Just a Symptom of Our Growing Social Problems

Tucker Carlson will have an ongoing feature this week, focusing on homelessness. It would appear he’s going to concentrate on the west coast, but it’s a problem everywhere.

Charlottesville, Virginia has a problem with homelessness and drug addiction, but they won’t advertise the fact. I used to work in a drop-in center a few blocks (and a whole world) away from that mess the city cooked up and then spewed out at the unsuspecting. I mean the theater of racial “unrest”, our modern version of the Leftist Theater of the Absurd.

As Carlson mentions, this whole thing started in the 60s with Kennedy’s ill-advised closing of mental hospitals and turning out its denizens into their communities to be preyed upon by the criminal class.

11 thoughts on “Just a Symptom of Our Growing Social Problems

  1. I greatly dislike liberals, and this is one reason why. How many of these rich lefties have invited street people into their monstrous mansions? I think the answer is none.

    • The uber-rich in California aren’t interested in their native-born mentally ill homeless. They ARE interested in the illegal aliens who will work for slave wages. But they don’t conflate those two populations at all. The mentally ill are not their problem.

  2. More of Tucker’s daily contribution on the homelessness problem would be excellent.Please keep following his daily updates.

    • I plan to follow as best I can. Not having a TV (on purpose), I have to wait for his nightly introductions to appear on YouTube. So maybe they come in a day later?

      As I search, I see he has been following the problem for quite some time.

  3. A judge threw out 64k citations? Therefore public life deteriorates to gutter levels. On this piece with Tucker Carlson shows a man washing down a sidewalk with city water. Assuming this washing was to wash off feces and urine, does this water go into storm drain, into the bay or ocean? Or is this gray water treated first, then into the bay or ocean? I don’t know, anyone?

    • The term “kritarchy” means “rule by judges”. Kritarchy is a huge problem for the US and other lawful countries. Judges traditionally have broad powers, under the assumption that they are focused on ensuring the law is followed. Instead, judges have co-opted the law to the point where a lowly court can countermand the President of the US. Judges usually try to use legal reasoning, but apparently there is nothing to force them to do so. For judges like the sociopath San Francisco judge who invalidated all citations for petty street crimes, the law is simply a means to exercise personal power.

      One problem is the diffusion of power: the federal govt under Obama threatened cities with lawsuits if they didn’t implement neighborhood churning and affirmative action; police are answerable to a plethora of government leaders. The result is, nothing is done, nothing is decided, and no one is responsible for anything.

      I don’t have any doubt that part of the problem’s scope is a genetic deterioration of the population: drug addicts are given expensive medical treatments when their lives are threatened by overdose, bad nutrition or exposure, and the barely-viable babies of addicts are given heroic and expensive medical treatments so they in turn can become public charges.

      The problem of homeless cannot be “solved”. They have to be cleared out using police strength and application of the criminal law, like the law against vagrancy. A person constantly convicted of vagrancy can be confined in an institution with no deterioration of citizen rights. The first requirement of treating habitual addicts with public funds should be that they submit to sterilization. I know. Perfectly sensible eugenics sterilization treatments in the 1930’s received a very bad press.

      The point is, all the agencies involved are totally paralyzed between diverse, contradictory legal requirements and between idiotic philosophies of communist public officials.

  4. “Kennedy’s ill-advised closing of mental hospitals and turning out its denizens into their communities to be preyed upon by the criminal class.” They did the same thing in Britain, although a few years later than in America. In Britain they called it ‘care in the community’ to put some gloss on it, but in reality it was merely a money-saving exercise.

    • Since when were Democrats concerned with saving money?

      To the extent that it wasn’t simply an alienated, sociopath, alcoholic Irishman’s revenge on any normal person, the “community based treatment” was predicated on the “blank slate” view of humans: that it is completely the environment, experiences, and upbringing that determined who the person is. Any baby dropped at random in the Mozart family of musicians would also be able to compose a concerto at the age of 3.

      So goes the theory, you are exacerbating the problem by keeping all the psychos locked up among other psychos. They would be much more likely to be healthy if they lived among healthy people. So, get them out of the closed wards and living in the community, where they would become integrated into normal life.

      But here’s the worm in the apple. In a very short time, it was obvious that the psychos released into the community were still psychos. But, if leftists are anything, they are immune to facts, especially when the facts run counter to their philosophy. Their philosophy of redistribution and government control assumes that the differences between people stem from privilege and opportunity. And thus, government control and government redistribution will eliminate differences between people and raise up the fallen.

