All posts by mross109

More on The Continuing Proof of the Efficacy of Anti-Psychotics

By Dr David Laing Dawson

The narratives from the proponents of Open Dialogue remind me of the narratives arising from the psychoanalysts working in private psychiatric hospitals in the United States in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Many case studies were available and even books written on the subject.

In the late 1960’s we were unlocking the doors of the mental hospital in Vancouver and applying therapeutic community principles. The principles and ideas of the therapeutic community can be found in the activities of the Open Dialogue program. And before that they can be found in the practices of small hospitals from the Moral Treatment Era of the 1850’s to 1890’s, and again, briefly, in some mental hospital reforms shortly after WW1 and before the Great Depression, albeit, in each case, within the language and pervasive philosophies of the time.

In the late 1960’s we had already discovered how wonderfully effective chlorpromazine could be in containing mania and reducing the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia.

So in this context, knowing the evidence, the clear evidence of chlorpromazine being the first and only actually effective treatment for psychosis, and lithium for mania (beyond containment, sedation, shelter, kindness, protection, food, routine grounding activities, time and care) it behooved us to look closely at the claims of the psychotherapists who were writing such elegant and positive case studies from the American private hospitals.

So I read them.

They were interesting reading, detailing the relationship of therapist and psychotic patient, interpreting the content of the psychosis, and the painstaking time consuming process of building a relationship, working to help the patient view the world in a different manner, and always, through the pages of these reports, it was said great progress was being made. And they all ended with something like (this is the one I remember best) “Unfortunately, despite showing so much progress, patient X assaulted a nurse and had to be transferred to the State facility.” Curiously, as with many “studies” I read today, despite the obviously bad outcome, a paragraph is added at the end extolling the progress made (before the unfortunate outcome) and recommending we stay the course.

There are many interesting explanations for the continuing anti-medication (for mental illness) philosophies. (Note that almost nobody objects to taking medication for other kinds of suffering and illness). Marvin and I have written about a few – the preciousness of the sense of self, the wish that there be an immortal mind that can outlive a brain, the fear of being controlled, distrust of Big Pharma, professional jealousies, and turf wars. But writing the above reminds me of another reason this irrationality persists.

It was clearer to me then (1960’s/1970’s) than it is now, because we really wanted to find ways of helping without medication: It is much more ego gratifying to mental health workers of all stripes when our patients get better simply because of our presence, our words, our care, ourselves, than if we just happen to prescribe the right medication.

I remember well a patient, a professional, a few years ago, thanking me for helping him overcome a severe depression. “Nah,” I said, “I just managed to prescribe the right medication for you.” “No, no,” he said. “It was more than that.”

All right. There are a few moments when I can be attentive, thoughtful, kind, and even find the right words. But to try doing that alone while withholding medication for severe mental illness would be malpractice, cruel, egotistical, even sadistic.

 

Advertisements

The Continuing Proof of the Efficacy of Anti-Psychotics

By Marvin Ross

Despite the protestation from the anti-psychiatry advocates, medication for schizophrenia works and another study has just been published to support that position. A new study based on a nationwide data of all patients hospitalized for schizophrenia in Finland from 1972 to 2014 found that the lowest risk of rehospitalization or death was lowest for those who remained on medication for the full length of time.

The risk of death was 174% to 214% higher among patients who never started taking antipsychotics or stopped using them within one year of their first hospitalization in comparison with patients who consistently took medications for up to 16.4 years.

It should be pointed out that this is real life data rather than a clinical trial involving a total of 8,738 people.

What is particularly significant for me in this study is that it is from Finland which is the home in one isolated part of that country (Lapland) to the alternative Open Dialogue espoused by the anti-psychiatry folks including journalist Robert Whitaker of Mad In America fame. Whitaker claims that 80% of those treated with Open Dialogue are cured without need for drugs.

I wrote about Open Dialogue very critically back in 2013 in Huffington Post and pointed out that there is very little research to demonstrate its efficacy. I actually asked a Finish psychiatrist, Kristian Wahlbeck who is a Research Professor at the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, in Helsinki about Open Dialogue.

This was his answer:

“I am familiar with the Open Dialogue programme. It is an attractive approach, but regrettably there has been virtually no high-quality evaluation of the programme. Figures like “80 per cent do well without antipsychotics” are derived from studies which lack control group, blinding and independent assessment of outcomes.”

He went on to say that:

“most mental health professionals in Finland would agree with your view that Open Dialogue has not been proven to be better than standard treatment for schizophrenia. However, it is also a widespread view that the programme is attractive due to its client-centredness and empowerment of the service user, and that good studies are urgently needed to establish the effectiveness of the programme. Before it has been established to be effective, it should be seen as an experimental treatment that should not (yet?) be clinical practise.”

As for the claim that psychiatric hospital beds in Finland have been emptied, he said “in our official statistics, the use of hospital beds for schizophrenia do not differ between the area with the Open Dialogue approach and the rest of the country.”

My blogging associate, Dr David Laing Dawson also wrote about Open Dialogue in this forum with very skeptical view. He stated that the director of the program admitted that about 30% of the patients in Open Dialogue are prescribed medication so arguing that medication is not used is not correct.

At the time my article appeared in Huffington Post, someone on Mad In America agreed with me that there was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of Open Dialogue and said that a US study was set to begin in, I think, Boston. I did find a completed study on Open Dialogue done by Dr Christopher Gordon. His study involved 16 patients and he states at the outset that

“Since this was not a randomized clinical trial and there was no control group, we cannot say that these outcomes were better than standard care, but we can assert that they were solidly in line with what is hoped for and expected in standard care.”

In the paper that is in a legitimate psychiatric publication, he states that of the 16, two dropped out and a further 3 had disappeared at the end of the study so no data is available for them. This is a study of 11 people who completed the one year term.

He then points out that:

“Of note, four individuals had six short-term psychiatric hospitalizations (two involuntary).”

and that:

“three of the six individuals who were not on antipsychotics at program entry started antipsychotics. Of the eight already on antipsychotics, four had no change in their medication, and four elected to stop during the year. Both groups of four had similar outcomes and continued to be followed in treatment. Shared decision making and toleration of uncertainty contributed to these choices.

Hardly the success he suggests if the goal was to help them get well without medication.

But, coming up at the end of May in Toronto we have a conference with Robert Whitaker and others on Shifting the Narrative on Mental Health from the psychiatric disease model to the relational/recovery model, and on the challenges that are stacked against that eventuality.

Now I would say that the challenges against that shift are science but they define it as “The challenges and resistances to progressive change are of an ideological, macro-economic nature guaranteeing a protracted and difficult struggle for recovery advocates.”

Dwayne Johnson and Heroic Narratives

By Dr David Laing Dawson

Within the same time frame I was reading Marvin’s blog on the Mental Health Commission and the associated commentary, Dwayne Johnson’s story of depression popped up on multiple news sites. None of the sites gave much detail and I remain unsure if he suffered bouts of what we used to call “clinical depression”, and before that “endogenous depression” or if he simply suffered some difficult discouraging periods in life when his football career and a relationship ended.

In these brief news items Dwayne’s story is shaped as the narrative of an “heroic struggle”.

And I realized that most such stories are shaped and told in that form. It is a classic narrative form, and one we all want to hear.

Facing great odds, our hero, perhaps after learning some life lesson (humility, confession, love, trust, openness) battles his way through to success, health, and happiness. His weapons are will power, strength, hope, perseverance, and a little help from his friends.

It is the narrative form in the story of A Beautiful Mind’s John Nash. And it is the narrative form when the story is told about a victim of cancer.

The difference is that when we read the story and see the pictures of someone’s struggle with cancer, we know he or she has undergone one or many courses of radiation or chemotherapy, that he or she is still undergoing treatment.

The focus of the story may be on the courage and optimism of the patient, their loving  family, a special group of supportive friends, a cancer support group, or all that the patient is able to accomplish despite their illness – but we never lose sight of the fact of medical treatment for cancer.

It is good to bring mental illness out of the shadows. It is good to tell our stories. But we need to drop the euphemisms of mental health issues, and (a new one for me) mental health “situations”, and we need to include the fact of medical treatment for serious mental illness, because we don’t assume it as we do with cancer narratives. In fact, a very popular heroic struggle narrative is “I overcame my (illness, depression) without resorting to medication.”

This heroic struggle narrative has shaped the recovery movement; it has clearly influenced members of the mental health commission.

And who would bother watching a show, or reading a story with a tagline of: “A man develops depression, goes to his doctor; the doctor treats his depression and he gets better.”

