Spitzer arbitrarily outlined many of the psychiatric labels and their symptoms found in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Yet, unlike medical diseases, psychiatric disorders are entirely subjective—psychiatrists at the American Psychiatric Association literally vote on which "disorders" to include in the DSM, and the disorders are removed if they are too much trouble. Such was the case with homosexuality, which, while found in earlier versions of the DSM, ceased to be called a "mental disorder" after gay activists picketed an APA conference in 1973. There are no physical tests, such as blood tests, brain scans or X-Rays that can confirm the existence of any psychiatric disorder. Spitzer’s de facto admission that psychiatric labels are unreliable, comes more than three decades after he first began working on the DSM III. Since then, psychiatrists have been using the DSM to fraudulently claim that mental disorders are the same as physical disorders, and thereby justifying the prescription of powerful, psychotropic drugs, including to very young children."
http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/9027/19686
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 26, 2007]
Note: http://www.cchr.org/ind...
GOD DAMN THE PUSHER MAN!....
Posted on Sunday, March 25 at 08:37 by DiogenesContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
Doctors are paid to treat sick people, so the more sick people, the better.
Soldiers are paid to wage wars and kill people, so the more wars and enemies, the better.
Police are paid to catch criminals, so the more criminals, the better.
Economists are paid to create "miracle solutions" to poverty, so the more poverty, the better.
Politicians are paid to "solve" problems in our society, so the more problems, the better.
And so on and so forth.
It's like they've all decided it was simpler to actually be the cause of these problems than to change the way the system work. I think it's also a major flaw in the capitalist, free market system: job opportunities, wages and rewards do not come from improving the quality of life, nor are decided through plain common sense, but through a set of limited mathematical equations which are based on needs and do not take human factors into account. So the only way to keep the system going is to keep these problems. Imagine if you somehow managed to eradicate diseases. What would the doctors do? Most economists would tell them "Starve! That's how the system work." So now they need to literally invent new diseases so they can keep their jobs.
This is insane. We're paying people to do exactly the reverse of what they're supposed to be doing! So absurd, it sounds like a Monty Python sketch, rather than a well-sound, healty society.
The Sharp Wolf
"We are not supposed to be taking pills to make us feel better, we are supposed to be living lives that make us feel better."
I agree, but I'd like to suggest that conflicts of interest are not limited to political systems alone, they exist throughout our society in all areas. In addition, there usually is always a counter-balance to the conflict that restricts how far it will go from one extreme to the other, for example, if the judicial system lets go too many habitual and dangerous criminals, eventually there will be a backlash resulting in extreme reactions such as "zero tolerance", "3-strikes law", etc. Usually the degree of conflict goes in cycles gradually progressing from a tight ship to a corrupt mess (within limits) then back again.
The problem I think is that few people get rewarded enough for doing a job so well that they have little to do, and people who work themselves out of a job tend to lose their jobs.
In general to combat conflicts of interest, we have to reward using the inverse of what's usually being done.
For example, instead of rewarding the police with larger budgets due to an increase in crime and also rewarding the police for making sensational busts, the police should instead be rewarded for generating low levels of crime but also for doing so with fewer arrests (i.e., real crime prevention) - basically we want the police to "work themselves out of a job", but without actually losing their jobs. The medical establishment should be rewarded for having mostly nothing to do because everyone is healthy and no one waits around for treatments while getting sicker in the process. Again we want our doctors and nurses to be sitting around with little to do but without losing their jobs.
The last thing a government wants to see, are too many self sufficient people who live in harmony with each other and with their fellow man in other countries. Governments NEED conflicts, plenty of fear and paranoia, and a large number of people who are dependent on handouts for survival.
Once you understand what the conflicts are, you can read any system like a book.
For example, governments HATE low voter turnouts, which seems to imply that governments want a healthy democracy, but that's not the case at all. They want to see high voter turnouts because that's a measure of their relevancy among the populace. Governments do nothing to fix a poorly designed electoral system, but will spend millions on propaganda in an attempt to get more people thinking that voting is something they should be doing no matter how little sense there is to it.
