Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #268504 > unrolled thread

Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

Contents

  Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-27 09:47 +0200
    Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 05:36 -0500
      Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-27 20:55 +0200
        Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:59 -0500
          Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-28 05:56 +0200
            Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:35 -0500
              Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-29 02:35 +0200
                Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 04:43 -0500
                  Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-30 04:06 +0200
                    Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:24 -0500
                      Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-30 20:58 +0200
                        Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-01 07:51 +0200
                        Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
                          Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 06:56 +0200
                            Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:48 -0500
                              Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 04:50 +0200
                                Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 04:02 -0500
                                  Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-05 05:48 +0200
                                    Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 03:40 -0500
                                      Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-06 05:24 +0200
                                        Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
                                          Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-11 00:22 +0200
                                            Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 04:13 -0500
                                              Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-12 06:11 +0200
                                                Re: Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 04:14 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#268504 — Medicating Childhood-An American Zombie Apocalypse

Hi NG

here I found another article worth reading:

https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/medicating-childhood-an-american-zombie-apocalypse/

Its about 'medicated childhood'.

There are certain behaviours that children usually have (like playing), 
what are regarded as 'disease' and medicated.

This is certainly evil blunder, but it is also difficult to understand, 
what these people have in mind.

First: psycho-active drugs are means of last resort and should not be 
applied to children, if possible.

Second: children play! That's what children do - usually. So how could 
there be any kind of disease diagnosed if kids show such a habit?

Third: legal punishment is not applicable to children under a certain 
age. In Germany we have 14 years as such a limit and have real problems 
to understand, how kids could been thrown into jail for throwing a snow 
ball.


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#268510

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:47:11 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Hi NG
>
>here I found another article worth reading:
>
>https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/medicating-childhood-an-american-zombie-apocalypse/
>

     Basing a position on claims presented at a k00k site may not be
the best idea.

>Its about 'medicated childhood'.
>
>There are certain behaviours that children usually have (like playing), 
>what are regarded as 'disease' and medicated.
>

     No one, within the United States, considers childhood play to be
a disease.

>This is certainly evil blunder, but it is also difficult to understand, 
>what these people have in mind.
>
>First: psycho-active drugs are means of last resort and should not be 
>applied to children, if possible.
>
>Second: children play! That's what children do - usually. So how could 
>there be any kind of disease diagnosed if kids show such a habit?
>

     Simply playing is never viewed as a disease. At least not within
the United States.

>Third: legal punishment is not applicable to children under a certain 
>age. In Germany we have 14 years as such a limit and have real problems 
>to understand, how kids could been thrown into jail for throwing a snow 
>ball.

     In the U.S., each state sets their "Age of Accountability." 
     The article mentions a 13 year old. "...a Chicago thirteen year
old now faces multiple adult felonies..."
     A search find that he threw a snowball at a police officer and
that he was charged as a juvenile. The prosecutor's office never
sought to try him as an adult, so the claim of adult felonies is a
lie.
     The child claims he's not the one who did it. Regardless as to
who actually threw the snowball, it's unlikely assault and/or battery
was the intent. 
     There is no doubt this is a case of going too far in applying the
law. Yes, the child should be punished for the act, if he was the one
who committed it. He was suspended from school for five days, which I
think is also harsh. I would have gone with two days in school
suspension, but my opinion wasn't asked.
     Yes, the act was and is a felony. But let's be realistic. One of
the elements of a crime is intent. Proving the child held the intent
to commit assault and/or battery... I don't see it.
     As of the time I write this, I've not found what became of the
case.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268559

Am 27.09.2015 12:36, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:47:11 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi NG
>>
>> here I found another article worth reading:
>>
>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/medicating-childhood-an-american-zombie-apocalypse/
>>
>
>       Basing a position on claims presented at a k00k site may not be
> the best idea.
>
>> Its about 'medicated childhood'.
>>
>> There are certain behaviours that children usually have (like playing),
>> what are regarded as 'disease' and medicated.
>>
>
>       No one, within the United States, considers childhood play to be
> a disease.
>
>> This is certainly evil blunder, but it is also difficult to understand,
>> what these people have in mind.
>>
>> First: psycho-active drugs are means of last resort and should not be
>> applied to children, if possible.
>>
>> Second: children play! That's what children do - usually. So how could
>> there be any kind of disease diagnosed if kids show such a habit?
>>
>
>       Simply playing is never viewed as a disease. At least not within
> the United States.


Its a secret war of British plutocrats against the US-middle-class, 
commonly called 'New World Order'.

A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute', 
where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.

https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/

So we have a relation of fraudulent, evil 'science', called 
psycho..-something, created by this Austrian guy, while serving those Brits.

The American branch apparently uses Ritalin (and similar drugs), to 
sedate a significant part of the American youth.

What do you want to hear about this?

Well, it's bad science, it's bad psychology and it's bad medicine.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268569

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:55:05 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 27.09.2015 12:36, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:47:11 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> here I found another article worth reading:
>>>
>>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/medicating-childhood-an-american-zombie-apocalypse/
>>
>>       Basing a position on claims presented at a k00k site may not be
>> the best idea.
>>
>>> Its about 'medicated childhood'.
>>>
>>> There are certain behaviours that children usually have (like playing),
>>> what are regarded as 'disease' and medicated.
>>
>>       No one, within the United States, considers childhood play to be
>> a disease.
>>
>>> This is certainly evil blunder, but it is also difficult to understand,
>>> what these people have in mind.
>>>
>>> First: psycho-active drugs are means of last resort and should not be
>>> applied to children, if possible.
>>>
>>> Second: children play! That's what children do - usually. So how could
>>> there be any kind of disease diagnosed if kids show such a habit?
>>
>>       Simply playing is never viewed as a disease. At least not within
>> the United States.
>
>
>Its a secret war of British plutocrats against the US-middle-class, 
>commonly called 'New World Order'.
>

     There is no such thing as the New World Order. Not yet, anyway.
It is possible there will be such in the future.