This is not to denigrate the role of courage, optimism, hope, and support required to live with a chronic illness, or recover from an acute illness. But…

Update:

Another day, April 5 to be exact, and it seems it is OCD Day with several news items and videos appearing. Much is shared in these articles and videos, distinguishing crippling OCD symptoms from mild everyday forms of compulsions and obsessions. Psychological treatment is also explained, exposure and desensitization therapy. But not once, not once in the articles and videos I watched was it explained that there are medical pharmacological treatments that work with great success for about 90% of sufferers. Not once is this mentioned.

One of these medications has been around since the 1960’s, though at the time we didn’t know how effective it was for OCD and psychological/psychoanalytic thinking about the illness dominated.

I am not sure who or what is to blame for this. But for the psychologists who were interviewed to not mention this readily available medical treatment is akin to naturopaths not mentioning antibiotics when discussing the treatment of pneumonia.

Paradoxically, Jack Nicholson starred as a novelist with OCD in “As Good as it Gets” 20 years ago. At the end of the movie Nicholson’s character decides to be a better man and go back on his medication. Critics were not happy with that ending, and it did ruin the “heroic struggle” narrative. It was, as the third act of a story, very unsatisfying. “What? To quell his OCD all he had to do was take his medication?”  Well, yes.

 

Is This The End of the Mental Health Commission?

By Marvin Ross

In December, I wrote a blog pointing out that the Mental Health Commission of Canada should be disbanded. Those of you who follow my writing on Huffington Post know that this has been a constant theme of mine over the past few years. Last Fall, the Federal Health Minister set up an inquiry into what they called Pan Canadian Health Organizations (PCHOs). These are federally mandated groups established to carry out specific tasks in health across the country when, in fact, health care comes under provincial rather than  federal jurisdiction.

The review was to evaluate the role and relevance of these groups in advancing federal health policy objectives and meeting national goals. One of the PCHOs is the Mental Health Commission and my advocacy colleague Lembi Buchanan and I submitted a brief on the Commission through the Best Medicines Coalition.

With amazing speed for a government report, the findings were just released. Much to our delight, the Commission recommended that the Mental Health Commission either be ended or radically altered.

The basic premise for health care in the 21st Century as outlined by the World Health Organization and endorsed by most countries including Canada is that it be people centred. “It puts people at the centre of the health system and promotes care that is universal, equitable, and integrated. The framework emphasizes a seamless connection to other sectors, notably those focused on the social determinants of health. This framework also promotes providing a continuum of care that requires high-performing primary care.”

The conclusion the reviewers reached about the Mental Health Commission of Canada is that “Mental health is now “out of the shadows”. The integration of mental health care services into the core of Canadian health systems requires a different type of leadership, capable of driving a bottom-up approach in which patients and families, providers, researchers, and the broader mental health community come together to break down silos.”

As a positive, the report states that “The MHCC has been particularly effective in developing strategies around mental health, along with initiatives and campaigns to increase awareness and reduce stigma. It has made great strides in delivering on its objectives and helped to bring mental health “out of the shadows at last.” It has also created valuable contacts and built trust among its closest stakeholders.”

It did develop a mental health strategy mostly ignored and it did help to raise the awareness of mental illness. However, the report states that:

“The need to build greater capacity in Canada on mental health is still as pressing today as it was when the MHCC was established. What has changed, however, partly as a result of the advocacy work undertaken by the Commission, is the overarching policy goal. What Canada needs today is the complete and seamless integration of mental health into the continuum of public health care. What Canadians want is public coverage of proven mental health services and treatments, beyond physicians and hospitals. To be successful, those services must be integrated with primary care and supports for physical health, rather than isolated from them. We came to the conclusion that MHCC, in its present form and with its current orientation, is not the best instrument to achieve the objective of integrating mental health into Medicare.

They then state that these goals might be achievable if the MHCC changed itself but suggest that to accomplish this they would have to engage “health leaders at provincial and territorial levels in joint decision-making over service funding and quality standards; a different “knowledge base” in support of evidence-informed advice and performance evaluation; and a different, more flexible, and less centralized structure.”

This, in fact, is one of the many criticisms I’ve made over the years. The MHCC churns out papers but has zero influence in decision making and that is exactly what is needed. Policy papers are fine but they need to be implemented and the MHCC has yet to accomplish that from what I’ve seen. The report concludes in its section on the MHCC that “It is because mental health is so critically important to Canadians- and their governments- that a new approach is now needed.”

I was impressed with the team tasked with this job and I’m impressed with the speed in which it produced its report (October 2017 to March 2018). Let us hope that the Health Minister implements the recommendations.

