283 Comments

Democracy is when you get trampled by cops on horseback, beaten with batons while they freeze your bank account.

History DOES repeat!

Expand full comment

When one owns the media and bureaucracies, one becomes accustomed to saying whatever ring fences that ownership. The thing is, the network age has levelled the playing field and the tyrants are perpetually playing catch-up. They are no longer the sole arbiters of any narrative and are trying desperately to push the toothpaste back into the tube. The ultimate challenge remains: to turn the benefits of networking into a physical reality. So far, it appears relatively little more than a venting valve of potential self-incrimination.

Expand full comment

For those who have not seen the whole 3-hour Rogan interview with RFK, Jr., I wrote an article that highlights some of the topics that jumped out at me. That is, the short segments I found on Twitter did not capture everything that’s important and very interesting.

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/rogans-rfk-interview-is-full-of-vitally?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Expand full comment

Yes...witness the savagery of the police against Anti lockdown marchers in Victoria, Australia..most of my "friends" were untroubled by it.At that time the Liberal(right wing) party governed Australia never said a word about it.Victoria is under a left wing/marxist govt.The Victorian liberal opposition at the time complained once..about the protestors allegedly urinating....Australia has gone....

Expand full comment

Absolutely. Same in NSW. Probably saved by Chris Minns being the laziest politician in the world.

Expand full comment

Kinda like what the US Democrats (communists) are doing to Trump. Same playbook.

Expand full comment
author

indeed, they just have to work a little bit harder and more asymmetrically, and the legal mechanisms aren't really in place (as they are here)

Expand full comment

Eugyppius - Do they really have the legal means to over ride what the public (the electors) have chosen?

Expand full comment
author

yes, the BfV can outlaw AfD if they want to, and if they get too much support that's what will happen. they're already under surveillance for "proven right-wing extremism"

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

Yes, the anti Nazi laws have always been a hidden mechanism to suppress dissent.

Expand full comment
author

yes, this why Germany is world leader in stretching the definition 'fascism' to cover literally anything the political establishment doesn't like.

Expand full comment

Isn't there an attempt to ban freedom of speech in Ireland "for safety"?

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 29, 2023Liked by eugyppius

They need to get a Jewish politician or two to lead the AfD. Then see what they say about antisemitism, and who comes across as antisemitic.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023

The tyrants' two-step. Make it untenable to be a member of a given ideology, by law if possible, and then declare anything you don't like to be within that ideology. If someone begins to notice that the prohibited party and the ruling elite kinda seem to be the same, use propaganda to accuse the other side of being the prohibited thing.

They do it in the US too, though not by law (yet). Just ask any one of our political prisoners in gulags for protesting the subversion of democracy, which makes them a threat to democracy that must be eradicated.

The totalitarians and their useful idiots still operate under this simplistic equation (the only kind they can understand) where fascism equals extreme right, and with the Overton window shifted so far to the left, someone who stands for the values that were mainstream in the US up until 20 years ago is extreme right.

These days, to oppose totalitarianism is extreme right-wing, and the extreme right-wing is fascist, and fascism is totalitarian, so it is fascist to oppose fascism, and democratic and anti-fascist to support fascism. That's how we end up with Antifa brown shirts that employ fascism while claiming to oppose fascism. They have no idea what any of the words really mean.

I am not sure that I even know what right-wing means now. It used to indicate the loyalists to the French monarchy, while the left wing was those who favored representative democracy (republicanism, lower case 'r'). By that definition, the US was founded by leftist radicals upon leftist radical ideas... yet today those people who still believe the same as those leftist radicals is a right-wing radical.

I really don't know what "right wing" meant in between now and the French Revolution, but I do know that now, to me, it means someone who favors small government, individualism, maximum liberty, decentralized control, the free market, low taxes, and minimal regulation is a fascist who favors totalitarian (bigger than big!) government, collectivism, tyranny, complete centralization of power within the national government, government direction of the economy, high taxes, and total regulation of everything. The people who favor all of those traits of a fascist state, of course, are not fascists... they oppose fascism, because fascism is permanently the other guys, whomever they may be at the moment.

Expand full comment

Ironic, given the history of that term in Germany.

Expand full comment

And should be used against Nazis

Expand full comment

Provided you can find any.

Expand full comment

No one ever thinks of future consequences. Or, was this intended?

Expand full comment

That's damned scary.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

That makes my sick.

Expand full comment

Curious what happens then. Presumably the party leadership gets dragged into court and jailed on charges of illegal opinions. Idea being that would crush their support, as seems to have happened to Golden. Dawn in Greece. Then again I recall similar tactics being used against the Austrian painter. Unsuccessfully, if memory serves.

Expand full comment

Eventually more people will better understand what really happened back then, once they've live through the same leading conditions; which we're right on track for.

Expand full comment

Have they defined “right-wing extremism” or is open ended there as it is here in the U.S.

Expand full comment

"Everything communists don't like."

Expand full comment
founding

It shows that the German leadership is totally under the control of the globalists. This has been so since WWll and apparently won't change until 2099.

Expand full comment

the chancellor just has to say something and the guy is gone (see local elections 2020, same place, thüringen, https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/merkel-afd-105.html).

the surpreme court will then look a little angry and everybody goes on. there you have it, "legal mechanisms".

Expand full comment

Isn't that article stating the opposite? The Federal Constitutional Court sided with AfD in that case.

Expand full comment

yes. they looked angry at the government. they waived a finger. they were unhappy. they said “sit in the corner over there and reflect upon the bad thing you did, little son. you gonna stay home this week. no time on the playground.”.

Expand full comment

Are they not worried what happened in Russia could happen in Germany? One is just a paper tiger without popular support.

Expand full comment

"if they get too much support"

And that is the reef upon which the tyrants will inevitably founder.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

It’s standard fare today in Canada. Remember in 2014 Trudope said Canada now has a woke, green economy. That means we have whatever the Libs., WEFers, elite donors to the Lib. party want us to have. What the Canadian people want is inappropriate.

Expand full comment

Yeah you guys up North have it bad. Not quite as bad as Australia but during covid it did feel like as if teh Elite decided you 2 nations would be the test beds for authoritarian control.

Expand full comment

Is there any legal recourse? It cant just be like that, aren’t any other German citizens beside the right leaning ones noticing what’s going on? I guess what I’m asking is surely there has to be middle of the ground people, right? The fact that this is happening and that more people aren’t fighting it is too darn scary!

Expand full comment
founding

A lot are still brainwashed. Remember those generations have been told what to think since the 're-education program' by the Allies after WWll

Expand full comment

Yes, unfortunately the brain washing seems to be going on universally and the most ‘educated’ the people are the more indoctrinated they are🙁

Expand full comment

They've pretty much abandoned our legal system.

Expand full comment

At least in Germany they can cry "Nazis!" and get a response.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

Same playbook they use in France, in Hungary, etc. \

This is the final struggle

Let us gather together, and tomorrow

The Internationale

Will be the human race

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023

Look what the Woke, Green Agenda, ESG politicians are doing to Holland. I didn't know the small country of Holland was the world's second largest exporter of agricultural products after the United States. They're trying to destroy farming by banning fertilizer.

Expand full comment

Holland was the most efficient producer of foodstuffs, using the fewest inputs for tonnage produced, which was exported all over Europe, Mideast, and beyond. But TPTB don't want anything exported it seems, only local use of local produce, unless it's Billy's bugs or fake meat

Expand full comment

What are they doing in Hungary? I'm confused.

Expand full comment

Media & Lefties: Far right extremist = anyone not left of center

Expand full comment

Far right extremist like giorgia meloni a member of the aspen institute. Good laugh.

Expand full comment

Same people

Expand full comment

It's amazing how much contempt the ruling class has for the average citizen - they genuinely view us as somewhere between children and cattle, to be fed with fake meat and managed by algorithms.

Expand full comment

When has this ever not been true? I never paid all that much attention in American History classes so it was a surprise to be reminded that Senators were not always directly elected by the people whose states they represented. The Founders absolutely did not want to give us democracy, and we might say they were the best of all possible lots to come up with a workable system of government.

Expand full comment

You've misinterpreted the point of how Senators were elected. They were appointed by teh state because they represented the state in DC while the house members were elected by the people and so they represented the people. With Senators being directly elected it's shifted the power away from the states and the entire foundation of our Constitution is about States' Rights. Senators are now more easily bought because they just need $$$ to convince the people to keep sending them to office where as if they were still being appointed by the state they'd have to abide by what the state legislators say or else they're out. It wasn't about removing power from the people. It may look like it's teh us version of teh UK's house of commons and house of Lords but it's not.

Expand full comment

A federation of the states in which the states have no representation.

Expand full comment

LOL a great way to put it!

Expand full comment

Not true. The people had representatives in teh house. It's why it's called the House of Representatives (because they represent) and not the People's Senate or teh House of the commons as it is in the UK. You can not like it but this is how the nation was founded

Expand full comment
Jun 27, 2023·edited Jun 27, 2023

I have no idea what you are objecting to. I was agreeing with your previous post. I am very much in favor of the way in which the nation was founded. What it has been twisted into... not so much. I have long considered the passing of the 17th Amendment as a tragic moment in the nation's history that is often overlooked as a cause, or at least an accelerator of, our descent into tyranny.

Before the 17th, the people were represented in the House and the states were represented in the Senate, as was the founders' design.

Now, with popularly-elected senators, we have the people represented by both the House and Senate, but the states have no representation, which destroys (by design) the whole concept of a "federation of the states." It effectively replaces the decentralized federal government with the centralized national government the founders meticulously avoided inflicting upon us in 1787.

Expand full comment

Just a mis-understanding. I thought you were agreeing with SCA that the system as founded where States appointed Senators that the States had no representation. The lines used on SubStack to show threads aren't always IMO easy to follow.

Expand full comment

Of course we've completely lost the conception that this was a confederation of sovereign states; destroyed in 1865.

Expand full comment

At least kings and feudal lords generally left the peasants alone after collecting taxes. They didn't call people to tell them to drink water in summer, or hound them about their vaccine status, or inform them that they must accept drag queens reading to their children in schools to be properly inclusive.

Expand full comment

No. They just flayed those of their class who dared believe in sects other than the approved royal truths.

They didn't have to worry about the peasants, who received approved pastoral care from the local representative of the crown's Church.

Expand full comment

That depended on the kingdom. Not all Monarchies throughout time have been like this.

Expand full comment

You mean the movies and TV don't fully represent the reality of history (not to mention the distorted, dare I say fake, history taught in schools and universities)? Say it isn't so!

Expand full comment

That depends on the source of the documentary. Some do try to be as accurate as they can but if its Hollywood then absolutely not.

Expand full comment

Yep. Senators were supposed to represent the interest of THE STATES, keeping the balance of power.........uh........in balance.

Expand full comment

No it was to ensure the States had their reps while the individual people had theirs. It's all about balance. Now that we elect senators via popular vote like Reps there easier to buy off and do what some wealthy prick (or pricks) want because the states no longer can replace them should they stop acting in the interest of the states. The entire foundation of our system is based on States rights and not the National Government. Without the states appointing Senators the State Legislatures have no representations in DC as the founding fathers intended them to. With the states no longer having that representation the National government has grown out of control because as long as you get enough money out there and you're not unappealing you can win despite not being teh best person for the job. Switching over to popular vote made it easier for wealthy individuals like Soros and Gates to get what they want., If Senators were still appointed then any favors those guys would want would require paying of a majority of the State Legislatures and not just teh one senator. Moving to popular vote made it cheaper for these men t purchase our government.

Expand full comment

I agree with everything but the start where you say "No, it was to ensure the states had their reps", because that's exactly what I was trying to convey in my message. :)

As you say, when BOTH the Senate and House supposedly (but not really) representing the people, ALL the power flows to the federal government.

Expand full comment

Precisely.

Expand full comment

I read your comment as sarcasm not literal.

Expand full comment

Again, you have contradicted someone who was agreeing with you.

Expand full comment

It's not that I'm over-infused with cynicism or anything, but it seems to me the whole body of political philosophy is self-employment for people without much use otherwise. One can come up with brilliant concepts and beautifully mapped-out schematics for how to make everything work but no one has any longterm cure for human nature.

When I had to be an employed person working under the authority of others, I discovered that if I liked the boss, I'd do anything for them without the least feeling of subservience. If I didn't like them every single requirement felt like a vile infringement of my rights. Now, in the warm light of maturity, I can look back and see that sometimes I was, in fact, quite unreasonable. A workplace, a community, a state, a nation must have rules and orderliness that won't suit everyone all or even some of the time, because a considerable proportion of any population will not easily tolerate being ruled. Some people of course can't function well without structure and they are easily drawn into cults of every persuasion, including political parties.

It's always been funny to me that the incorrigible breakaway sects who risked everything to come here and form new communities because they couldn't tolerate having to conform to the majority became as rigid against dissent as all goddamn once they were able to be in charge of a group of people and a piece of land themselves. Every time I see people on comments threads praising the Amish I have to stop myself from falling off the sofa laughing. You're gonna tell me what *colors* I can wear? That God won't like me if I sew on a button or two?

Expand full comment

There's also no requirement that any state holds an election to decide that state's electors for president. All the states have chosen to have them, but they didn't have to. The states can select the electors by any means they see fit. Neat, eh?

Expand full comment

That varies from state to state, Some States require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.

Expand full comment

That is the states deciding how they will select the electors, as is their prerogative.

Expand full comment

And why not? We elected them.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

Here in the USA, the Democratic party officials would say "democratic elections in Thuringia are a threat to our democracy", they would purposely undercount AfD votes and then their Internet giants would censor any discussion of why Democrats "unexpectedly" won again.

Expand full comment
author

indeed, same game different tactics

Expand full comment

The regime wore democracy like a skinsuit of legitimacy as long as the media was effective in shaping opinions for the majority.

Now that the majority are rejecting regime media across the west, the regime turns to censorship and will increasingly embrace "democracy" as practiced by Zelensky. For example, jailing media and outlawing opposition parties.

Expand full comment

I think you forgot the part where they stop counting at 3am and then start back at it a few hours later, only to all-of-the sudden be hit with an avalanche of ballots for the other side.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

Whenever these folks utter the phrase "Our Democracy", they mean their democracy, not yours.

Expand full comment

The situation in the US:

Autocracy = Rule by autocrats

Aristocracy = Rule by aristocrats

Theocracy = rule by theocrats

Democracy = ???

Expand full comment

Democracy = ??? using Congress as a guide how about rule by demons?

Expand full comment

Underrated comment

Expand full comment

They are saying "Our Democracy" meaning the one the political elite share.

Expand full comment

They are really referring to their power structure. Our is the operative word.

Expand full comment

Exactly!

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

“Antidemocratic populism” what

Expand full comment
author

we have entered a bizarre hell world

Expand full comment

Yes. The mentally ill are being promoted to positions of authority by the rich and powerful so that society can be more quickly imploded. DEI is here to ensure incompetent's people get into jobs where incompetency can cost lives; jobs like those in decide and even public works. Do you want the architect as well as the construction team of a new bridge being woke or being hired based on meritocracy? With DEI + woke and the move to normalize pedophilia we are moving to a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah that will have devastating consequences everywhere.

Expand full comment

Case In Point - Rulemaking on CO2 / Particulate emissions of Pizza Ovens, while ignoring the SUNY operated coal fired steam plants on Long Island, and Upstate....

Philip Schuyler is shaking his head in gross dismay.

Expand full comment

We are just in the world of "1984".

Expand full comment

“Antidemocratic populism” is the key to understanding the mindset. They view national populism as being the antithesis to democracy. I think they have managed to construe populism with racism. And racists are antidemocratic because they don’t want people from other races to have a say in government. At least that appears to be they argue the idea.

What they really believe is that democracy is necessarily a push towards globalism and anything that hinders globalism is antidemocratic.

Expand full comment

Yah, but the vilifying of populism goes a long way back. Anyone remember th 'Cross of Gold ' speech? As a kid back in the day, back when we had to read this to pass history classes for high school, I thought the populists had a point.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

"What’s more, they’re the only major German party to have opposed lockdowns and mass vaccination, and to oppose the ruinous energy transition agenda and to call for an end to mass migration."

Glad to see that Germany has a thinking citizenry.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

I have two theses: 1.) The single most important individual incident that caused the AfD´s recent surge in the polls is NordStream. Normies may not talk about it much, the mainstream media in the FRG ignore it, but it eats away subconsciously, subterraneously and slowly, but surely, at confidence in the system. In hindsight the bombing appears especially foolish because the situation with energy was never so bad this past winter in the FRG that "the street" could have forced "our" "government" to open NordStream. 2.) The cartel parties really painted themselves in a corner with the AfD. The smart move would be to take them in as junior partners, but instead they are doubling down rhetorically even now.

Expand full comment
author

basically agree, if you go back and look at polling, the AfD started to see serious gains in energy crisis, when they were the only party making any sense at all. GEG and ongoing migration insanity now kicking them ever higher. weird how the establishment can't seem to moderate itself, this could actually develop into a serious political crisis

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

The only semi-rational explanation for their behavior would be the need to enact certain measures by some fixed deadline no matter what. I do not see how such a deadline scenario could make any sense unless the deadlines really are set by their supervisors. It´s like an intern being told: "The presentation needs to be ready by tomorrow morning 8 AM sharp!".

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

What do you see as the endgame, E.?

BfV outlaws AfD, and then what? Will this not just solidify support for a resistance of some kind? Or will AfD supporters take this on the chin, bow down and resort to grumbling?

Expand full comment
author

i don't really know to be honest. already 1/5 of Germany is AfD. do they pull the lever when they're at 1/4 support? 1/3? then they'd be outlawing probably the most popular party in Germany, and steering even more support to them. uncharted territory.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023

In my opinion, it’s too late to ‘pull the lever’ now. If they outlaw the AfD, then they might well be faced with scenes reminiscent of 1989, with hundreds of thousands in the streets nightly in Leipzig, Dresden, and other East German cities.Then what, send the tanks in? Not a good look for a supposed modern western European ‘democracy’, and de facto head of that beacon of democracy and accountability, the EU.

Expand full comment

the difference now is that if people were to take to the streets 1) their bank accounts would be frozen until they capitulated and went back home; and 2) the global media would be on the side of the govt, would paint all the protesters as Nazi extremists, if they covered it at all.

the entire globalist class, which makes up at least 50% of the electorate in every Western country, has been conditioned to believe that their conservative brethren are frothing bigots, akin to mentally ill children who need to be locked away in a basement.

anything short of a massacre (which is no longer necessary) will receive the full support of every Western power center and the upscale progressives who control the culture.

Expand full comment

If they can do that they're not going to wait until the balance of party is that close to even. The sooner they do it the sooner they can get the public focused on something else. The longer they drag it out the longer it will take to re-direct the angry citizenry's attention elsewhere. They might even have to pull a USA and start a war somewhere.

Expand full comment

The establishment cannot moderate itself. Every year more people get radically indoctrinated in college (or the graduate school programs select for leftwing radicalism). These people then are hired to fill up the public and private bureaucracies. The core constituency of Democrats is far-left activist college grads. There is no disavowing the base, and every day theres fewer blue collar democrats and the voter/power base shifts more towards elitist cosmopolitan leftists. So its impossible for the Democrats to walk themselves back from the cliff bc the demographic future of the party is more extreme not less.

All the Democrats like Ruy Texeira and Bill Maher will be disappointed in the end. The moderate Democrat is a dying breed that cant be resurrected in large numbers, at least not until the Millennial generation is old and gray. These moderate democrats will either need to vote for moderate republicans (which they wont due to social ramifications of doing so) or they will be unhappy toadies for an extreme progressive agenda.

The Republicans have the capacity to moderate their stances, but due to the victimization of Republicans thats unlikely to happen (persecution breeds stronger in group identity). Democrats have no offramp towards moderation. So it appears that polarization is going to increase in both directions until theres a monumental victory for one side or the other.

Expand full comment

"Democrats have no offramp towards moderation"

Once the Democrats injected themselves with the brain virus called "Critical Social Justice" aka academic Marxism, their fate was sealed, as sure as when someone develops a bad crack habit. Social Justice is a Deconstruction Machine with no brakes and no OFF switch, so the only question is how much wreckage they'll cause and what will be left to rebuild from the smoldering rubble.

Expand full comment

It often looks like the cabal is mostly on autopilot not fully comprehending yet they've lost. They just carry on with the agenda, dismissing all evidence that so few people now are truly playing along with any of the game anymore. It's likely just to collapse on its own footprint when we reach a certain critical mass of disbelief.

