Thread

🛡️
I remember seeing them cancel tom cruise for this back in 2005. Yet I remember knowing then as I do now that he was right. It left me with a strange feeling watching someone be sacrificed for the sake of corporate profits and some broader agenda. An early tell that lies live very large in the world while the truth lives very small. When you see someone not just criticized but sacrificed that’s usually a tell that they are over the target and what they’re saying is correct.

Replies (39)

I had similar experience fighting ADHD. The official medicine suggests mild narcotics and antidepressives. It just scratches the surface for alternatives like exercises for training your focus, systematic physical activities, learning a music instrument etc. It pays off much better than just taking drugs.
If you’re going to be outspoken, speak out about modern cancel culture and its ‘first principals’, Jewish ideologues, who are responsible for this American state of affairs. And then again, you are AmericanHodl. Garrulous when it comes to so many things, and yet you hodl your tongue on this issue that afflicts our country to its core. Freedom of speech and monetary freedom are inseparable, clearly. Bitcoin was created to solve the problem of decentralized, ethnically-Jewish financial tyranny, and any other type of monetary tyranny thereafter. Almost every American Gentile captain of industry or influential outspoken thinker commented on the influence of the Organized Jewish Community in world affairs. If you aspire to be a part of that storied American tradition, AmericanHodl, there is no time like the present.
Always and in everything, lies are in the lead, carrying fools away with their loudmouthedness... Truth comes last, trailing behind time... Deception is always on the surface, which is what superficial people stumble upon... The true essence is closed in on itself, So that it can be better appreciated by those who know and understand.
While what he says may resonate with you because there is some pseudoscience masquerading as reality (see: Keynesian economics), remember the path he then chose was Scientology. It is OK to say "I don't know". The problem is people want/demand/expect an explanation to everything in the world and once the mask comes off of the societally acceptable narrative, there are hucksters waiting in the wings to sell you their version that you're now extremely susceptible to.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I haven't studied enough about psychiatry to provide a useful opinion, hopefully you have. My point is many people see there is a problem. Whether it is a political one, big pharma, big agriculture, military industrial complex, etc... The tricky part is moving on to a better solution. There are too many hucksters lying in wait to provide an alternative that is equally bullshit. There is also another issue that seems relatively common in the bitcoin space. We were right about the money being broken. We were right to buy into bitcoin early and hodl (I applaud your efforts in educating ppl to do so). But so many of us think that being right about the money means we know enough to opine about everything. I know I'm right about bitcoin because I studied it for more than 500 hours. I haven't studied psychiatry for 10 hours. This is a common fallacy that people who are very successful in one aspect of life fall into.
🛡️
Well I have spent a lifetime dealing with the psychiatric establishment and I can tell you emphatically that it’s bullshit. Success is a lousy teacher that’s true, but also once you know the way broadly you can see it in all things. More of the world is bullshit than not. Just look at prior eras. Were Victorian era doctors right about using mercury as a treatment for syphillis, but wrong that masturbation caused blindness? Or were they just morons who were wrong about basically everything? That was only 125 years ago. Basically the blink of an eye. We are not much different from them and 125 years from now our current era will be looked at the same.
100% agree with you that success is a lousy teacher and that much of the world is bullshit. Again, my only point is there is a lot of bullshit being offered to those who see through the first layer bullshit. To give a bitcoin analogy: a person sees the current financial system is complete bullshit. Today, there are more ppl offering them xrp, cardano, trumpcoin, etc... than bitcoin. I think that is true for almost everything else as well outside of finance. My concern is that those of us who have studied bitcoin deeply (and I thank you for being part of my education) and believe we have found the right answer on the finance front may be misled by these false sirens in other areas of study. I'm sorry to hear you've had to deal with the bullshit psychiatric establishment and I'll take your word on it that it is bullshit. I haven't had to but I will be quite wary if I am recommended going that route in the future per your advice!
And can you articulate the history of psychiatry or can you tell me exactly what it’s getting wrong? How would you describe the origin of the problems it’s trying to address, and what would you say is the right way to solve them? P.S. Saying ‘X is gay’ doesn’t count, like you did at the shitcoin/stablecoin/fuckedbypoliticians conference.
🛡️
Sure. Psychiatry, as we know it, emerged less as a science and more as a mechanism of social control. In the 19th century, it institutionalized the poor, the unwanted, and the socially disruptive. With no real understanding of the mind, early psychiatrists classified people based on vague moral or behavioral deviances. When psychoanalysis failed to deliver empirical rigor, psychiatry pivoted post-WWII to the “biological model,” which claimed without conclusive evidence that mental illness was the result of “chemical imbalances.” That idea, by the way, is not just outdated it was never scientifically validated. The former head of NIMH, Dr. Thomas Insel, admitted the field spent $20 billion on brain research without improving outcomes for depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. In 2022, a major meta-analysis published in Molecular Psychiatry reviewed decades of studies and found no consistent evidence linking serotonin levels to depression. Yet SSRIs are prescribed to tens of millions as if this link were settled science. So what is psychiatry getting wrong? Three main things: 1. It pathologizes normal responses to trauma and suffering. Bereavement, existential despair, economic precarity these are often labeled disorders requiring medication rather than understood as human experiences demanding meaning, community, and care. 2. It relies on symptom suppression, not root-cause resolution. Psychiatric drugs often blunt distress, but don’t heal it. Long-term use of antipsychotics, for example, has been correlated with worse functional outcomes and higher relapse rates, as found in studies like the WHO’s international schizophrenia outcomes project. 