Illuminati

[Mortimer]

I was told by one guy that I should not google illuminati but I did reverse psychology it caught my attention he said the headquarter of the illuminati is the city of London

[Voskos]

Interesting.

[Ülev]

I1-lluminati

[Numidia]

If you google "how to make a bomb" "terrorists videos" there will be a trace especially when you have mental illness

[Hajimurad]

Majority of so-called "secret societies" (illuminati, masons, tampliers etc.) really are none but bunch of occultists, who organized into kind of totalitarian sect, whose main purpose is a collecting money from naive idiots to their fraud leaders.

[JamesBond007]

If you google "how to make a bomb" "terrorists videos" there will be a trace especially when you have mental illness

Except, that mental illness is a myth and does not exist in objective reality it is a social construct :



"There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.”

https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff_dsmv/

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348035136l/12367271.jpg


For more than half a century Thomas Szasz has devoted much of his career to a radical critique of psychiatry. His latest work, Psychiatry: The Science of Lies, is a culmination of his life’s work: to portray the integral role of deception in the history and practice of psychiatry. Szasz argues that the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness stands in the same relationship to the diagnosis and treatment of bodily illness that the forgery of a painting does to the original masterpiece. Art historians and the legal system seek to distinguish forgeries from originals. Those concerned with medicine, on the other hand-physicians, patients, politicians, health insurance providers, and legal professionals-take the opposite stance when faced with the challenge of distinguishing everyday problems in living from bodily diseases, systematically authenticating nondiseases as diseases. The boundary between disease and nondisease-genuine and imitation, truth and falsehood-thus becomes arbitrary and uncertain. There is neither glory nor profit in correctly demarcating what counts as medical illness and medical healing from what does not. Individuals and families wishing to protect themselves from medically and politically authenticated charlatanry are left to their own intellectual and moral resources to make critical decisions about human dilemmas miscategorized as "mental diseases" and about medicalized responses misidentified as "psychiatric treatments." Delivering his sophisticated analysis in lucid prose and with a sharp wit, Szasz continues to engage and challenge readers of all backgrounds.

https://www.amazon.com/Psychiatry-Science-Lies-Thomas-Szasz/dp/081560792X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1578519541&sr=


https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61X4P5QLbiL._AC_UL436_.jpg


This book offers a comprehensive Marxist critique of the business of mental health, demonstrating how the prerogatives of neoliberal capitalism for productive, self-governing citizens have allowed the discourse on mental illness to expand beyond the psychiatric institution into many previously untouched areas of public and private life including the home, school and the workplace. Through historical and contemporary analysis of psy-professional knowledge-claims and practices, Bruce Cohen shows how the extension of psychiatric authority can only be fully comprehended through the systematic theorising of power relations within capitalist society. From schizophrenia and hysteria to Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder, from spinning chairs and lobotomies to shock treatment and antidepressants, from the incarceration of working class women in the nineteenth century to the torture of prisoners of the ‘war on terror’ in the twenty-first, Psychiatric Hegemony is an uncompromising account of mental health ideology in neoliberal society.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01MTSNWBV/ref=acr_dp_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

P.S. the first book is from a Libertarian political perspective and the second one is from a Marxist political perspective.

[Aldaris]

Except, that mental illness is a myth and does not exist in objective reality it is a social construct :

Shoot an e-mail to academics in the field if you think you have the case. And if you manage to convince them with actual evidence, congrats.

[JamesBond007]

Shoot an e-mail to academics in the field if you think you have the case. And if you manage to convince them with actual evidence, congrats.

Your argument is invalid as it conforms to the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam.

Bullshit ! Academics and doctors are the last ones you should shoot an email off too and by the way Thomas Szasz was professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York (Syracuse) and Bruce Cohen is is a professor at a college in New Zealandb but by and large if you trust most academics you are an idiot :