Matt Orfalea's latest hilarious masterpiece tells me that point is close at hand. "FIVE" https://youtu.be/Sj6-QDVYbv8

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

I am definitely stealing this quote:

“Democracy is when you want what the late-stage liberal system wants to give you, and the system gives it to you. If you don’t want what the system wants to give you, your preferences are undemocratic and the system gives it to you anyway. You’re free to protest the things the system hates, but if you protest the system or any of its agenda, that’s undemocratic and you’ll be water cannoned to protect democracy. You’re free to believe in the principles espoused by late-stage liberal democratic politicians, but if you dispute them, you’re a danger to the free world and should be arrested.”

Expand full comment

Playbook 1984

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

As soon as you see the word 'proven' you know it's missing the prefix 'un'.

Expand full comment

Same reaction as to the democratically conducted Brexit referendum here in the UK. I personally would have been a remainer, if I had been permitted to vote on the matter (I was not, due to living in UK but not being British citizen), but I respect the outcome of the vote, no matter by how narrow a margin the win.

Expand full comment

I was a Brexiteer, but live in London, so you had to be careful who you say that to ...lest you lose a client , or ruin a dinner party. The sneering and contempt for the Leave movement was viscerally felt.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

Is there any positive press? What does Das Bild say? You really need some support from some media somewhere.

I was always incensed when I read the media calling the AfD voters as “Qwerdenk” (wrong or crooked thinker in English). I hope that they call all these complainers of a democratic vote bigots to their faces.

Expand full comment
author

Axel-Springer including BILD is also anti-AfD, though a bit more veiled about it. Here they are trying to condemn Sesselmann of antisemitism by association:

https://www.bild.de/regional/thueringen/thueringen-aktuell/sonneberg-so-afd-ist-der-wahlsieger-robert-sesselmann-84459174.bild.html

the only positive press will come from outsider papers like Junge Freiheit

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

I would like to naively think that Das Bild has to carefully navigate their anti-populist stance as their readership would seem to lean populist... That said, I have some experience with board members on Axel-Springer and they are a lost cause.

Expand full comment
author

Welt rather less veiled than Bild, but they definitely have to be somewhat careful here.

Expand full comment

Democracy: where the correct decisions are all known a priori, and where, if you diverge from this a priori knowledge, you out yourself as a tyrant and a nazi.

Expand full comment

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” - Buckminster Fuller

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023Liked by eugyppius

I gethung up on that they always use words like "mood" as a reason for people voting not the way the establishment has decreed is the democratic way to vote.

Then again, establishment-alists are incapable of introspection and fair assessment of themselves, so the idea that others are as or better informed than them is inconceivable to them.

People vote nationalist because they want to stem the flood of invading murderous rapists and other scum from Africa and the Near East, because they do not want their nation's industry to prop up the US corporate hegemony and China's dictatorship, and for other real reasons.

Calling it "mood" is a put-down, belittling and is supposed to make the reader/listener think that there's no real reason for protesting and resistance.

Expand full comment

I recently read an astute observation that the framing of these matters weirdly puts citizens and their governments into a relationship like the inmates of an asylum to the clinical staf.

Expand full comment

Sorry, to complete the thought: your views cannot be evaluated on a rational basis. They are “moods”, “phobias” and the like, which manifest emotional dysregulation and should be treated accordingly.

Expand full comment

Spot-on I'd say. It is virtually identical to th process of pathologisation so tragically common in psychiatry, where every word, gesture and behaviour of the patient is interpreted as proof of the diagnosis.

Patient reclines anti-psychotics? Patient lacks awarness of his/hers problems.

Patient is calm, collected and can use reason? Patient is mimicking lucidity to be let out.

I remember reading an american study from the 1970s (?) where psychology students (under the guidance of their professor) left signed and witnessed affidavits with attourneys before having themselves admitted to various mental hopsitals, for describing sympoms of schizophrenia and psychosis.

If I recall correctly, 14 out of 17 institutions refused to believe that the students weren't mentally ill, despite all the evidence to the contrary

The diagnosis is correct: to challenge the diagnosis is to confirm the diagnosis.

Expand full comment