Societies, not Individuals, are Mentally Ill

The huge increase in diagnosed psychiatric illnesses since WW2, but especially during the last 30-40 years, has been one of defining characteristics of our era. The “conventional wisdom” of “experts” attributes this increase in diagnosed mental illness to advances in the field of psychiatry, better access to medical care and advances in drug therapy of mental illnesses.

But is that really the case? What if the very nature and structure of contemporary societies is not quite right? What if the rules, expectations and mores of societies and the institutions within them are bizarre, sociopathic and irrational?

Let me start by talking about one of the more sensational categories of “crime” in our era- spree or mass shootings. We can certainly pretend that such crimes are the result of evil and mentally sick people having ‘assault’ rifles and ‘semi-auto’ handguns. Many morons seem to think that guns (especially the ‘scary’ looking ones) have powers similar to the one ring of Sauron in LOTR. But if that were the case why didn’t we see spree shootings in previous eras? How many of the returning and war-scarred veterans of WW1, WW2, Korea or even Vietnam went about shooting up movie theaters or 1st grade classes? How many went to a university and killed over 30 people with handguns alone? So what changed? Why didn’t any of them go Holmes, Lanza or Cho? what about going Breivik?

How do smart men from very middle-class backgrounds with no worthwhile criminal record end up killing with more enthusiasm, planning, skill and ruthlessness than trained killers?

The conventional explanation by “experts” is that all of these spree shooters were mentally ill. They blame everything from adolescence-onset schizophrenia to autism and major depressive illnesses to ‘explain’ these occurrences. What is a few more epicycles between fellow Ptolemians? But why didn’t we have such events in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or even the early 1980s? Those decades had more young adults as well as much higher rates of ‘crime’ and murder. Surely there must have been equivalents of Homes, Lanza, Cho and Breivik in those years.. but for some odd reason spree shootings of the type that occur nowadays were almost unheard of? So what changed? What are spree shooters mad about anyway? Isn’t it odd that they kill people based on the symbolism and social connections rather than personal grudges?

We have also seen a huge rise in the number of children, especially boys, diagnosed with various mental illnesses and behavioral conditions such as ADHD. But is that increase based on any real change in human biology within 30 years? How much of this increase in diagnosed mental illnesses and conditions in children driven by profit and changing artificial definitions of “normal” behavior. What is ‘normal’ behavior anyway? How much of what was once considered ‘normal’ childhood behavior has been deemed “un-normal” by committees of ‘experts’, administrators, legislators and ‘concerned citizens’? and to what end? Does it help those displaying “un-normal” behavior or improve their lives? Does society at large benefit from the ‘treatment’ of “un-normal” behavior? If neither the “affected” persons or general society benefit from ‘classification’ and ‘treatment’- who does?

The rise in the rates of diagnosed depressive illnesses is another intriguing part of our era. While the diagnosed rates of other major mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, mania or bipolar disorders have also increased over the last 60-70 years, the increase in diagnosis for depression has been nothing short of phenomenal. While the availability of reasonably safe (but not that efficacious) drugs has made treating depression very profitable, there is more to the story than a simple profit motive. What makes so many people, especially women, seek medical attention for depression? There is more to this increase than profit, fashion or attention-seeking behavior. Most people who end up taking anti-depressants don’t just go out and get them to party.

So what is happening? Is there something increasingly wrong with human mind? Or is contemporary ‘society’ mentally ill?

I tend to favor the later explanation as there is considerable historical evidence that human ‘societies’ are more likely to be weird, unhinged and deranged. Societies through the ages have encouraged its members to believe in all sorts of crap from omnipresent anthropomorphic gods and divine revelations to the infallibility of the marketplace. We have religions based on the stated beliefs of people who claim to have heard the word of ‘gods’ and ‘angels’ or felt their presence. Societies encourage and support religious rituals which look awfully similar to obsessive-compulsive disorders. Belief in witchcraft, black magic, spells and curses has been rather universal throughout human cultures. Societies have fought long and vicious wars, enslaved or killed millions of other people or repeatedly shot themselves in the foot because of beliefs that are indistinguishable from the manifestations of serious mental illness.

Maybe the problem with contemporary society and its institutions is that they are almost totally divorced from what human beings really are and what we truly desire. While our standards of material living are better than any other time in human history, the same cannot be said about the rules, expectations and mores of societies and the institutions within them. They enforce scarcity of resources and opportunities even though technology has ushered in an era of plenty. They try hard to degrade, humiliate and screw over an ever-increasing number and percentage of people- even though there is no rational reason to do so. They try to destroy and cripple the personal lives and relationships of those who would have otherwise supported the system- once again, for reasons that are not rational. They try to destroy the lives of an ever-increasing number of people over utterly trivial and farcical reasons- even though they don’t stand to gain from such actions.

The funny thing is that, after doing all of the above, contemporary society and its institutions expect people to happily and willingly go along with the increasingly bizarre and irrational demands placed upon them by sociopathic morons. They believe that the choice and information matrix of people today is the same as it was 30-40 years ago. They seem to believe in their ability to keep on dishing ever-increasing amounts of the same shit forever and without consequences.

Maybe it is contemporary society and its ‘trusted’ institutions, not individuals, that are mentally ill.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. February 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    The Greeks called it Hubris followed by Nemesis. Hubris originally meant to humiliate someone in public, and it was always followed by Nemesis – revenge. These days, the purpose of government and in some ways, society, is to humiliate people. When people think they have been unbearably humiliated, they seek revenge, which is an attempt to replace humiliation with self-esteem. Thus, Dorner’s claim to “clear his name.”

  2. jackal
    February 17, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Quote: What makes so many people, especially women, seek medical attention for depression?

    It’s no secret that sex is an antidepressant (see link below), however, Western diet during the past generation has become nearly 100 percent processed fare, explaining not just obesity but, more importantly, ruination of sex drive. Couple that with anti-male culture, and you pretty much get Lesbo-nation, where women, lacking penises to inject each other with antidepressants, actually enable depression. Heterosexual women who have regular sex without a condom do not get depressed, all other things equal.

    Semen has direct effect on female brain
    by Kate Taylor
    Posted August 21, 2012 – 04:00

    http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/65569-semen-has-direct-effect-on-female-brain

    • GayFirePower&LOL
      February 17, 2013 at 5:13 pm

      Not just the FEMALE brain, let me tell you ;)

  3. webe
    February 17, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    Your analysis leans on two thoughts that are in an unresolved dialectical tension.
    On the one hand the idea that societies in the past institutionalized many phenomena which are indistiguishable from mental illness. On the other hand the present society which has abolished many of these phenomena, but which seems, on the basis of the symptoms, to be even sicker than the former social constellations, completely passing by human nature, that is, what human beings as social creatures need and aspire to. Perhaps the anthropomorophic narratives in the past about an enchanted world are a better fit than the contemporary infinite bureaucracy about dead matter?
    In any event, the insanity of the past and the insanity of the present has not been properly elucidated and seem to form two planes instead of a single continuum.

  4. Jason
    February 17, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    What do you think? Comments?

    Bureaucratic, managerial societies, like the mixed economies we inhabit, demand feminine traits like cooperativeness, friendliness, discretion and so forth from the drones within. As a result, there is a structural incentive to medicalize human character traits, especially traits typical of males who don’t get with the program.

    For example, no one is rowdy. They are only hyperactive people.

    No one is mean. They are only sociopathic people.

    No one is aloof. They are only avoidant people.

    No one is unhappy. There are only depressed people.

    See what’s going on? The first class of terms imply things are contingent, and can be changed. The second imply that we have an unchangeable “condition” from which we can only “cope” — with the help of unionized, government-salaried Ivy League-educated progressive expertise, of course. There is no end to this kind of Freudo-Marxist slop.

    Seriously, fuck those people.

    • March 12, 2013 at 5:56 am

      This IS what Freudo-Marxian methodology is like, you authoritarian dimwit. Marxism = critical analysis of the systems of socioeconomic exploitation that people perceive as “normal” and “the way of the world”; freudo-marxism = application of the above to the orders of sexuality and desire. The fact that, coming from our host, it’s purely anarchist instead of socialist doesn’t fucking matter. You don’t have to be a commie to point out how much all systems of domination suck (although it might help).

      • Jason
        March 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm

        1) Yes, it is fun to destroy Freudo-Marxists with their own weapons, a la Christopher Lasch.

        2) Few deny that coercion is evil; the political question is whether it is an ineliminable evil.

        3) Socialists can be spotted a mile away, though few, especially in Murica, identify as such. It is part of the progressive pose to appear above it all — neutral, centrist, pragmatist, non-ideological, common-sense, objective, unbiased, etc etc. Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian, just as Noam Chomsky calls himself an anarchist. One wonders what kind of “libertarians” and “anarchists” recommend running entire sectors of the economy like military bases. I’m certainly not fooled.

  5. February 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    How much of what was once considered ‘normal’ childhood behavior has been deemed “un-normal” by committees of ‘experts’, administrators, legislators and ‘concerned citizens’?

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/if_psychiatry_is_committing_su.html

  6. February 19, 2013 at 2:05 am

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Very good article.

  7. EvilOne
    February 19, 2013 at 4:51 am

    What makes so many people, especially women, seek medical attention for depression?
    ———————————————-
    Though Im no fan of males, but this makes me smile.

  8. P Ray
    February 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    What makes so many people, especially women, seek medical attention for depression?
    They think there is a pill that negates consequences or karma.
    It’s also a convenient excuse for any crappy behaviour “I was on medication!”.

  9. February 22, 2013 at 5:29 am

    Are there any practical applications for your theories?

    Yes, getting an increasing number of people to understand and internalize this concept will destabilize the status quo.

    • February 22, 2013 at 5:00 pm

      Advocatus, I just noticed you have a YouTube channel. Have you considered making YouTube videos to disseminate your views? I believe you would get about 10x as much views per individual video than per blog post, and there will be little overlap between the viewership and the readership, as many people who would otherwise be interested in learning about your ideas are simply are not of the type to have the inclination to read long pieces of text.

      I know… but as usual, I don’t do these things in a half-hearted way. The posts on this blog (and the comments) are a test run of what you are talking about.

      If you are concerned about privacy, you could use a xtranormal.com synthetic voice. An even better idea, hire one of your escorts to read the text before a camera. You may have noticed that GirlWritesWhat has 3x-10x as much views & subscribers as vloggers of comparable quality and subject matter. I believe a super hot chick, with a fake and innocuous seeming persona, simply reading your (earlier) posts into a webcam, would be a huge HUGE success, easily 100x as much hits per video than per blog post. You could simply let her read some of your earlier posts on escorts, sociopathy for fun and profit, societal trends, and so on. It would be a blast to hear them out a woman’s mouth.

      I have considered what you are talking about for at least 3-4 years. However I decided to build entire self-consistent world views that could withstand criticism AND stick around before going public on that scale.

    • February 24, 2013 at 12:34 am

      Yeah, but how does it help the individual? For a theory to be good, the following criterion must apply
      1. If enough people follow it, then society changes for the better
      2. But if even one person follows it, then that one person benefits

      Your theories will not benefit the individual who follows them if he happens to be in a minority. They will simply make him bitter, angry and unhappy. Just saying.

  10. P Ray
    February 24, 2013 at 7:07 am

    Yes, getting an increasing number of people to understand and internalize this concept will destabilize the status quo.
    I dunno, plenty of people out of work will eventually do that too.
    A hungry man is an angry man …
    and being identifiable means you can be targeted.
    One of those “oops, I killed an Asian guy” moments that gloryhounds are after.

  11. February 24, 2013 at 9:28 am

    …destabilize the status quo….

    things are unsustainable as they are it’s not if society will fall apart, it’s when….

    yes, but a few more strategically placed but probabilistic pushes near the edge could not hurt..

  1. September 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: