Orthodoxy, Ideology, Social Fabric, Sanity and Division

My Recent Posts

When I was a kid, we had a saying, though in all honesty, I suppose it was as much of a taunt as a saying … it went like this; “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me!” In short, it meant that if the best argument you could muster up was an ad hominem attack, go back to the playground sandbox where you belong. The only way to resolve differences is to establish common ground, start with that and then proceed until no further compromise is socially acceptable. This method has long been employed in order to develop social standards and norms … the social fabric that allows for and creates those rules by which society has, by and large at least, agreed to live within.


There have been countless examples where, for the most part, these have worked very well. There have also been numerous examples wherein these have been used to institute and legalize egregious oppression. What we are currently seeing, are hitherto unprecedented levels of forced compromise in order to appease the mere fringes. Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the ideological beliefs and beliefs in an orthodoxy that sees any slight hint of variation from the religious like and fervent base tenets, being viewed as “violent attacks” that quite literally, merit a violent physical response. Whether the enforced examples of societal norms and abnormalities are excellent examples of a system working well, or an egregious abuse of power, are often only discernible based on the personal ideology or orthodoxy of the individual. What one group may find to be an egregious abuse of power, the “other” side, views as a necessary mandate to generate more equality in results … despite the futility of trying to equalize results in any scenario, much less within a complex societal setting.


Given the fact that these perceptions are rarely all common, they are generally held together and balanced by what is most commonly referred to as the social fabric … that is to say, a certain standard of norms and abnormalities as shall generally be determined by society as a whole. Virtually everyone will freely admit that murder is an antisocial and unacceptable behavior that should be punished. Other acts and actions however, may not be so easily quantified or measured in more traditional terms of good and evil. While these methods will inevitably prevent either side from getting its way completely, (bowing to the ever-popular, though oft illusory (or is that delusional?) left-right paradigm) it does allow for a level of government mandated compromise despite the lack of any consistency or in fact, the lack of any viable rationale or logic.


There is ample evidence that the more distanced the government is from the people governed, the more egregious these policies can become, but that is not the underlying purpose of this article, merely some added food for thought and thought to take into consideration when there is a sufficient amount of time to do so.


The actual point is; once this slippery slope has been approached, where does it bottom out? Where does the path end once the social fabric comes to be treated as a restrictive social construct that somehow or another is perceived to intrude on the freedom of the outermost and extreme fringes of members of said society? What happens to the Social Fabric once it has been rent to the point of being incapable of retaining any societal construct or social cohesion whatsoever?


New “social standards” have indicated some thirty-two different genders despite the scientific realities of limitation to two standard genders, with a very low number of scientific and biological anomalies. Our peace-loving neighbors to the North in Canada, have determined through C16 (A Canadian Law) that the truth and scientific fact are not relevant to “justice”, and that a failure to not only know, but to recognize all of the newly recognized genders, to know all of the relevant and associated pronouns created for and on their behalf, and to somehow or another, be capable of reading minds and knowing which of these many new words must, by law, be used for the specific individual, shall leave a citizen to be subject to being found guilty of a hate crime. Be that as it may, this one is said and done, and the law is in the books and the proverbial cards will now be played and in the end, it will be seen whose hand is a winning hand.


However, consideration should also be given to the path … or the slippery slope as it may be, down which this has already begun to lead the nation … if not much of the world, and the extent to which it will rip the social fabric should it be allowed to extend to its logical conclusions … not that government is often (if ever) burdened by the dictates of logic. Following are some questions that, no answers need be made public, but merely for the sake of introspection and consideration given the direct impact on society and the social fabric which holds our society together … however fragile it may be:


Should exhibitions of fetish behavior such as those who personal proclivities are for Asians, Hispanics, obese people or other fetish behavior, be allowed in public spaces? Should children be solicited to attend these events?


If not, why is a celebration of BDSM allowed in a public venue in San Francisco, where children are allowed, if not actively encouraged to attend, held in a public venue on city streets rather than being restricted to a more private locale?


Should a forty something year old man who now self-identifies as a “six year old girl” so that he can “get away from the realities he used to have to deal with” be allowed to enroll in kindergarten?


If not? Why not? He is either a six year old girl or he is not. If the State (The People) deem him to be a six year old girl in a legal capacity, where do his rights as a six year old girl begin and where do they end? Should his “parents” be charged with Child Neglect or Endangerment for leaving him alone?


Should a grown man who self-identifies as a baby, yet has shown the capacity to dress up in normal clothes, operate a motor vehicle and even build all of his adult-baby furniture, proving his capacity to adequately function in “normal society” be granted disability as this is a “disability”?


If this is a disability; are not, by extension and legal standing, other cases wherein someone identifies as something other than their biological personhood equally disabled? Should his “parents” be charged with Child Neglect or Endangerment for leaving him alone?


Given the recent expansion of this neurotic behavior into the “trans-species” movement, with people most commonly (at present) considering themselves to be dogs, cats, ponies and the occasional reptile, should these people be given a free pass to relieve themselves in public?


If indeed they are “trans-species”, should they not have the natural right to relieve themselves on your yard the same as any neighborhood animal might?


Should prepubescent girls be allowed to dance (fully clothed) in adult strip bars?


If not, why not? If not, why are prepubescent boys being lauded for dressing up in drag and performing in very adult gay venues, where grown men can ogle them? Why is this being celebrated as some type of accomplishment worthy of merit?


Should a child who is incapable of the requisite level of maturity to decide in a reasonable fashion, what to have for dinner, be subjected to a biased trans-gender person speaking for a couple of hours, and then asked to select a gender immediately following such a speech?


If not, why are we allowing for LGBT Story Hour in our schools and public libraries for the students? Mind you, these also do feature sweet sing-alongs featuring such classics as “The hips on the queen go swish swish swish” sung to the tune of Wheels on the Bus … and the children are encouraged to sing (and dance) along with the presenter.


All of these questions revolve around current issues that are ongoing within society today. Are social standards to become totally arbitrary based on the needs of the neurotic behavior of each and every individual within our society? Under such a system, would not practices such as Human Sacrifice and Honor Killings be fully justified? How can one deny the behavior of one while allowing for the behavior of the other? Is society to become selectively hypocritical in enforcement and policy, catering to every cause du jour in the name of “social justice”? At what point do the brakes get applied? At what point does the social fabric begin to tear and society loses any sense of self, and merely becomes a free-for-all where anything goes? We have already mounted the slippery slope, the only thing remaining in question is where we will hit rock bottom and the reaction of society as a whole when we hit.





Included below are some legal definitions from the Expurgated (Edited) Fourth Edition of Blacks Law. I have tried to include as many as possible, though I do not expect anyone to go through all of them, and no worries, there is no test at the end of the page … but they are very informative … and for better or worse, remain the law and part of the means which will ultimately be put to the test and wherein, when it does all come to a head, those of us who are caught up in the madness, will be tried. Since the APA has now deemed traditional masculinity to be a mental disorder, the neurotic may be in luck, as it looks like the traditional male may very well be the first ones to enter into the courts to be tried by the “new and improved” inclusive system. Inclusion through Segregation. Peace through War. Welcome to the world of the MiniTru.


DELUSION. In medical jurisprudence. An insane delusion is an unreasoning and incorrigible belief in the existence of facts which are either impossible absolutely, or, at least, impossible under the circumstances of the individual. It is never the result of reasoning and reflection; it is not generated by them, and it cannot be dispelled by them; and hence it is not to be confounded with an opinion, however fantastic .the latter may be. Guiteau's Case, D.C.D.C., 10 Fed. 161, 170; Davidson v. Piper, 221 Iowa 171, 265 N.W. 107, 109; McKinnon v. State, 51 Ga.App. 549, 181 S.E. 91; Hallucination as a delusion, Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Kincaid, Tex.Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 499, 501; belief in the impossible, In re Leedom's Estate, 347 Pa. 180, 32 A.2d 3; as respects testamentary capacity, In re McDowell's Estate, 103 N.J.Eq. 346, 143 A. 325, 326.


Systematized Delusion

One based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion; there being one central delusion around which other aberrations of the mind converge; Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243, 112 S.W. 405. See Insanity.


INSANITY. Unsoundness of mind; madness; mental alienation or derangement; a morbid psychic condition resulting from disorder of the brain, whether arising from malformation or defective organization or morbid processes affecting the brain primarily or diseased states of the general system implicating it secondarily, which involves the intellect, the emotions, the will, and the moral sense, or some of these faculties, and which is characterized especially by their non-development, derangement, or perversion, and is manifested, in most forms, by delusions, incapacity to reason or to j udge, or by uncontrollable impulses. In law, such a want of reason, memory, and intelligence as prevents a man from comprehending the nature and consequences of his acts or from distinguishing between right and wrong conduct. Crosswell v. People, 13 Mich. 427, 87 Am.Dec. 774; Johnson v. Insurance Co., 83 Me. 182, 22 A. 107; Frazer v. Frazer, 2 Del.Ch. 263.


"Insanity" does not include certain states of transitory mental disorder, such as trances, epilepsy, hysteria, and delirium. Martin v. Fraternal Reserve Life Ass'n, 200 Ill. App. 359, 364, and from both the pathologic and the legal definitions are to be excluded temporary mental aberrations caused by or accompanying alcoholic or other intoxication and the delirium of fever.


The distinction between the medical and the legal idea of insanity has, perhaps, not been better stated than by Ray, who is quoted by Ordronaux, and again by Witthaus & Becker "Insanity in medicine has to do with a prolonged departure of the individual from his natural mental state arising from bodily disease." "Insanity in law covers nothing more than the relation of the person and the particular act which is the subject of judicial investigation. The legal problem must resolve itself into the inquiry, whether there was mental capacity and moral freedom to do or abstain from doing the particular act." 1 Whitth. & Beck.Med.Jur. 181; U. S. v. Faulkner, D.C.Tex., 35 F. 730.


Other definitions

Insanity is a manifestation of disease of the brain, characterized by a general or partial derangement of one or more faculties of the mind, and in which, while consciousness is not abolished, mental freedom is perverted, weakened, or destroyed. Hammond, Nervous System, 332. The prolonged departure, without any adequate cause, from the states of feeling and modes of thinking usual to the individual in health. Bouvier. By insanity is not meant (in law) a total deprivation of reason, but only an inability, from defect of perception, memory, and judgment, to do the act in question, [with an intelligent apprehension of its nature and consequences.] So, by a lucid interval is not meant a perfect restoration to reason, but a restoration so far as to be able, beyond doubt, to comprehend and to do the act with such reason, memory, and judgment as to make it a legal act. Frazer v. Frazer, 2 Del. Ch. 263.


Eccentricities and idiosyncrasies, however gross, do not constitute "Insanity." In re Hansen's Will, 50 Utah, 207, 167 P. 256, 261. And drunkenness is not insanity, nor does it answer to what is termed an unsound mind, unless the derangement which it causes becomes fixed and continued by the drunkenness 'being habitual, or by chronic alcoholism, and thereby rendering the party incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, the same as insanity produced by any other cause. Rucker v. State, 119 Ohio St. 189, 162 N.E. 802, 805.



Delusion is sometimes loosely used as synonymous with insanity. But this is incorrect. Delusion is not the substance but the evidence of insanity. Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 P. 756, 757, L.R.A. 1917F, 646, Ann.Cas.1917C, 605.


The presence of an insane delusion is a recognized test of insanity in all cases except amentia and imbecility, and where there is no frenzy or raving madness; and in this sense an insane delusion is a fixed belief in the mind of the patient of the existence of a fact which has no objective existence but is purely the figment of his imagination, and which is so extravagant that no sane person would believe it under the circumstances of the case, the belief, nevertheless, being so unchangeable that the patient is incapable of being permanently disabused by argument or proof. Walker v. Struthers, 273 Ill. 387, 112 N.E. 961, 966.


The characteristic which distinguishes an "insane" delusion from other mistaken beliefs is that it is not a product of the reason but of the imagination, that is, not a mistake of fact induced by deception, fraud, insufficient evidence, or erroneous reasoning, but the spontaneous conception of a perverted imagination, having no basis whatever in reason or evidence. Riggs v. Missionary Soc., 35 Hun, N.Y., 658; Buchanan v. Pierie, 205 Pa. 123, 54 Atl. 583, 97 Am.St.Rep. 725.


An "insane delusion" is an idea or belief which springs spontaneously from a diseased or perverted mind without reason or without foundation in fact. It is distinguishable from a belief which is founded upon prejudice or aversion, no matter how unreasonable or unfounded the prejudice or aversion may be, and if it is the product of a reasoning mind, no matter how slight the evidence on which it is based, it cannot be classed as an insane delusion. Coffey v. Miller, 160 Ky. 415, 169 S.W. 852, 854, Ann.Cas.1916C, 30.


As to the distinctions between "Delusion" and "Illusion" and "Hallucination," see those titles.


Derangement. This term includes all forms of mental unsoundness, except of the natural born idiot. Hiett v. Shull, 36 W.Va. 563, 15 S.E. 147. Idiocy is congenital amentia, that is, a want of reason and intelligence existing from birth and due to structural defect or malformation of the brain. It is a congenital obliteration of the chief mental powers, and is defined in law as that condition in which the patient has never had, from his birth, even the least glimmering of reason; for a man is not legally an "idiot" if he can tell his parents, his age, or other like common matters. This is not the condition of a deranged mind, but that of a total absence of mind, so that, while idiocy is generally classed under the general designation of "insanity," it is rather to be regarded as a natural defect than as a disease or as the result of a disease. It differs from "lunacy," because there are no lucid intervals or periods of ordinary intelligence. In re Beaumont, 1 Whart. ( Pa.) 53, 29 Am.Dec. 33; Clark v. Robinson, 88 Ill. 502.


Imbecility. A more or less advanced decay and feebleness of the intellectual faculties; that weakness of mind which, without depriving the person entirely of the use of his reason, leaves only the faculty of conceiving the most common and ordinary ideas and such as relate almost always to physical wants and habits. It varies in shades and degrees from merely excessive folly and eccentricity to an almost total vacuity of mind or amentia, and the test of legal capacity, in this condition, is the stage to which the weakness of mind has advanced, as measured by the degree of reason, judgment, and memory remaining. It may proceed from paresis or general paralysis, from senile decay, or from the advanced stages of any of the ordinary forms of insanity; and the term is rather descriptive of the consequences of insanity than of any particular type of the disease. Campbell v. Campbell, 130 Ill. 466, 22 N.E. 620, 6 L.R.A. 167.


Mere imbecility or weakness of mind, however great, is not "insanity." There must be a total want of understanding. Johnson v. Millard, 110 Neb. 830, 195 N.W. 485, 487.


Lunacy. At the common law, was a term used to describe the state of one who, by sickness, grief, or other accident, has wholly lost his memory and understanding. Co. Litt. 246b, 247a; Corn. v. Haskell, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 496. It is distinguished from idiocy, an idiot being one who from his birth has had no memory or understanding, while lunacy implies the possession and subsequent loss of mental powers. Bicknell v. Spear, 77 N.Y.S. 920, 38 Misc. Rep. 389.


On the other hand, lunacy is a total deprivation or suspension of the ordinary powers of the mind, and is to be distinguished from imbecility, where there is a more or less advanced decay and feebleness of the intellectual faculties. In re Vanauken, 10 N.J.Eq. 186, 195; Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. (N.Y.) 142.


As to all other forms of insanity, lunacy was originally distinguished by the occurrence of lucid intervals, and hence might be described as a periodical or recurrent insanity. In re Anderson, 132 N.C. 243, 43 S.E. 649. But while these distinctions are still observed in some jurisdictions, they are more generally disregarded; so that, at present, in inquisitions of lunacy and other such proceedings, the term "lunacy" has almost everywhere come to be synonymous with "insanity," Smith v. Hickenbottom, 57 Iowa, 733, 11 N.W. 664, 667, and is used as a general description of all forms of derangement or mental unsoundness, this rule being established by statute in many states and by judicial decisions in others, In re Clark, 175 N.Y. 139, 67 N. E. 212.


Cases of arrested mental development would come within the definition of lunacy, that is, where the patient was born with a normal brain, but the cessation of mental growth occurred in infancy or so near it that he never acquired any greater intelligence or discretion than belongs to a normally healthy child. Such a subject might be scientifically denominated an "idiot," but not legally, for in law the latter term is applicable only to congenital amentia. The term "lucid interval" means not an apparent tranquility or seeming repose, or cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, or a simple diminution or remission of the disease, but a temporary cure—an intermission so clearly marked that it perfectly resembles a return of health; and it must be such a restoration of the faculties as enables the patient beyond doubt to comprehend the nature of his acts and transact his affairs as usual; and it must be continued for a length of time sufficient to give certainty to the temporary restoration of reason. G odden v. Burke, 35 La.Ann. 160, 173; Frazer v. Frazer, 2 Del. Ch. 260.


Non compos mentis. Lat. Not of sound mind. A generic term applicable to all insane persons, of whatsoever specific type the insanity may be and from whatever cause arising, provided there be an entire loss of reason, as distinguished from mere weakness of mind. Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 244. Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 350, 50 Am. Dec. 329.


Forms and Varieties of Insanity


Without attempting a scientific classification of the numerous types and forms of insanity, (as to which it may be said that there is as yet no final agreement among psychologists and alienists either as to analysis or nomenclature,) definitions and explanations will here be appended of the compound and descriptive terms most commonly met with in medical jurisprudence. And, first, as to the origins or causes of the disease:


Congenital insanity is that which exists from the birth of the patient, and is (in law) properly called "idiocy." See supra.


Cretinism is a form of imperfect or arrested mental development, which may amount to idiocy, with physical degeneracy or deformity or lack of development; endemic in Switzerland and some other parts of Europe, but the term is applied to similar states occurring elsewhere.


Folie brightique. A French term sometimes used to designate an access of insanity resulting from nephritis or "Bright's disease." In re Mc-Kean's Will, 66 N.Y.S. 44, 31 Misc. 703. Idiopathic insanity is such as results from a disease of the brain itself, lesions of the cortex, cerebral anemia, etc.


Paranoia. A form of mental distress known as delusionary insanity, and a person afflicted with it has delusions which dominate, but do not destroy, the mental capacity, and, though sane as to other subjects, as to the delusion and its direct consequences the person is insane. Mounger v. Gandy, 110 Miss. 133, 69 So. 817, 818.


It is sometimes characterized as logical perversion, and is said to have "misplaced the antiquated term monomania, which not only implied that the delusion was restricted to one subject, but was otherwise insufficient and misleading." The memory, emotions, judgment, and conceptions are inmost cases unimpaired, though each of these mental divisions may be involved. 2 Clevenger, Med.Jur. 860. It is characterized by systematized delusions, the term taking the place of "monomania" or "partial insanity". Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243, 112 S.W. 405.


Polyneuritic insanity. Insanity arising from an inflammation of the nerves, of the kind called "polyneuritis" or "multiple neuritis" because it involves several nerves at the same time. This is often preceded by tuberculosis and almost always by alcoholism, and is characterized specially by delusions and falsification of the memory. It is otherwise called "Korssakoff's disease." (Kraepelin.)


Puerperal insanity. A mental derangement occurring in women at the time of child-birth or immediately after; it is also called "eclampsia parturientium." Syphilitic insanity. A paresis or progressive imbecility resulting from the infection of syphilis. It is sometimes called (as being a sequence or result of that disease) "metasyphilis" or "parasyphilis."


Tabetic dementia. A form of mental derange. ment or insanity complicated with "tabes dorsalis" or locomotor ataxia, which generally precedes, or sometimes follows, the mental attack. As to insanity resulting from cerebral embolism, see Embolism; from epilepsy, see Epilepsy. As to chronic alcoholism as a form of insanity, see Alcoholism.


Traumatic insanity is such as results from a wound or injury, particularly to the head or brain, such as fracture of the skull or concussion of the brain.


General Descriptive and Clinical Terms


Affective insanity. A modern comprehensive term descriptive of all those forms of insanity which affect or relate to the feelings and emotions and hence to the ethical and social relations of the individual.


Circular insanity. Another name for maniacaldepressive insanity, which see.


"Emotional insanity" or mania transitoria applies to the case of one in the possession of his ordinary reasoning faculties who allows his passions to convert him into a temporary maniac. Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Terry, 15 Wall. 580, 583, 21 L.Ed. 236.


In a criminal case the law rejects the doctrine of what is called emotional insanity, which begins on the eve of the criminal act, and leaves off when it is committed. People v. Kernaghan, 72 Cal. 609, 14 P. 566, 568; Graves v. State, 45 N.J.L. (16 Vroom) 347, 350, 46 Am.Rep. 778.


Folie circulaire. The French name for circular insanity or maniacal-depressive insanity.


General paralysis. Dementia paralytica or paresis.


Habitual insanity. Such insanity as is, in its nature, continuous and chronic. Wright v. Market Bank, Tenn.Ch.App., 60 S.W. 623, 624.


Involutional insanity. That which sometimes accompanies the "involution" of the physical structure and physiology of the individual, the reverse of their "evolution," hence practically equivalent to the imbecility of old age or senile dementia.


Katatonia. A form of insanity distinguished by periods of acute mania and melancholia and especially by cataleptic states or conditions; the "insanity of rigidity." (Kahlbaum.) A type of insanity characterized particularly by "stereotypism," an instinctive inclination to purposeless repetition of the same expressions of the will, and "negativism," a senseless resistance against every outward influence. (Kraepelin.)


Legal insanity. Legal insanity is a disorder of the intellect, and is distinguished from "moral insanity," which is a disorder of the feelings and propensities. In re Forman's Will, 54 Barb. 274, 291; Bensberg v. Washington University, 251 Mo. 641, 158 S.W. 330, 336. A disease of the brain, rendering a person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with respect to the offense charged. State v. Privitt, 175 Mo. 207, 75 S.W. 457, 459.


Maniacal-depressive insanity. A form of insanity characterized by alternating periods of high maniacal excitement and of depressed and stuporous conditions in the nature of or resembling melancholia, often occurring as a series or cycle of isolated attacks, with more or less complete restoration to health in the intervals. (Kraepelin.) This is otherwise called "circular insanity" or "circular stupor."


Moral insanity. A morbid perversion of the feelings, affections, or propensities, but without any illusions or derangement of the intellectual faculties; irresistible impulse or an incapacity to resist the prompting of the passions, though accompanied by the power of discerning the moral or immoral character of the act. Moral insanity is not admitted as a bar to civil or criminal responsibility for the patient's acts, unless there is also shown to be intellectual disturbance, as manifested by insane delusions or the other recognized criteria of legal insanity. Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243, 112 S.W. 405, 412; Bensberg v. Washington University, 251 Mo. 641, 158 S.W. 330, 336.


In a very few of the states where moral insanity is recognized as a defense, it means an incapacity of resistance, as where there was an entire destruction of the freedom of the will, although the person perceived the moral or immoral character of the act. State v. Leehman, 2 S.D. 171, 49 N.W. 3, 5.


Partial insanity, as a legal term, may mean either monomania (see infra) or an intermediate stage in the development of mental derangement. In the former sense, it does not relieve the patient from responsibility for his acts, except where instigated directly by his particular delusion or obsession: Trich v. Trich, 165 Pa. 586, 30 A. 1053. In the latter sense, it denotes a clouding or weakening of the mind, not inconsistent with some measure of memory, reason, and judgment. But the term, in this sense, does not convey any very definite meaning, since it may range from mere feeble-mindedness to almost the last stages of imbecility. Appeal of Dunham, 27 Conn. 205; State v. Jones, 50 N.H. 369, 383, 9 Am.Rep. 242.


Psychoneurosis. Mental disease without recognizable anatomical lesion, and without evidence and history of preceding chronic mental degeneration. Under this head come melancholia, mania, primary acute dementia, and mania hallucinatoria. Cent. Dict.


"Neurosis," in its broadest sense, may include any disease or disorder of the mind, and hence all the forms of insanity proper. But the term "psychoneurosis" is now employed by Freud and other European specialists to describe that class of exaggerated individual peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of thought towards special objects or topics which are absent from the perfectly normal mind, and which yet have so little influence upon the patient's conduct or his general modes of thought that they cannot properly be described as "insanity" or as any form of "mania," especially because ordinarily unaccompanied by any kind of delusions. At most, they lie on the debatable border-land between sanity and insanity. These idiosyncrasies or obsessions may arise from superstition, from a real incident in the patient's past history upon which he has brooded until it has assumed an unreal importance or significance, or from general neurasthenic conditions. Such, for example, are a terrified shrinking from certain kinds of ani als, unreasonable dread of being shut up in some enclosed place or of being alone in a crowd, excessive fear of being poistoned, groundless conviction of irredeemable sinfulness, and countless other prepossessions, which may range from mere weak-minded superstition to actual monomania.


Recurrent insanity. Insanity which returns from time to time, hence equivalent to "lunacy" (see supra) in its common-law sense, as a mental disorder broken by lucid intervals. There is no presumption that fitful and exceptional attacks of insanity are continuous. Leache v. State, 22 Tex. App. 279, 3 S.W. 538, 58 Am.Rep. 638.


Settled insanity. The term applied to delirium tremens, which is a kind of insanity produced by alcoholism, caused by the breaking down of the person's system by long-continued or habitual drunkenness, and brought on by abstinence from drink. It is thus termed, to distinguish it from. "temporary insanity," or drunkenness directly resulting from drink. Evers v. State, 31 Tex.Cr. R. 318, 20 S.W. 744, 748, 18 L.R.A. 421, 37 Am.St. Rep. 811.


Temporary delusion. The word implies unsoundness or derangement of mind or intellect, not a mere temporary or slight delusion, which might be occasioned by fever or accident. Karow v. New York Continental Ins. Co., 57 Wis. 56, 15 N.W. 27, 31, 46 Am.Rep. 17.


Other Forms of Insanity

Amentia, dementia, and mania. The classification of insanity into these three types or forms, though once common, has of late given way to a more scientific nomenclature, based chiefly on the origin or cause of the disease in the particular patient and its clinical history. These terms, however, are still occasionally encountered in medical jurisprudence, and the names of some of their subdivisions are in constant use.


Amentia. A total lack of intelligence, reason, or mental capacity. Sometimes so used as to cover imbecility or dotage, or even as applicable to all forms of insanity; but properly restricted to a lack of mental capacity due to original defective organization of the brain (idiocy) or arrested cerebral development, as distinguished from the degeneration of intellectual faculties which once were normal.


Dementia. A form of insanity resulting from degeneration or disorder of the brain (idiopathic or traumatic, but not congenital) and characterized by general mental weakness and decrepitude, forgetfulness, loss of coherence, and total inability to reason, but not accompanied by delusions or uncontrollable impulses. Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N.H. 531, 84 Am.Dec. 97; People v. Lake, 2 Parker, Cr.R. ( N.Y.) 218; Graham v. Deuterman, 91 N.E. 61, 62, 244 Ill. 124; Hibbard v. Baker, 104 N.W. 399, 400, 141 Mich. 124.


Among the sub-divisions of dementia should be noticed the following:


Acute primary dementia is a form of temporary dementia, though often extreme in its intensity, and occurring in young people or adolescents, accompanied by general physical debility or exhaustion and induced by conditions likely to produce that state, as malnutrition, overwork, dissipation, or too rapid growth.


Dementia paralytica is a progressive form of insanity, beginning with slight degeneration of the physical, intellectual, and moral powers, and leading to complete loss of mentality, or imbecility, with general paralysis. Also called paresis, paretic dementia, or cirrhosis of the brain, or (popularly) "softening of the brain."


Dementia prcecox. A term applicable either to the early stages of dementia or to the dementia of adolescence, but more commonly applied to the latter. It is often (but not invariably) attributable to onanism or self-abuse, and is characterized by mental and moral stupidity, absence of any strong feeling of the impressions of life or interest in its events, blunting or obscuration of the moral sense, weakness of judgment, flightiness of thought, senseless laughter without mirth, automatic obedience, and apathetic despondency. (Kraepelin.)


Senile dementia. Dementia occurring in persons of advanced age, and characterized by slowness and weakness of the mental processes and general physical degeneration, verging on or passing into imbecility, indicating the breaking down of the mental powers in advance of bodily decay. Hiett v. Shull, 36 W.Va. 563, 15 S.E. 146. Toxic dementia. Weakness of mind or feeble cerebral activity, approaching imbecility, resulting from continued administration or use of slow poisons or of the mere active poisons in repeated small doses, as in cases of lead poisoning and in some cases of addiction to such drugs as opium or alcohol.


Dementia praecox paranoid. A medical term indicating that form of dementia in which the patient exhibits ideas of persecution and has delusions. Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 - Minn. 319, 210 N.W. 75, 76.


Erotomania. A form of mania similar to nymphomania, except that the present term is applied to patients of both sexes, and that (according to some authorities) it is applicable to all cases of excessive sexual craving irrespective of origin; while nymphomania is restricted to cases where the disease is caused by a local disorder of the sexual organs reacting on the brain. In erotomania, there is often an absence of any lesion of the intellectual powers. Krafft-Ebing, Psycopathia Sexualis, Chaddock's ed. And it is to be observed that the term "erotomania" is now often used, especially by French writers, to describe a morbid propensity for "falling in love" or an exaggerated and excited condition of amativeness or love-sickness, which may affect the general physical health, but is not necessarily correlated with any sexual craving, and which, though it may unnaturally color the imagination and distort the subject's view of life and affairs, does not at all amount to insanity, and should not be so considered whe n it leads to crimes of violence, as in the common case of a rejected lover who kills his mistress.


Fit of mania. A fit of mania includes a temporary depression or aberration of the mind, which sometimes accompanies or follows intoxication, and is often accompanied by delusions, hallucinations, and illusions. Gunter v. State, 3 So. 600, 607, 83 Ala. 96.


Homicidal mania. A form of mania in which the morbid state of the mind manifests itself in an irresistible inclination or impulse to commit homicide, prompted usually by an insane delusion either as to the necessity- of self-defense or the avenging of injuries, or as to the patient being the appointed instrument of a superhuman justice. Com. v. Sayre, 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 425.


Hypomania. A mild or slightly developed form or type of mania.


Mania transitoria. The term applies to the case of one in the possession of his ordinary reasoning faculties, who allows his passions to convert him into a temporary maniac. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Terry, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 580, 583, 21 L.Ed. 236.


Megalomania. The so-called "delirium of grandeur" or "folie de grandeur;" a form of mania in which the besetting delusion of the patient is that he is some person of great celebrity or exalted rank, historical or contemporary.


Melancholia. A form of insanity the characteristics of which are extreme mental depression, with delusions and hallucinations, the latter relating especially to the financial or social position of the patient or to impending or threatened dangers to his person, property, or reputation, or issuing in distorted conceptions of his relations to society or his family or of his rights and duties in general. State v. Reidell, 9 Houst., Del., 470, 14 A. 551; People v. Krist, 168 N.Y. 19, 60 N.E. 1057.


Hypochondria or hypochondriasis. A form of melancholia in which the patient has exaggerated or causeless fears concerning his health or suffers from imaginary disease.


Monomania. A perversion of the understanding in regard to a single object or a small number of objects, with the predominance of mental excitement, as distinguished from "mania," which means a condition in which the perversion of the understanding embraces all kinds of objects, and is accompanied with general mental excitement. State v. John, 30 N.C. 330, 337, 49 Am.Dec. 396; Freed v. Brown, 55 Ind. 310, 317; People v. Lake, 2 Parker, Cr.R. (N.Y.) 215, 218. A perversion or derangement of the reason or understanding with reference to a single subject or small class of subjects, with considerable mental excitement and delusions, while, as to all matters outside the range of the peculiar infirmity, the intellectual faculties remain unimpaired and function normally. Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 390, 83 Am.Dec. 231; Bohler v. Hicks, 120 Ga. 800, 48 S.E. 306, 307.


Oikei mania. A form of insanity manifesting itself in a morbid state of the domestic affections, as an unreasonable dislike of wife or child without cause or provocation. Ekin v. McCracken, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 540.


Paranoia. Monomania in general, or the obsession of a delusion or system of delusions which dominate without destroying the mental capacity, leaving the patient sane as to all matters outside their particular range, though subject to perverted ideas, false beliefs, and uncontrollable impulses within that range; and particularly, the form of monomania where the delusion is as to wrongs, injuries, or persecution inflicted upon the patient and his consequently justifiable resentment or revenge. Winters v. State, 61 N.J.L. 613, 41 Atl. 220; People v. Braun, 158 N.Y. 558, 53 N.E. 529.


Paranoia is called by Kraepelin "progressive systematized insanity," because the delusions of being wronged or of persecution and of excessive selfesteem develop quite slowly, without independent disturbances of emotional life or of the will becoming prominent, and because there occurs regularly a mental working up of the delusion to form a delusionary view of the world, in fact, a system, leading to a derangement of the stand-point which the patient takes up towards the events of life.


INSANUS EST QUI, ABJECTA RATIONE, OMNIA CUM IMPETU ET FURORE FACIT. He is insane who, reason being thrown away, does everything with violence and rage. 4 Coke, 128.


ILLUSION. In medical jurisprudence. An image or impression in the mind, excited by some external object addressing itself to one or more of the senses, but which, instead of corresponding with the reality, is perverted, distorted, or wholly mistaken, the error being attributable to the imagination of the observer, not to any defect in the organs of sense. See Hallucination, and see "Delusion," under Insanity.


ILLUSORY. Deceiving by false appearances; nominal, as distinguished from substantial; fallacious; illusive. Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 144 Ohio St. 195, 58 N.E.2d 381, 390.




Ryan Messano Added Jan 25, 2019 - 1:57am
Liberalism is a mental illness, Michael Savage.
'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good'
Psalms 14:1
Two quotes from Jews that really get to the heart of the matter, IMHO.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 25, 2019 - 2:21am
While I do not take it into my heart to judge, I do take heart and great comfort from the Bible and its teachings, mostly in that there is hope for all of us. 
Ryan Messano Added Jan 25, 2019 - 2:29am
Yes there is, Ward, and as we judge ourselves, we see the faults in others, and it is love that compels judgement.  One cannot love another and see the fault which is leading them to destruction and not judge it.  Often, our seeing others faults makes us realize our own, which prevents us from helping others.  This makes us reform ourselves so we can help others. 
Johnny Fever Added Jan 25, 2019 - 8:48am
There is no such thing as forced compromise.  When one compromises it is done voluntarily, otherwise neither side of the debate is doing any compromising.  You essentially have one side forcing its desires on the other.  However, if you can name a single example of forced compromise, I could be inclined to change my position.    
Dino Manalis Added Jan 25, 2019 - 11:08am
 Words can be hurtful, we should come together and compromise to find reasonable solutions.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 25, 2019 - 1:50pm
"However, if you can name a single example of forced compromise, I could be inclined to change my position."
Have you ever been running late for something very important, maybe pushing the speed limit just a little bit? Then you slow down as soon as you see the cop? Why? Because of coercion. The threat of the fine or the sentence is greater than the benefit from the criminal act, even if it is not criminal. 
In this day and age, have you ever failed to approach someone you were attracted to merely so that you did not appear to be a "racist, sexist, misogynist pig" due to the constant haranguing that you would be bombarded by if the  person misread or even merely misunderstood your intentions these days?
Government is force and coercion by nature. We all make compromises in society, though often times not agreeing with them ... this is the very definition of forced compromise ... coercion through force ... however one decides to phrase it. Granted, I am sure that think only simple thoughts like "Government Good!" and "Orange Man Bad" and have no original thoughts or shred of dissent within them, but you do not seem to be that kind of person. You seem to take great pride in your efforts to dissent. 
Jeff Michka Added Jan 25, 2019 - 7:26pm
Ah, good ol Ward, Jim Bakker's prepper food patriot goes on and on and on about how liberalism is a disease, better to mirror his rightist fascist views in and "prove' what a reasearcher he is in that lengthy and totally worthless article he wants to peddle so you'll buy freeze dried food when he tells you to as "an act of loving Gawd."  much like his philobuddy, Jim Bakker, two bit evangelical running dog.
Gerrilea Added Jan 26, 2019 - 12:03am
Ward T--- Interesting yet tedious exercise you've presented to us.
While I have experienced "societal standards" from one of the "extremes" you mention.  What option would you employ to rid yourself and society of these abominations? 
When I was 12 yrs old and contemplated suicide, would you have been proud had I done so? Or maybe when I actually succeeded on March 17th, 1984 and was dead for 8 minutes? Would society be better off if I hadn't been revived by modern medicine?
You don't need to answer that, I believed it would be and was disgusted that the bridge I jumped off wasn't high enough.  Those were my first thoughts after waking from a coma three days later.
Maybe electro-shock "therapy" should be re-instituted so that your sensibilities won't be offended when you witness us living our lives and doing no harm to you or yours.  You always have the choice to stay home, no one demanded your presence at the local movie theater or park.
Society has no rights, only the individual does.  How many people have you found throughout your life that lie about who and what they are?  We create "social persona's" or social images that we want others to believe represent us.
People lie, that's the first "rule" of our society.
Who defines "normal", God, The Bible, Government, self-appointed "experts" that claim superior authority because they were college "trained"?
Maybe it's a mix of all.  Psychiatry was deemed for a very long time as not being anything more than a pseudo science akin to astrology.
How far we've gone down that rabbit hole is astounding and I credit it all to Outcome Based Education.  We've allowed our prodigy to be conditioned into immature emotionally stunted beasts.  They are so much easier to control, manipulate and agree to, no beg for the surrendering of their own natural rights.  Simply put, beg for their own enslavement.
That point aside, I cannot understand or comprehend the "trans-species" subculture, or the infantile fantasies some engage in.
Maybe humanity is just exploring all possibilities of existence and will evolve beyond said.  One can only hope and pray.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 1:03am
Gerrilea, lots of points to cover but lemme try. 
"While I have experienced "societal standards" from one of the "extremes" you mention.  What option would you employ to rid yourself and society of these abominations? 
I really do love the Philippines and one of the things I love about it is the freedom. Here you can have gay beauty pageants, straight beauty pageants, transgender beauty pageants if you want ... and nobody cares. What bugs me are the militants who insist that I have to accept their behavior, and this is amplified even more so when they insist in using the full force of the law in order to force me to comply. 
When I was 12 yrs old and contemplated suicide, would you have been proud had I done so? Or maybe when I actually succeeded on March 17th, 1984 and was dead for 8 minutes? Would society be better off if I hadn't been revived by modern medicine?"
I am guessing society would have been the loser had you not been revived, though not nearly to the extent your family and friends would have been. I would probably have told you life sucks for you, it sucks for me and you ain't never going to make people happy so skroom. Then again, I have always been something of an anomaly. I was the unpopular kid ... one of them, but the only head in Honor Society and the one who tended to beat up the bullies that picked on the other unpopular kids. I would bug you about the splinter in your eyes ... but I seem to have this timber here I gotta worry about. 
"Maybe electro-shock "therapy" should be re-instituted so that your sensibilities won't be offended when you witness us living our lives and doing no harm to you or yours.  You always have the choice to stay home, no one demanded your presence at the local movie theater or park."
It actually is being reintroduced, this time ostensibly to help vets with PTSD ... not sure I agree with it, but I have read some favorable reports ... though I remain more than a little skeptical ... lobotomies would cure people of lots of bad behavior ... but viable options? I remain skeptical. 
"We create "social persona's" or social images that we want others to believe represent us."
Disturbingly easy for me as I try to build a new legal fiction ... not existing has good points and bad, but ... it is always challenging. People lie yes, and there are good people that lie, sometimes for the right reasons, sometimes for the wrong ones ... the same holds true for bad people. Good people I prefer for my friends, though if they lie to me, I would prefer to know why. Messed up childhood? Bad experiences in a theater of operations? People have reasons ... but law should not defend the lie, the individual should. If you are one of the good people and are invited to my home, and ask to bring another, I could care a whip less whether they are male, female or somewhere in between, what color they are, what make or model or anything else ... as if you are one of the good guys, I believe it relatively safe to presume that whoever you bring with you would be one of the good guys too. That being said, I do not care if you are the proverbial straight hetero couple. If you start boinking on my coffee table and tell me to deal with it, I am going to get upset. When society demands that we accept such public displays, I am equally offended. I am personally very fond of the Klingon mating rituals, but it is not something I am going to get into in any public forum. What people do behind closed doors? Who cares? 
"Maybe it's a mix of all.  Psychiatry was deemed for a very long time as not being anything more than a pseudo science akin to astrology."
I would relegate that to Psychology personally ... my minor in University by the way ... Psychiatry seems more intent on declaring everyone to be mentally FUBAR and in need of psychotropic drugs to make them "normal" ... whatever that is supposed to be ... though looking around, whatever it is, I am glad I ain't part of it. 
"How far we've gone down that rabbit hole is astounding and I credit it all to Outcome Based Education.  We've allowed our prodigy to be conditioned into immature emotionally stunted beasts.  They are so much easier to control, manipulate and agree to, no beg for the surrendering of their own natural rights.  Simply put, beg for their own enslavement."
And demand that government deprive people like you and I of our rights in the process. This is where I start having the problem. When people demand government intervention to deprive me of my rights ... I take major issue with that. 
"That point aside, I cannot understand or comprehend the "trans-species" subculture, or the infantile fantasies som
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 1:04am
"That point aside, I cannot understand or comprehend the "trans-species" subculture, or the infantile fantasies some engage in."
Nor can I, and as far as trans-species ... I could really care less, as long as they keep it in private, but if government can make laws demanding we recognize this, how long before they demand government laws allowing them to relieve themselves in public? How can it be that some are said by the government to have disabilities, while at the same time, demanding under the full force of the law, that we recognize these as normal?