And, a documentary we did on schizophrenia

Update on Jagmeet Singh and Cultural Inclusion

By Dr David Laing Dawson

A comment on my last blog asked what the question to Jagmeet Singh was and wondered about the relevance of his turban.  Well, the question posed to him by the CBC was if there were any circumstances in which he would support violence. The background to this was his equivocation regarding the Air India mass murder, and his attendance at gatherings alongside Sikh extremists.

Canada is a wonderful experiment. So far one hundred and fifty-one years of a gradually evolving, gradually improving liberal democracy of inclusion. The world needs to watch Toronto: People from a hundred different cultures speaking dozens of different languages living and working within one large metropolis and (as a friend put it with a tone of incredulity) they are not killing one another. This is unique in our world.

There has been a recent increase in gun violence in Toronto but usually it’s young men killing other young men from the same tribe (or gang).

We struggle with, argue about, but make accommodation for religious practice and the wearing of religious and tribal symbols. As long as it does not conflict with the laws of Canada and the rights of others we usually accommodate.

These symbols (dress, hair cutting or covering, metal adornments, tattoos, markings, face coverings) are statements of separation, exclusion, and speak of membership in a specific tribe, religion or cult that may or may not want to adhere to our evolved Canadian social contract. Hence we need to be vigilant and ensure that the practices within these cults do not contravene our laws and our charter of rights and freedoms.

But there is another unspoken but clear message declared by these symbols. And it is the very message we are trying to eliminate in Canada. And that is the message of superiority, of tribal superiority.

These symbols (wearing a cross, a turban, a ceremonial dagger, ringlets and yarmulkes) are statements of membership, but also of superiority. For the unspoken, subtle message is that “I am righteous and you are not; I am going to heaven and you are not; I am favoured by God and you are not.”

I trust that by living in Canada, attending our public schools, and finding life here not too bad, after a couple of generations most will relegate the wearing of these symbols to celebrations and yearly rituals, and think of them only as historical reminders, connections to a past of struggle and sacrifice.

The Way of Politicians

By Dr David Laing Dawson

The other day I listened to Jagmeet Singh being interviewed by the CBC. He was asked a very specific question. He danced, avoided, interrupted, distracted for a good ten minutes. His performance reminded me of Marco Rubio when asked a direct question by a student: “In the future will you accept donations from the NRA?”

Marco danced around this question like a verbal Nureyev. “I’m glad you asked that question.” is always the first response of faux sincerity. Often followed by “That is a very important question.”

I wondered then if politicians all go to the same politician school.
The one that teaches you how to avoid a question and still sound smart, knowledgeable, reasonable, thoughtful, and absolutely of a firm opinion that something or other is the morally right position. And that “something or other” will be sufficiently vague to offend no one.

Or, slowly but surely, everyone.

No wonder we don’t trust politicians. No wonder we are willing to elect a bullshit artist like Donald Trump, or a Ford brother, because they are, if no more honest than the rest, at least more entertaining. It is almost refreshing to hear Donald Trump lie rather than avoid acknowledging a fact, a truth. He even boasts that he was making it up all along. And then denies that as well. In a funny way, we know where he stands. But not Singh or Rubio.

Politicians. Agggghhh.

But let me keep this close to home. Mr. Singh, you seem smart and modern. Perhaps you are ready to participate in our liberal democracy and lead one of our three political parties. I accept that you practice some clothing and hair worship that dates to the seventeenth century. Every cult leader invents some magical interpretations and incantations to keep his flock in line.

But please leave these historical tribal grievances on the continents from which they sprang and continue to be fertilized. Do not. I repeat, do not bring them here.

And a one act play from David Laing Dawson

Is Science Fiction Becoming Reality?

By Dr David Laing Dawson

Good Science Fiction takes contemporary science, knowledge and theory, and extrapolates, sometimes getting it dead on, or at least exploring in very imaginative ways the moral and ethical issues, the comfort and dangers that might arise from our “progress”. But two common themes have puzzled me over the years: While the heroes and villains zip around in space, or toil on ships, or cross inhospitable planets, the political structure imagined is often feudal, or fascist, or at least Imperial. Not an extrapolation of better and better liberal democracies but usually a dystopian vision of medieval governance with high tech means of citizen control.

The second oddity is private enterprise. In these imagined futures big and often evil corporations own the spaceships, orbiting platforms and planetary settlements.

