January 6th, 2021, has been called "an insurrection." I thought, even from the day it happened, that the use of that term was a cynical political tactic which dishonored our law and our history, not to mention three quarters of a million Americans who (as Lincoln said at Gettysburg) "gave the last full measure of devotion."
Trump's riot (or whoever's riot it was) at the Capitol was an upsetting and ugly warning; but it has been made much uglier by this dishonor. I come from a family who meant 1861-1865, not 1941-1945, when they spoke about The War... and that was when I was a kid in the 1950's, barely a decade after VJ Day but almost a century after Appomattox.
One person was killed in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021. The human cost of the American Civil War was beyond anyone's expectations at that time, and thoroughly beyond our understanding in the 21st Century. That insurrection claimed at least 2% of the entire population of this country. It was more deaths than those from all other wars in our entire history combined.
It also changed the fundamental character of the country. Constitutional changes eliminated most of the sovereignty of the states. We stopped saying, "the United States are..." and ever after said, "the United States is..." The constitutional changes gave this country a much better character. But who can study that history and believe Congress and the States would ever have bothered, let alone succeeded, in working out such a far reaching remake of the whole idea, due to the death of one person in an insurrection?
I have been told that the BLM riots in the summer of 2021 were also called an "insurrection." (I don't remember that in the media, but I could have missed the meme.) Apparently about two dozen people were killed then, but I still find the application of the term to be a silly and dishonorable political ploy.
Perhaps a few moments during the 1965 free speech movement in Berkeley, or the civil rights protests and mass marches later that decade, prompted some comments about "insurrection" during those times, too. It's the same thing though: public relations or propaganda. The ideological causes and arguments in 2021 and 1965 were utterly insignificant compared to the complete national mobilization of all moral and material power to save the Union and end slavery (or to dissolve the Union and protect slavery, depending on which side you were on).
Jonathon Turley expressed some of this view, and other opinions, in an article this week. I mostly agree with him. Meanwhile, some people suggest that what counts is not how many people die, but whether an event upsets ("triggers") somebody. As I noted in a post earlier this month, Yale's Amanda Calhoun advises her psychiatric patients to cut ties with their own families to avoid being upset about politics on Thanksgiving.
This is wrong. It's more wrong than calling January 6 an insurrection. It actually may be one of the most wrong, ridiculous, discreditable things any psychiatrist ever said. But it's only one example of how wrong psychiatry is. Calhoun thinks we should all avoid getting into fights no matter what, no matter how we have to lie to each other, or be insulted, or fail to help others, or even lose our families. The ultimate value here is some weird, almost unrecognizable version of "safety," especially the safety of our feelings (not of our families, that's for sure!).
Ironically, the only place this supposed psychiatric value of "safety" might not apply is in psychiatric institutions. Real physical safety takes a back seat to privileges, convenience, deference for mental health "experts," and certainly everyone's ability to bury their heads in the sand when anything bad happens. It's not so bad if a patient gets injured in a fight, or if a staff who doesn't toe the administration's line gets injured. But if somebody says something sarcastic about the powers that be or those loyal overseers who truly believe in psychiatric slavery... well, that's "verbal aggression" and that's bad. The overseers can dehumanize the slaves with fake "diagnoses" of non-verifiable, non-falsifiable "mental illness." Just don't ever give STA Quinton Ivy the finger--he gets away with battery!
An immediate example (just today!) of this distorted version of "safety," is N Unit at EMHC. Dr. Vik Gill has a "patient" who continues to violently attack anyone in sight for no reason. The eighth such attack by this same individual in the last couple weeks happened this morning. Somebody will be seriously injured soon. Dr. Gill can't do anything about that for two reasons. One, he has no clue how to improve anyone's behavior, he only knows how to drug people. And two, he's at the mercy of a fundamentally corrupt EMHC culture which thrives on violence among the psychiatric slaves as a method of control.
The Illinois Department of Human Services theoretically has a facility for violent "patients" like Gill's: a separate plantation called Chester Mental Health Center. Gill's violent patient should have been sent there a long time ago, before eight other patients got beat up.
It's possible that Gill wants a violent patient on his unit for some purpose of his own, but I don't think so. I think he's being set up by somebody above him. Somebody wants Gill to look bad, so they won't approve sending this violent patient to Chester.
The overseers stab each other in the back all the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment