Under unnatural conditions and conditions of extreme stress, animals display strange behaviors. This is well known.
Anybody with a keen eye who visits a zoo can see this, especially as they observe the larger animals and the majestic apex predators like lions and tigers in their pathetic little enclosures; but it’s also been the subject of numerous staged experiments by ethologists and biologists, with every kind of animal from monkeys to mice.
In one famous experiment, known as the “mouse utopia” experiment, mice were allowed to breed uncontrollably under conditions of complete lack of want of food and water, without any threats from predators. The only limitation was space. Eventually, when the population reached a certain threshold, the mice suddenly began doing things mice don’t normally do. Like, really weird stuff.
The mice lost all interest in reproduction and a distinct class of mice, dubbed “the Beautiful Ones,” emerged. Freed of any need to do anything purposeful at all, the Beautiful Ones spent their days grooming themselves obsessively, like the murine equivalent of the Kardashian family—although Kim and the rest of the family K do at least take time out from their hair- and skincare routines to have surrogates produce children for them.
A situation like this is sometimes referred to as a “behavioral sink.”
Humans, being animals, are no different. The main issue here is that we can’t, generally, stage experiments to observe human behavior under extreme stress and isolate the variables, causes and effects. Gone are the Wild West days of the Milgram electro-shock experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment, which had to be cut short because of the savagery it elicited. Neither of those experiments in acute stress would ever pass a university ethics board today—probably for the best.
At the recent Natal Conference in Austin—a broad-church meeting of people, from economists and right-wing bodybuilders like myself to techbros and hardcore Mormons, all of whom are interested in the future of reproduction—I suggested the worldwide collapse in fertility rates may have something to do with the nature of the modern world itself. That it is, to borrow a phrase from my friend Bronze Age Pervert, an “iron prison.”
In his book Bronze Age Mindset, Bronze Age Pervert describes our condition as modern humans through the metaphor of chimps in captivity, which are known to masturbate excessively and even make sex toys from rocks and other objects, in contrast with chimps in a state of nature, which are more concerned with doing the stuff chimps are supposed to do, like swinging from tree to tree and mastering territory in groups. Meaningful stuff.
We don’t want to reproduce because, like the chimp in a cage, we know that we are in captivity, that our lives are not our own and the world is totally out of joint and not as it should be. And so we devolve to a kind of spiritual and literal onanism.
On this reading, the crisis of reproduction is not simply about whether or not we give economic incentives to young couples to get married and have kids like they do in Hungary (which has actually had no significant effect on birth rates), but rather about whether we allow people to live fulfilling lives that are in harmony, not at odds, with their true nature.
Another manifestation of the “iron prison” we live in is, I believe, the mass shooting and, in particular, the school shooting.
Now, I know it’s hardly news that something must have gone terribly wrong, that some awful deviation from nature must have occurred, to make young people bring weapons into school and slaughter their classmates in cold blood. A more obvious statement you could scarcely make. School shootings are anything but normal.
But once you actually get down to it, pinpointing exactly what’s gone wrong and why proves to be difficult and, indeed, a source of enormous contention and anger. It’s a hugely emotive issue, for obvious reasons, but there are also entrenched interests that prevent a proper investigation of the problem, and one of them is the medical industry.
The claim that drugs, and in particular anti-depressants, might be a contributing factor in school shootings has been floated ever since it was revealed that Eric Harris, one of the Columbine killers, was on the powerful anti-depressant Luvox at the time of the massacre. That was reported in The Washington Post, by the way, on 29 April 1999: look it up. It’s not an urban myth or “conspiracy theory” or anything of the sort.
RFK Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services, has long maintained there’s a plausible link between anti-depressant use and school shootings, and he’s taken a lot of flak for it. In an interview with Elon Musk in 2023, he said, “Prior to the introduction of Prozac, we had none of these events.” In his confirmation hearings, he maintained that the link “should be studied, along with other possible culprits.” More broadly, he’s criticized overuse of anti-depressants and said they’re dangerous and addictive.
“I know people, including members of my family, who’ve had a much worse time getting off SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, one of the main classes of anti-depressant] than people coming off heroin,” Kennedy said, again during his confirmation hearings.
There is plenty of evidence, beyond high-profile incidents like Columbine, linking anti-depressants and violent behavior. Broadly, there’s a well-established link between SSRIs and violence. For example, a massive Swedish study from 2020, taking in over three-quarters of a million people, showed a clear link between SSRI use and violent crime, especially in 15-24 and 25-34 year olds. The risk was elevated even up to 12 weeks after discontinuation of the drugs. The US FDA’s adverse event reporting system (FAERS) shows that SSRIs are consistently associated with violence among adults.
The few studies that look at school shootings and anti-depressant use claim there is no causal link, but in so many specific cases, we simply don’t know whether the shooter was on anti-depressants or not.
That’s why the Tennessee state legislature has just passed Bill HB1349/SB 1146, which will mandate toxicology testing for all mass killers, defined as those who kill more than four people.
The bill, signed into law on Monday, will require a detailed toxicology report to be produced and made available to the public. Investigators will study drug interactions in the killer’s body and also consult with providers of mental-health services to the killer.
Other states are already considering similar legislation, including Wyoming.
“The law isn’t just about Tennessee,” said Sheila Matthews, co-founder of the advocacy group AbleChild, which helped draft the bill.
“It’s a blueprint for dismantling the wall of secrecy protecting industries that profit from ignorance.
“When someone commits mass murder, the public has a right to know if mind-altering drugs played a role.”
The bill faced stiff opposition in the legislature. Rep. James Carter claimed the bill was a distraction from the real cause of mass killings: guns. Sen. Lisa Monroe advanced the absurd claim that postmortem testing would be a violation of the murderer’s rights in death.
Seriously—what!?
The stiffest opposition, especially if RFK Jr. makes good on his promise to lead a national investigation into the link between anti-depressants and mass killings, is likely to come from Big Pharma, of course.
Big Pharma has billions and billions of dollars riding on these drugs, which are prescribed to millions and millions of people across the world, and not just in America.
In Scotland, a full quarter of the adult population—one out of four million people—is now being prescribed anti-depressants. What’s more, a full third of the adults in Scotland are also being prescribed at least one drug from five other types of drug used to treat mental-health problems: benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, so-called “z-drugs” (zopiclone and zolpidem) and opioid-based painkillers.
America isn’t far behind.
Decades after the serotonin theory of depression was put forward as the basis for the new SSRI drugs, there’s still no compelling evidence that the theory is actually true. Many studies have shown that anti-depressants are barely more effective than placebo. The improvement is so small, many researchers claim it doesn’t even exist. Access to these minimal benefits is also unevenly distributed. A large-scale meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal, which looked at data from 242 studies dating back to 1979, showed that just 15% of users experienced a benefit they wouldn’t have derived from placebo. Those who should benefit the most from anti-depressant use—sufferers of severe depression, including comorbid anxiety and suicidal ideation—actually benefit the least.
The blanket prescription of anti-depressants is not working and it won’t work: that much should be obvious by now. Anti-depressants mask the real causes of mental anguish and depression, and they don’t even do a good job of that. If they’re also contributing to mass killings, they’re making that anguish far, far worse. The public deserves to know the truth, whatever the cost to Big Pharma and its shareholders.