When I Would Vote Republican

Psychiatry is Thought Policing. The Thought Police, especially in public schools, are trying to outlaw emotions and vast territories of free thought. There is nothing positive about psychiatry.

In order to advance their agenda of control and mental slavery, the Thought Police first make school life intolerable, then when any student in any way expresses how intolerable school life is, they use fear tactics to frighten parents into believing their son or daughter has something called a "mental illness" (a thing which they simply made up) and that the kid cannot be trusted to think for themselves. They then encourage every effort to forcibly disallow the child to think for themselves and make authority figures think for them. This, of course, causes the child immense suffering, which they will obviously express, and when they do, it confirms their proposition that they have a "mental illness."

No tactic is too extreme to force the child not to think for themselves. Schools have been known to put children in isolation for hours and not allow them to go to the bathroom. They also torture children with electric shocks to get them to fall in line. If they express suicidality (who wouldn't in such a situation?) they use police force to incarcerate them and deny them all basic rights in a "mental hospital" (prison). Abuse is rampant at these hospitals. While according to the first Amendment, people should be allowed to videotape orderlies at these hospitals, if you try to force them to respect this right, they will violently tackle you to the ground, take away your camera permanently, put you in isolation, not allow you to eat with the other inmates, and put you on a higher dosage of mind-killing medications in order to subdue you.

Parents naturally have a bond for their children. So when they are afraid for them, they take control of the situation. This instinct is twisted and perverted into a sadistic form of mind-control and manipulation by the Thought Police. If you can get a parent to believe that their child has illegal thoughts ("mental illness"), they will use any and all tactics to force the child to think the way they prescribe. They will try to "help," which in essence means torture and traumatize the child into allowing the parent totalitarian mind-control to force out the illegal thoughts.

How do they frighten parents into becoming proxy Thought Police? Consider a publication I found at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, entitled "Red Flags in Children's Behavior." What exactly are some of these "red flags?" For adolescents, some include, "drug and alcohol use," "difficulty with relationships," "inattention to appearance or grooming," "risk taking behaviors with little thought of consequences," "extreme sensitivity to rejection or failure," "social isolation." In other words, being a normal adolescent is illegal. In order to satisfy the Thought Police, you must be a completely abnormal teenager--a freak. But of course, if you ever get depressed because you're a freak, that's an illegal thought, and they will bear down on you using every tactic they have in their arsenal.

According to the Thought Police, humanity is illegal. And to punish being human, they will torture you and traumatize you any way they can.

I am a solid Liberal, but the Republicans have a great track record against psychiatry. If Democrats EVER take up the position that we should "help" people with "mental illness," I won't care about the environment, I won't care about gay rights, I won't care about rampant corporate corruption, I won't care about civil liberties, I won't care about domestic spying, I won't care about foreign wars, I won't care about militarizing the police, I won't care about the war on drugs, I won't care about regulation of Wall Street; if Democrats EVER try to "help" people with "mental illness," I WILL vote Republican. Period.

It is imperative that right-thinking people let the world know how we feel about the disgusting anti-human institution of psychiatry and oppose it in any possible way we can.

Debates on Brony Sex

Just got back from my trip to Ponyland in Equestria. A particularly American conceit is to assume that our actions here have no effect on other countries. I want to emphatically say that Equestria CARES about the American Brony scene. They pay attention, and it is wrong to assume they don't. And the debate over there is fascinating. I'll share with you a couple articles lifted from the Equestrian media about sexual objectification of ponies, particularly Fluttershy.

---

"Be Kind to Fluttershy: Don't Assume." By, Twilight Sparkle.

It is unfortunate that in today's culture a pony cannot escape sexualization. Of course, I'm no stranger to sexuality. In the 21st century, it's becoming increasingly obvious that none of us are. In fact, that's partially my point. Lets face the facts: ponies are becoming increasingly sexually liberated. Once modern medical science and the industrial revolution brought about the pony condom and the ability to cure some and detect most pony sexually transmitted diseases, Equestria responded my loosening the sexual mores of the past. It's unnecessary to elaborate. Suffice to say that Fluttershy's sexuality, like that of many ponies in Equestria, is probably multifaceted. And active.