>A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute', 
>where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>
>https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>

     Have you got anything credible? Using a k00k site for your
evidence doesn't work.

>So we have a relation of fraudulent, evil 'science', called 
>psycho..-something, created by this Austrian guy, while serving those Brits.
>

     The field of psychoanalysis is widely accepted.

>The American branch apparently uses Ritalin (and similar drugs), to 
>sedate a significant part of the American youth.
>

     For those children (it doesn't work on adults) who actually have
hyperactivity, such medications work.

>What do you want to hear about this?
>

     The truth would be nice, but with you, that's rarely possible.

>Well, it's bad science, it's bad psychology and it's bad medicine.
>

     And your expertise on the subject derives from..?

     You failed to address the remainder of my post. Since you didn't
indicate you were snipping, you must fear some truth found within it.
     Here it is again so that you can experience that fear once more.

[BEGIN C&P]

>Third: legal punishment is not applicable to children under a certain 
>age. In Germany we have 14 years as such a limit and have real problems 
>to understand, how kids could been thrown into jail for throwing a snow 
>ball.

     In the U.S., each state sets their "Age of Accountability." 
     The article mentions a 13 year old. "...a Chicago thirteen year
old now faces multiple adult felonies..."
     A search find that he threw a snowball at a police officer and
that he was charged as a juvenile. The prosecutor's office never
sought to try him as an adult, so the claim of adult felonies is a
lie.
     The child claims he's not the one who did it. Regardless as to
who actually threw the snowball, it's unlikely assault and/or battery
was the intent. 
     There is no doubt this is a case of going too far in applying the
law. Yes, the child should be punished for the act, if he was the one
who committed it. He was suspended from school for five days, which I
think is also harsh. I would have gone with two days in school
suspension, but my opinion wasn't asked.
     Yes, the act was and is a felony. But let's be realistic. One of
the elements of a crime is intent. Proving the child held the intent
to commit assault and/or battery... I don't see it.
     As of the time I write this, I've not found what became of the
case.

[END C&P]

     What scares you about the above text so much? Is it, as I
suspect, that you had to admit the source you used was proved a liar?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268593

Am 27.09.2015 22:59, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
..
>> Its a secret war of British plutocrats against the US-middle-class,
>> commonly called 'New World Order'.
>>
>
>       There is no such thing as the New World Order. Not yet, anyway.
> It is possible there will be such in the future.
>
>> A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute',
>> where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>>
>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>>
>
>       Have you got anything credible? Using a k00k site for your
> evidence doesn't work.
>
>> So we have a relation of fraudulent, evil 'science', called
>> psycho..-something, created by this Austrian guy, while serving those Brits.
>>
>
>       The field of psychoanalysis is widely accepted.


I don't like Freud (or 'Freudians'), because I don't like his style of 
therapy.

E.g. he put people on a sofa, covered with old carpets.

I regard this as explicitly disgusting practise and do not understand, 
why Freud did that.

He also used to 'sexualise' mental malfunctions, what I regard as plain 
wrong.

The carpets are bad, because you cant hardly find a thing containing 
more dirt than old carpets. And you simply don't don't lay down on such 
pieces, unless they are carefully washed (after each use, of course).

So Freud did in fact practise some sort of 'sex-voodoo' and called that 
therapy.


>> The American branch apparently uses Ritalin (and similar drugs), to
>> sedate a significant part of the American youth.
>>
>
>       For those children (it doesn't work on adults) who actually have
> hyperactivity, such medications work.


In comparison to usual adults kids are always hyperactive. This is 
'relativity' and you should compare kids to other kids of that age, not 
to adults.

So 'hyperactive' for a -say- boy of seven years, would be a least double 
the activity than other boys of that age. And that would be 
inconceivable fast for usual adults.

But even this would  not be a fault or something to worry about.

The opposite is something to worry: too low activity and too little energy.

>> What do you want to hear about this?
>>
>
>       The truth would be nice, but with you, that's rarely possible.

I am not a person involved in medicine or psycho-somethings. So you may 
have my opinions about various subjects, but I would not regard this as 
'truth'.

'Truth' is, by the nature of the term, very hard to achieve. It actually 
means a positive statement, that is universally valid.

This would require certain tests and that a lot of personal and other 
resources. Since I'm a single person with little resources, I cannot 
provide such tests and can only deliver, what I think is true.

So you better think about my statements as opinion.

>       You failed to address the remainder of my post. Since you didn't
> indicate you were snipping, you must fear some truth found within it.
>       Here it is again so that you can experience that fear once more.
..
>       What scares you about the above text so much? Is it, as I
> suspect, that you had to admit the source you used was proved a liar?

It's my decision, what I write, not yours.

So I may quote some parts of previous posts, by I'm not obliged to do so.

In the case I'm not quoting something, this is not a statement against 
such a piece of text. But if I have nothing to say about it or not wish 
to write or if I'm simply too lazy, I don't do.

And if I don't write a bout a subject, I also don't need a quote of what 
I don't write about.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268602

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:56:39 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 27.09.2015 22:59, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>> Its a secret war of British plutocrats against the US-middle-class,
>>> commonly called 'New World Order'.
>>>
>>
>>       There is no such thing as the New World Order. Not yet, anyway.
>> It is possible there will be such in the future.
>>
>>> A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute',
>>> where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>>>
>>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>>>
>>
>>       Have you got anything credible? Using a k00k site for your
>> evidence doesn't work.
>>
>>> So we have a relation of fraudulent, evil 'science', called
>>> psycho..-something, created by this Austrian guy, while serving those Brits.
>>>
>>
>>       The field of psychoanalysis is widely accepted.
>
>
>I don't like Freud (or 'Freudians'), because I don't like his style of 
>therapy.
>

     Not liking it is fine, but that you don't like it does not make
it fraudulent or evil.

>E.g. he put people on a sofa, covered with old carpets.
>

     Only one had a Persian rug on it. I've not seen anything to
indicate people were allowed on the sofa.

>I regard this as explicitly disgusting practise and do not understand, 
>why Freud did that.

     Since his doing so is likely something you made up, you would
have to understand. You will be the only one who can.

>
>He also used to 'sexualise' mental malfunctions, what I regard as plain 
>wrong.

     And your expertise comes from..?

>
>The carpets are bad, because you cant hardly find a thing containing 
>more dirt than old carpets. And you simply don't don't lay down on such 
>pieces, unless they are carefully washed (after each use, of course).
>

     Since when?

>So Freud did in fact practise some sort of 'sex-voodoo' and called that 
>therapy.
>

     I eagerly await the opportunity to read the paper you will have
written to explain this.

>
>>> The American branch apparently uses Ritalin (and similar drugs), to
>>> sedate a significant part of the American youth.
>>
>>       For those children (it doesn't work on adults) who actually have
>> hyperactivity, such medications work.
>
>In comparison to usual adults kids are always hyperactive. This is 
>'relativity' and you should compare kids to other kids of that age, not 
>to adults.

     It is very fortunate no one compares hyperactive children to
adults then.

>
>So 'hyperactive' for a -say- boy of seven years, would be a least double 
>the activity than other boys of that age. And that would be 
>inconceivable fast for usual adults.
>

     Again, adults are not used for comparison.
     I'd ask for evidence of your claim that they are, but you'll not
offer any.

>But even this would  not be a fault or something to worry about.
>
>The opposite is something to worry: too low activity and too little energy.
>

     Being excessively lethargic would be a point of concern as well.

>>> What do you want to hear about this?
>>
>>       The truth would be nice, but with you, that's rarely possible.
>
>I am not a person involved in medicine or psycho-somethings. So you may 
>have my opinions about various subjects, but I would not regard this as 
>'truth'.
>

     Yet you always present your opinions, guesses and assumptions as
established facts. Only when proved wrong do you claim they are not
facts.

>'Truth' is, by the nature of the term, very hard to achieve. It actually 
>means a positive statement, that is universally valid.
>
>This would require certain tests and that a lot of personal and other 
>resources. Since I'm a single person with little resources, I cannot 
>provide such tests and can only deliver, what I think is true.
>
>So you better think about my statements as opinion.
>

     Why did you present them as fact? Why do you always present such
things as facts until you're proved wrong?

>>       You failed to address the remainder of my post. Since you didn't
>> indicate you were snipping, you must fear some truth found within it.
>>       Here it is again so that you can experience that fear once more.
>..
>>       What scares you about the above text so much? Is it, as I
>> suspect, that you had to admit the source you used was proved a liar?
>
>It's my decision, what I write, not yours.
>

     Yes. But you consistently use dishonesty in what you write.

>So I may quote some parts of previous posts, by I'm not obliged to do so.
>

     Of course not. But when you delete it without even acknowledging
you've done so, it's very dishonest. But then, you do have problems
with being honest.

>In the case I'm not quoting something, this is not a statement against 
>such a piece of text. But if I have nothing to say about it or not wish 
>to write or if I'm simply too lazy, I don't do.
>
>And if I don't write a bout a subject, I also don't need a quote of what 
>I don't write about.

     But to simply delete it without pointing out you've done so is
dishonest. It indicates there is something you fear about the text.
     What do you fear about the text, or were you simply being
dishonest?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268645

Am 28.09.2015 10:35, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

...
>>>
>>>        There is no such thing as the New World Order. Not yet, anyway.
>>> It is possible there will be such in the future.
>>>
>>>> A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute',
>>>> where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>>>>
>>>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>>>>
>>>
>>>        Have you got anything credible? Using a k00k site for your
>>> evidence doesn't work.
>>>
>>>> So we have a relation of fraudulent, evil 'science', called
>>>> psycho..-something, created by this Austrian guy, while serving those Brits.
>>>>
>>>
>>>        The field of psychoanalysis is widely accepted.
>>
>>
>> I don't like Freud (or 'Freudians'), because I don't like his style of
>> therapy.
>>
>
>       Not liking it is fine, but that you don't like it does not make
> it fraudulent or evil.


So: what has Sigmund Freud done, actually, at the Tavistock Institute?

He was apparently director of this institute and that institute is 
regarded as 'mother of all evil' (or similar) among 'troofers'...

So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this 
(apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.

>> E.g. he put people on a sofa, covered with old carpets.
>>
>
>       Only one had a Persian rug on it. I've not seen anything to
> indicate people were allowed on the sofa.
>
>> I regard this as explicitly disgusting practise and do not understand,
>> why Freud did that.
>
>       Since his doing so is likely something you made up, you would
> have to understand. You will be the only one who can.


I'm certainly not an expert in psycho-analysis, but I thought, that is 
common knowledge, that Freud put rugs on these sofas, where he treated 
mental illnesses.

Maybe he didn't. But actually I have heard he did.

>>
>> He also used to 'sexualise' mental malfunctions, what I regard as plain
>> wrong.
>
>       And your expertise comes from..?

He wrote several books and I have read a few.

>>
>> The carpets are bad, because you cant hardly find a thing containing
>> more dirt than old carpets. And you simply don't don't lay down on such
>> pieces, unless they are carefully washed (after each use, of course).
>>
>
>       Since when?

That's my personal experience. Carpets, especially oriental rugs, are 
real 'dirt magnets'.

You don't get the dirt out with a vacuum cleaner, but need to wash the 
rugs. Modern machines can actually do this. Or you throw the rugs into 
the bath-tub.

What you see, that is a LOT of dirt, coming out of such a piece.

