She makes a good point though.
The SSRI are making people crazy.
I think I read some statistics that every school shooter in USA have been on SSRI
Those are just the ones that get attention. The SSRI doesn't specifically makes you into a school shooter, they just make you lose your mind completely
For example, one SSRI drug that was common 1-2 decades ago, made people get an urge to open their own skull in a specific place. Some did, using a drill or a hammer
SSRI will fuck you up
Not that it is an excuse though.
Because if SSRI are used as a get out of jail for free card then everyone who wan't to commit murder just have to get a prescription of SSRI and then commit murder
It is not as if everyone who are on SSRI get mental. Most get there sooner or later, depending on how long and how much they are on
But whether someone will actually act out on their SSRI induced extremely disturbing impulses or not i don't know, is it character
is the SSRI just a trigger?
@EvolLove
I think about 30% of the US is on these drugs. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World came true.
We still can't just excuse people's homicidal behavior to the drugs they took. If I smoked a bunch of meth and then killed somebody, I should not get off because I said the drugs made me do it.
Drugs, illegal or on prescription are not excuses to commit murder.
But the drug dealer might get a pretty hard punishment while the SSRI promoting doctors live safe in mansions.
While the brains of the patients who trusted them and came to them for help are rotting away.
@EvolLove @Bernard The pharma corps and doctors should have some liability — they're 'trusted' and most people blindly believe these drugs will help and have no idea of the horrendous side effects. If the person having the psycho breakdown is liable, they should shoulder some of that burden as well.
@MrPierrey @EvolLove
I agree the makers and pushers of SSRI's should be prosecuted. The harms have been known for quite some time. This is why those taking them should not be absolved of guilt.
And the punishment for some intentional civilization-ruining crimes should be bloodline termination.
@cjd I increasingly think that the majority of humanity's issues stem from bankers. All this greed stems from the way banks operate and reward… If we get rid of bankers, the profit incentives for all the institutional malfeasance will go away…
"Help Mankind, Kill a Banker". 10000% more effective than any other endeavour. Change my mind. 
@Bernard @EvolLove
@MrPierrey @cjd @Bernard @EvolLove
The problem are not bankers per say, no matter how much I hate jews.
The issue is fiat money and fractional banking. Banks need to operate responsibly if there is a hard currency and bank euns/loans protections in place (insurance mostly).
1. The 3rd reich did not actually adopt hard money, so their financial system was still dependent on a pinky-swear
2. They just didn't last long enough to know if their financial/political system was sound.
So in my opinion, the Byzantine Empire is a far better example - wherein Emperor Constantin stabilized the Solidus at 4.45 grams of gold - and managed to establish a literal thousand year empire.
And Byzantine treatment of Jews was not to exterminate, nor even to expel, but rather to regulate them.
@cjd
NSDAP backed the money by labor rather than gold because the price of gold was too easily manipulated. Does any nation back their money by gold anymore?
By going to war against mammonism, they turned Germany into the most culturally, technologically, and economically advanced nation the world had ever seen. It was an example the banking cartel and others could not permit.
Both the Byzantine empire and Third Reich banned jews from education and government roles. They were not expelled nor targeted for extermination in Germany. They had to wear that yellow star on their clothes to prevent them from tricking Gentiles. There was some discussion and tentative plans to expel them from the country(The so called final solution), but those never materialized. Don't believe jewish lies.
@Zeb @EvolLove @MrPierrey
Every single time in history that anyone has endeavored to create a government controlled currency, they always eventually printed it to worthlessness and destroyed their nation in the process.
I'm a radical utilitarian, in that I believe that every policy that leads to a thousand year empire is by definition good, and every policy that leads to a 10 year flash in the pan is by definition bad. And I'm really not inclined to entertain the "we would have won but ..." stories. Every single loser in history has a story like that, just ask GWOT veterans about how they were gonna beat the Taliban (but didn't)...
Now if the entirety of history was just misery and enslavement forever, and the only one glimmer of hope was the Nazi Party, then I would grant you that it's the best we have... BUT, there are multitudinous examples of fabulous successes, Byzantium being just one of them.
@cjd
Every country that has backed its money by gold collapsed or was conquered. Although this statement is technically true, do you see the logical fallacy I am committing like you did?
A vast myriad of reasons contribute to the collapse or conquering of a nation. Byzantium was conquered by the Ottomans, and Germany was conquered by the Jews. Neither nation's system failed. External forces were too great for them to defeat.
Germany's growth trajectory had never been seen before. The NSDAP was just getting started after turning around the country in twelve years. If any number of events were different back then, history would have been very different.
I think we can agree that a country which lasts 1000 years is considered a success, and one that lasts 10 years isn't.
> Germany's growth trajectory had never been seen before.
I'll grant you that the recovery was impressive, and it isn't attributable to US capital flows because those dried up in 1931.
But on the other side of things, survivability is paramount. It's very well known that any idiot can make far more money in the stock market than Warran Buffet - it's just that to do this you must take risks that WILL bankrupt you in the next once-per-decade crash.
Same thing with families - you can be a billionaire, but if you don't continue the bloodline then your family dies with you...
Anyway, long rambling way of getting back to my same point: A country which lasts 1000 years is considered a success, and one that lasts 10 years isn't.
@cjd
I see little connection to the monetary system and the duration of the Byzantine empire. Most countries at that time used metal currencies. Some lasted longer than others.
One significant driver of the war against Germany was its successful attempt to buck the central banking cartel run by the Rothschilds. It was simply the sheer military might of the countries opposing them that ended the Third Reich. The monetary system did not fail by any means.
@Zeb @EvolLove @MrPierrey
What failed was the state, they did the thing a state must never do - they got defeated and crushed.
However, there's evidence that hard money is better than fiat because before 1914, all of the European states had money that was convertible to gold at a fixed exchange rate. Then as soon as the Federal Reserve opened, WW1 started and all of them abandoned the gold standard - and it's been misery and hell ever since...
You need to read more about the FED, and how the banking system operates, basically a pinky-swear while crossing their fingers with both hands behind their backs.
This is why I'm suspicious of ANY government that insists on printing money. If you want my trust, make your currency something that no one on earth can create at will... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Zeb @MrPierrey @cjd @EvolLove
The usury based fractional reserve debt based money system is a product of mammonism. One nation successfully abolished and replaced this, but the bankers militarily crushed that nation. https://www.nationalists.org/pdf/hitler/manifesto-for-abolition-enslavement-interest-on-money-gottfried-feder.pdf