The Progressive Twilight Zone

Shot of an office. Grey walls. Posters that say “Diversity Is Good” and “We Are Inclusive” are displayed on the walls. A man in a skirt walks up to a man seated wearing khaki pants and a polo shirt.

Man in skirt: Smith, I told you per HR guidelines that after January 1st, you should wear a skirt or dress.

Smith: I did not think it made sense. Look at the women in the office. They wear pants most of the time.

Man in skirt: C’mon Smith, even D’jamal the mailguy is wearing one now, and he had to find a size 32 to fit. You want to be inclusive, don’t you?

Smith: This is ridiculous. Two years ago, no man was wearing a skirt, and then when Michael did it, we thought it was a kilt gag. Doesn’t anyone see this is weird and unreasonable? Jeffries! He’ll know. Jeffries wasn’t wearing one yesterday.

Jeffries turns the corner of the aisle and stands next to the man in the skirt. He is wearing a skirt, too.

>Dolly-zoom on Smith’s shocked face.

Jeffries: Smith, they are really liberating. Lot of free movement for my boys.

Man in skirt: Jeffries, I’ll let that comment pass, but that’s a warning or else I call HR. Smith, you need to wear a skirt tomorrow. I’d hate to talk to HR and anyone else about your problematic behavior… this is the third problematic event this month.

Smith runs from the building to his car. Drives away. He sees men walking the street in skirts.

Narrator: There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and timeless as infinity. It is the far left ground devoid of light and full of shadow, bereft of science and full of superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the nadir of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call The Progressive Zone.

While the political Left is currently throwing temper tantrums and melting down on social media and the streets, the true power of the Left continues its work. The foot soldiers may be mad, but the elite uses its control of institutions both government and non-government to lay the groundwork for future victories.

As written here on the politicization of medicine with regards to the trans push, the Left uses seemingly non-partisan institutions to enforce its will. Lawyers now can be fined for sexism in the courtroom as defined by the academic Left’s idea of sexism (anything they disapprove of). Consent laws are quickly jumping from the twisted minds of sociology departments to campuses and now to California state law. The Left takes every ideological poison and injects it into their political circulatory system. The newest DSM V should give anyone who dissents from the progressive line pause.

Buried within the DSM V is one small change that should grab everyone’s attention. The entry for oppositional defiant disorder had one small tweak to it. Oppositional defiant disorder in the DSM IV was about the disorder of children who have problems with authority figures. Reading the DSM IV, it appears psychiatrists, educators, and weak parents wanted the clerisy to create a justification for them to drug their children into submission.

The DSM V has a small but startling change. The lines in the DSM V now reveal that ODD now can be a disorder exhibited by adults. There are two specific lines that make it very clear that this disorder no longer applies to only children, but can be a diagnosis slapped on adults. There is a specific section that outlines how dangerous this can be in our prog dominated culture and society.

The symptoms of the disorder often are part of a pattern of problematic interactions with others. Furthermore, individuals with this disorder typically do not regard themselves as angry, oppositional, or defiant. instead, they often justify their behavior as a response to unreasonable demands or circumstances. Thus, it can be difficult to disentangle the relative contribution of the individual with the disorder to the problematic interactions he or she experiences.

The DSM V went full Kafka there. This is the Left carefully creating a medical justification for harsh treatment of dissidents and pathologizing dissent. If Trump supporters felt they had to keep quiet to keep their job, they will now have to keep quiet to avoid medical prescriptions or hospitalization.

This is not hyperbole, as this type of stifling of dissent was common in the formerly communist Eastern bloc, creating the need for people to practice ketman. During the Brezhnev era of the Soviet Union, the Soviets hospitalized those who dissented from the party line. This was a replacement of the labor camp system Solzhenitsyn wrote of in his Gulag Archipelago trilogy. It was not a death or hard labor sentence but a drugging, sedating, and sequestering sentence.

Totalitarianism in a white lab coat and clipboard is easier to market. A network of mental health hospitals also becomes a job engine for politically loyal foot soldiers.

This does not have to go all the way to hospitalization, but consider the filtration system it could place for good paying and higher status jobs. One not only has to hide dissenting views, but now must affirm the prevailing prog line. Click like, share a prog narrative news link, and jump on board the latest social crusade. To earn good money and therefore save your family from dealing with the imported underclass and their negative social externalities, you will have to actively go along. To climb the political-economic ladder, one proves loyalty with no matter how insane the demands of the party, which helps progressives select for loyal administrators.

The DSM does have knock on effects with government policy. One of the fiercest behind the scenes battles of the 1970s was the push by pro-gay advocates to have homosexuality not deemed a mental disorder. This took grandstanding by masked homosexual psychiatrists as well as organized political pressure on the APA. This was all just to have homosexuals not be considered mentally off. A generation later, every fear that parents had about homosexuals in classrooms, namely teaching that homosexuality = awesome, and normalization not just of homosexuality, but a buffet of sexual deviancy, has been confirmed. This ODD change is not about liberation and freedom, but incarceration and suppression.

This need not go to hospitalizing, but it does allow for backdoor gun control. Voice enough dissent, and voila, you are diagnosed with ODD. If progressives are allowed any form of gun control that involves “no guns for the mentally ill,” then more diagnoses of ODD may follow.

If the progressive line is that guns are bad and owning a gun is bad, then to voice any support for guns–and doing so in the slightest of heated debates–puts you at risk for an ODD diagnosis. How many of not just your progressive friends, but your middle of the road, zero agency, normal friends, would gladly support keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

No one will ask who defines the mentally ill. Even if they ask, they will hear “per the American Psychiatric Association” and immediately genuflect before the approved authority. Their blissfully unaware ears might only perk up if the follow up question to them is, “Now why did you ask, comrade?”

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

13 Comments

  1. I have always found that laughing at them disarms them. They cannot deal with ridicule.

  2. On the topic of mental illness as a method of social control, take a peek at the text of this bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4919/text. After they diagnose you, they’ll force a “non-permanent, non-invasive” tracking device on you.

  3. Leftists lied again when they named that disorder (Oppositional defiant disorder). If they would have been honest, they would have named it ‘Oppositional conservative disorder’, or shortly OCD 2; abbreviation OCD is already in use (Obsessive compulsive disorder).

    Lets analyse the criteria, signs and symptoms a little bit.

    “Unlike children with conduct disorder (CD), children with oppositional defiant disorder are not aggressive towards people or animals, do not destroy property, and do not show a pattern of theft or deceit.”

    – Yes, we first have to differentiate OCD2 from liberal clients / client groups. They are clearly normal conservatives.

    “A pattern of angry/irritable mood, argumentative/defiant behavior, or vindictiveness lasting at least 6 months as evidenced by at least four symptoms from any of the following categories, and exhibited during interaction with …”

    – I.e. conservatives are always angry when dealing with liberal authorities. Hmmm, why would that be so?

    “Often loses temper.”

    – Normal consequence when dealing with liberals

    “Is often touchy or easily annoyed.”

    – Liberals have touched conservatives psychologically, ethnically, culturally, religiously, economically and physically against their will in all the wrong places, hence touchy and annoyed.

    “Is often angry and resentful.”

    – Anger and resentment protects conservatives from further mistreatment and exploitation.

    “Often argues with authority figures …”

    – And what kind of authorities authority figures are? Good or bad? Soft totalitarian? Have tyrannical tendencies? Plays dirty in front of and behind the scenes? Lies all the time? Corrupt? Etc.

    “Often actively defies or refuses to comply with requests from authority figures or with rules.”

    – When liberals themselves do it, they call it noble civil disobecience. When conservatives do it, liberals call it OCD2

    “Often deliberately annoys others.”

    – It is half true, conservatives annoy liberals deliberately too, yes, but liberals are so pampered, sensitive and easily “triggered”, that you annoy them just by being a normal human being.

    “Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior.”

    – I.e. subject, you must believe that liberal authories cannot make mistakes and they ain’t misbehaving.

    “Has been spiteful or vindictive at least twice within the past 6 months.”

    – Has lived in liberal society more than six months.

  4. Yes, the Soviets pioneered the “soft” approach to political repression after Stalin went room-temperature in 1953 and brought in the psychiatrists. Alger Hiss brought in a psychiatrist to smear Whittaker Chambers in the second trial.
    see; http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2011/11/insanity-of-anti-communism.html

  5. In the US, it’s already a federal offense to possess a firearm if you’ve ever been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility

  6. As a tool of social control, I can see potential for this one backfiring on its inventors. As things stand, the psy industry has to at least convincingly pretend to be scientific and objective, and so must define ODD in an open-ended and inclusive fashion without specific reference to any ideology in particular. I think that the Left is going to see ODD in a whole new light once some SJWs start getting diagnosed with it. Then all of a sudden the ODD diagnosis will be denounced across the media as a racist social construct designed by the patriarchy in order to thwart social justice, etc.

    1. Great point on potential flip of ODD diagnosis.

    2. The tantrums since the election seem rather dysfunctional to me. Time to test drive the new definition?

  7. Thanks Landry. Helpful if dark analysis.
    (Can I wash down my Black Pill with a bottle of Bulleit?)

    Re DS’s comment above, I suppose it comes down to interpretation and political will. All of these social control innovations come in with one intent, but once there can be utilized by the next regime. (Don’t worry, we only want to read terrorists email) Under a Hillary regime I would be far more frightened than under Trump. Not that they would be directly involved, but that they will set the cultural tone.

    There may be a deep institutional Prog backlash as RL implies here. But the provisions of the DSM are not drivers. It will still take Drs willing to interpret and apply these provisions. And under a population that is at least more woke than it was a few years ago, they will stand more legal challenge and risk loss of social capital.

    1. I try to take trends to their prog power conclusions. Dark, but I can see the Left doing this. The next generation of MDs are going to be taking an MCAT with a sociology component and most likely depend on the govt for salary in some form.

  8. Since people with schizophrenia and other major psychiatric diseases are free to refuse hospitalization unless considered a risk for themselves or the society at one point (something that must be proved and recorded by a psychiatrist in less than 48 hours from the moment of admission), it’s very easy to play the system and avoid medication/hospitalization for ODD. And always exist the possibility of suing the one making the diagnosis and writing the prescription down for discrimination against the mentally ill.
    That’s the beauty of the progressive mindset, its utter incoherence.

  9. Throughout the years I’ve been called:
    – narcissistic
    – having a developmental attachment disorder
    – autistic
    – depressed
    – antisocial

    ODD could just as easily have applied, perhaps it will in the future.

    Now I will not say I am a perfect human specimen with no psychological faults whatsoever, but over the years it has become quite clear to me that psychiatry freakishly often is applied as a leftist power measure. The only way out is to literally get out. I dread the place where there is no way out..,

  10. It’s also interesting that the federal government just passed a law to increase mental health services (21st Century Cures Act).

Comments are closed.