Monday, December 19, 2011

The Inevitability of a Medicalized Society.

This satirical article, after a lengthy academic screed, discusses the absence of individual agency and the inevitable, holy necessity of limiting the dangerous freedom of life by using drugs or mental medical techniques to make it impossible for citizens to dissent.  Though satire, it details well the genuine trends occurring in the western military-universities to drug citizens into a peaceful, orderly death.

Aside from all the inherent horrors such a plan brings with it, which were well covered in Serenity, and which are obvious to everyone not driven so far by death as to desire the ending of all beginnings, here follows a brief, non-inclusive list of the ragnarism on display by the true believers:

1) Those who use their free will to design and implement such a program have negated the accuracy of a conclusion that free will does not exist;

2) Those who defend themselves violently from medical terrorists who are trying to drug them into complacency cannot be guilty for their actions under the "no free will" regime espoused by said medical terrorists;

3) (The more blindingly obvious) Who decides what behavior is criminal and should be prevented through the use of drugs?  Who decides which of said decisions are so flawed that they are themselves criminal and should be prevented through the use of drugs?  Wealthy white people with government connections and tenure at western military universities?

Many years ago, the AMA, the government, and public education began drugging children to control disruptive behavior.  Much as the police/military test out new weapons of death, control and torture on brown people far away before bringing them home, the AMA, and its glorious, university-educated functionaries, will soon be (already?) slipping calmatives into the adult populace to "limit dissent" by limiting living humans and the things they do.

Fight on, life.

2 comments:

  1. I don't believe it was satirical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This one suspected it was not, but suggested that in hope. All too often, as you probably know, academic screeds are so blindly insane that they are satire whether or not the author understood it at the moment of creation.

    Nonetheless, you're most likely right--this one stands corrected. Corrected, and sad. Hope remains that the author only did it as a joke. At least, it would, if Obama hadn't bought the rights to that word sometime in mid-2007.

    ReplyDelete