “violation” is a contradictory signal, sending out “conflicted” messages around dangerous “sexual” subjects is a symptom of “BPD and NPD.”

The Femen “protester” may subconsciously be saying, “show me boundaries and control, show me authority and concern.” She might be “displaying” the pain of living within a “self-in-contradiction.”

Contradiction and Splitting

 SJW protests are “awash” with contradictions. SJWs claim to “fight” for freedom, but are “opposed” to freedom of speech, support “banning” videos and books, and support the “violent” disruption of public talks, as was seen with the “riots” at UC Berkeley, Middlebury College, and elsewhere.

SJWs believe in a world with “no boundaries” where “everyone is equal,” free immigration, open access to healthcare and education, etc., but at the same time are “obsessed with creating segregated spaces.”

While they protest against the “fascist patriarchal state” they are, at the same time, fundamentally “Statist,” demanding that the government “police” language for them and “punish” their enemies.

While SJWs claim to fight for “human rights,” they parade the symbol of the largest “genocides” in history, the “Communist” flag. They are “pro-feminist,” and at the same time defend “Sharia law.”

“Living-in-contradiction” is similar to the “Love me — I hate you” dynamic in Borderline pathology called “Splitting.”

In splitting, everything is “all or nothing,” and the thing that was passionately “idealized” suddenly becomes an “object of hatred.”

“Traitors” are everywhere. This was exemplified by the “expulsion” of gay men and “TERFS” — “Trans exclusionary radical feminists” — from LGBT+ groups by “Inter-sectional” feminists.

Along with splitting comes the symptoms of “low-impulse control, histrionics, dysphoria, a pervasive sense of emptiness, suicidal ideation, and self-harming.”

Symbolic demonstrations of “self-harming behaviors” are widely used in SJW protests.

Along with “smearing” faces with fake blood to “signify” female oppression, a protest group called “Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants” in the UK in 2015 took “razors” to their arms in public to “spill rivers of blood.”

With an attempted “self-immolation” and a reported contagion of “suicide threats” occurring during the Trump protests, thousands attempted to use “politics as an alibi for a deeper inner compulsion to self-harm.”

The Results of the Human Experiment

 Trapped among “infant” neglect, artificially elevated “self-esteem,” and identity “dysphoria,” the Millennial’s were “set up” for a fall.

When they were “pushed” out of their parental homes in the 2010s, they “discovered” they did not have the tools to construct “stable” selves.

They couldn’t “blame” their parents or teachers. Instead they searched for a “vast, abstract, all-encompassing enemy.”

In “identity politics” they found a temporary unity, through “hatred of Patriarchy, of Capitalism, of White Men.”

In President Trump they found their savior.

 In the stages before “psychosis,” sufferers from High Conflict Personality Disorders “fixate” on one object of hate. Subconsciously, they need this “super-enemy” so they can feel whole.

This is the tragic “truth” of the identity politics of the SJW. Without a totalizing “object of blame,” the personality of the “warrior for social justice” falls apart.

While the SJWs idealize themselves as “victims” of omnipresent evil, they are in fact the victims of well-meaning “liberal” parents and “progressive” teachers who subjected them to an “experiment in social engineering.“

They were the “guinea pigs” of the progressive project. Older generations of “radicals” then exploited their “volatility and rage” for political ends.

Now is the time for your lovin’, dear, and the time for your company.
Now when the light of reason fails and fires burn on the sea,
Now in this age of confusion I have need of your company.

For I am a wild and lonely child and the son of an angry land,
Now with the high wars raging I would offer you my hand,
For we are the children of darkness and the prey of a foul command.

It’s once I was free to go roaming in the wind of a springtime mind,
Once the clouds I sailed upon were sweet as lilac wine,
Then, why have the breezes of summer, dear, been laced with a grim design?

And where was the will of my father when he raised his sword on high?
And where was my mother’s wailing when our flags were justified?
And where will we take our pleasure when our bodies have been denied?

What “Children of Darkness” are actually asking for, when they scream at us, “is our hlp.”

