Is this unproblematical? What will happen with society, its
structures, its mores? Can an advanced society be maintained
when average IQ is lowered?

Mats

"Colonel Kurtz" <Colon…@youcantthink.net> wrote in message

news:ulaFo.445946$Is6.416221@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com…

- — -

> On 17-Nov-2010, "klunk" <kl…@theothershoo.org> wrote:

18 Nov 2010, 10:14 PST, 1st Edition

      Today I got my first solid evidence as to why the Obama WH is
dysfunctional and Obama himself is failing on all fronts… I subscribed to the
WH email/bulletin list on the day Obama moved into the WH. After two years I got
my first WH email today… TWO YEARS!!!

      Not surprisingly, this email turned out to be a dud. The purpose for the
email was to ask people to participate in a "five minute" online survey… but
NOWHERE in the email did the WH provide the website address for the survey!

      When I wrote the WH back to tell them the forgot to provide the survey
address I got an automated response telling them they (the WH) does not read
email sent to their reply address, and that I should go to the main WH website
and read its full content.

      Barack Obama and his nutty people don’t have a clue. They think that all
they need to do is send Obama to a college auditorium or to a small business
location to flap his lips and the entire US public should be more than satisfied
with those insufficient exposures of the president that rob him of his
basketball and golfing time.

      No wonder most of the people who voted for this yo-yo are saying
"Sheeeeeesh! What a loser!

http://www.deawatch.com

That’s because in Pennsylvania, and in at least a couple of other
states, there are Republican-controlled Houses, Senates and governors’
offices where being developed right now are plans to use state law to
demand proof of constitutional eligibility from presidential
candidates before they would be allowed on the state ballot.

(Have the individual respond to this posting and provide full contact
and background information and Cc to d…@destroypsychiatry.org. I want
the BEST psychiatrist so there will not be an excuse when the psychiatry
industry LOSES.)

This is more than a fair offer for the task involved.
Still no taker?

What is head of psychiatry?  It can be from academic institutions,
hospital, etc:
Here are some examples:
Jay Burke, MD, MPH
Chairman and Chief, Dept. of Psychiatry, Cambridge Health Alliance
Professor and Department Head of Psychiatry at Cambridge,
Harvard Medical School

Charles F. Zorumski, MD
Head of the Department of Psychiatry
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis

Steven L. Dubovsky, M.D., professor of psychiatry and medicine
chair of the Department of Psychiatry in the University at Buffalo
School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

(**The purpose of the challenge is to prove that schizophrenia is a
created illness since no medication will be used to cure the patient. I
want to end the mental illness scam not the psych industry. I care about
those made mentally ill not the psych industry. The FBI has a medical
fraud unit, why haven’t the FBI destroyed the psych industry completely,
is the task too difficult? Yet, the FBI doesn’t seem to have an issue
about me challenging the psych scam industry as this is all in the open.
Does the FBI need this much help? This can cause a panic in the psych
industry that for so long lied to the world. Companies like
Pfizer should no longer be allowed to sell schizophrenia medication.
What other drugs that Pfizer sells that is also made for a false illness?**)

–
www.destroypsychiatry.org

___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________

Let us put an end to schizophrenia. I challenge any head of psychiatry
to go against me on this illness.
To make it interesting lets put our life on the line. If I lose, you own
my life; if you lose, I own your
life and do with it as I want. What do you have to lose if you believe
this illness requires medication.
In a control experiment using (Self-Protection+T-Room) where the patient
will not be required to take any medication.
Respond to this in an open forum if you want to take the challenge.

"when compared to whites who exhibit the same symptoms, African Americans
tend to be diagnosed more frequently with schizophrenia and less frequently
with affective disorders".
http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/samhsa_gov.html
http://www.child-autism-parent-cafe.com/disparities-in-health.html

Does this mean that psychiatry hates black people
more? schizophrenia is a worse diagnosis!

"People from afro-caribbean backgrounds are three to five times more likely
to be diagnosed for schizophrenia and admitted to hospital than other
backgrounds."
http://www.selfhelparticles.net/mental-illness-statistics/

Why are so many afro-caribbean more susceptible to this illness than any
other people when schizophrenia is a scam illness that can be cured
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/selfprot.html>.

————————————————————————— —————-
The logic of psychiatry:
So we have two different view of schizophrenia, one NON-VIOLENT to one
of being HOSTILE and AGGRESSIVE. An illness can change just with a new
publication of DSM.  Can a brain disease illness change with a new
publication of DSM-NO. Can a emotional illness change with a new
publication of DSM-NO.
If symptoms are created then it can change with a new publication of
DSM. It only supports my position that mental illness is a created illness.

For instance, from How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease: An
Interview with Jonathan Metzl:
<http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201005/how-schizophr…>
[LocalCopy
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/how-schizophrenia-became-black...>]
"Doctors viewed schizophrenia as an illness that afflicted nonviolent,
white, petty criminals" Then "In 1968, in the midst of a political
climate marked by profound protest and social unrest, psychiatry
published the second edition of the /Diagnostic and Statistical Manual/.
That text recast the paranoid subtype of schizophrenia as a disorder of
masculinized belligerence. "The patient’s attitude is frequently hostile
and aggressive."

————————————————————————— —————–
The logic of psychiatry:
Mental illness is a disease of the brain. Then why isn’t mental illness
being research by those in the field of neurology. Psychiatry is not
needed. If it is a disease of the brain why do we need medication?
Shouldn’t there be an  operation of the brain?  There is no proof that
it is a disease of the brain
<http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Szasz/myth.htm> [LocalCopy
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Thomas_Szasz.html>] that is the
reason.  Since it isn’t a disease of the brain then it must be caused
somehow. A lifestyle change, social unrest, an emotional event, etc,
cannot lead one to have mental illness. Szasz
<http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Szasz/myth.htm> is correct in the general
sense
that mental illness is a myth because when an illness is created, it
isn’t a real
illness; in essence mental illness doesn’t exist. Symptoms of
hallucinations
which is common of schizophrenia, cannot be a normal human behavior but
chemically caused. Why on earth would a person hallucinate hearing
voices or seeing things? Therefore, an external factor must be causing
the symptoms which is why self-protection
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/selfprot.html> works.

————————————————————————— —————-
Psychiatry is a racist profession once you look at the illness of
schizophrenia. It is the worst of all mental illness. Given the same
symptoms, black people are more likely to be diagnosed schizophrenic
than white people. Once the diagnosis is made, then the patient is
supposed to be on medication for life. The medication have side-effects
  that are harmful to the patient. But schizophrenia is a created
illness and more black people seem to have it. So more black people are
cause to have this illness than other race.  So psychiatry is racist
playing favorite.

–
www.destroypsychiatry.org

"Hi, my name is Jane Doe. I enjoy needlpoint, good movies, walks in the park
with my kids, and I just happen to be a F@cking Communist, who wants to ban
all your guns, eliminate all your fredom, take everything you own, and give
you back what the Party thinks you need.

Almost never is that fear based on what actually happens when there is
divided government, compared to what happens when one party has a
monopoly of both legislative and executive branches.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, instead of
its usual deficits, there was divided government. That was when the
Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all
spending bills originate, and Bill Clinton was in the White House. The
media called it "the Clinton surplus."

By the same token, some of the worst laws ever passed were passed when
one party had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, as
well as being led by their own President of the United States.
ObamaCare is a product of the kind of arrogance that so much power
breeds.

It was the same story back in the famous "first hundred days" of the
New Deal in 1933. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 clamped
down on the American economy the kind of pervasive government control
seldom seen outside of totalitarian countries.

It was the ObamaCare of its time, but covering industries right down
to local dry cleaners. One man was sent to jail for charging less than
the government-specified price for pressing a suit of clothes. This
typified the mindset of the New Deal.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court eventually declared the National
Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. But, before that happened,
the N.I.R.A. probably did more to prevent the economy from recovering
from the Great Depression than any other law or policy. Even liberal
icon John Maynard Keynes said at the time that the N.I.R.A. "probably
impedes recovery."

You cannot tell what effect a law or policy will have by what
politicians call it, whether they label it a "recovery" program or a
"stimulus" program.

Those who fear gridlock in Washington today implicitly assume that
government actions are needed to "solve" the economy’s "problems."
That assumption has been so pervasive over the past 80 years that many
people fail to realize that the republic existed for nearly twice that
long before the federal government intervened to get the economy out
of a recession or depression.

During all that time, no depression ever lasted even half as long as
the Great Depression of the 1930s, when first President Hoover and
then President Roosevelt intervened.

For most of the history of this country, there was no Federal Reserve
System, which was established in 1914 to prevent bank failures and the
bad effects of large expansions or contractions of the supply of money
and credit. But bank failures in the 1930s exceeded anything ever seen
before the Fed was established. So did the contraction of money and
credit during the Great Depression.

The seductive notion that some Big Daddy in Washington can solve our
problems for us– whether healing the sick, preventing poverty or
"growing the economy"– is encouraged by politicians for obvious
reasons, and the media echo the idea.

Both in Washington and in the media, there is virtually zero interest
in comparing what actually happens when the federal government
intervenes in the economy and when it does not.

More than a century and a half of ignoring downturns in the economy
never produced a depression as deep or as long as the 1930s
depression, with its many federal interventions, first under Herbert
Hoover and then under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The unemployment rate was 6.3 percent when the first big intervention
took place, during the Hoover administration. It later peaked at 25
percent, but its fluctuations were always in double digits throughout
the 1930s, as FDR tried one thing after another. As late as the spring
of 1939, nearly a decade after the stock market crash of 1929,
unemployment hit 20 percent again.

It is not a matter of faith that a market economy can recover on its
own. It is a matter of faith that politicians speed recovery. But
there is no way that Barack Obama is going to stop intervening in the
economy unless he gets stopped. Only gridlock can do that.

http://www.TSowell.com

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/11/09/the_gridlock_b…

http://www.FreeToChoose.tv

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/CommandingHeights/hi/story/index.html