New Psychiatric Mental Illness – do you suffer from being O.D.D.?

Will you do what you believe to be right or conform?
Question authority or do as you are told?
Think or obey?

Below is an article I found on mental health and psychiatry. Never mind the Terrorist Act, the powers that be can also use the excuse of Mental Health to invade your privacy, life and make you do what they say. Control through government sanctioned force rather than reasoning is the order of the day!

Asking for your rights could cause you to be diagnosed as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder (another made up ‘disease’) – remember you are free to do what we tell you and don’t dare question it.  Do you suffer from O.D.D. and being unique? Maybe it’s time to fall back in line if you’re not strong enough to have an opinion.

Remember: THINK, it’s not illegal yet! Or is it…


“Though portrayed as a harmless, natural consequence of the progression of science, medicine and law, there is substantial risk that accompanies this shift in thinking. When the pseudo-science of psychiatry becomes an arm of the state, it enables abusers of state power to stigmatize and control people.

To illustrate how psychiatry is closer to social science than medical science, journalist Charley Reese used to contrast it with the actual science of neurology that studies the physical structures of the brain. He would point out how psychiatry claims to study the intangible products of the physical brain such as thought, behavior and imagination. Of these three areas, only behavior can actually be observed.

According to Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, psychiatry has consistently served as an arm of the law since its development nearly 300 years ago. Dr. Szasz claims that psychiatry provides the state with a means of dealing with those deemed inconvenient when he writes, “If we recognize that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior.”

But what the state considers a nuisance isn’t strictly limited to those with true mental defects. It also applies to individuals who, for a variety of reasons, refuse to submit unconditionally to the state’s authority or demands.

Free thinkers, constitutionalists, Oath Keepers, nonconformists, peaceful activists or resisters, and those who question authority, or practice any degree of civil disobedience, now have their very own disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition.

Modern psychiatry calls this illness Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Among the gems found within this 3-page excerpt from the DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition describing ODD and its diagnostic features: “The essential feature of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”

Those who question the wisdom of being electronically strip-searched or physically groped in order to board a commercial airline flight may now be singled out for “special attention.” Those who refuse an order to confiscate lawfully owned firearms from private citizens who have committed no crime are prime candidates for deep scrutiny of their mental health. Engaging in any form of civil disobedience, freethinking or non-conformity is an invitation to be treated as a direct threat to the authority of those in power.”  – source:

Illegal Does Not Mean Wrong; Legal Does Not Mean Right

I’m sat here looking through some banking contracts on a Sunday afternoon, traditionally a day of rest, as I need to get back to them on a couple of queries that they have not adequately answered. The solicitors keep quoting legal B.S. – allowing them to do pretty much what they want and do not care what is RIGHT.

Morally the banks are as bankrupt as they were before they took YOUR money from the Government. Why is it yours – because you and your future generation will have to pay it back from your pockets! Did you consent to this and do you think it is right? Well the banks and their lawyers will continue to do what they want, as long as people don’t stand up for their rights!

Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point Party Program, published in 1920, Nazi party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from “Aryan” society and to abrogate Jews’ political, legal, and civil rights. After their assumption of power, Jews felt the effects of more than 400 decrees and regulations that restricted all aspects of their public and private lives. (Source:

You know what a ‘solicitor/lawyer’ would argue, as they represented the country’s laws and not the human RIGHTS of a human being (that happened to be of a particular background or circumstances). If the latter was true, they would turn down unjust cases and act on the side of justice – without consideration of who was signing their paycheck. Does legalese define justice or that which is morally right?

Below is the definition of legalese and an article I found on “Illegal Does Not Mean Wrong; Legal Does Not Mean Right”

What are your views?


Legalese is an English term first used in 1914[1] for legal writing that is designed to be difficult for laymen to read and understand, the implication being that this abstruseness is deliberate for excluding the legally untrained and to justify high fees. Legalese, as a term, has been adopted in other languages.[2][3] Legalese is characterized by long sentences, many modifying clauses, complex vocabulary, high abstraction, and insensitivity to the layman’s need to understand the document’s gist.


The law states what we can and can’t do. Many people say that something is illegal because it is wrong. This is not always the case and it can sometimes become very subjective on what is right and what is wrong.

I think most Americans are very well-programmed to think in only black-and-white terms. What’s wrong is wrong and what’s right is right. It is usually accepted that what’s illegal is wrong, but that is not the case sometimes. This article lists and discusses some issues and activities that are illegal but may not be wrong. This article does not endorse illegal activity of any kind, it aims to simply challenge the reasoning behind what’s illegal.

For many people, the issue of abortion is either right or wrong. If a woman did not want kids and got pregnant, should she be allowed to have an abortion? Some would say, “If you’re ready to have sex, you should be ready to accept the fact that you may become a parent.” What do you think? What if a woman is raped, could she be allowed then? She had no control in that situation and will have to face the consequences. Roe v. Wade was the landmark case that made it legal for women to have an abortion from the 1st trimester up until certain points in the 2nd trimester, depending on the specific state. Since some states have outlawed it completely and others allow it, the moral statement of whether it’s right or wrong is skewed. We cannot rely on legality to determine whether something is right or wrong. This would be a case when someone’s beliefs would play a major role in determining whether it is wrong or right.

The California State Assembly had laid out estimates this past February (2009) that the legalization of marijuana would raise $1 billion dollars through taxes and creating thousands of green jobs. It is currently illegal in many states to smoke or have marijuana in your possession. Does that make it wrong? For years, people have claimed the medical benefits of marijuana, such as reducing nausea and vomiting as well as helping glaucoma patients. If California ends up legalizing marijuana, where would to take the argument of the “correctness” of its use for other states. If one state legalizes it, it would mean that someone has to be wrong. But they can’t have it both ways. Alcohol and tobacco kills more people a year than marijuana. Of course, many people do not use marijuana because they do not want to break the law, so the numbers are a little skewed. The point is that if other harmful products are available to American consumers, for what reason if marijuana illegal? Comedian Chris rock said that it is illegal because “it comes from brown countries and because the best marijuana is not made in America.” He goes on to say that since white people created cigarettes, they are legal, but since colored people produce marijuana, they do not want brown people to become wealthy. I do not endorse any of these opinions, but simply want to stir up people’s minds and get them thinking and talking. But more importantly, knowing their opinions and being consistent with their beliefs.

Now, of course, there are many things that are illegal and happen to be wrong, such as murder and stealing. But to declare that all things that are illegal were outlawed simply because they were wrong is not correct, although it may have been a reason. For example, drunk driving is illegal and very wrong, in my opinion. It shows very poor judgment on behalf of the drunk driver. Even worse, the other person might lose their life because of the drunk’s fault.

Something that strikes me as odd and terribly inconsistent is that people in general, including the government, believe that killing is wrong. Yet, the death penalty exists in 34 of the 50 U.S. states. If death is wrong, why is the government allowed to kill people? It sends the message that, “you can’t kill people, only we can decide who gets killed.” This helps me prove my point that the legality of an issue cannot be depended on to rule on its morality. Also, soldiers are trained to kill people. I think that the idea of death in today’s world is that only the dangerous and punished should be killed. Where I stand on that, I’m not sure.

Some things that are legal can still be considered wrong, such as prostitution in Las Vegas, pornography, gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. These things are legal, but many people would have an issue in engaging in these activities. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is right.

The purpose of this article is not to encourage illegal activity or behavior. Rather, it is simply to show the average person how we are responsible for our own actions and we are still responsible to think for ourselves. Never believe anything that you have not personally experienced or have reasoned for. When there is any evidence that challenges your beliefs, consider that evidence from neutral standpoint and really try to entertain that evidence for a while and it may change your original standpoint for the better.

Source: by TheDragon319 in Issues for September 28, 2009