>> So Freud did in fact practise some sort of 'sex-voodoo' and called that
>> therapy.
>>
>
>       I eagerly await the opportunity to read the paper you will have
> written to explain this.

I certainly do not plan to write something about Freud (besides such 
posts here).

>>
>>>> The American branch apparently uses Ritalin (and similar drugs), to
>>>> sedate a significant part of the American youth.
>>>
>>>        For those children (it doesn't work on adults) who actually have
>>> hyperactivity, such medications work.
>>
>> In comparison to usual adults kids are always hyperactive. This is
>> 'relativity' and you should compare kids to other kids of that age, not
>> to adults.
>
>       It is very fortunate no one compares hyperactive children to
> adults then.
>
>>
>> So 'hyperactive' for a -say- boy of seven years, would be a least double
>> the activity than other boys of that age. And that would be
>> inconceivable fast for usual adults.
>>
>
>       Again, adults are not used for comparison.
>       I'd ask for evidence of your claim that they are, but you'll not
> offer any.


This stems from the article I have quoted in the OP.

Maybe it's all wrong and no such thing as overmedication of kids exists. 
But actually I have heard so from other sources and thought, it is 
common knowledge, that a quarter of the US-schoolkids are on Ritalin (or 
similar drugs).

>> But even this would  not be a fault or something to worry about.
>>
>> The opposite is something to worry: too low activity and too little energy.
>>
>
>       Being excessively lethargic would be a point of concern as well.
>
>>>> What do you want to hear about this?
>>>
>>>        The truth would be nice, but with you, that's rarely possible.
>>
>> I am not a person involved in medicine or psycho-somethings. So you may
>> have my opinions about various subjects, but I would not regard this as
>> 'truth'.
>>
>
>       Yet you always present your opinions, guesses and assumptions as
> established facts. Only when proved wrong do you claim they are not
> facts.


I claim, they are facts, since I think they are. But this doesn't 
necessarily mean, what I think is true.

So if you think, my claims are wrong, you say they are wrong, even if 
you don't know for certain.

Certainty is hard to achieve. In most cases it requires to make 
experiments yourself. And that's what I can't do.

So we have hearsay on both sides and do not really know, what is true 
and what is not.

Usually I would expect truth somewhere in the middle.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268655

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:35:51 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 28.09.2015 10:35, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>...
>>>>        There is no such thing as the New World Order. Not yet, anyway.
>>>> It is possible there will be such in the future.
>>>>
>>>>> A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute',
>>>>> where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>>>>
>>>>        Have you got anything credible? Using a k00k site for your
>>>> evidence doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>>> So we have a relation of fraudulent, evil 'science', called
>>>>> psycho..-something, created by this Austrian guy, while serving those Brits.
>>>>
>>>>        The field of psychoanalysis is widely accepted.
>>>
>>> I don't like Freud (or 'Freudians'), because I don't like his style of
>>> therapy.
>>
>>       Not liking it is fine, but that you don't like it does not make
>> it fraudulent or evil.
>
>So: what has Sigmund Freud done, actually, at the Tavistock Institute?
>

     As far as I am aware, he was the director. What does this have to
do with your outlandish claims about the man?

>He was apparently director of this institute and that institute is 
>regarded as 'mother of all evil' (or similar) among 'troofers'...
>

     I don't see the connection between Tavistock and 9/11.

>So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this 
>(apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>

     There is no NWO. Honest.

>>> E.g. he put people on a sofa, covered with old carpets.
>>
>>       Only one had a Persian rug on it. I've not seen anything to
>> indicate people were allowed on the sofa.
>>
>>> I regard this as explicitly disgusting practise and do not understand,
>>> why Freud did that.
>>
>>       Since his doing so is likely something you made up, you would
>> have to understand. You will be the only one who can.
>
>
>I'm certainly not an expert in psycho-analysis, 

     Yet make the claim that it's evil.

>but I thought, that is 
>common knowledge, that Freud put rugs on these sofas, where he treated 
>mental illnesses.
>
>Maybe he didn't. But actually I have heard he did.
>

     According to everything I've read, he covered a couch, a gift
from a patient, with a rug. The couch was what most think of when
speaking of an psychologist's or psychiatrist's couch. 

>>> He also used to 'sexualise' mental malfunctions, what I regard as plain
>>> wrong.
>>
>>       And your expertise comes from..?
>
>He wrote several books and I have read a few.
>

     That doesn't make you an expert.
     I've read many books on advanced theoretical physics. This
doesn't mean I could go "head to head" with the likes of Professor
Hawking.

>>> The carpets are bad, because you cant hardly find a thing containing
>>> more dirt than old carpets. And you simply don't don't lay down on such
>>> pieces, unless they are carefully washed (after each use, of course).
>>
>>       Since when?
>
>That's my personal experience. Carpets, especially oriental rugs, are 
>real 'dirt magnets'.
>

     If walked on, sure. But the one rug on the one couch we're
discussing wasn't walked on.

>You don't get the dirt out with a vacuum cleaner, but need to wash the 
>rugs. Modern machines can actually do this. Or you throw the rugs into 
>the bath-tub.
>
>What you see, that is a LOT of dirt, coming out of such a piece.
>

     Buy a new rug. Wash it if you wish to ensure it's clean, then
place it over a couch, chair, or other item where people can come into
contact with it, but not with their feet.
     Use your bathtub washing method after a week. You'll note it
won't be all that dirty.

>>> So Freud did in fact practise some sort of 'sex-voodoo' and called that
>>> therapy.
>>
>>       I eagerly await the opportunity to read the paper you will have
>> written to explain this.
>
>I certainly do not plan to write something about Freud (besides such 
>posts here).
>

     So you simply made up another item that you try to present as
verifiable fact. Has this deception actually worked for you at some
point?