With the underage, it boils down to societal norms and standards, and as we have seen in the last hundred years, that is subject to change. A hundred and fifty years or so ago, a girl was considered hopeless if she was not married by the ripe old age of sixteen. An old maid at sixteen. It is likely that the Virgin Mary gave birth at the latter part of her twelfth year or the early portion of the thirteenth year based on societal norms of the time. However, I cannot help but not that in virtually all societies ... save a couple of notable exceptions, these have generally been post-pubescent couplings. 
"Maybe humanity is just exploring all possibilities of existence and will evolve beyond said.  One can only hope and pray."
I am all for humanity exploring ... and for people to enjoy whatever it is they enjoy. I do not however, see any benefit for government to enforce it with the rule of law other than to stir social unrest ... which begs another question as to why ... but that is probably another article or ten ... because we know that big brother and our Dear Leaders are always kind and benevolent and working on behalf of the persons of this nation ... right? 
Gerrilea Added Jan 26, 2019 - 1:34am
Ward T--- I see the government machinations today as a means to correct the brutality some parts of our society (like religious zealots) that perpetuate hatred, bigotry and violence engage in.  Matthew Sheppard, you should find out what happened to him, it was pure evil.  Not unlike what happened to Blacks in the South in mid 20th century. Laws had to be passed to stop it.
Maybe once we've stopped hating each other, the laws can be relaxed.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 2:23am
I am not talking about criminal actions. Criminal actions should be punished. Period. Would his murder have been any less heinous had he been a female? Had he been Asian? 
When we have laws that are arbitrary, I am opposed. When we have laws that are contradictory, I am opposed. When we have government deciding that they can prove what the thoughts of the criminal were, I am opposed. You are what you are, but personally, I enjoy our conversations for your contributions regardless of who or what you are. If government comes along and says I have to like you because of who or what you are, I am opposed ... though I would still greatly enjoy our conversations ... in all cases, it is the arbitrary and often hypocritical legal function put in place that forces itself on others that I have the problem with ... but it is my firm belief that government institutes such programs precisely in order to further divide the citizenry ... which then steps in and demands more government control and regulation ... and the cycle gets rinsed and repeated. 
opher goodwin Added Jan 26, 2019 - 6:55am
Ward - I think words can hurt every bit as much as blades.
Don in Odessa Added Jan 26, 2019 - 7:59am
May I be so bold as to summarize your verbosity here? (Just a friendly jab Ward. Not intended to be an insult)
Thank you. I will be brief.
Truth be told, we are in a war. Some see it as a war between good and evil, for some it's light and darkness, Left and Right, right and wrong. I suppose I see it in all these things and more. But more than all that I see it as a war between mankind's base nature with it's demands that "I" be satisfied, against mankind's aspirations for higher purpose and sense of fairness. The problem as you not so directly point out Ward, that sense of fairness ("Societal Norms") are subjective. Truth and all that would embody it becomes what ever is accepted as such by the "mob." Without one final and supreme arbiter of "The Truth," all societies, inevitably devolve to mankind's base needs and desires. As exhibit 'A' as you rightly highlight, witness the slow but sure decay of America. It's not just the redefinition of the language to accommodate every real and imagined sensitivity of the mentally challenged and brainwashed. But even in Government institutions, infrastructure, ethics and economy. All have passed over the precipice of the high ideals of our founders. We now find ourselves headlong on the down hill slope to our end. I don't morn our loss though. History is replete with examples of the rise of the phoenix. If we are fortunate ...  relatively speaking as epochs go, our rebirth is just around the corner. For those of faith, perhaps it is already here.
Gerrilea Added Jan 26, 2019 - 3:08pm
Opher G--- Could you present to us those words that have actually drawn blood, killed or disemboweled by their mere utterance?
Ward T--- I'd agree with everything you've stated.  When the "State" steps in, it's to advance their own agenda, not bring peaceful co-existence to the citizens.
I've never been fond of "protected class" laws.  I understood the original goals but if everyone is a victim, then no one is a victim.   At that moment, they've placed that "protected class" above the rest and Equity Under Law becomes impossible.
Somehow if you murder me in a heinous way, because of my race, color, creed, gender or etc you should be punished more severely  than if you just ran me over.  Does my "status as a protected class" imply that any violations against me are because of said "status"?
Today, if you are black and something happens to you, it's ONLY because you are black, not that you might have actually been a dick.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 3:22pm
"Ward - I think words can hurt every bit as much as blades."
You just keep on thinkin' Butch ... that's ... what you're good at. No. They cannot. Words are thoughts expressed ... and no matter the words or ideas expressed, do not comprise a physical attack on someone, neither do they merit a violent physical response. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 3:25pm
Don in Odessa, as you, neither do I mourn our loss, but I do wonder at the ideology that not only allows, but encourages and hastens it. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 3:27pm
Gerrilea ... I would agree for the most part ... though I must also object ... as my phallus is my friend and not a derogatory commentary. 
There are still so many cases among all races where heinous crimes have been committed, even by the authorities in charge. Our efforts to selectively and arbitrarily be outraged is mind boggling. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 26, 2019 - 4:42pm
I generally refer to people such as those you describe, as dickless rather than as being dicks. Some things can be constructive when properly utilized, some people are just incapable of being productive under any circumstances, and generally insist that the rest of us be just as miserable as they are ... else we must somehow be blind or incompetent in their eyes. Semantics I know but ... there is a reasoning behind the semantics in this particular case. 
Jeff Michka Added Jan 26, 2019 - 9:15pm
Well, ol Ward....guess you're not getting any orders for freeze dried food today.  You haven't declared the "national prepper emergency" of the day.  Get with the program, rightist scum.  You need to try and frighten people, but it's you Ward, so they'll all just laugh.  Hasn't your current ladyboy howled at your limp johnson?
Don in Odessa Added Jan 27, 2019 - 6:45am
@Ward Tipton
About those that encourage it: My first thought is, many of faith see it as one moment closer to paradise. Aside from that. I suppose the mindset can be distilled to one of two. One being, for the disenfranchised, change even violent change, engenders a hope that the outcome will be better than the present. At the very least it is a change from the current pain. Then there are those who make a living off fear. Explanation not needed, I expect.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 27, 2019 - 6:48am
"Then there are those who make a living off fear. Explanation not needed, I expect."
Al Sharpton and David Duke were busy making a living off fear and were unavailable for comment. 
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2019 - 8:57am
re "Ward - I think words can hurt every bit as much as blades."
That is only really true of the immature. People grow up and learn to handle their feelings without involving society and asking for its protection.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2019 - 8:59am
David Duke is not what the painstream media makes him out to be at all. The beliefs attributed to him by the Jewish media are outright lies.
Jeff Michka Added Jan 27, 2019 - 2:31pm
Right, PlumbDoug, David Duke is really just a nice guy, bringing moniority children into his home, dressing them in sheets and pointy hats so they blend in at family/political situations.  Yeah, and ol David held a house warming party for his new black neighbors and openly, publicly cheered when one of the family survived the fire.  Why not peddle another conspiracy, Douggie?  Yeah, it's that "Jewish media" (of course, what other foil do we have, eh?) are behind Duke's racism.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 28, 2019 - 1:01pm
Should a forty something year old man who now self-identifies as a “six year old girl” so that he can “get away from the realities he used to have to deal with” be allowed to enroll in kindergarten?
What the fuck is wrong with you guys over there ? Wow. Maybe a loss of reality due to geographic isolation caused by two oceans in between.....
Cullen Kehoe Added Jan 28, 2019 - 7:42pm
If words hurt as much as blades, then freedom of speech is dead. 
We used to believe that words and violence were two starkly different things. One was immoral (violence) and the other was valid and constitutionally protected (words). 
Seriously, don't we all learn this when we're 5 or 6 years old? Saying something mean isn't right but nobody has a right to lay hands on anyone else to commit violence. That is illegal. 
The role of government is to protect its citizens from harm, not hurt feelings. IT'S NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT to get into the business of policing hate speech. 
Hate speech laws should be unnecessary. Extreme speech that threatens violence is effectively illegal. Violence itself is illegal. So what is the need for hate speech laws??? 
If there laws being passed in countries and states all over the world that make speech illegal, it should make everyone's eyebrows raise. What, exactly, is the definition of hate speech then? 