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/415pAJuFZPL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Free Thought and Official Propaganda by Bertrand Russell Free Thought and Official Propaganda is a speech (and subsequent publication) delivered in 1922 by Bertrand Russel on the importance of unrestricted freedom of expression in society, and the problem of the state and political class interfering in this through control of education, fines, economic leverage, and distortion of evidence. This is the Conway memorial lecture, delivered by Mr. Russell at South Place Institute, London, 24 March, 1922 Moncure Conway, in whose honour we are assembled to-day, devoted his life to two great objects: freedom of thought and freedom of the individual. In regard to both these objects, something has been gained since his time, but something also has been lost. New dangers, somewhat different in form from those of past ages, threaten both kinds of freedom, and unless a vigorous and vigilant public opinion can be aroused in defence of them, there will be much less of both a hundred years hence than there is now. My purpose in this address is to emphasize the new dangers and to consider how they can be met. Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by “free thought.” This expression has two senses. In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a “free thinker” if he is not a Christian or a Mussulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some inherited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a “free thinker” if he does not decidedly believe in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a “free thinker” in a Buddhist country. I do not wish to minimize the importance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am prepared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard it as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing. But there is also a wider sense of “free thought,” which I regard as of still greater importance. Indeed, the harm done by traditional religions seems chiefly traceable to the fact that they have prevented free thought in this wider sense. The wider sense is not so easy to define as the narrower, and it will be well to spend some little time in trying to arrive at its essence. When we speak of anything as “free,” our meaning is not definite unless we can say what it is free from. Whatever or whoever is “free” is not subject to some external compulsion, and to be precise we ought to say what this kind of compulsion is. Thus thought is “free” when it is free from certain kinds of outward control which are often present. Some of these kinds of control which must be absent if thought is to be “free” are obvious, but others are more subtle and elusive.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44932

[JamesBond007]

Shoot an e-mail to academics in the field if you think you have the case. And if you manage to convince them with actual evidence, congrats.

It's very obvious to anyone who has studied physics (the king of the sciences) that mental disorders or mental illnesses are pseudo-scientific concepts that make no sense (they are nonsensical propositions). Thomas Szasz himself first studied physics before becoming a psychiatrist. The problem is most people have not studied physics.

[Aldaris]

Your argument is invalid as it conforms to the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam.

Nice try. I didn't even make any claim, just challenged yours. Just sayin', if you feel like proving a whole field to be either unreacheable with scientific methods or an outright bogus, you're actually free to do so, academics are more open-minded than you think. But you'll have to provide evidence first. In that case, the people on this forum shouldn't be your target audience though. Oh, and by the way, the 'argument from authority' is a fallacy only if either the source in question isn't an actual authority in the field or if his findings can be demonstrated to be false. None of which is the case here.


Bullshit ! Academics and doctors are the last ones you should shoot an email off too and by the way Thomas Szasz was professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York (Syracuse) and Bruce Cohen is is a professor at a college in New Zealandb but by and large if you trust most academics you are an idiot :

Cool, Teutorigos. You can find academics going against the consensus in any field. Such types tend to have one thing in common - they're a fringe. People aren't generally free of bias, even if they're academically trained. A minority of them tend to hold to their pet theories no matter what. But they're usually the minority against unbiased majority - a safe bet most of the time is to go with the latter.


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/415pAJuFZPL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Free Thought and Official Propaganda by Bertrand Russell Free Thought and Official Propaganda is a speech (and subsequent publication) delivered in 1922 by Bertrand Russel on the importance of unrestricted freedom of expression in society, and the problem of the state and political class interfering in this through control of education, fines, economic leverage, and distortion of evidence. This is the Conway memorial lecture, delivered by Mr. Russell at South Place Institute, London, 24 March, 1922 Moncure Conway, in whose honour we are assembled to-day, devoted his life to two great objects: freedom of thought and freedom of the individual. In regard to both these objects, something has been gained since his time, but something also has been lost. New dangers, somewhat different in form from those of past ages, threaten both kinds of freedom, and unless a vigorous and vigilant public opinion can be aroused in defence of them, there will be much less of both a hundred years hence than there is now. My purpose in this address is to emphasize the new dangers and to consider how they can be met. Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by “free thought.” This expression has two senses. In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a “free thinker” if he is not a Christian or a Mussulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some inherited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a “free thinker” if he does not decidedly believe in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a “free thinker” in a Buddhist country. I do not wish to minimize the importance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am prepared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard it as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing. But there is also a wider sense of “free thought,” which I regard as of still greater importance. Indeed, the harm done by traditional religions seems chiefly traceable to the fact that they have prevented free thought in this wider sense. The wider sense is not so easy to define as the narrower, and it will be well to spend some little time in trying to arrive at its essence. When we speak of anything as “free,” our meaning is not definite unless we can say what it is free from. Whatever or whoever is “free” is not subject to some external compulsion, and to be precise we ought to say what this kind of compulsion is. Thus thought is “free” when it is free from certain kinds of outward control which are often present. Some of these kinds of control which must be absent if thought is to be “free” are obvious, but others are more subtle and elusive.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44932

Yeah, that's nice. Too bad it's irrelevant.