And I thought neither of these two imagined futures was likely. Surely our democracies will win out, improve, flourish. And surely space exploration will always be the purview of governments and alliances of governments, ideally of the United Nations of this planet.

But I am naïve as usual. Once again the Sci Fi writers may be prophetic. It seems they already imagined the Elon Musks and Donald Trumps of this century. Space exploration may devolve into competing profit-driven private corporations. Our current space station, if Donald gets his way, may become a Disney World/Jurassic Park for well heeled adventurers. And our forms of governance in the 22nd and 23rd century? Who knows?

I watched an old science fiction film the other day. I remembered the first time I saw it it’s impact was minimal, a forgettable entertainment. This time it seemed more closely allied to a horror film. The questions it posed about robots and AI are now upon us. When they, bots, are doing all the work, what will we be doing? When will AI become simply I? And might it turn on us?

It even seemed to me, reading Huxley’s Brave New World, that it was unlikely in our future that some of us humans would be living lives of leisure with our magic technologies in protected cities while thousands of other humans would be living in primitive squalor outside these cities, a step away from being Soylent Green. But now this seems all too possible as well.

Many of these science fiction writers imagined a future in which Big Brother, the Overlords, the Government, the Oligarchy could watch us, listen to us, and then manipulate us with messages designed to fit our psychological profiles. In these stories we are already there; it is already fully developed. Few of them explore the early phases and try to explain how we got there.

Well, now we know. Social Media plus Cambridge Analytica plus Robert Mercer plus his useful idiots. The future is upon us and we need to move quickly to not let it become the dystopias imagined by Huxley,  Wells, Asimov, Dick, and Ursula Le Guin.

And now, for your enjoyment, David Laing Dawson’s musical MacBush – Macbeth done as Bush:

A Porn Star May Be Our Last Hope

By Dr David Laing Dawson

The Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), and Germany’s vice chancellor, Franz von Papen, formally signed a concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich on July 20, 1933.

Hitler had been appointed Chancellor in January of that year.

But this Concordat was just one of the incremental events that opened the door for a criminal dictatorship to evolve and unleash the worst of human potentials.

Trump is not Hitler. Hitler harboured some extreme ideologies and hatreds from the beginning. Trump’s ideology is Trump. America in 2018 is not Germany in 1933. But, like Hitler, Trump is systematically undermining the safeguards of democracy.

Today Trump does not need an agreement with the Vatican to stay away from politics. But he does need, just as Hitler needed Papen, the generals, and the aristocrats – he does need the leaders of the Republican party to treat him like a useful idiot, to faun over him, to excuse him, to believe they are merely using him to achieve their own goals and maintain their power.

Trump has rendered the fourth estate powerless. Any one of their reported scandals and satires might have unseated a politician years ago. But today it all feels like a reality TV show, and thus more entertaining than consequential.

So we are left with an independent judiciary and independent law enforcement. But now it appears we are entering the end game.

I have described Trump as mentally and emotionally about 14. He says he is a “stable genius”. I would dispute the “stable” qualifier, but he just might be a genius, an evil genius, an evil genius with the emotional stability, cognitive apparatus, and vocabulary of a 14 year old. His methods, be they accidental or planned, of commanding the news cycles, provoking others to do his dirty work, testing the waters (“Maybe we should kill the drug dealers”), sewing the seeds of distraction, sewing rumours, bold lies repeated and repeated, and first killing off the ground support of any major impediment – this may be narcissistic and sociopathic, but it is clever.

And now, one of his few major obstacles is Mueller. Nunes, Fox and Friends have been kicking at Mueller’s shins. And now Trump, unfettered, is attacking him directly. There is talk of a “constitutional crisis” if Mueller is fired. But it seems to me it will only be a crisis if the Republican party and the judiciary object.

Our last hope may be Stormy Daniels. God speed Stormy, bring this monster down.

In Memory of an Exceptional Advocate

By Marvin RossCarolyn-Dobbins-1517838422

In her life that was cut too short, Dr Carolyn Dobbins has had a tremendous positive influence on those with serious mental illness and their families thanks in part to her book What A Life Can Be: One Therapist’s Take on Schizoaffective Disorder. Carolyn passed away suddenly at the age of 57 in February at her home in Knoxville, TN

Carolyn had schizoaffective disorder and wrote her book to try to give people a better understanding of that disease. Her book is written in a very unique style as a series of therapy sessions between a therapist and a patient. Initially, she did not want anyone to know that she, herself, had this affliction but I convinced her to “come out of the closet” and she did. By doing so, the impact of what she wrote was much greater.

