A one-year-old boy was prescribed antidepressants by the NHS in Scotland, as prescriptions for the drugs soared across the UK.
NHS Tayside in Dundee prescribed the medication to 450 children between January and May this year, with the youngest being seven years old.
In 2014, the trust prescribed antidepressants to a one-year-old boy, according to figures obtained by the Dundee Evening Telegraph.
A spokesperson for NHS Tayside told the Evening Telegraph the drugs could be used to treat a number of different conditions beyond their most common use as a treatment for clinical depression…
In very young children, antidepressants can be prescribed for problems including bed-wetting and chronic pain.
Hard to fathom anybody thinking bed-wetting a problem in a one-year-old. But it’s easy to see a frantic mother shrieking at a state-paid medical person to give her “obviously” depressed child drugs. Ask your doctor if profitol is right for you. This same kind of woman, if she belongs to a certain clique, will also be convinced her son is actually a daughter, and will demand “treatment”—so she can brag about it to her friends.
Drugging up kids, especially boys, is now so common, that parents are completely fluent in the language of neural medication. I sat listening to a standard crew talk about two boys who had A then B then C, a little of D, wherein in the other boy, B came before A, and so on. A local “doctor” was well known to hand out pills to all who came to him.
Try homeschooling. Until they find out your homeschooling to stay away from the grips of medical establishment.
Over the past week, an assortment of trending stories — from Jeffrey Epstein to the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters, to Miley Cyrus’s separation and Julianne Hough’s declaration that she’s “not straight” — together have laid bare the strictures of an American patriarchy on the edge of a nervous breakdown. As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.
Imagine not only equating the satanic and newest resident of Hell Jeffrey Epstein with the “patriarchy” but also being so addle-minded that you know all about the romantic interests of some lousy pervert singer and count that knowledge as wisdom.
Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.
Unless they want to breed and give their brood a father, which all children need. A mother, too. Which is why two men or two women pretending to be married and LARPing as a family is so horrifying.
This question of sporting loyalty, as those who have watched American politics last week will have noticed, is actually not very innocuous at all. It uses sport as a vehicle to drive at something very deep: When push comes to shove, who do you really support? Or to put it another way, what country would you die for?…
This then, is the dual loyalty trope, most recently summoned by President Trump, who suggested that American Jews who vote for the Democrats show “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty”.
The President’s comments unleashed a torrent of justifiable rage, and a flurry of racism allegations. The president’s thinking is this: Jews are loyal to Israel. I’m nice to Israel. Therefore Jews should vote for me. It’s unbelievably clumsy and likely anti-Semitic, at least in implication, and American Jews are right to be annoyed…
To me this seems like a reductive and small-minded understanding of loyalty, which is not a zero-sum game. Unless you insist on a blood and soil volksgemeinschaft concept of a nation, so literally the opposite of America, then some level of dual loyalty isn’t just inevitable, it’s actually desirable. It gives us breadth and empathy and widens our world view…
Viewing dual loyalty as a weakness also misunderstands human nature, seeking to funnel it into a single one-size-fits-all national identity. We humans are large, to borrow the famous old Walt Whitman quote, and we contain multitudes. We contradict ourselves, that is what makes us human.
Whitman was a fool. He pretended to believe opposing propositions simultaneously, changing opinion on a whim being valid.
Anyway, you can’t worship both God and Mammon, even though this Glancy thinks you can.
You’d think they’d purge dual-loyalists from government. Sympathy for a foreign entity or state is one thing, loyalty something else. There will be many instances where the decisions made by dual-loyalists in government favor, in varying degrees, both the home country and a foreign entity. Sympathy can shade these decisions in non-troublesome ways.
Yet there will inevitably arise times in which decisions must be made which favor the home state and which will harm another, or which will harm the home state and favor another. Those with dual loyalty therefore cannot be trusted. One cannot vote for Mammon if one is on God’s cabinet. Dual loyalty brings with it the temptation of treason.
Treason is not a crime much thought of now, not in an age where the elite desire, and speak openly—this is not a conspiracy theory—of a New World Order. That desires for one world government may account for articles like this.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here