When you consider what constitutes clinical depression, it is striking to realize that all of its traits are part of the normal human experience of grieving.
The first time I could be described as having been depressed, for instance, was when I was a young boy just becoming conscious of mortality. I wept at the inevitability that my mother would die one day, and would weep again and again as I was reminded of this. She was bound to die sometime in the future, and so I "grieved" in anticipation of this event. Yet I was also "depressed."
This is important because there is broad consensus in society that displaying grief is valid and healthy -- that what befalls you when you contemplate the separation of yourself from a loved one who has died is truly tragic and potentially traumatic. It is not a "disorder" to display negative mood and affect in the face of death, like it is with clinical depression, but a real pain and disaffection that is treated sympathetically (as during funerals).
So when does grief become depression and thus become a disorder? According to American psychiatry and psychology as pursuant to the DSM, it is when the period of grief lasts longer than two weeks. Not coincidentally, this is the standard amount of time American workers are allowed off in the US without losing their jobs and thus health insurance (e.g. "two week vacations").
Clearly, this shows that the mental health industry primarily serves the interests of the economy (in which its own market is based), rather than humanity, but it has also brought to a light a very interesting philosophical question:
What else, besides death, can you grieve?
What other losses are capable of making you feel so alone and alienated that your distress can be considered legitimate, rather than pathological?
Could it be the loss of friends and free-time, the hallmarks of childhood and the holocaust of adulthood? Could it be what you've never had in the first place -- a childhood that was never fulfilled, and an adult that was never formed? Could you grieve yourself as you're actively dying?
It astounds me that after being identified as characteristically "depressed," the only recourse in the mental health industry has simply been to tell me that it's all "in my head" -- whether in the form of distorted cognitions or unbalanced chemicals. That I must seek to either balance these chemicals (in the case of psychiatry) or find my true self (in the case of psychology) so as to rectify my "depression." In reality, these propositions are completely counterfactual. Medications do not balance chemicals into some natural order; they are a patently artificial adjustment. And "psychotherapy," which aims to condition you into a particular way of thinking, does not entail "discovering your true self" at all, but rather cultivating a false, distorted self.
Instead of being encouraged to examine the root causes of my misfortune, which is living with a neurological condition that is socially stigmatizing (autism) and the implications this has for how I conduct myself, I am made into the cash-cow of quacks who seek to profit off of my miserable state, incurable by their own admission, but suddenly "treatable" when "co-morbid depression" (not to mention "anxiety") can be affixed onto my diagnosis list.
And it all takes on an especially absurd form when you examine this in terms of US politics.
Namely, Black people in the US are considered so disadvantaged and distraught that it is understandable how violent and aggressive they are. Murder rates and riots among Black people are not thought of as inherently pathological at all; just the opposite, these are symptomatic of a poor environment.
Why, it should be asked, does living in a "poor environment" make Black people so violent and aggressive in particular, instead of depressed, anxious, and suicidal?
For suicide rates among Black people are the lowest of any race:
And they are typically the opposite of anxious: low-inhib.
Could it be biology that explains this?
Definitely in large part, but consider the fact that when Black people were truly in a poor environment that was not just of their own making (i.e., slave ships rather than urban ghettos), they were demonstrably succumbing to depression and suicidality in massive proportions, much unlike today. Perhaps this even exerted an evolutionary selection on African Americans, pruning neurotics.
As for the double standard, it is due to social clout. Because Black people are a recognizable social group that is actually quite popular -- not just in lumpen circles (wiggers) but among the effete bourgeoisie (liberals) -- they are given consideration that no mere autist or incel would ever be given. We are literally worth less than niggers. Hence quite worthless indeed.
The first time I could be described as having been depressed, for instance, was when I was a young boy just becoming conscious of mortality. I wept at the inevitability that my mother would die one day, and would weep again and again as I was reminded of this. She was bound to die sometime in the future, and so I "grieved" in anticipation of this event. Yet I was also "depressed."
This is important because there is broad consensus in society that displaying grief is valid and healthy -- that what befalls you when you contemplate the separation of yourself from a loved one who has died is truly tragic and potentially traumatic. It is not a "disorder" to display negative mood and affect in the face of death, like it is with clinical depression, but a real pain and disaffection that is treated sympathetically (as during funerals).
So when does grief become depression and thus become a disorder? According to American psychiatry and psychology as pursuant to the DSM, it is when the period of grief lasts longer than two weeks. Not coincidentally, this is the standard amount of time American workers are allowed off in the US without losing their jobs and thus health insurance (e.g. "two week vacations").
Clearly, this shows that the mental health industry primarily serves the interests of the economy (in which its own market is based), rather than humanity, but it has also brought to a light a very interesting philosophical question:
What else, besides death, can you grieve?
What other losses are capable of making you feel so alone and alienated that your distress can be considered legitimate, rather than pathological?
Could it be the loss of friends and free-time, the hallmarks of childhood and the holocaust of adulthood? Could it be what you've never had in the first place -- a childhood that was never fulfilled, and an adult that was never formed? Could you grieve yourself as you're actively dying?
It astounds me that after being identified as characteristically "depressed," the only recourse in the mental health industry has simply been to tell me that it's all "in my head" -- whether in the form of distorted cognitions or unbalanced chemicals. That I must seek to either balance these chemicals (in the case of psychiatry) or find my true self (in the case of psychology) so as to rectify my "depression." In reality, these propositions are completely counterfactual. Medications do not balance chemicals into some natural order; they are a patently artificial adjustment. And "psychotherapy," which aims to condition you into a particular way of thinking, does not entail "discovering your true self" at all, but rather cultivating a false, distorted self.
Instead of being encouraged to examine the root causes of my misfortune, which is living with a neurological condition that is socially stigmatizing (autism) and the implications this has for how I conduct myself, I am made into the cash-cow of quacks who seek to profit off of my miserable state, incurable by their own admission, but suddenly "treatable" when "co-morbid depression" (not to mention "anxiety") can be affixed onto my diagnosis list.
And it all takes on an especially absurd form when you examine this in terms of US politics.
Namely, Black people in the US are considered so disadvantaged and distraught that it is understandable how violent and aggressive they are. Murder rates and riots among Black people are not thought of as inherently pathological at all; just the opposite, these are symptomatic of a poor environment.
Why, it should be asked, does living in a "poor environment" make Black people so violent and aggressive in particular, instead of depressed, anxious, and suicidal?
For suicide rates among Black people are the lowest of any race:
And they are typically the opposite of anxious: low-inhib.
Could it be biology that explains this?
Definitely in large part, but consider the fact that when Black people were truly in a poor environment that was not just of their own making (i.e., slave ships rather than urban ghettos), they were demonstrably succumbing to depression and suicidality in massive proportions, much unlike today. Perhaps this even exerted an evolutionary selection on African Americans, pruning neurotics.
As for the double standard, it is due to social clout. Because Black people are a recognizable social group that is actually quite popular -- not just in lumpen circles (wiggers) but among the effete bourgeoisie (liberals) -- they are given consideration that no mere autist or incel would ever be given. We are literally worth less than niggers. Hence quite worthless indeed.
- Olga Hepnarová
But it's good to know, normalfags, that violence can be justified as with your beloved niggers
Last edited:
