First published May 31, 2021
I have joked in old papers that many of the women I have dated weren't just "crazy" by some knee-jerk armchair diagnosis of mine, they were clinically crazy, having mental illness reports on file somewhere. Honestly, I knew this about several of them, who later admitted it to me in some way, but I suspected it of many others. In subsequent papers I then used this to propose a larger cause of the problem as well as a solution. Well, today I tripped across some confirmation of this on youtube. Bill Whittle at Half-Mad linked to an Evie magazine article which reported the results of a 2020 Pew Research poll of almost 12,000 people. Zac Goldberg, a doctoral candidate, reported the results more widely, being reprinted at several places on the internet. Goldberg and most of these outlets only reported the overview: liberals are much more likely to self-report a mental illness diagnosis than conservatives. Right outlets have of course used this in their own way to slander leftists, but don't worry, I will take it a different direction. [I have to because, remember, I myself am a leftist.] Evie then included data showing that women on the left led all categories in mental illness. I will also take this in a different direction than you have seen.
But's let's back up. Some will ask why I was dating crazy women. Doesn't this say something about me? Am I drawn to crazy women? I have often been accused of it, but NO. As I have said before, I am drawn to very attractive, brainy women, and these tend to be unstable, as was known long before I hit the scene. This is equally true of men, so I am not pointing fingers. It is known that high IQ people are disproportionally unstable, commit suicide, etc. This is probably due to the fact that they gather more information, having then to sort through it. Since in modern society sorting through all this disparate (and purposely confusing) information is very difficult, very few manage it. So in some ways, the less you know now the better.
Back to the main line. Evie, a woman's magazine and probably a CIA front (there is no easy information available on it), focuses on something Goldberg doesn't: white liberal women lead the pack by far in this diagnosis of mental illness. The highest and most shocking number is for under-30 white liberal women: 56.3% of them report mental illness! While conservative women report less than half that, 27.3%. Bill Whittle uses this to slander all liberals, implying they are suffering from paranoia.
Whittle does this by quoting Dr. Lyle Rossiter from the Evie article:
So you already see I am on neither side here. To stay sane and correct, we have to ignore spin from both sides and go a third way. Why? One, because nothing in the Pew poll indicated anyone was paranoid. We may assume the bulk of the mental illness diagnoses were for depression, since depression leads all diagnoses by a huge amount (264 million to 50 million for second-place dementia), and since women are diagnosed with depression more than men, at rates that somewhat mirror the graph above. And two—and more importantly—because anyone who thinks our problems are caused by greedy capitalists is not paranoid or mentally ill. Rossiter's final list is pretty accurate, which immediately makes us distrust him, Whittle, and Condra, who are all trying to spin us off it.
They want you to think liberals just like playing the victim or complaining, but that isn't the problem. I agree that the left side of American politics has crashed and burned, but not for that reason. In fact, liberals in the past decade haven't even focused on greedy capitalists, have they? For some strange reason they have wandered off the beam, focusing instead on white supremacists, ass pinchers, vaccine deniers and other medical refusniks, and Trump supporters. And why have they done this? I have told you over and over: it is because the media is now the voice of fake "liberalism", and the media is owned by . . . can you tell me? . . . that's right, the very rich. The greedy capitalists. So the very rich need your eyes off them and on fake white supremacists and all the rest. I suspect that Rossiter, Whittle, and Condra are part of this larger project.
And there's yet another problem with this Pew poll. Buried under it is the assumption that depression is a mental illness. I have news for you: in most cases, it isn't. Both depression and number-3-most-common-mental-illness bipolar disorder are blanket diagnoses that include a huge percentage of natural reactions. If your reaction is natural, it isn't a mental illness. For instance, if you are saddened by a recent death in the family, you probably will show many signs that are the same as depression. But in most cases, this could not be categorized as a mental illness, or shouldn't be, since grieving is a normal and healthy reaction. Grieving and depression aren't the same thing. Neither are depression and sadness. Yes, in some cases, this can get out of hand, and these cases we might categorize as mental illness. And yet the psychiatric profession loves to include almost everything under its depression umbrella, for obvious reasons. The greater the numbers, the more important psychiatry appears, and the more funding they can request. Also, and most tellingly, the more anti-depressants they can sell.
It is the same with grieving over the state of society, which is not a mental illness. Given the state of society, we would have to be mentally ill NOT to be grieving over it right now.
And I have other news for you: wanting to solve societal problems is not a sign of mental illness and is not unsustainable. Every person will have different levels of sustainability, so you have to pace yourself. But I myself have sustained quite a high level of this for years, with minimal effects, as most know. I am not clinically depressed, have never been diagnosed as mentally ill in any way, am not bipolar, do not suffer from dementia, and am not paranoid. I do not suffer from anhedonia, since I still take great joy in many things. My sleep is not affected, nor my sexual potency, nor any other ability to function. Those who have seen me or pictures of me know my face is not lined and my eyes are not sunken. I remain high-spirited and angry. The depressed don't have the energy to get angry, since their emotions are squelched. Mine certainly are not.
Well, you will say, if this Pew poll is so flawed, why did I bring it up? Because I believe it is still useful. Once we despin it, it still tells us something important. Although I don't trust those at Pew any farther than I can throw them, I don't think they faked this poll. It matches expectation as well as most previous polls and studies, from both sides. That is to say, it is the analyses in the media I don't trust, not the data. I suspect the data is correct, so we still have to explain it. You will say it is easy to explain: women go to the psychiatrist more often and are more likely to believe and report a negative diagnosis. Plus, as I have already admitted, most of these diagnoses are for depression, which is a squishy diagnosis to start with. Given that, this poll is little better than air, and doesn't require comment.
Possibly. But I don't think so. That would partially explain the male/female split, but wouldn't explain the liberal/conservative split. You will say liberals also go to psychiatrists more often than conservatives, so it is explained in the same way. That might flatten the slope somewhat, but again I suspect more is going on here than that.
Why do I think this? Because I know that polls should match expectation. I am approaching 60, so I have a lot of experience. I have been running polls in my head all my life. Meaning, I have been collecting data and collating it all my life. I have lived in a very mixed environment, socializing with both liberals and conservatives. You will say I have admitted to being antisocial, so let me just say I am a good listener. I am highly aware of what is going on around me, even if I am not an active participant in it. I catalog and remember almost everything. So I expect polls to match my experience. This poll matches my experience, both with women and with liberals. I have personally witnessed everyone getting crazier over the past 50 years, but in my experience liberals and women lead the pack. So these numbers from Pew do not shock me at all. As I showed above, the numbers are being purposely misread, but I think they can be properly read.
To read them properly, you have to understand the cause of the data, and I have done that in previous papers as well. In short, I have shown you that women and liberals have gone crazier than most because they have been targeted psychologically more than most. The CIA and other institutions including the big ones like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and Gates—have, as part of Operation Chaos, targeted women and liberals above all others. You will remind me that I have recently shown how men are targeted in the gender wars, but psychologically women have been targeted earlier, more, and more directly. Men have been targeted physically and psychologically, but with men the targeting has been more on the surface. Physically, men have had their sperm counts targeted, for instance. They have also been targeted with fluoride and estrogen and other things. They have also been attacked by destroying their relationships. In this way, men are attacked through the loss of women. In other words, women are driven crazy, men lose them, then the men collapse, either physically or mentally. But the women were the first and primary target, you see. Men were the secondary target, since they would be brought down through the loss of women.
Liberalism has been heavily targeted since the 1820s, and I have proved that in a long series of papers. This is because liberalism is the greatest foe of greedy capitalists. Liberals wish to equalize opportunity and maximize fairness, and nothing would cut into profits more than that. So it isn't hard to understand. It also isn't hard to prove, since the capitalists admit it and have been admitting it all along. My previous research wasn't hard. Operations Chaos and Cointelpro are partially declassified, and in them it is admitted that liberals, hippies, antiwar protestors, and many other similar groups were targeted because they threatened the war machine, the banking machine, and all the other government conjobs. Since WWII, the largest and fastest growing means of attacking liberalism has been through manufactured events. Manufactured events create destabilization and confusion, which of course lead to mental illness. I have called it a mindstir. One year we are told one thing and the next year we are told the opposite. One year a word means X and the next year it means not-X. One year eggs are healthy, the next year they are unhealthy. One year Bill Cosby is a hero, the next year he is sexual predator. One decade the Earth is going to freeze from global cooling, the next it is going to drown from global warming. One decade the Democratic party is the party of the common man, the next the Republican party is. One decade taxing the rich is good, the next it is bad. The EU is good; no it is bad. Israel is good; no, it is bad. Women's sports are sacrosanct; no, they should be open to trannies.
You will say we are all exposed equally to this rocking, but that isn't really true. Progressives, by definition, are more open to new information. They feel the need to be au courant and up-to-date. That is what progressive means. So they are more likely to follow the news and believe it. Those who call themselves conservatives in the US usually mean by that that they have accepted traditional values about family, sex, law and order, etc., so they are less likely to be moved by new trends, positive or not. They simply aren't very interested in anything new, especially as it pertains to these core values. You can argue that this is either good or bad, but in the present case it does tend to shield them from these psychological projects to some extent. While liberals want to give everything new a fair shake, conservatives may assume everything new is corrupted. What this means is that liberals, like women, are more open to psyops. They may be less guarded, more emotional, and more social. This makes them easier for Intelligence to target.
But it isn't just a matter of greater susceptibility, since Intelligence knows how to craft a message to an audience. If Intel wished to target conservatives rather than liberals, it could, and often does. But in the greater project, liberalism is foe number one, so the do-gooder progressives will always be the prime target. They can't be allowed to use their innate altruism to get in the way of the Department of Defense or the Federal Reserve or any other real or meaningful target, so their eyes and energies have to be diverted into an endless line of manufactured causes and bogeymen.
But even that wasn't enough, as we have seen recently. After 911, some liberals and conservatives began seeing through the veils and began allying, even targeting defense, Intel, and banking. This was seen to be such a danger it required a whole new level of targeted destabilization. As part of this destabilization, we saw a fantastic acceleration of universal gaslighting, trying to convince people they weren't seeing what they were seeing. Hence the world-as-hologram project, the Mandela Effect, and the huge increase in mass shootings. The mass shootings not only increased levels of fear, they also acted as gaslighting, since the narratives soon fell apart. So the news itself began to look like a hologram, seeming true one moment and false the next, but mostly made of mist. Your average person didn't know what to believe anymore—hence the destabilization.
Drug doses were also increased across the board at the same time, for the same purpose. Pot was decriminalized, the governors hoping everyone would just get stoned. Anti-depressants, sleeping pills, and all other pills—prescription and non—have been on a steep increase since the 1950s, the numbers becoming awe-inspiring after 2000.
Please go to Updates to read the entire recommended essay.
Back to the main line. Evie, a woman's magazine and probably a CIA front (there is no easy information available on it), focuses on something Goldberg doesn't: white liberal women lead the pack by far in this diagnosis of mental illness. The highest and most shocking number is for under-30 white liberal women: 56.3% of them report mental illness! While conservative women report less than half that, 27.3%. Bill Whittle uses this to slander all liberals, implying they are suffering from paranoia.
As Rossiter tells it [these are the causes of liberal angst] : "poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization, and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: 'Big Business,' 'Big Corporations,' 'greedy capitalists,' 'U.S. Imperialists,' ‘the oppressors,' 'the rich,' 'the wealthy,' 'the powerful,' and 'the selfish'."The author at Evie, Elizabeth Condra, doesn't really tell us what to think of that. Are those oppressors real or imagined? But she does tend to dismiss them, by telling us that such "keeping score" of those oppressing us is mentally unsustainable. We also don't know what Rossiter thinks of this, just by reading this article. Is he dismissive of this list? The tone tells us he is. But with Whittle there is no doubt: he assures us that these liberals are just paranoid. According to him Red State America is a paradise, and the Blue States are causing all their own problems, with no help from greedy capitalists.
So you already see I am on neither side here. To stay sane and correct, we have to ignore spin from both sides and go a third way. Why? One, because nothing in the Pew poll indicated anyone was paranoid. We may assume the bulk of the mental illness diagnoses were for depression, since depression leads all diagnoses by a huge amount (264 million to 50 million for second-place dementia), and since women are diagnosed with depression more than men, at rates that somewhat mirror the graph above. And two—and more importantly—because anyone who thinks our problems are caused by greedy capitalists is not paranoid or mentally ill. Rossiter's final list is pretty accurate, which immediately makes us distrust him, Whittle, and Condra, who are all trying to spin us off it.
They want you to think liberals just like playing the victim or complaining, but that isn't the problem. I agree that the left side of American politics has crashed and burned, but not for that reason. In fact, liberals in the past decade haven't even focused on greedy capitalists, have they? For some strange reason they have wandered off the beam, focusing instead on white supremacists, ass pinchers, vaccine deniers and other medical refusniks, and Trump supporters. And why have they done this? I have told you over and over: it is because the media is now the voice of fake "liberalism", and the media is owned by . . . can you tell me? . . . that's right, the very rich. The greedy capitalists. So the very rich need your eyes off them and on fake white supremacists and all the rest. I suspect that Rossiter, Whittle, and Condra are part of this larger project.
And there's yet another problem with this Pew poll. Buried under it is the assumption that depression is a mental illness. I have news for you: in most cases, it isn't. Both depression and number-3-most-common-mental-illness bipolar disorder are blanket diagnoses that include a huge percentage of natural reactions. If your reaction is natural, it isn't a mental illness. For instance, if you are saddened by a recent death in the family, you probably will show many signs that are the same as depression. But in most cases, this could not be categorized as a mental illness, or shouldn't be, since grieving is a normal and healthy reaction. Grieving and depression aren't the same thing. Neither are depression and sadness. Yes, in some cases, this can get out of hand, and these cases we might categorize as mental illness. And yet the psychiatric profession loves to include almost everything under its depression umbrella, for obvious reasons. The greater the numbers, the more important psychiatry appears, and the more funding they can request. Also, and most tellingly, the more anti-depressants they can sell.
It is the same with grieving over the state of society, which is not a mental illness. Given the state of society, we would have to be mentally ill NOT to be grieving over it right now.
And I have other news for you: wanting to solve societal problems is not a sign of mental illness and is not unsustainable. Every person will have different levels of sustainability, so you have to pace yourself. But I myself have sustained quite a high level of this for years, with minimal effects, as most know. I am not clinically depressed, have never been diagnosed as mentally ill in any way, am not bipolar, do not suffer from dementia, and am not paranoid. I do not suffer from anhedonia, since I still take great joy in many things. My sleep is not affected, nor my sexual potency, nor any other ability to function. Those who have seen me or pictures of me know my face is not lined and my eyes are not sunken. I remain high-spirited and angry. The depressed don't have the energy to get angry, since their emotions are squelched. Mine certainly are not.
Well, you will say, if this Pew poll is so flawed, why did I bring it up? Because I believe it is still useful. Once we despin it, it still tells us something important. Although I don't trust those at Pew any farther than I can throw them, I don't think they faked this poll. It matches expectation as well as most previous polls and studies, from both sides. That is to say, it is the analyses in the media I don't trust, not the data. I suspect the data is correct, so we still have to explain it. You will say it is easy to explain: women go to the psychiatrist more often and are more likely to believe and report a negative diagnosis. Plus, as I have already admitted, most of these diagnoses are for depression, which is a squishy diagnosis to start with. Given that, this poll is little better than air, and doesn't require comment.
Possibly. But I don't think so. That would partially explain the male/female split, but wouldn't explain the liberal/conservative split. You will say liberals also go to psychiatrists more often than conservatives, so it is explained in the same way. That might flatten the slope somewhat, but again I suspect more is going on here than that.
Why do I think this? Because I know that polls should match expectation. I am approaching 60, so I have a lot of experience. I have been running polls in my head all my life. Meaning, I have been collecting data and collating it all my life. I have lived in a very mixed environment, socializing with both liberals and conservatives. You will say I have admitted to being antisocial, so let me just say I am a good listener. I am highly aware of what is going on around me, even if I am not an active participant in it. I catalog and remember almost everything. So I expect polls to match my experience. This poll matches my experience, both with women and with liberals. I have personally witnessed everyone getting crazier over the past 50 years, but in my experience liberals and women lead the pack. So these numbers from Pew do not shock me at all. As I showed above, the numbers are being purposely misread, but I think they can be properly read.
To read them properly, you have to understand the cause of the data, and I have done that in previous papers as well. In short, I have shown you that women and liberals have gone crazier than most because they have been targeted psychologically more than most. The CIA and other institutions including the big ones like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and Gates—have, as part of Operation Chaos, targeted women and liberals above all others. You will remind me that I have recently shown how men are targeted in the gender wars, but psychologically women have been targeted earlier, more, and more directly. Men have been targeted physically and psychologically, but with men the targeting has been more on the surface. Physically, men have had their sperm counts targeted, for instance. They have also been targeted with fluoride and estrogen and other things. They have also been attacked by destroying their relationships. In this way, men are attacked through the loss of women. In other words, women are driven crazy, men lose them, then the men collapse, either physically or mentally. But the women were the first and primary target, you see. Men were the secondary target, since they would be brought down through the loss of women.
Liberalism has been heavily targeted since the 1820s, and I have proved that in a long series of papers. This is because liberalism is the greatest foe of greedy capitalists. Liberals wish to equalize opportunity and maximize fairness, and nothing would cut into profits more than that. So it isn't hard to understand. It also isn't hard to prove, since the capitalists admit it and have been admitting it all along. My previous research wasn't hard. Operations Chaos and Cointelpro are partially declassified, and in them it is admitted that liberals, hippies, antiwar protestors, and many other similar groups were targeted because they threatened the war machine, the banking machine, and all the other government conjobs. Since WWII, the largest and fastest growing means of attacking liberalism has been through manufactured events. Manufactured events create destabilization and confusion, which of course lead to mental illness. I have called it a mindstir. One year we are told one thing and the next year we are told the opposite. One year a word means X and the next year it means not-X. One year eggs are healthy, the next year they are unhealthy. One year Bill Cosby is a hero, the next year he is sexual predator. One decade the Earth is going to freeze from global cooling, the next it is going to drown from global warming. One decade the Democratic party is the party of the common man, the next the Republican party is. One decade taxing the rich is good, the next it is bad. The EU is good; no it is bad. Israel is good; no, it is bad. Women's sports are sacrosanct; no, they should be open to trannies.
You will say we are all exposed equally to this rocking, but that isn't really true. Progressives, by definition, are more open to new information. They feel the need to be au courant and up-to-date. That is what progressive means. So they are more likely to follow the news and believe it. Those who call themselves conservatives in the US usually mean by that that they have accepted traditional values about family, sex, law and order, etc., so they are less likely to be moved by new trends, positive or not. They simply aren't very interested in anything new, especially as it pertains to these core values. You can argue that this is either good or bad, but in the present case it does tend to shield them from these psychological projects to some extent. While liberals want to give everything new a fair shake, conservatives may assume everything new is corrupted. What this means is that liberals, like women, are more open to psyops. They may be less guarded, more emotional, and more social. This makes them easier for Intelligence to target.
But it isn't just a matter of greater susceptibility, since Intelligence knows how to craft a message to an audience. If Intel wished to target conservatives rather than liberals, it could, and often does. But in the greater project, liberalism is foe number one, so the do-gooder progressives will always be the prime target. They can't be allowed to use their innate altruism to get in the way of the Department of Defense or the Federal Reserve or any other real or meaningful target, so their eyes and energies have to be diverted into an endless line of manufactured causes and bogeymen.
But even that wasn't enough, as we have seen recently. After 911, some liberals and conservatives began seeing through the veils and began allying, even targeting defense, Intel, and banking. This was seen to be such a danger it required a whole new level of targeted destabilization. As part of this destabilization, we saw a fantastic acceleration of universal gaslighting, trying to convince people they weren't seeing what they were seeing. Hence the world-as-hologram project, the Mandela Effect, and the huge increase in mass shootings. The mass shootings not only increased levels of fear, they also acted as gaslighting, since the narratives soon fell apart. So the news itself began to look like a hologram, seeming true one moment and false the next, but mostly made of mist. Your average person didn't know what to believe anymore—hence the destabilization.
Drug doses were also increased across the board at the same time, for the same purpose. Pot was decriminalized, the governors hoping everyone would just get stoned. Anti-depressants, sleeping pills, and all other pills—prescription and non—have been on a steep increase since the 1950s, the numbers becoming awe-inspiring after 2000.
Please go to Updates to read the entire recommended essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.