Carolyn was an alpine skier who could have made the US Olympic team competing at the Lake Placid games had she not become ill. Despite her struggles, she graduated from the University of Utah, did a PhD in psychology at Vanderbilt and worked as a director of an addiction centre in Branson, MO for 12 years and then went into private practice. At one point, she lived in her car during her undergraduate years and was involuntarily committed while doing her PhD. In fact, she was discharged from a mental hospital and then went straight to Vanderbilt to defend her doctoral thesis.

Christina Bruni who writes a blog on serious mental illness and is the author of Left of the Dial: A Memoir of Schizophrenia, Recovery, and Hope, did an interview with Carolyn on her blog on Health Central. When she learned of Carolyn’s passing, she told me that “She was a true inspiration to many while she was alive”.

My own blurb for her work is that it is “A fascinating look into the world of schizoaffective disorder which, at times, is funny, heartbreaking, but above all uplifting. Dr. Carolyn Dobbins describes the onset and progression of this debilitating disease and gives all readers hope.”

My own hype was shared by many others. Dr E Fuller Torrey described it as “an inspiration for all who have ever experienced psychosis” and highly recommends it. Dr. Thomas G Burish, a professor of psychology and Provost of Notre Dame said “powerful and revealing, and provides a unique insight into chronic mental disease”

George E Doebler M Div. Special Advisor, Dept. of Pastoral Care, U of Tennessee Medical Center:, Executive Director, emeritus: Association of Mental Health Clergy (now Association of Professional Chaplains) said “It will challenge your thinking about mental illness, about hope, about faith, about who you are.”

The review in Library Journal said “people who have been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorders and those close to them will welcome it as an advocacy tool”

Her reviews on Amazon have been incredible. To date, there have been 21 and they are all 5 Star. Carolyn’s father tells me that the Barnes and Noble in Knoxville keeps selling out and her book is being used as a text in Psychology at UT Knoxville.

Carolyn was so focused on helping others that she listed her e-mail address in the book so that readers could contact her and many did.

She will be sorely missed but her book is her legacy and it will continue to give help and comfort to those who need it.

The Ungovernables

By Dr David Laing Dawson

In response to an anarchist destruction spree in Hamilton

The sixteen year old tells me he doesn’t think he should ever have to do something someone else wants him to do. He should be able to go to work when and if he wants to. He should eat lunch when he wants to, not at “lunch break like a bunch of sheep”. He should be able to come and go as he pleases. There shouldn’t be rules.

He goes on in this vein as an infant in a large male body. The egocentricity is astonishing. Sometimes it is the product of a recent failure or loss. Sometimes I can see anxiety and depression in the background. Sometimes I wonder about the parenting, and the grade 11 teacher who says to his students, “Call me Steve.” Usually it’s a phase, a brief developmental phase. The carefree egocentrism of the child bumping hard against the challenge and complexity of the adult world. The smart kid throws in a bit of existential philosophy. The not so smart kid just wants to keep his bong in his bedroom.

They have usually grown past this phase in a couple of years, developed some empathy for others, found some satisfaction and confidence in completing something and being praised for it, lost some of their fear of this big clumsy chaotic but organized world.

Some don’t grow out of this phase it seems and they become “anarchists”. They have learned enough to use that word to describe their state of mind, their second hand philosophies, without learning about the historical consequences of anarchy. They crave an absolute freedom that always breeds a terrible tyranny.

Fortunately the very concept of anarchy is antithetical to organization. Anarchists can’t get together and form a club and expand that into a movement that holds and succeeds.

At least that was not possible until Social Media. Now with social media it is possible to gather together at least a small group of “anarchists”  and wreak havoc for a night.

I don’t know if the “Ungovernables” or anarchists appreciate the irony of being organized for a night of havoc, destruction, and terror. Fortunately their very rebellious nature precludes a large and persistent and successful organization.

Social media has made it possible for some very good gatherings and organizations to occur, and these can grow and flourish and stay organized and bring about positive change in our social contracts and societal rules. So I think we needn’t be horrified when a small group of so-called “Ungovernables” manage to wreak a night of havoc. No matter their rallying cry and their stated childish grievances they are just adolescents engaged in some thrill seeking vandalism.

We should simply investigate, arrest when possible, and apply our laws and our due process.