>>>>> The American branch apparently uses Ritalin (and similar drugs), to
>>>>> sedate a significant part of the American youth.
>>>>
>>>>        For those children (it doesn't work on adults) who actually have
>>>> hyperactivity, such medications work.
>>>
>>> In comparison to usual adults kids are always hyperactive. This is
>>> 'relativity' and you should compare kids to other kids of that age, not
>>> to adults.
>>
>>       It is very fortunate no one compares hyperactive children to
>> adults then.
>>
>>> So 'hyperactive' for a -say- boy of seven years, would be a least double
>>> the activity than other boys of that age. And that would be
>>> inconceivable fast for usual adults.
>>
>>       Again, adults are not used for comparison.
>>       I'd ask for evidence of your claim that they are, but you'll not
>> offer any.
>
>
>This stems from the article I have quoted in the OP.
>

     You cited https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/. That's a k00k site.
While the claims presented may be entertaining, they are not based in
reality.

>Maybe it's all wrong and no such thing as overmedication of kids exists. 
>But actually I have heard so from other sources and thought, it is 
>common knowledge, that a quarter of the US-schoolkids are on Ritalin (or 
>similar drugs).
>

     I await your CREDIBLE cite. 

>>> But even this would  not be a fault or something to worry about.
>>>
>>> The opposite is something to worry: too low activity and too little energy.
>>
>>       Being excessively lethargic would be a point of concern as well.
>>
>>>>> What do you want to hear about this?
>>>>
>>>>        The truth would be nice, but with you, that's rarely possible.
>>>
>>> I am not a person involved in medicine or psycho-somethings. So you may
>>> have my opinions about various subjects, but I would not regard this as
>>> 'truth'.
>>
>>       Yet you always present your opinions, guesses and assumptions as
>> established facts. Only when proved wrong do you claim they are not
>> facts.
>
>
>I claim, they are facts, since I think they are. But this doesn't 
>necessarily mean, what I think is true.
>

     Why would you present something you don't think is true as being
true? Where is the logic in such an act?

>So if you think, my claims are wrong, you say they are wrong, even if 
>you don't know for certain.
>

     I'm certain that if you make a claim, it's wrong.

>Certainty is hard to achieve. In most cases it requires to make 
>experiments yourself. And that's what I can't do.
>

     You can rely on the experiments of others. 

>So we have hearsay on both sides and do not really know, what is true 
>and what is not.
>

     But we can know. That you would rather live a life where there is
some vast conspiracy doesn't mean the truth can't be known. It means
you don't want to accept it.

>Usually I would expect truth somewhere in the middle.
>

     It is rare that truth is an absolute, but there is more plausible
and less plausible aspects of it. You gravitate to the less plausible.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268709

Am 29.09.2015 11:43, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>>>> A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute',
>>>>>> where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>>>>>
...

>>>
>>>        Not liking it is fine, but that you don't like it does not make
>>> it fraudulent or evil.
>>
>> So: what has Sigmund Freud done, actually, at the Tavistock Institute?
>>
>
>       As far as I am aware, he was the director. What does this have to
> do with your outlandish claims about the man?
>
>> He was apparently director of this institute and that institute is
>> regarded as 'mother of all evil' (or similar) among 'troofers'...
>>
>
>       I don't see the connection between Tavistock and 9/11.
>
>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>
>
>       There is no NWO. Honest.

This is possibly a valid statement.

But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.

E.g. I assume, that the Tavistock Institute fabricated booklets, that 
are commonly known as 'Hitler diaries'.

This is in fact wrong. Instead they are written 'scripts', the actors in 
charge (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and others) had to carry out.

There was an author from New Zealand named Greg Hallet, who wrote 
several books about this and claimed, that both (Stalin and Hitler) have 
been trained at the Tavistock Institute (which then was called 'Freud 
Hilton' -after its director Sigmund Freud).

http://www.greghallett.com/pages/Hitler-war-ein-Britischer-Agent.html
http://www.greghallett.com/pages/Stalins-British-Training.html

This director is the in the focus of critique about the atrocities 
committed by them (Stalin and Hitler).


..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268725

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:06:07 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 29.09.2015 11:43, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> A central institution seems to be the  so called 'Tavistock Institute',
>>>>>>> where Sigmund Freud conducted his experiments on British soldiers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/tavistock-institute-the-best-kept-secret-in-america/
>...
>
>>>>        Not liking it is fine, but that you don't like it does not make
>>>> it fraudulent or evil.
>>>
>>> So: what has Sigmund Freud done, actually, at the Tavistock Institute?
>>
>>       As far as I am aware, he was the director. What does this have to
>> do with your outlandish claims about the man?
>>


Thomas?


>>> He was apparently director of this institute and that institute is
>>> regarded as 'mother of all evil' (or similar) among 'troofers'...
>>
>>       I don't see the connection between Tavistock and 9/11.
>>


Thomas?


>>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>
>>       There is no NWO. Honest.
>
>This is possibly a valid statement.
>

     Until someone can provide valid, verifiable evidence, it is a
valid statement.

>But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.
>

     Your obsession with Tavistock is beginning to worry me.

>E.g. I assume, 

     Once again, your assumptions mean nothing.

[Snip the remainder of your baseless assumptions]

     Stick with verifiable facts.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268760

Am 30.09.2015 11:24, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
..
>
>>>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>>>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>>
>>>        There is no NWO. Honest.
>>
>> This is possibly a valid statement.
>>
>
>       Until someone can provide valid, verifiable evidence, it is a
> valid statement.
>
>> But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.
>>
>
>       Your obsession with Tavistock is beginning to worry me.
>

Actually this institute is not that important. It is apparently a 
'front' of MI6 and is regarded as 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order'.

This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with 
NWO (possibly).

But also Sigmund Freud  is involved into something at least questionable.

Why? Well, he was the director of that institute.

But I didn't like Freud anyhow and especially dislike what he had to say 
about the human mind.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268829

Am 30.09.2015 20:58, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>>>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>>>>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>>>
>>>> There is no NWO. Honest.
>>>
>>> This is possibly a valid statement.
>>>
>>
>> Until someone can provide valid, verifiable evidence, it is a
>> valid statement.
>>
>>> But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.
>>>
>>
>> Your obsession with Tavistock is beginning to worry me.
>>
>
> Actually this institute is not that important. It is apparently a
> 'front' of MI6 and is regarded as 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order'.
>
> This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with
> NWO (possibly).
>
> But also Sigmund Freud is involved into something at least questionable.
>
> Why? Well, he was the director of that institute.
>
> But I didn't like Freud anyhow and especially dislike what he had to say
> about the human mind.
>
Freud was also responsible for the treatment of British soldiers, that 
suffered from 'shell-shock'.

The treatment was mainly by electro-shocks, since they assumed 
unwillingness to fight (an die) for their plutocrats.

This treatment alone (what Freud was personally responsible for) was 
VERY questionable, to say the least.

He apparently was also responsible for drug-related experiments and the 
creation of mass-manipulation techniques.

But possibly he was also involved in other clandestine activities of 
that institute and that would be an issue of concern, even today.

So its not only the rugs in his slimy 'therapy' what I regard as 
disgusting.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268854

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:58:07 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 30.09.2015 11:24, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>
>>>>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>>>>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>>>
>>>>        There is no NWO. Honest.
>>>
>>> This is possibly a valid statement.
>>
>>       Until someone can provide valid, verifiable evidence, it is a
>> valid statement.
>>
>>> But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.
>>
>>       Your obsession with Tavistock is beginning to worry me.
>
>Actually this institute is not that important. 

     You mention it frequently.

>It is apparently a 
>'front' of MI6 and is regarded as 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order'.
>

     I have yet to see any evidence to support your position.

>This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with 
>NWO (possibly).
>

     There is no NWO. Honest.

>But also Sigmund Freud  is involved into something at least questionable.

     Unlikely. He died in 1939.

>
>Why? Well, he was the director of that institute.
>
>But I didn't like Freud anyhow and especially dislike what he had to say 
>about the human mind.

     What, specifically, about his theories do you not like?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268992

Am 01.10.2015 11:46, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>
>>>>>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>>>>>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>>>>
>>>>>         There is no NWO. Honest.
>>>>
>>>> This is possibly a valid statement.
>>>
>>>        Until someone can provide valid, verifiable evidence, it is a
>>> valid statement.
>>>
>>>> But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.
>>>
>>>        Your obsession with Tavistock is beginning to worry me.
>>
>> Actually this institute is not that important.
>
>       You mention it frequently.
>
>> It is apparently a
>> 'front' of MI6 and is regarded as 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order'.
>>
>
>       I have yet to see any evidence to support your position.
>
>> This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with
>> NWO (possibly).
>>
>
>       There is no NWO. Honest.
>
>> But also Sigmund Freud  is involved into something at least questionable.
>
>       Unlikely. He died in 1939.
>

https://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/the-science-of-mass-manipulation-through-crisis-creation-%E2%80%93-new-world-order-tavistock-the-fabian-society-nato/

Quote:

"

The Club of Rome works with Tavistock to create propaganda and crisis in 
order to manipulate the world’s population in a pre-determined 
direction, toward a collectivist, one world socialistic dictatorship."


This is quite exactly, what is assumed to be the agenda of the so called 
New World Order/Illuminati.

And that is exactly, what people around the globe worry about.

Especially the people of Germany, Russia and the USA are getting more 
and more angry about this cabal.

The majority of the population does certainly have no idea about this 
subject.

But a significant minority has.

This is like a leaking dam. Once you see it dripping, you know the dam 
will break. This is only a question of time.

This is so, because distribution of knowledge follows an exponential 
function. The long lasting development does not look very impressive. 
But once you see it, the curve is on the rise.


>> Why? Well, he was the director of that institute.
>>
>> But I didn't like Freud anyhow and especially dislike what he had to say
>> about the human mind.
>
>       What, specifically, about his theories do you not like?

He suggests, that certain behaviour in later life is a result of early 
trauma.

But this is not necessarily so. Actually the person develops also in 
adult age and is able to heal certain 'mental scars'.

Helpful is a healthy life: no drugs, good food, some sort of positive 
relationship, clean household,  a few friends, moderate sports and so 
forth.

This will reduce stress and let the body help to cure injuries. This 
could actually be mental 'injuries'.

Than we have questions of the type 'right or wrong' or 'good vs. bad':
If you do good things for yourself, you are later also able to do good 
work for the society. But if you harm yourself, you will be a burden for 
your environment.

There are also personal relations of relevance, since 'madness is 
infectious'. I mean: if you live among nutcases, you sooner or later 
develop strange habits.

 From this we could draw the conclusion, that being selective about the 
people in vicinity could be helpful to the mind.

So in case of problems with mental illness, it is better to cure the 
current and future life, rather than the past.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268996

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 06:56:34 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 01.10.2015 11:46, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>
>>>>>>> So Freud is a main person of critique, if you try to criticise this
>>>>>>> (apparent) 'NWO conspiracy'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         There is no NWO. Honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is possibly a valid statement.
>>>>
>>>>        Until someone can provide valid, verifiable evidence, it is a
>>>> valid statement.
>>>>
>>>>> But the Tavistock Institute did several other things of mayor concern.
>>>>
>>>>        Your obsession with Tavistock is beginning to worry me.
>>>
>>> Actually this institute is not that important.
>>
>>       You mention it frequently.
>>
>>> It is apparently a
>>> 'front' of MI6 and is regarded as 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order'.
>>
>>       I have yet to see any evidence to support your position.
>>
>>> This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with
>>> NWO (possibly).
>>
>>       There is no NWO. Honest.
>>
>>> But also Sigmund Freud  is involved into something at least questionable.
>>
>>       Unlikely. He died in 1939.
>
>https://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/the-science-of-mass-manipulation-through-crisis-creation-%E2%80%93-new-world-order-tavistock-the-fabian-society-nato/
>
>Quote:
>
>"
>
>The Club of Rome works with Tavistock to create propaganda and crisis in 
>order to manipulate the world’s population in a pre-determined 
>direction, toward a collectivist, one world socialistic dictatorship."
>
>
>This is quite exactly, what is assumed

[...]

     Assumptions mean nothing. 
     Freud is dead and, contrary to your claim above, is not involved
in anything. Let alone anything questionable.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269037

Am 03.10.2015 10:48, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>> This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with
>>>> NWO (possibly).
>>>
>>>        There is no NWO. Honest.
>>>
>>>> But also Sigmund Freud  is involved into something at least questionable.
>>>
>>>        Unlikely. He died in 1939.
>>
>> https://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/the-science-of-mass-manipulation-through-crisis-creation-%E2%80%93-new-world-order-tavistock-the-fabian-society-nato/
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> "
>>
>> The Club of Rome works with Tavistock to create propaganda and crisis in
>> order to manipulate the world’s population in a pre-determined
>> direction, toward a collectivist, one world socialistic dictatorship."
>>
>>
>> This is quite exactly, what is assumed
>
> [...]
>
>       Assumptions mean nothing.
>       Freud is dead and, contrary to your claim above, is not involved
> in anything. Let alone anything questionable.
>

Freud was a pioneer of psychology. It is more like he invented it, than 
he participated.

His personal contribution is called 'psychoanalysis'. That was Freud's 
'psycho-method'.

Now the question is: what is the intention of this method?

The method is known for extremely long lasting cures of very uncertain 
success.

Apparently 'success' is a relative term and success for Freud was not 
necessarily success for his patients.

But this violates fundamental ethics of medicine, since who is 
practising medicine has to do it for and in service of the patient. This 
means, that only the patient defines, what is good practise in medicine 
(by success in respect to his illness).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269041

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 04:50:24 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 03.10.2015 10:48, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>> This would suggest, that British intelligence has something to do with
>>>>> NWO (possibly).
>>>>
>>>>        There is no NWO. Honest.
>>>>
>>>>> But also Sigmund Freud  is involved into something at least questionable.
>>>>
>>>>        Unlikely. He died in 1939.
>>>
>>> https://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/the-science-of-mass-manipulation-through-crisis-creation-%E2%80%93-new-world-order-tavistock-the-fabian-society-nato/
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>> The Club of Rome works with Tavistock to create propaganda and crisis in
>>> order to manipulate the world’s population in a pre-determined
>>> direction, toward a collectivist, one world socialistic dictatorship."
>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite exactly, what is assumed
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>       Assumptions mean nothing.
>>       Freud is dead and, contrary to your claim above, is not involved
>> in anything. Let alone anything questionable.
>
>Freud was a pioneer of psychology. It is more like he invented it, than 
>he participated.
>
>His personal contribution is called 'psychoanalysis'. That was Freud's 
>'psycho-method'.
>
>Now the question is: what is the intention of this method?
>

     No, the question is; Why did you claim he is, present tense,
"involved into something at least questionable" when he's dead and
can't be involved in anything? 

>The method is known for extremely long lasting cures of very uncertain 
>success.
>
>Apparently 'success' is a relative term and success for Freud was not 
>necessarily success for his patients.
>
>But this violates fundamental ethics of medicine, since who is 
>practising medicine has to do it for and in service of the patient. This 
>means, that only the patient defines, what is good practise in medicine 
>(by success in respect to his illness).

     I'm going to guess a Freudian analysis concluded you're mentally
ill and you harbor resentment about it. Am I right?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269102

Am 04.10.2015 11:02, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
...
>>>        Freud is dead and, contrary to your claim above, is not involved
>>> in anything. Let alone anything questionable.
>>
>> Freud was a pioneer of psychology. It is more like he invented it, than
>> he participated.
>>
>> His personal contribution is called 'psychoanalysis'. That was Freud's
>> 'psycho-method'.
>>
>> Now the question is: what is the intention of this method?
>>
>
>       No, the question is; Why did you claim he is, present tense,
> "involved into something at least questionable" when he's dead and
> can't be involved in anything?
>
>> The method is known for extremely long lasting cures of very uncertain
>> success.
>>
>> Apparently 'success' is a relative term and success for Freud was not
>> necessarily success for his patients.
>>
>> But this violates fundamental ethics of medicine, since who is
>> practising medicine has to do it for and in service of the patient. This
>> means, that only the patient defines, what is good practise in medicine
>> (by success in respect to his illness).
>
>       I'm going to guess a Freudian analysis concluded you're mentally
> ill and you harbor resentment about it. Am I right?
>

What would you think, why Freud tries to analyse the mind (instead of 
curing the personality)?

He held the (bogus) assumption, that eliminating the cause would 
eliminate its effect.

Only: this is not true, since the cause existed once in time and the 
effects occurred from this cause and are then there (independent of its 
cause).

E.g. you cut your finger with a knife. Than the injury remains, even if 
you throw away the knife.

So finding the reason for some kind of early trauma might be necessary 
for a successful cure, but is not the cure.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269109

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:48:47 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 04.10.2015 11:02, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>...
>>>>        Freud is dead and, contrary to your claim above, is not involved
>>>> in anything. Let alone anything questionable.
>>>
>>> Freud was a pioneer of psychology. It is more like he invented it, than
>>> he participated.
>>>
>>> His personal contribution is called 'psychoanalysis'. That was Freud's
>>> 'psycho-method'.
>>>
>>> Now the question is: what is the intention of this method?
>>>
>>
>>       No, the question is; Why did you claim he is, present tense,
>> "involved into something at least questionable" when he's dead and
>> can't be involved in anything?
>>
>>> The method is known for extremely long lasting cures of very uncertain
>>> success.
>>>
>>> Apparently 'success' is a relative term and success for Freud was not
>>> necessarily success for his patients.
>>>
>>> But this violates fundamental ethics of medicine, since who is
>>> practising medicine has to do it for and in service of the patient. This
>>> means, that only the patient defines, what is good practise in medicine
>>> (by success in respect to his illness).
>>
>>       I'm going to guess a Freudian analysis concluded you're mentally
>> ill and you harbor resentment about it. Am I right?
>
>What would you think, why Freud tries to analyse the mind (instead of 
>curing the personality)?
>

     One can't be treated, or cured, until the ailment is known.

>He held the (bogus) assumption, that eliminating the cause would 
>eliminate its effect.
>

     Um, if the cause is eliminated, any effects from that cause would
also be eliminated.

>Only: this is not true, since the cause existed once in time and the 
>effects occurred from this cause and are then there (independent of its 
>cause).
>

     Any effect must have a cause.

>E.g. you cut your finger with a knife. Than the injury remains, even if 
>you throw away the knife.
>

     And the injury heals.

>So finding the reason for some kind of early trauma might be necessary 
>for a successful cure, but is not the cure.

     Nor does Freudian psychology claim it is. It can, however, lead
to a means to the cure.
     Take an Intro to Psych course. You'll learn something.
     Are you going to answer the question I asked?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269196

Am 05.10.2015 10:40, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:48:47 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 04.10.2015 11:02, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>> ...
>>>>>         Freud is dead and, contrary to your claim above, is not involved
>>>>> in anything. Let alone anything questionable.
>>>>
>>>> Freud was a pioneer of psychology. It is more like he invented it, than
>>>> he participated.
>>>>
>>>> His personal contribution is called 'psychoanalysis'. That was Freud's
>>>> 'psycho-method'.
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is: what is the intention of this method?
>>>>
>>>
>>>        No, the question is; Why did you claim he is, present tense,
>>> "involved into something at least questionable" when he's dead and
>>> can't be involved in anything?
>>>
>>>> The method is known for extremely long lasting cures of very uncertain
>>>> success.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently 'success' is a relative term and success for Freud was not
>>>> necessarily success for his patients.
>>>>
>>>> But this violates fundamental ethics of medicine, since who is
>>>> practising medicine has to do it for and in service of the patient. This
>>>> means, that only the patient defines, what is good practise in medicine
>>>> (by success in respect to his illness).
>>>
>>>        I'm going to guess a Freudian analysis concluded you're mentally
>>> ill and you harbor resentment about it. Am I right?
>>
>> What would you think, why Freud tries to analyse the mind (instead of
>> curing the personality)?
>>
>
>       One can't be treated, or cured, until the ailment is known.


Psychoanalysis is not based on the analysis of the staus quo, but tries 
to find early trauma and analyse that.

'Ailment' refers to the current situation. In case of mental problems we 
would expect, the doctor examines the patient and ask him about his 
problems.

But Freud regarded the analysis as a cure.

In my eyes this is way to backward oriented.

Instead it is useful to enhance the patients life in general, what would 
have positive effects on the mind, too.

So a patient should try to eliminate harmful habits, to become less 
self-destructive. Also bad influences from the environment should be 
reduced.

Positive feedback, that stems from physical exercises, useful work, 
better food or even cleaner clothes could be a means to stabilise and 
enhance the mental functions.

The analysis of early trauma may actually do more harm then benefit (my 
opinion). But since I'm not a psychologist I don't really know, what 
method is actually the best.


>> He held the (bogus) assumption, that eliminating the cause would
>> eliminate its effect.
>>
>
>       Um, if the cause is eliminated, any effects from that cause would
> also be eliminated.

Only if the cause is removed before the accident occurs. Later removal 
has no effect.

>> Only: this is not true, since the cause existed once in time and the
>> effects occurred from this cause and are then there (independent of its
>> cause).
>>
>
>       Any effect must have a cause.


This is a very theoretical statement. To some degree it is true,  but 
there are also effects that (seemingly) have no cause.

Most events has also a multitude of causes.

In fact it is a question of a definition, what we call 'event'.

If we have something very unpleasant, like a mortal accident, than we 
like to call this an event and search for its cause.

But if this accident did not occur we have almost the same stream of 
things happening, but not this event. Instead we have others.

The accident is only an event, because it is a spike of unwanted-ness 
and it's unique.

And it does not have a single cause, but is embedded in an array of 
adjacent events and caused by a multitude of influences.

And certain of these influences have no identifialble other causes and 
seem to come out of nowhere.

>> E.g. you cut your finger with a knife. Than the injury remains, even if
>> you throw away the knife.
>>
>
>       And the injury heals.

The injuries are independent of their causes, once they are there. So 
eliminating causes afterwards has no effect.

>> So finding the reason for some kind of early trauma might be necessary
>> for a successful cure, but is not the cure.
>
>       Nor does Freudian psychology claim it is. It can, however, lead
> to a means to the cure.

Freud used certain techniques of subconscious manipulation.

This is e.g.  the sofa and the rug, the position of the psychoanalyst 
(invisible behind the patient).

This is way too much 'Voodoo' for my taste.

The method is more like brainwashing, rather than it seems to attempt to 
help the patient.

Fitting is also its extremely long duration and its concentration on 
random subjects, people eventually like to keep a secret.

The name 'analysis' also fits into such a questionable picture and also, 
that this method is applied to people, who are not sick.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web