Now one may argue that because a pony's sexuality is active, actively seeking attention from others, that he or she must necessarily invite sexual objectification to fulfill his or her desires. An incredulous Brony may say, "I have a right to respond to the sexual activity of ponies. If they cast sexual attention on others, am I not simply returning the favor?" Leaving aside the presumptuousness of assuming a pony wants to have sex with you, or any human for that matter, the difficulty in this statement lies in the distinction between open sexuality and forced projection of sexuality.

Sexuality should come with no expectations, no presumptions, no expectations. For Fluttershy to continue to be the confident woman pony she is, she must operate on a level plane of autonomy. Fluttershy must respond to the objective challenges she faces as they are, without laboring under other people's expectations and presumptions. She cannot live to please others: she must live to be herself. Although Fluttershy has a penchant for consideration of others, she consistently does not allow this consideration to degenerate into obsequious self-deprecation. It is one of her more notable talents. But unfortunately, the very virtue of consideration for others invites social pressures. It is unfair for us to add to them, especially in the emotionally potent arena of sexual activity.

It is okay for a human to be attracted to Fluttershy, or any other pony. Again, she is sexually active, and invites sexual attention. But, if you objectify her, and presume that she must fulfill sexual roles on demand, this violates her autonomy and increases unfair pressures, making it difficult to for her to fulfill her obligations as a citizen of Ponyville.

What's the alternative? Simply this: open Brony sexuality. Attraction without expectations. It may take some decolonization, but it should be achievable with practice. Don't make the mistake that I am anti-male, anti-Brony, or anti-pony sex. But as a society, we must lessen the pressures on Equestrian females. It is the only way for Equestrian civilization to grow and progress.

---

"Wake Up! Sex is Dialectic! A Response to Sparkle." By, Princess Luna

It is difficult for me, being in a position of authority, to write an opinion piece like this, for fear that it may come across as an edict. Let me begin by saying I share some sympathies with Twilight; I am well aware of the need for sexual liberation of woman ponies, as well as the need to fight off the Brony invasion any way we can. I find it undignified that humans from a different planet have the gall to steal away our young maidens for sexual intercourse. But this is all beside the point. The real reason I am writing this is to point out the blatant logical fallacies Sparkle uses to advance her case.

Sparkle's argument rests entirely on the distinction she draws between sexual objectification and sexual "openness." I find that no such distinction exists. Any sort of "level plane" one tries to imagine falls apart upon close inspection. Why? Because openness, to her, essentially means lack of initiative. If one pony does not advance him- or herself upon another, no sexual interaction can take place. "Advancing" is essentially a verb: it is "verbial," if you will. And what does a verb require? An object. A sexual object in this case.

Sex is dialectic. It requires give-and-take. One pony or person advances upon another, and then the other responds, and the first responds to the response, and so on. The kind of vision Sparkle advances, while well-studied, is naïve. It sees sex as a kind of static thing, which somehow miraculously arises from a state of non-relativity, which means non-motion. No action can take place in such a state.

While I do not respect the Bronies and their motives, I do at least understand their nature, which is not much different from our own. When a Brony expresses sexual desire for a pony, he is by necessity objectifying her, and it is not this which I object to. This is natural. And while a Brony should not be allowed to interfere with our Equestrian national self-determination, he should at least be given the same essential rights we respect in Equestria. One of these rights is freedom of speech. If a Brony wants to objectify Fluttershy based on her obsequiousness, which is a weakness of her character, it is not for us to decide whether he can express this. And the fact of this expression alone is not reprehensible. It is not as if by sexually objectifying Fluttershy a Brony is spreading some kind of malicious lie or destructive cultural meme. Again, objectification is natural and necessary. If Fluttershy does not like to be objectified in the way she is, she should work on her character. But she and her friends should not attack Bronies' freedom of speech. Rather, attack the cultural co-optation and colonialism they advance on us; this is the real issue between our species.

I believe Fluttershy is right that she has a right to sexual liberty. But this does not require freedom from objectification. When somepony makes the free choice to objectify her, she has the free choice to respond or not. If the first pony or person forces the choice, and violates her liberty, then we have a problem. But otherwise, she has no right to try to force the first person or pony's thoughts and beliefs. Even if they are a Brony.