My understanding is...it's fluid. It's in the eye of the beholder. Great. So now speech is becoming illegal that any judge, anyone holding power can dictate on a whim. 
If someone can LABEL your speech as hate speech, then you're a criminal and you can go to jail. Pastors in Europe and Canada have been threatened with this for preaching biblical sermons.
You have all Trump voters called deplorables, racists. Many claim wearing is MAGA is racist. 
They are taking away your 1st Amendment rights under your nose. If enough people agree your speech is racist, then you're a criminal. 
Dave Volek Added Jan 28, 2019 - 8:05pm
I like your "If not, why not?" approach to the first part of your discussion. It would be interesting to get some answers from the looney left.
You kind of lost me with that big list of mental disorders. I think I started seeing your point: "We have invested a lot of 'psychiatric science' to address the needs of a minority of the population." Along the way, we have split a lot of hairs, with each disorder compromising a smaller and smaller segment of the total population. 
In my younger days, I would have given your article a big "right on". You do make a lot of sense.
But when I was in my mid-40s, I came to a realization that I had a mild mental illness. Outwardly, I appeared quite competent. I had a business, was fairly rational in many things, was outgoing, and had enough friends. But inwardly, I was suffering from a mild and continuous depression that affected too many life decisions. I got some counselling, and life is indeed better.
But I wonder about trivializing mental illnesses, big or small, real or perceived. If people refuse to get help, then our abilities to progress as individuals, families, and communities is limited.
Maybe the psychiatric profession has overblown itself. But in my part of the world, it is difficult to find competent help for mental illness---unless one is upper middle class.
FacePalm Added Jan 29, 2019 - 12:13pm
i take comfort from the following words:
"It is no measure of sanity to be well-adjusted to an insane world."
When in Rome...
But sanity is not only overrated, but i cannot think of a single human being who was entirely rational, peaceful, serene, and content at all times and in all circumstances.  Some people are really quite expert at needling others and/or committing criminal offenses against others so repeatedly that tolerating such intolerance simply becomes intolerable at some point. 
i read about one of the so-called "Desert Fathers" who apparently came home from a journey only to find someone burglarizing his home.  He not only helped the thief load up his own goods, he was regretful that he didn't have more for the thief to steal.
He was either a far better man than i ever have hope of becoming, or he was insane - it's hard to tell after the passage of over 1700 years.
Also, i believe in Christ, who said in several diverse ways that we will reap what we sow, sooner or later...for good or ill.
Dave Volek Added Jan 29, 2019 - 1:10pm
Psychologists have deemed that 4% of the male population have serious psychopathic tendencies. This means that they have little natural regard for the welfare of others and are motivated by maximizing their own benefit. This is a natural trait in the same way some people are left-handed.
There are times where I wonder if I don't have a little bit of that ailment in myself.
Most psychopaths can be socialized to function well in society. While they may not be all that motivated for empathy, they really don't want to be in jail.
Psychopaths like to put themselves in position of power over others. Management and politics probably have more than their fair share of psychopaths. In this way, they can carry out some of their natural tendencies and be (mostly) legal.
If Christianity can affect their outward actions (do bad things=going to Hell), that is great. But we should not assume that psychopaths can be converted into saints. They need to be managed.  
FacePalm Added Jan 29, 2019 - 3:33pm
From my understanding, psychopaths - the obvious ones, anyway - are the serial murderer type.  It is the sociopaths one must be wary of, for even though they have no true empathy, they can "fake it."
i have read that when psychologists/psychiatrists examine various corporate entities, they nearly always see psychopathic tendencies - which would account for many of the world's ills, IMO.  Corporate entities who have virtually unlimited funds AND who are also psychopathic are extremely dangerous.
i believe that this tendency can be attributed in large part to a mandate of their charters, which is that they're required by law to maximize profits for their shareholders - and many naturally human tendencies get thrown by the wayside in order to accomplish that goal, including concern for present and future generations, the desire to "effect government capture" so as to be the writers of the laws which allegedly regulate them, the lack of concern for the welfare of other living beings on this planet(except to the degree that they're useful to maximize profit), and so on.
Change the law of "maximize profit," and these tendencies can be tamped down and/or tempered.  Refuse, and things will continue on their primrose paths until, lemming-like, they leap into the chasm to certain death, taking as many with them as possible.
But consider the possibility that these mental illnesses are not natural/inevitable/"human nature" at all, but are pre-programmed by those who wish to dominate, fleece/milk, and control humanity, bleeding it in the process.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 29, 2019 - 8:34pm
"You kind of lost me with that big list of mental disorders. I think I started seeing your point: "We have invested a lot of 'psychiatric science' to address the needs of a minority of the population." "
We have big pharma who has freely admitted to creating new "mental disorders" in order to extend patents and patent life to increase profits, in addition to working hand in hand with psychiatrists to ensure a marketplace wherein continued use of these notably harmful and dangerous drugs is mandated by law in some cases. We have contradictory laws on the books saying that these are and are not mental disorders ... in Canada you have a judge who has ruled that the scientific evidence and facts are irrelevant in determining justice based on C16 ... (C46 is another article altogether on the unchecked power of the police state) and while there are not set numbers of genders, a failure on the part of someone not only to recognize this, but to know by some quirk of fate I suppose, which is the appropriate pronoun to use when addressing these ... people ... at least if they are not also trans-species ... is a criminal act ... 
The social fabric in my estimation, is being ripped beyond repair ... but on purpose and for a reason I suspect. 
Doug Plumb Added Jan 30, 2019 - 7:27am
I think the general population is gradually turning psychopathic.
  I often start conversations on the line at the grocery store about bank cards and electronic money. The response I get from my warning from older folks is overwhelmingly this: "I don't care, I won't be around then".

Recent Articles by Writers Ward Tipton follows.