Here is your pusher <br />
What more do you need?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=16&db=3&C0=1">http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=16&db=3&C0=1</a><br />
<br />
"MURDER BY INJECTION explains how the ruthless Rockefeller Syndicate - under the control of the world financial structure, chiefly the Rothschilds - plays the major political, health and educational roles in America. The book describes the various arms of the Rockefeller Syndicate and their functions: the Rockefeller Oil Trust, which incorporates much of the American military-industrial complex, has political control of the nation; the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly attains control of health care of America; and the Rockefeller Foundation, a web of affiliated tax exempt creations, effectively controls education. <br />
<br />
<br />
Mullins specifies names throughout the book, many of them belonging to familiar public figures in America. Companies and their board of directors are listed with all their connections. <br />
<br />
Although the book mainly deals with America, the situations described by Mullins in many respects equally applies to Australia, as in most other countries. The immense damning evidence that he presents makes MURDER BY INJECTION essential reading for those who are serious about understanding the true reasons behind our ailing health. <br />
<br />
<br />
Published by the National Council for Medical Research in 1988. Hard-cover,348 pages. "<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
People get all weirded out about national sovereignty and how important it is to then that their country maintains is sovereignty withot realising that the folks Mullins has reseached and written about bought up whatever sovereignty was to be had long ago<br />
<br />
<br />
back to the bullshit laid down by Spitzer lives have been ruined and in some cases lost!<br />
<br />
I lost a ladyfriend to suicide and another to doctors drugs because of Spitzer.<br />
<br />
We all will loose our incomes because of the the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.<br />
These people own us, lock stock and barrel1<br />
<br />
and the politician we elect sold out to then at the first oppertunity<br />
<br />
<br />
and all we get is a place to vent on the net<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
thanks to Dick posting something from the curezone I found what i've presented here<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."<br />
<br />
* George Bu
"One more thing, our government is in a serious conflict of interest of its own. In order for a government exist, the people who support it have to think that they need a government, and those who operate governments have plenty of incentive to manufacture reasons for the people to think that they need an ever more bloated, expensive, and all-controlling government."
Yes, that is indeed the greatest conflict of all. The most dangerous, too, because the government has much power and use it when it can. Sounds like a parasitic organism, in a sense.
I do see a way for that to change, though I am not so sure it can be done presently: we could establish a democracy, in the true sense of the word. Eliminate the difference between the people and the government. In a sense, eliminate the government as we know it, which is much more like a variant of the feudal system where we get to choose which kings and barons we will serve.
This is how I see it. Give independance to small communities. Decentralise power, and focus on making each community as self-sufficient as possible. It is said that we cannot live in harmony like some cultures which have been destroyed by colonialism, and that we can't because our system is too big. Then, if it is true, I say break it down. Of course, establishing each communities on similar principles would be preferrable, to help cooperation.
Here's what I suggest: the point in society is to help people become happy through cooperation. Else, society is just a formalised law of the jungle. So every decision must be taken accordingly. Then, we must try to discover how it can be attained as objectively as possible. For example: a crime is something which causes direct harm to someone else. Thus, murder is a crime. Taking drugs is not. If people want to waste their health away, so be it. So, things like prostitution, possession of marijuana or same-sex marriage are permitted. These things might disgust some people but, hey, I dislike the taste of mushroom. Does that give me the right to ban them from supermarkets? No. It's not like I can't eat something else. In the same way, everything must be defined as precisely as possible, with no ambiguity. Near impossible, I know, but it beats passing laws so that some lobby can make profits at the expense of everyone, in opinion.
Favor symbiotic systems. Plants use carbonic gas and give back oxygen. Animals use oxygen and give back carbonic gas. Model society the same way. No matter what economists and so-called "experts" say, I think our current system is not optimal at all. Farmers produce food. Then sell it to supermarkets. Who sell it to people. Why don't they sell directly to the people? Better yet (that's the part I don't think people are ready for), create strong *communities*. Systems in which people work together for a common goal. It's hard to explain like this, but I'll try: imagine a system where people work together to fulfill basic needs. Food, lodging, health care, infrastructure maintenance, everyone have to do their part. This is much more effective than the current, disorganised system, because the action is much more direct. Our current system uses an intermediary incentive: money. Since our money is in short supply, there is competition among the different systems, so each get less than would be needed. Alse, people work for money, rather than for the system to work, which weakens social conciousness. Even worse, there are all the conflicts of interest: people need money to live, so they need a job. To have a job, they need problems to solve. And thus, they cannot solve them all completely, since to do so would mean starvation. So, I think everyone should rather directly work for their basic needs. Once those are taken care of, people are free to do what they want, as long as they don't commit any crime. The main problem I see is that there are many people who seem to feel the need to be richer materially than others. But, for that, you usually need to take away from others, so you end up with rich people, and poor people, who can't satisfy their basic needs. In my idea, no matter how big your house is, how many goods you have, you still have to give some *time* and *work* for the common good. Not money so someone can do it in your place. Money should never be an end to itself. I don't think money should be eliminated, though, because it can be a useful tool. But money should not be a commodity by itself.
Heh. I wonder how much criticism I'll get for what I'm saying. As I write this, I'm almost expecting for someone to yell at me "Pinko-head-in-the-clouds-communist! Get a job!" For the record I know it sounds idealistic, maybe even naive. I know many people wouldn't go with that. But I think it would be a worthy goal, a society which point is to help people. Hmm. I think I'll stop there for now and see how people react to these ideas. *Constructive* criticism is encouraged.
To sum it up so far:
--The point of society is for people to be happier through cooperation. Everything else is just a scam, the "Law of the Jungle, v2.0".
--Eliminate the differences between the people and the government. Which pretty much means: eliminate the government as we know it. It's not like these few people who are only concerned with self profit would know what's good for each of us anyway. So give power to the people.
--That means the people must become involved in what the government usually do.
--Which means that rather than trusting our fates to the tides of the free market and analog systems, we must *decide* how our system will be built.
--For that, we will need to define as objectively as possible every part of the system. Give special attention to what are the goals of each part. E.g.: the goal of the judiciary system is to prevent people from harming *each other*. People are free to do what they want with their own bodies. Thus, a crime is defined by the fact that it does harm to someone else. If no one is harmed, it's not a crime.
--Create symbiotic systems, which complete each other, and which can continue running in the *very* long term. The current system is parasitic, slowly sucking the lifeblood of most people and the environment and concentrating it into the hands of a few. Not only does this causes a whole lot of suffering, which causes many other problems, but eventually, there will be nothing more to suck and everything will come crashing down. This must be corrected before it is too late.
--People must realise the need to work together, especially in this day and age. Everyone and everything are inter-connected. If some are extremely rich when compared to the average people, chances are there are others who are extremely poor. This means we might need to limit the value of individualistic, materialistic pursuits. Doing that through education might be the best way. Also, everyone should do their part. This is because we *all* profit in some way or another from society, whether we admit it or not. Those who think they owe it all just to themselves should seriously go live as hermits in the woods. Like it or not, we need each other, so we would better realise we're all in the same boat, and so when someone has problem, everyone has one.
--As a side note, this doesn't mean that there's no individual responsibility. It is important to point out that *everyone* must do their part, even if they are a celebrity. We should favor individual initiatives, but maybe for more reasons than just individual gain. After all, when people around you are happy, isn't that a good thing for the individual? When people are happy and satisfied, they don't commit crimes, they don't feel the need to go to war or belittle others. All of this doesn't mean people cannot seek personnal fulfillment, but maybe they should seek it for other reasons than material gains. Honing your artistic skills, for example, can be quite fun. Of course, *everyone* must go by the same rules. This system is not fit for people who can only be happy when they've crushed everyone else. Competition should stay limited, and be courteous. Rather than a matter of survival, competition should be seen as a friendly challenge, much like the way people compete in playing sports, board games or computer games. Which makes it all the more important that all basic needs are satisfied through the work of all, so that competition does not become a "do or die" necessity.
So, I'ld be quite happy if you could give me constructive reactions, comments and criticism if possible. The goal is to make the system workable. And, well, I'm not sure if this kind of thing has ever been tackled in such a way here (I've lurked for quite some time before getting an account), so I'm pretty curious to see what everyone thinks about it.
Eventually, I'll probably write an article with my ideas for a new society (would probably be better than writing these huge, almost off-topic comments, anyway).
The Sharp Wolf
"Perfection has no deadline."
Today, I heard the argument that those who live outside Canada for many years should NOT have the right to come back as Canadian citizens. Why I ask? The reply: Because they'll get free medical care and other benefits without ever paying for it. What a sad excuse I thought. My suggestion is that unless a person willingly agreed to pay into the health plan (or whatever the program), they should not get the benefits. Being in or out of the country should have little to nothing to do with receiving benefits that are paid for. Many of the "problems" of citizenship are there due to our own making with simple "individual rights" solutions, such as having the basic and fundamental freedom to opt in or out at will.
It is a very fine line to walk, balancing individual rights and the necessity of acting together. When you think about it, every system can only work upon the consent of every individual which participate in it. So, I'ld say that the best way is to create a system that is better for the people than the current one, show it to them with total transparency, then let them choose. When I said that everyone should do their part, I didn't mean that this should be forced, but rather emphasized within the system: try to create a true sense of community within the people, trust, love, friendship, cooperation, things like that. Help people understand that cooperation is better in the long run than predatory competition. You cannot force people at gunpoint to feel these things. You can only show them your vision of the world.
Maybe this lends some weight to the importance of breaking down the system in a multitude of smaller systems, in a network of small entities rather than having a huge monolith. This way, if people aren't happy with their current system, it is easier to find one which better suits their needs. Pure anarchy cannot work, because we need each other, and organisation can be a good thing. Pure communism won't work either, since we aren't like insects, and sometimes think very differently from each other. We need to find the balance between the two, a system where people have individual freedoms, but also have incentives to help their community.
I think the key resides greatly in how you educate people throughout their lives. Tell them: "Well, I think if your goal is to have a more peaceful and prosperous world, cooperation works better than competition and here's why..." If they refuse to participate in the system you suggest, that means this system isn't fit for them, and needs adaptation.
The Sharp Wolf
"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." --Albert Einstein