Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Comments by The Emperor is Naked

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • Real mental order implies freedom from subjectively preconceived parameters of thought. Which does not mean simply adopting any kind of thought, but rather giving ourselves the psychological space to go where the facts lead us, wherever that may be. Clearly then, the subjectively preconceived notions or systems of politically acceptable thought found in psychiatry and elsewhere are inconsistent with mental order. This is important to understand. It is also important to be aware of the effect of other influential sources of subjective ideology on the collective mind. No man truly serious about the restoration of mental order in himself and/or others (and in that order, obviously) can ignore the role that the mainstream media and the so-called educational institutions play, or have played, in giving us what to think. Neither can he ignore the role that psychiatry plays in enforcing it.

    The all-important quest for mental order isn’t a game, or some kind of meaningless mutual affirmation session. Nor is it a mere commodity one can get in the marketplace. It is not a question of belief or mere guess-work. It is rather a question of intelligent (sensible) experimentation and finding out, which is life itself. That means disconnecting from the perception management machine (which is mis-management) and learning to think for oneself again. If you have not already done so, try turning off the TV and giving up the cinema and the mainstream press for a full year (including the internet outlets) and reporting back (to yourself) on how you feel at the end of it. And if you have trouble with withdrawal ask yourself if you can really afford to go through your whole life not knowing what it feels like to have a mind uncluttered by all that. Keep in mind that it was only a blink of an eye ago in our common history when that condition was the rule and not the exception, and from time immemorial. Clearly mental disorder is not progress.

    Ideology does not come from nowhere. It has a definite source and it carries with it the values of those who give it investiture. It also carries with it their mental disorder. Therefore there are some important questions we need to be asking ourselves about the context in which we imbibe and impart ideology. For example, does what I do for money place parameters around my thought and expression which are unreasonable, arbitrary and ideological in nature? Is my “education” really about learning or is it rather about seeking affirmation from others? Is my so-called “learning” merely a means to an end other than its real inherent value? Is my mind cluttered by idols (that is, by notions of what I think I ought to be or ought not to be, or how I appear to others, or how I appear to myself) so that I am unable to perceive things in a simple, uncomplicated way and move thus beyond mere posturing and speculation to effective decision-making? Can my mind ever really be free of such idols, when money invariably carries with it the (albeit often tacit) set of values of those who issue, control and demand compliance to it? Have I become a mere set of responses to expectations which I have never even bothered to seriously question or understand? Am I at least aware of the bargains I make psychologically? Or is it more or less unconscious? Or am I conscious of only the more tangible and superficial conditions and not the psychological ones? It takes extraordinary self awareness to answer these questions honestly. Therefore, turning away from the mainstream media may not be in itself sufficient for a return to mental order, but it is at least a significant beginning.

    We understand well enough not to eat bad things if we would keep our bodies in order, why is it we do not do the same for our minds? Clearly the latter is far more important since our physical experience is always overcome by our psychological one. I am not talking about physical food. Information is the food of the mind; a well-fed mind soon heals. Please understand, it is not a question of belief, it is a question of try and see. Actually our minds are so starved for real nourishment, for the plain speaking truth beyond rhetoric, sophistry and make-believe, we need only make room for it by cutting out the endless stream of junk. Guard against any self-deceptive notions of moderation and selectivity in this regard – there can be no such compromise with that which is rotten to the core, and light will not share a space with darkness. We are the stewards of our own minds. Who will we blame then if the thieves get in?

    I may be able to maintain a due sense of proportion about what is physically possible and impossible when I watch the TV or the cinema screen, but what about the psychologically possible and impossible? That may not be so clear. Am I aware of the extent to which I am traumatised, brutalised, desensitised or dehumanised by what I see and hear? Am I aware of the extent to which I am being complicated by it? Or confounded by it. Or hyper-sexualised and consumerised by it. Am I aware of its effect on my ability to keep my desires from overwhelming or undermining me? Am I relating to reality or to a graven image? And do I take that idol with me psychologically wherever I go? Is the idol a politically correct one?

    Objective fact, gentlemen, is not politically correct. It has nothing to do with subjectively preconceived parameters of thought.

    It is what it is.

    Note: The above is an excerpt from the article “Psychiatry: Science or Fraud” which can be read in its entirety at

    See also:

  • Psychiatric patients themselves often espouse the alleged virtues of psychiatric treatment, including drug treatment, and many even believe it. To understand this phenomenon it may be helpful to review some of the chief and fundamental differences between objective and subjective modes of perception.

    An objective fact is an assertion about the nature of reality that can be verified objectively, that is, by using logic and empirical methods. It is therefore exactly transferable to others, which is its chief scientific value. In scientific terms it is said that the results of an experiment to test the validity of an hypothesis can be “replicated”.

    Subjective belief, on the other hand, is by definition, that which we believe without any recourse to objective verification or “validation”. Opinion has no scientific value per se. Even if a method of objective validation of hypothesis exists, it remains only an hypothesis or belief in the mind of a subject until the method of validation has been applied or at least understood by same subject; at which point, and only then, does the confirmed hypothesis become meaningfully and exactly transferable to others by that subject. That, essentially, is science.

    With that in mind consider now that all psychiatric dogma has not only never been objectively verified, but there exists no method of ever doing so, since all judgments about the “efficacy” of any kind of psychiatric treatment (pharmaceutical or other), be it by the psychiatrists, the drug companies or even the patients themselves, are, in the absence of any bio-markers for any psychiatric disorder, necessarily subjective and ideological in nature. This is important to understand.

    What this means, for instance, is that a person who is gullible/temporarily insane/misinformed enough to voluntarily take any kind of psychiatric poison has no way of proving that an effect he ascribes to the drug is a truly objective (and thus significantly transferable) result of taking it, and not simply some kind of psychologically/physiologically rooted response specific to himself. Furthermore any judgments about the value of an effect ascribed to a psychiatric drug, as well as any judgments about the acceptability, or lack thereof, of the so-called “side-effects” of a drug, are also completely subjective, and thus may be based on a value system or ideology that is fundamentally unsound, even if it has the support of the general consensus…….this applies not only to the judgments of patients, but also to the dubious judgments of psychiatrists who ‘test’ and prescribe the drugs, and of course the even more dubious judgments of those who give psychiatrists investiture, that is, those who financially and politically support the psychiatric enterprise.

    The ideological and subjective nature of the testing of the “efficacy” of psychiatric drugs is especially alarming when we consider the fact that many people are forced to ingest these poisons involuntarily – and this in countries that seriously consider themselves to be “free” and “democratic”. (What an infernal joke!)

    Finally we should perhaps also note that in addition to the above mentioned variabilities, subjective reporting has always inherent in it the possibility of deceit and misdirection. For example…. if a person has invested a large part of his life and identity, and perhaps also his means, believing in a certain paradigm, it may be difficult to admit to himself and others later that he has been wrong, or perhaps harder still, duped. Keep in mind that self deceit is not entirely conscious. Alternatively there may be some perceived advantage to be gained by the subjective reporter, or perhaps the group he represents, by deliberately deceiving others.

    In short, objective reality is the only place where you and I truly meet. Subjective perception on the other hand is isolating by its very nature. The chief difference between a person who has seen through the psychiatry racket and one who has not is that the former has recourse to objectively verified conclusions to support his view, and the latter does not.

    And that dear people, is all the difference in the world.

    Note: the above is an excerpt from the article “Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?” which can be read in its entirety at