3. It treats individuals in isolation from their environments. But data from the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study shows that childhood trauma, neglect, and abuse strongly correlate with adult mental illness, addiction, and chronic disease. This is not a brain defect it’s a systemic failure. What’s the right approach? One that views mental illness not as a defect to be fixed, but a signal to be understood. That requires: • Trauma-informed therapy, not just prescriptions. • Social reintegration—community, meaning, and purpose. • Lifestyle and somatic interventions (sleep, nutrition, exercise) which outperform medication in many cases. • Psychedelic-assisted therapy and other emerging modalities that address the root, not the symptom. The problem isn’t that psychiatry is trying to reduce suffering it’s that it’s using tools that were designed to suppress, not heal. If the body keeps the score, psychiatry needs to learn how to read it. And that shit is hella gay.
You’re partially right, but what you’re saying is misleading and oversimplified. It is accurate, for instance, to say that psychiatry in the 19th century often functioned as a tool of social control. Historical records support the fact that individuals—particularly the poor, women, and those seen as socially disruptive—were frequently institutionalized more for being inconvenient than for any clear medical condition. In that era, classification systems were indeed vague, and diagnoses were often based on moral or behavioral judgments rather than scientific evidence. The criticism of the “chemical imbalance” theory of mental illness is also valid. The notion that depression results from low serotonin levels has been widely discredited, or at least shown to lack compelling scientific evidence. This was confirmed by a 2022 meta-analysis published in Molecular Psychiatry, which found no consistent link between serotonin levels and depression. Although this idea was once promoted as established science, it never had strong empirical support. This reflects a larger issue in how psychiatric treatments are marketed and understood by the public, even when many clinicians themselves never fully subscribed to the chemical imbalance explanation. Dr. Thomas Insel, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, did publicly acknowledge that despite significant investments in brain-based research—about $20 billion worth—the field did not succeed in delivering improved real-world outcomes for major psychiatric disorders like depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. His reflections have fueled legitimate concerns that the biological model of psychiatry has been overemphasized at the expense of more holistic and effective interventions. It correctly highlights the importance of trauma and environment in the development of mental illness. The findings from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study are robust and well-established, showing strong correlations between early trauma and later-life issues including mental illness, addiction, and even physical disease. This supports the call for a trauma-informed approach that considers individuals in the context of their lived experiences and social environments. BUT while many of these points are valid, the critique also veers into overgeneralization. For example, stating that psychiatry “emerged less as a science and more as social control” oversimplifies the historical evolution of the field. Although early psychiatry certainly had coercive elements, it also involved sincere scientific efforts to understand mental illness and improve care. Figures such as Emil Kraepelin laid foundational work for modern diagnostic systems that were more systematic than arbitrary. Another overstatement is the claim that psychiatric medications are prescribed “as if the link [to serotonin] were settled science.” While this may have been truer in the past, most psychiatrists today recognize the complexity of mood disorders and do not rely on serotonin explanations alone. Moreover, SSRIs and other medications have demonstrated efficacy in many patients, even if their mechanisms are not fully understood. Suggesting that they are based on nothing but myth can be misleading, especially to those who genuinely benefit from them. The critique that psychiatry focuses on symptom suppression rather than addressing root causes is partially true. The system is often oriented around short-term stabilization rather than long-term healing, a reality shaped as much by institutional and economic constraints as by medical ideology. Yet many practitioners are now integrating more holistic models that combine therapy, social support, and biological understanding. The field is not static, and to treat it as monolithic overlooks these important developments. Finally, while lifestyle changes and somatic interventions—such as improved sleep, diet, exercise, and mindfulness practices—have been shown to be effective, especially in mild to moderate depression, they are not always sufficient on their own, particularly for severe mental illness. The claim that they “outperform medication in many cases” can be true in specific contexts, but should be stated with nuance to avoid creating false expectations. Your rhetorical force comes at the cost of precision. Psychiatry is neither a failed science nor a purely oppressive system—it is a complex and evolving field, with both flaws and vital contributions. A productive critique would acknowledge this duality, pushing for reform without discarding what still works.
Yes. 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Krishnamurti Psychiatric pills disconnect us from the reality. They are tools primarily oriented towards maintaining the status quo, which is basically a prison without bars. I spent around four years (and counting) creating a lecture series in an attempt to lay out what I've found to be the best approach to escaping the prison; specifically addressing the responsible use of psychedelics. Searching for Holotropic Renaissance on any podcasting app should bring it up for anyone who's curious. Also here sourcenode.xyz
These drugs cause so much damage. I wish I had listened. I still trusted the system back 18 years ago, and have dealt with the harms of these drugs. The support for helping those of us who have woken up and want off these drugs is seriously lacking, and instead we get told more lies, and are gaslit by doctors when we talk about #ssriwithdrawal I've started sharing my story here on #nostr #hyperbolictapering can help those of us trapped on these drugs.