It's very obvious to anyone who has studied physics (the king of the sciences) that mental disorders or mental illnesses are pseudo-scientific concepts that make no sense (they are nonsensical propositions). Thomas Szasz himself first studied physics before becoming a psychiatrist. The problem is most people have not studied physics.

I'm in a daily contact with PhDs in physics. They'd roll their eyes hearing this. No, Teutorigos, physicists are not really the authority regarding the stuff in question and nor do they claim to be. :laugh:

[War Chef]

Mental disorders are very real, but they are highly exaggerated. Maybe 25% cases are legitimate, the rest are gullible people convinced by some suite & tie "professional" that they don't fit inside a box of normalcy. Ironically the cocktail of medications they take make them infinitely worse off than having the disorder itself unmedicated.

[Daco Celtic]

I'm the last of the Grail bloodline, most of us died in the thousand year Elven Holocaust. Long live the Royal Scythians.

[JamesBond007]

Nice try. I didn't even make any claim, just challenged yours. Just sayin', if you feel like proving a whole field to be either unreacheable with scientific methods or an outright bogus, you're actually free to do so, academics are more open-minded than you think. But you'll have to provide evidence first. In that case, the people on this forum shouldn't be your target audience though. Oh, and by the way, the 'argument from authority' is a fallacy only if either the source in question isn't an actual authority in the field or if his findings can be demonstrated to be false. None of which is the case here.



Cool, Teutorigos. You can find academics going against the consensus in any field. Such types tend to have one thing in common - they're a fringe. People aren't generally free of bias, even if they're academically trained. A minority of them tend to hold to their pet theories no matter what. But they're usually the minority against unbiased majority - a safe bet most of the time is to go with the latter.



Yeah, that's nice. Too bad it's irrelevant.




I'm in a daily contact with PhDs in physics. They'd roll their eyes hearing this. No, Teutorigos, physicists are not really the authority regarding the stuff in question and nor do they claim to be. :laugh:

Whatever, you are engaging in the logical fallacy the argumentum ad verecundiam but you are too stupid to know this or are too dishonest to admit it.

I am going to say you are probably too stupid to know it because you are also too stupid to see that you are contradicting yourself here .

You are talking about academics here but you are showing bad intellectual etiquette by denouncing points of views supported by books written by academics without first reading the books.

When I say mental illness or mental disorders do not exist I mean they are nonsensical propositions via the philosophical system of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the first book claims they are problems of living , not medical diseases, and the second book says these problems are caused by neoliberal capitalist society so the whole concept is asymptotic to human cultures. Real scientific concepts like gravity are independent of culture.

[Mortimer]

About shizophrenia Im sure I was under the influence of black magic and the one in me who always says he is a nazi or communist is the devil. He also made fun of priests and religion. But God now healed me. Yesterday I was again doubting because I was tired and stopped thinking so I wondered how I stopp thinking but then I realised the spirit says the right thing at the right time. I dont need always to say something I can be without thoughts and sleep. But at the right time and right place the spirit will tell me what to say.

[Mortimer]

My advisor Longbowman says masons are not evil but a group of theists who do social stuff.

[kalach]

Occultism, metaphysics, religions=cope. We are only materials.

[Aldaris]

Whatever, you are engaging in the logical fallacy the argumentum ad verecundiam but you are too stupid to know this or are too dishonest to admit it.

I am going to say you are probably too stupid to know it because you are also too stupid to see that you are contradicting yourself here .

It’s almost cute how amateurs can be ignorant when it comes to methodology. So, how exactly can I engage in arguing from authority when I’m not arguing for any position at all? That’s the crucial thing here – not being convinced of something doesn’t mean being convinced of the opposite. Arguing from authority in this case would be me saying something like 'Scientific community says so, therefore it’s true‘. Would be way easier for you if that was my position, but it isn’t. It’s not my fault you’ve wrongly assumed that, but it is indeed a common mistake people do.


You are talking about academics here but you are showing bad intellectual etiquette by denouncing points of views supported by books written by academics without first reading the books.

Naw, again, not being convinced doesn't equal denouncing. Learn the difference already.


When I say mental illness or mental disorders do not exist I mean they are nonsensical propositions via the philosophical system of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the first book claims they are problems of living , not medical diseases, and the second book says these problems are caused by neoliberal capitalist society so the whole concept is asymptotic to human cultures. Real scientific concepts like gravity are independent of culture.

I don't care. Show your pdf to the ones that do, if you think you're smarter than everybody else. I can guarantee they will listen to you if you'll make any sense. Good luck.