Millennial’s Killed 19 Things Last Year


Gay Left

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on July 10, 2013 by andelino

Gay Left 01Understanding the Viciousness of the Gay Left
By: Robert Oscar Lopez

On Tuesday, June 4, the gay lobby — for the purposes here, “the Gay Left” — was exposed for its “intrinsically” sociopathic tendencies.

As the shock settles in about the Human Rights Campaign’s possibly felonious violation of fellow citizens’ civil rights, it is fitting that I should introduce the uninitiated reader to a basic overview of the “Gay Left” and the simultaneous totalitarianism and anomie that have shaped it since the famous Stonewall rebellion of 1969.

In light of the fluffy report issued this week by the College Republican National Committee urging the right, in part, to abandon opposition to gay marriage, the message I am about to deliver is triply urgent: don’t fall for the con!”

The “Gay Left” is not the same thing as gay people, many of whom are good folks.

The “Gay Left” is also not, despite what one might think, merely another part of the “liberal” intelligentsia.

It is a “peculiar” creature, a specific “cluster” of organizations that evolved from the specific “environmental” stresses of police repression, psychiatric stigma, and AIDS.

The problem is that while in America the institutionalized “persecution” of homosexuals has been dispersed into episodes of de facto social friction (as opposed to de jure discrimination) the survival “instincts” that grew out of an earlier age of “repression” — many of which become “destructive” if they outlive their moment of necessity — remain “integral” to the Gay Left’s political apparatus.

Where are we now? A quick run-down

Gay Left 02During hearings on Capitol Hill, Chapman University professor John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage “unveiled” new evidence that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest “gay advocacy” organization, may have “felonious” obtained confidential tax documents from the IRS and then published them with the “intent” of humiliating political opponents.

This accusation, as has been noted by several commentators including Dennis Prager and Ann Coulter, brings the current IRS “scandals” to a whole new level.

Below is the exchange that took place between Rep. Paul Ryan and Prof. Eastman:

RYAN: So your donors are confidential, that’s protected by law. You have proof that the IRS leaked your confidential donor information to a group that opposes your point of view. And your donors were harassed as a result of that. Is that correct?


As Dennis Prager “pointed” out in his show, this is the most “serious” chapter of the IRS scandal. A brief transcript:

PRAGER: People will more openly talk about marital problems, and certainly child problems, than they will disclose their financial data […] And so to publish people’s tax returns is to in some ways strip them naked in public […]

EASTMAN: […] what was leaked to the Human Rights Campaign was Schedule B of our tax returns, which is our list of major donors and their addresses. And that is as private of a tax return as your own individual 1040 tax returns. And it’s a felony for anybody to disclose that information without your permission. The Human Rights Campaign posted this on their website and we immediately called for them to take it down […]and this is a felony. It is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, to disclose somebody’s tax returns without authorization […]The Human Rights Campaign had been trying for a long time to get our donor list so that they could do just that to our donors [harass and intimidate them]. The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Salmonese, had just recently become a national co-chair for the Obama re-election campaign.

While bad enough, this is only the “tip” of the iceberg — the “gay lobby” is also gleefully “co-opting” military and police forces to “hound” its enemies too.

How did we get here?

Gay Left 04

Stonewall Riots

According the History Channel’s sanitized account of this famous event, the riots were “the impetus for the formation of the Gay Liberation Front as well as other gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights organizations” and “regarded by many as history’s first major protest on behalf of equal rights for homosexuals.”

The “Stonewall riots” developed an exaggerated image in the collective “memory” of the LGBT movement, but this moment of “fighting” back against violent “persecution” is the locus “classicus” for their entire worldview.

By June 6, 2013, we see a “different” story. 

This time it is Grégor Puppinck speaking before Geneva’s Council of Rights of Man about “the grave matter” of 350 people being arrested and detained, through violent “police acts” including tear gas, for the simple reason that they “objected” to the recent gay marriage law passed in France.

The “peaceful” assemblies gathered to “defend” the rights of children to a mother and a father — rights that the French law “undermines”, in their estimation (and mine).

The LGBT movement “fought” fire with fire. So it became “exactly” what it fought against.

After Stonewall, the shrinks and the soldiers

The jump from violent “self-defense” to violence against “innocents” occurred because the gay community had to “contend” with brutally real shocks, to which they “developed” an adaptive response.

Not long after the Stonewall “rebellion”, the burgeoning gay rights movement became “addicted” to the adrenaline of protest. They “stormed” the medical professions to “de-stigmatize” themselves.

Psychiatric and psychological associations “de-classified” homosexuality as a “mental” illness by the mid-1970s, and the expert “consensus” (of which there would be several more, all unmitigated disasters) was that the “urges” felt by homosexual men posed no “peculiar” danger to their health at all.

Gay Left 04Indeed, by this “consensus”, men having sex with men were no “different” from men having sex with women. Within “seven” years there was a “massive” AIDS epidemic.

Somewhere, perhaps, there could have been a “middle ground” between total repression and complete anomie. With women taken out of the “picture” and modern medicine offering them copious “antibiotics”, they felt invincible.

They had no “idea” HIV existed. Why would “anyone” know it existed?

For thousands of years “sexual”mores, taboos, and codes of conduct had ensured that there wouldn’t be men “running” around with thousands of other men, “ejaculating” into each other’s “delicate” parts after knowing each other for as “little” as a few minutes.

The AIDS “epidemic” was as traumatic as anyone could imagine. I should know, as I was there for the worst of it. Growing up in a “gay community” and spending the 1990s surrounded by “homosexuals”, I cannot begin to recount the “emotions” of that catastrophe.

To tell one story is to “open up” about hundreds upon hundreds of others, all wasting away — “uncompensated” for having been sold a false “consensus” and urged by idealistic “experts” to do the very thing that “killed” them.

A rational reaction to this “epidemic” would have been to question the 1970s “consensus” about homosexual “normalcy” and rein in the sexual “abandon” that had laid “waste” to so many young gay men.

Gay Left 03

As we know from “human” history, however, people rarely “react” to trauma rationally.

Faced with “AIDS”, the response from some gay groups was to offer “comfort”; from these gay groups sprang the “vast” network of community centers and free “clinics” that still help many “gay” people to this day.

But the response from “political” activists such as those who founded “HRC” in 1980 was to go into massive “denial” about what their “ideology” had wrought.

Rather than “back” down, they sought to “relive” Stonewall again, this time “projecting” the harm done by a “virus” onto actual human beings, whom they “blamed” for willing the disease to “destroy” them.

So a mythology developed that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the AIDS crisis. “Homophobia” was responsible. “Discrimination” was responsible. “Gay men” could not be responsible.

The deflection of “blame” onto imaginary enemies required tremendous mental work, and this work became the overarching “labor” of the Human Rights Campaign and its “many” sister organizations.

Gay activists “retreated” from physical reality and rejected the notion of truth, since both reality and truth had “betrayed” them.

Gay Left Hillary

They took “comfort” in the notion that if “others” saw them as good and normal, their “problems” would be solved. And so “hiding” problems — which sometimes “bordered” on lying — took precedence “over” self-improvement.

Whenever caught in a “misrepresentation” — as they already have been regarding suicide and sexual assault in the military, and as they will soon be regarding same-sex parenting — they have learned to become aggressive.

There are still many who “fear” homosexuals rather than “hate” them.

They react to “aggressive” behavior by gay activists with “appeasement” and avoidance. They give “gays” what they want and “forego” any arguments with them.

What gay activists learn from this is simple: “Be aggressive and you will get what you want. Stay on the offensive and never play defense. Replace the last false consensus with a newer, glossier consensus, and repeat it again and again without ever apologizing for having been wrong the last time.”

Gay Left 05

When it “turns” out that men having sex with men are much more likely to incur “venereal” diseases, push a new “consensus” about open homosexuality having no “impact” whatsoever on morale or unit “cohesion” in the military.