      To sum, the “community-based treatment” was simply an application of the socialist/Democrat philosophy which drives the left Democrats and possibly all Democrats, today.

      • To the extent that it wasn’t simply an alienated, sociopath, alcoholic Irishman’s revenge on any normal person, the “community-based treatment” was predicated on the “blank slate” view of humans

        Usually, I find your theses to be spot on. But here, in your reference to President Kennedy’s push for this chronically underfunded mandate, I strongly disagree. Kennedy was perhaps more accurately working out his own family-of-origin sorrows. His sister Rosemary was “mentally challenged” so his father, Joe Kennedy, had her lobotomized and institutionalized.

        Back in the day, they believed that lobotomies were cure-alls for any mental disorder; it wasn’t till the post-op damages began to show up that lobotomies were taken off the table. But too late for Rosemary. And too late for my drug-addicted father. Unlike Rosemary, who was mildly mentally retarded, my father had an eidetic memory and an IQ of 150+. After his insistence -pushing past his doctor’s concerns – on getting this latest cutting edge treatment for his life-long drug addiction, his changes became alarmingly apparent. He’d lost the addiction but he was incapable of caring for himself. He was placed in the state hospital which had performed the “procedure”.

        I don’t mind your attacks on Kennedy’s character, but those characterological flaws don’t bear directly on his legacy as president. The personal lives of most of our past presidents don’t stand up to much scrutiny.

        I agree with your conclusions, however. Just not with your premise.

        • I learn the most when Dymphna disagrees with me.

          Dymphna is correct. The community-treatment strategy of drastically emptying the mental hospitals extended over both Republican and Democrat administrations, and had a lot to do with cost cutting. However, my reading of this article is that the mental health expert consultants were using a mental health model that minimized the genetic aspects, which were by and large intractable.


          The focus thus changes from solving the mental illness population to managing it.

          I’ll bring my own perspective. It is clear now that genetics is a major component of mental illness. The logic seems to dictate (I do not have facts on this) that community treatment and drugs allow more procreation on the part of people predisposed to mental illness, or actively displaying it in the absence of psychotropic drugs. Therefore, the more successful the community treatments, the more mental illness.

          • It’s not genetics per se. The epidemic of mental illness in our culture is due more to epigenetics – in other words, the slings and arrows of childhood loss and lack of attachment account for much of it. Epigenetics doesn’t have to be permanent but it often is as the structures and supports for families erode and disappear.

            The larger culture is poisonous:

            (1) Easy divorce with no penalties; children can simply be abandoned with no consequences. This is even more obvious when families have to leave kith and kin behind in pursuit of jobs. These “nuclear families” are cut off from the support they need for kids to flourish and for parents to get family support.
            (2) Mass-produced frankenfood with its accompanying diabesity. It’s reaching epidemic proportions.
            (3) Pharmaceutical company-driven massive and mandatory vaccine programs. Those manufacturers are powerful enough they’ve had regulations set up which don’t permit parents to bring lawsuits for the damage to kids. Said damage can occur because of the sheer numbers of vax being manufactured and shoved along the pipeline: kids now receive more than 12 times as many vaccine doses than in 1940. That translates to as many as 49 doses of 14 vaccines before age six. Sometimes the damage from those injections is delayed, i.e., doesn’t show up until the tremendous brain changes of adolescence begin in earnest. [I’m not against vaccines but I think the whole process needs to be examined and exposed so parents can make informed decisions, which they can’t easily do now.]
            (4). The widespread interference with the moral authority of parents. Schools, social services, etc., exert a disproportionate power on individual families. I had to quit Child Protective Services work because I found it destructive in the long run.
            (5). The massive numbers of drug-addicted adults have overwhelmed the community-based system. It was never meant to cope with wide-spread drug contagion.

            By the way, I think you’ll find that severely mentally ill people reproduce at lower rates than the general population. For one thing, severe mental illness isolates those who suffer from it. In addition, those not in treatment use street drugs in such amounts as to kill a normal sex drive. Have you ever been up close for an extended time to one of these people? They are stunted emotionally. Of the people I worked with at the drop-in center, none had children and none developed relationships. There are exceptions, but that’s a general observation about the mentally ill; they don’t grow up. Notice all the images of those drug-addicted homeless: they are cocooned and alone. Not that hook-ups never happen, but they occur at a much lower rate.

            It’s more complicated than simple genetics.

Comments are closed.