Endgame - Compulsory mental health "treatment"

So this is where I think it's going. If they really wanted to ban guns, they could do it. And maybe they are doing it. Slowly. But what is the real theme of the propaganda about these shooters? Their supposed mental illness. Right?

Here they have a golden opportunity to solve many of their major problems with one stone. If you are deemed to be strange, quiet or contrary, they could classify you as potentially dangerous and use that as the predicate for compulsory "treatment" by a shrink. Especially if you make any waves. If you talk about conspiracies or something.

I don't have a link for it but I saw several articles about psych meds that basically have tracking devices in them and the shrinks could check to see if you're taking your meds.

To some, this might sound like a great idea. Until you realize that most people consider conspiracy theorists (or even people who are willing to even consider any conspiracy theory at all) to be nutjobs and potentially dangerous people.

I think they're not really interested in banning guns. They're more interested in banning certain people.

Unsourced story claiming that doctors can put tracking devices in the psychotropic medication.

This is why we can't have nice things.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


The med's do help many many people, while not perfect and have side effects and also getting the dosage right can take some time people can operate in society with them and are thankful for them.
So no links to do with the tracking devices in the meds? thought not.
We need to lessen the stigma of being mentally unwell not enforce it OP.

MichaelPMaccabee
Unsourced story claiming that doctors can put tracking devices in the psychotropic medication.

This is why we can't have nice things.

You can look it up on Google. I didn't say they were already doing it. They were talking about it. This has been probably a year since I originally saw it.

I agree 100%. They even have the NRA saying mental health is the real issue.

reply to post by Daughter2


And it isn't?
The problem is mentally unwell people do not seek out treatment because of the stigma attached to it and then it can get worse.
1 in 3 of us in our lifetime will be mentally unwell, knowing the signs can get you the treatment you need, the sooner the better.

boymonkey74
reply to post by Daughter2

 

And it isn't?
The problem is mentally unwell people do not seek out treatment because of the stigma attached to it and then it can get worse.

Not really. These incidents are still quite rare and when they do happen, they are always blown entirely out of proportion.

The point was that they can use this to stifle dissent. It has been done before. The Soviet Union used involuntary commitment against political dissidents. You can look that up right now unless you'd rather just dismiss it out of hand.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I know they are rare but are you saying the people who do these things are mentally well? They can't be.
I have worked in mental health before and the people who work there just want to make people better.
Are all the people who work in mental health in on it?.
Also even If you are right do you think the people working in the field would just go along with it?
Anyhow not gonna post again...sometimes ATS is bat # crazy

BrianFlanders
So this is where I think it's going. If they really wanted to ban guns, they could do it. And maybe they are doing it. Slowly. But what is the real theme of the propaganda about these shooters? Their supposed mental illness. Right?

Here they have a golden opportunity to solve many of their major problems with one stone. If you are deemed to be strange, quiet or contrary, they could classify you as potentially dangerous and use that as the predicate for compulsory "treatment" by a shrink. Especially if you make any waves. If you talk about conspiracies or something.

I don't have a link for it but I saw several articles about psych meds that basically have tracking devices in them and the shrinks could check to see if you're taking your meds.

To some, this might sound like a great idea. Until you realize that most people consider conspiracy theorists (or even people who are willing to even consider any conspiracy theory at all) to be nutjobs and potentially dangerous people.

I think they're not really interested in banning guns. They're more interested in banning certain people.

edit on 4-11-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

Ah but consider the "nut jobs" doing these acts of violence. A few have had anti-government agenda's. They have already crippled the American peoples 2nd amendment right. With the arms that are legal and available our fire power would be lacking to say the least in a scenario of small pockets of Resistance. We would have to find common ground as Americans and stand against the government in mass to be of any real threat to the powers that be.

boymonkey74
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

I know they are rare but are you saying the people who do these things are mentally well? They can't be.
I have worked in mental health before and the people who work there just want to make people better.
Are all the people who work in mental health in on it?.
Also even If you are right do you think the people working in the field would just go along with it?
Anyhow not gonna post again...sometimes ATS is bat # crazy

Ever hear that correlation doesn't equal causation? Being strange, eccentric or even mentally ill isn't necessarily going to cause an individual to go on a killing spree (the vast majority of the time, it doesn't, contrary to popular opinion). 99% of these people are probably completely harmless so why are we judging millions of them because of the actions of a few?

You can always stereotype and find your reason to discriminate. TPTB know this. Most of the opponents of their propaganda are people who could be considered to be "eccentric" (to say the least). Hey. You gotta be just a little crazy to intentionally disagree with the status quo in a collectivist society. Given that it will almost always result in your being ostracized and ridiculed, you have to either have a thick skin or you have to basically be impervious to ridicule. Either way, it's easy to label such people as "nuts".

If you applied the same reasoning you're expected to use in the "Being mentally ill makes you dangerous" thing, you'd have to say that being black makes you dangerous. It's ridiculous. And the MSM is pushing this BS. It's a very real concern to anyone who posts on a forum such as this one.

Everyone probably knows somebody who is off their rocker but still harmless.

Does anyone think that banning guns could lead to a different and maybe worse way of mass killing?
Maybe an unstable person wantsto commit sucide by cop and goes on a shooting spree, now we dont have guns so they turn into sucide bombers?
If someone wants to kill alot of people they will find a way.

JHumm
Does anyone think that banning guns could lead to a different and maybe worse way of mass killing?

Banning guns would obviously end the mass shootings. Eventually. Though I don't think it's realistic to think they even could ban guns over the short term. They're more likely to ban guns incrementally, having the long-term goal of seizing more and more of them (through various means) until there are very few of them left in private hands.

This would take probably at least 50 years. They're not going to do a ban that takes effect overnight. People wouldn't cooperate and it would be a disaster.

Anyway, that was my point. Effectively silencing certain people is a much juicier prize for the types of people who want more power, control and influence. They're not afraid of guns. And why should they be? The vast majority of gun owners are no threat to them as long as they know their guns are not going to be confiscated. That's all they really care about.

The goal (as I see it) is to "nudge" (See Cass Sunstein) gun rights activists in the direction of condemning the "mentally unstable" because they feel that will protect their gun rights. If you happen to be deemed to be "mentally ill" not only will you be denied gun ownership, you will be coerced into government mandated "treatment". At which point, the definition of "treatment" could be just about anything. Up to and including outright brainwashing. Once the public gives it the green light (and they will) they will want to just forget about it and not be bothered with the particulars.

Of course, none of this is to say that they couldn't also gradually change the definition of "mental illness" until virtually everyone is considered to be "Unbalanced". They already fabricate new disorders seemingly daily. If classifying a person as mentally ill is all it takes to deny them gun ownership, it's not very difficult to then make up a new mental illness that affects just about everyone.

Some links for further reading.....

Political abuse of psychiatry in general

In the Soviet Union

Soviet Union (More)

"Sluggish Schizophrenia"

Very disturbing video....

beatbox
Very disturbing video....

Nice find. Exactly the kind of propaganda that can be used to demonize people who ask too many questions.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


We all knew it was coming....

beatbox
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

We all knew it was coming....

Indeed. But more importantly. It's probably going to intensify. They still have a ways to go before they can realistically classify any form of political dissent as a dangerous psychosis. Nevertheless, because of the severe naivete of our society, it is going to be a relatively easy thing to do when these things keep happening and the MSM keeps hammering on the theme of mental illness being the biggest problem in the world. They can branch out and declare you crazy if you disagree with something like Obamacare, for example (which, ironically, gives them dominion over the mental health field).

We have to be very careful not to condone acts of violence or take the side of the shooters. That is not what I'm about.

Right after I saw this post, Dr. Drew was on his tv show, talking about how no one reports these mentally ill people. I didn't get his exact words but he said something to the effect of "people start with all this nonsense about individual rights instead of rights of society". Scary statement.

There has been study after study to prove mental illness ISN'T correlated to violence. Just a very small percentage of people who mental ill are violent. It's a much higher percentage of so called sane people.

That's why I was so shocked at Dr. Drew's statement. One very real and valid reason people don't seek treatment is because they will be discriminated against society - and shows like his reinforce incorrect stereotypes.

Daughter2
Right after I saw this post, Dr. Drew was on his tv show, talking about how no one reports these mentally ill people. I didn't get his exact words but he said something to the effect of "people start with all this nonsense about individual rights instead of rights of society". Scary statement.

Yeah. That Dr Drew guy has been floating around for years. I've always been leery of him. But that's just par for the course. Drew has a little more of a veneer of respectability than someone like "Dr Phil" but it's mostly all pseudoscience when you get right down to it.

There's no telling how much damage people like Drew and Phil have done in the real world with people taking their BS seriously. A real doctor (with any real sense of ethics) would never give out medical advice on TV. Particularly in the already dubious field of psychology.

For one thing, every real doctor I've ever known was scared to death of being sued for malpractice. And rightfully so.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


The most frightening aspect of this all "you're all mentally ill", is the fact that the put sooooo many young children on psychotropic meds - 5 and 6 year olds!

Now, the welfare class knows that you get more money for having a "disabled" child - a lot more. School districts know this, too. "go to school and act up, mommy will get more money."

Who, in the gov't, is going to decide who is mentally ill? I might think that people who believe in "God", are crazy - or people who believe in "out of body experiences" - or "aliens" - or "the gov't is suspending my liberties".

I've been a psychiatric nurse for almost 30 years - you know who you can tell is really schizophrenic, or bipolar? The ones who don't want to be medicated - and they, for the most part, are not a danger to other people, but to themselves (not as in suicidal, but in being unable to care for themselves re. not eat right, no hygiene, no knowledge of protecting themselves from human predators).

Psychiatric meds have sooo many potentially harmful side effects...

I believe the gov't is pushing these drugs on everybody they think they can. People who need them - and a whole lot of people that don't.