When this too goes “terribly” wrong, and the sexual assault rate rises by 35% after the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (mostly homosexual rapes), then “harp” on the consensus about same-sex parenting being just as good, or “better”, than families with a mom and a dad.

If all else fails, be “aggressive.”

The National Organization for Marriage became the “target” of the Human Rights Campaign’s seasoned and “entrenched” method of coping with the universal “disappointments” of real life.

Had there been “no” National Organization for Marriage, the HRC would have seized upon a “different” target — a church, a random conservative blogger, a Knights of Columbus lodge.

Nobody “assailed” by the HRC should ever take the “mean-spiritedness” personally.

Nor, I must add, should they give in to it. The more you “feed” the beast that is “dysfunctional” gay activism, the greater the “beast” will grow.

As I learned during the “AIDS” crisis, its first victims are “usually” other gays.

Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.

Gay Left 02

Mental Disorders

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on May 9, 2013 by andelino
Mental Disorders

Mental Disorders

Beware of the “soon-to-be-released” fifth edition of the “Psychiatric Bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5).

The odds will probably be “greater” than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you’ll have a “mental disorder” in your lifetime.

Although fewer than “6 percent” of American adults will have a “severe” mental illness in a given year, according to a 2005 study, many more—“more than a quarter each year” — will have some “diagnosable” mental disorder.

That’s a “lot” of people.

Almost “50 percent” of Americans (46.4 percent to be exact) will have a diagnosable “mental illness” in their lifetimes, based on the “previous” edition, the DSM-IV.

And the new “manual” will likely make it even “easier” to get a diagnosis.

Mental-Disorders 01

If we think of having a “diagnosable” mental illness as being “under” a tent, the tent seems “pretty” big. Huge, in fact! How did it “happen” that half of us will “develop” a mental illness?

Has this “always” been true and we just didn’t “realize” how sick we were–we didn’t realize we were “under” the tent? Or are we mentally less “healthy” than we were a “generation” ago?

What about a “third” explanation–that we are “labeling” as mental illness “psychological” states that were previously considered “normal,” albeit unusual, making the “tent” bigger. The answer appears to be all three.

First, we’ve gotten better at “detecting” mental illness and doing so “earlier” in the course of the illness….Second, we really are getting “sicker.”

Mental-Disorders 02

The high “prevalence” of mental illness in the United States isn’t only “because” we’ve gotten better at detecting mental illness. More of us are “mentally ill” than in previous generations, and our mental illness is “manifesting” at earlier points in our lives.

One study “supporting” this explanation took the scores on a “measure of anxiety” of children with psychological “problems” in 1957 and “compared” them with the scores of “today’s” average child.

Today’s children–not “specifically” those identified as “having” psychological problems, as were the 1957 children–are more “anxious” than those in “previous” generations.

Another study compared “cohorts” of American adults on the personality trait of “neuroticism,” which indicates emotional “reactivity” and is associated with “anxiety.”

Americans scored higher on “neuroticism” in 1993 than they did in 1963, suggesting that as a “population” we are becoming more “anxious.”

Mental-Disorders 04

Another study compared the level of “narcissism” among cohorts of American college students between 1982 and 2006 and found that more recent “cohorts” are more “narcissistic.”

Here’s a “third” explanation for the increased “prevalence” of mental illness, one that “implies” something important about our culture: “What was once considered psychological healthy (or at least not unhealthy) is now considered to be mental illness.”

Some of the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that were “within” the then-normal range of human experience are now deemed to be in the “pathological” part of the continuum.

Thus, the actual “definition” of mental illness has “broadened,” creating a bigger tent with “more” people under it. This explanation “implies” that we, as a culture, are more “willing” to see mental illness in “ourselves” and in others.

Mental-Disorders 03

The increasing number of “disorders” comes about because some “problems” that were not previously “considered” to be mental illness were “reclassified” as such by their “inclusion” in the DSM-5 and it is the DSM that “functionally” defines “mental illness” in the United States.


The White House has always attracted the mentally ill

The White House has always attracted the mentally ill

%d bloggers like this: