Thursday, December 1, 2022

Comments by Paul Keith

Showing 69 of 69 comments.

  • “This medium is pure words. Nothing else.”

    There have been investigations that disagree that this is the case.

    This is a vast subject though but just to use a sample quote from something I didn’t write (since I’ve addressed this elsewhere before in MIA):

    “First we see the foot and then only, on another page, the wheel while the text first only speaks of the wheel and then only, on the other page, of the foot. Secondly this verbo-visual chiasm is abandoned and textual and visual representations walk hand in hand. Finally, the text associates itself with a graphic symbol, i.e. with a de-iconized visual item the meaning of which is more abstract, less open, more easy to control”


  • True. But the same can be said of all people.

    In the end, we cannot trust people AT ALL. Even experts.

    But why shouldn’t people be given the chance to “earn” someone’s trust?

    And I think this is more urgent issue facing our society today.

    Not only is Ted changing the narratives here in the sense of censorship but even my trust of many of the comments here differentiating between healthy diets and how Julia is possibly doing this just for P.R. makes me scratch my head and doubt whether people commenting have watched the actual TedX video.

    Not in the sense of anything malicious (or direct proof that someone did or did not watch it) but rather in the sense of why is the subject of nutrition vis-a-vis psychiatry so much of a theme under these comments when Julia’s Tedx already started with Semelweis (being an example of an era where health studies are dismissed which is a critical area in deciding what is universally considered healthy by people in a current generation) and the later arc of her Tedx talks is all about healthy eating already.

    So why aren’t we talking about fish oils and other specific studies she’s sharing and their flaws? or why is it important that Julia Rucklidge may or may not be doing this for PR an issue when it’s not a Julia Rucklidge being censored that’s the antipsychiatry issue here. It’s the science not being allowed to be science! Even if Ted fixes their wording, the narrative has already changed because people have seen the message warning already and on top of this, the interview in this link already has Julia explaining why the changes became worse!

    I’m not saying there’s a malicious activity to change her narratives under these comment sections either but coming from a guy who has his comments changed a lot ranging from one word being omitted when quoting me to another different comment literally changing the entire intent of my post to being retold into my comment becoming a slur – I don’t know how science in the modern era can even start being science without working on public relations so I guess this is what’s scientific going on in this area.

    It’s not like Julia Rucklidge is an isolated victim.

    This has been happening recently across all levels of science and academia whether it’s pro-drugs or anti-drugs.


  • I disagree that it is less dangerous. (Edit: sorry DS, I meant less harmful per your specific wording) At best the two are equal but there can be a case made for it being more dangerous.

    As Julia reveals in her interview, science here is being censored in favor of an agenda. In order for this issue to even occur – it shows that the issue of danger has changed.

    It is no longer a case of Nazism – it is also a case of defamation. A real big one at that. Not some random comment being moderated or tweaked. Ted is a major platform. It is not an artifact of Nazism that poses a less (but still dangerous) following like Neo-Nazism.

    This is as clear evidence that the science on nutrition is being re-narrated and it is not fair to Julia that Ted who claims to uphold multiple views would prevent her studies from being explored further.

    The pro-freedom stance here is clear. Let Julia Rucklidge among many other nutritionists keep on pursuing their studies TED! You are not a random website where one random commentor will report your comment on some random website.

    You have a responsibility of not only hosting events but people try to associate their studies with their brand because you offer them a platform for their ideas that would target the public. Let not only her voice be heard but be criticized on that platform as is. Stop creating this world where she has to go to a smaller site on MIA and hope people will click one interview where she details your injustice towards her hard work underneath them.

    The more a scientist has to go around smaller media interviews to work around actually having their views be told in a larger more publicly consumed media, the less time they have of actually doing any science.

  • @littleturtle

    I think MIA regular commentors could be skewing that impression a bit. (Though if you could provide statistical sources of how antipsychiatry people think in general to prove me wrong I would dearly appreciate it.)

    I’ve never found any strong evidence behind this statement especially with how it connects to a lack of comments.

    For example the fall of 2nd story is huge news but it has zero comments in MIA.

    …and this isn’t a BIO issue but a SOC issue and this came off of 2nd Story’s Adrian Bernard being a co-host in one of the Mindfreedom Webinars just a month before where I not only attended but Adrian answered a question I wrote (via Zoom Player Q&A) to him where you can see him answering this question here:

    Not only is this a Mindfreedom + MIA + a recent SOC topic – it screams urgent issue but posters ignored the link.

    So where’s the supposed SOC focus bias of the antipsychiatry people on this subject?

    I mean even in this interview – you heard the words “this is all anecdotal” – in terms of degree of importance in biological articles, the degree of SOC vs. BIO disparity is clear here and yet it is here that you actually receive some comments.

  • @Sascha

    Hi, are there any videos uploaded online that show your most troublesome cases (preferably free)?

    Responding to this section:

    “They let me train their workers and you should see the trainings I do, I’m surprised they let me even sit at this desk sometimes”

    Usually when documentaries are done, there’s an element of average or success story that’s shown while other times training videos are forced to start at a base level of agreeable human interaction.

    Even in any mental health training media, to my knowledge there’s a lack of prolonged scientific/raw footage training when it comes to dealing with troublesome situations both from the antipsychiatry and the pro-psychotherapy side.

  • @Richard,

    While it’s true we men are allowed to take a position no different than any human whether we consider ourselves men, women, transexual, gender fluid or otherwise. There is a case for why women can only understand women like this recent retweet of mine of Dr. Caroline Madden’s post:



    “I’m with you. No harm in asking for a date. But, TSA can have her pat down, delay her flight, strip search her. Some men take “no” as humiliating & react badly. That’s why women lie & say they’re married. It legit is the only excuse that doesn’t upset guys.”

    Biological reproductive organ differences aside, it would be no different if a human being threw bleach on our pants because we were manspreading like this link shows:

    Only the people who ever had the bleach incident happen to them could understand not because of their gender or identity politics but because even if bystanders can understand our situation – we’re still the one who has to walk home and change our pants of all things or as you said:

    “There is DIRECT experience and there is learning through INDIRECT experience (that is through theory and the experience of others).”

  • Since we’re sharing links, I thought you indigenous readers/future indigenous readers might like this recent upload by John Oliver:

    It’s narrated towards Facebook but John is actually talking about online comments in general and it’s a lighter baggage on the whole accusation studies theme because it’s satire – plus it actually has indigenous people in them! (Unfortunately no Native Americans so far as I can tell.)

  • @Richard

    I don’t write for most people. I write only to respond to your post.

    You used the words consolidate which means:

    ” To unite into one system or whole; combine: consolidated five separate agencies into a single department.
    2. To make strong or secure; strengthen: She consolidated her power during her first year in office.
    3. To make firm or coherent; form into a compact mass.”

    If your reply is long for example and I made it longer because I united both my reply and your reply by addressing them – would they not become longer?

  • True Richard but how about these two advanced people that don’t get along?


    Copy paste from that link:

    Thomas Szasz had a radically critical opinion about the work of Basaglia. In 1986, in the preface to the book by Giorgio Antonucci ‘I pregiudizi e la conoscenza critica alla psichiatria’, Szasz writes the following words about the misunderstanding of the ideas of Basaglia:

    ‘Basaglia became famous for having abolished the psychiatric hospitals in Italy, statement as absurd as saying that mental diseases are diseases like all the others’. ‘Basaglia, […] never ceased to practice genuine psychiatry, fact that basically meant to reinforce, rather than to weaken, the legitimacy of the psychiatric interventions against the will of the affected persons, having transferred the place in which the commitment occurs from the psychiatric hospital to the civil hospital’.[28]

    End quote

    These two people are as advanced as they come in the fight against psychiatry.

    They are like the names we bring up that have fought for us and done loads of advanced (or at least year long critical successful elements) and they both vehemently disagree as far as their Wikipedia-fied mental mindsets are concerned and this diversity causes them to do what we know them as doing for exposing psychiatry.

    You’re right:

    “Organizations WITHOUT such a Left orientation very quickly and easily morphed into reformism and some form of co-optation which gutted their politics and/or they ended up selling out the very movement that gave rise to their existence. Parts of the “Peer” and “Alternative” movement in today’s “mental health” system might be an analogous example to what happen back in the 60’s.”

    Except this is not the 60s and the movement has to grow beyond the 60s but many of the steps have taken a step back or have to accommodate new elements introduced by the growth of the mental health industry and the shrinkage of anti-psychiatry in terms of building up a valid image the pre-DSM III age of psychiatry was under threat of.

    And I say shrinkage not in terms of users or number of people but also in terms of it not being the 60s.

    For ex.

    “The actual program and basis of unity of these organizations (while vaguely anti-capitalist) WAS NOT based on agreement with socialism or communism as a future goal.”

    The majority couldn’t be vaguely pro-capitalist because there was no internet technology that forces people to say do crowdfunding – which is a combination of a sort of pre-late stage/free market capitalist supply and demand principle mixed with the activist views that the American left is more widely known for than the neo-conservatives/social conservatives of those times would have supported.

    And I doubt any one who really knows how difficult this battle is, is going to say them posting on a blog engine provided by the consumerism of a growing internet technology that saw the rise of the term blog thanks to ARPANET or BBS selling their soul is what counts for Advanced unification.

    For example,

    “WHO will be starting the VITALLY NECESSARY AND NEEDED ADVANCED ANTI-PSYCHIATRY ORGANIZATION? Such an organization DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT require a pro socialist perspective for membership, but it must have a LEFT leaning program and compass that, at the very least, identifies the very real connections between psychiatry and modern capitalism.”

    In my view as an Anarcho-capitalist, you do. You have to provide a service equal or greater to that of MIA or you contribute to MIA to build up such an audience and then this entrepreneurial service will teach you how to best service a market this way.

    But do I want some HUGE left leaning organization to silence or turn my voice into a minority and accuse me of being a double agent that shouldn’t be trusted because they have earlier movements that you already admit kind of didn’t really “won” the war against psychiatry? (Debatable reasons aside.)

    Probably not. Cause I don’t want any antipsychiatry movement to lose again. I don’t want moral victories. I may not be able to actually offer the miracles of war that would bring down psychiatry but I don’t love this reality where psychiatry is winning.


    Even among your average AnCap Facebook group like this recent FB post that asks:

    Would you hire a statists for a job that required critical thinking?

    A fellow AnCap (I presume he’s AnCap cause that’s sort of the name of the group – it’s not a huge topic – more of your standard joke topic) accused me of adding a fallacy because I added elements to my answer that makes it seem that only statists people can be critical thinkers because my post started with Yes, I would hire a statist if they can show me they are far better than an AnCap person I want to hire:

    To elaborate my answer to that person, I wrote this underneath that post:

    ” I would even go further than that and say the job requires me to earn capital to hire more capable people and a capable person willing to work with me (regardless of which one of us is the boss or the senior co-worker) allows both of us to become better critical thinkers in establishing a competent service that would competitively compete against other services.”

    So even in my average FB group where I barely post and I’m not supposed to be this AnCap history professor/ reader, I have to “re-address” what AnCap 101 is to these same people that should know what the basics of free markets are supposed to be without me needing to write a follow-up reply (but I had to because the 1 person who replied didn’t seem to agree and was accusing me of establishing a fallacy) to which I wrote:

    “Of course I can add my own rules. It’s the growth of my business/service that’s on the line which is why I’m hiring a critical thinking person to begin with. If I’m not even allowed to add anything to my hiring process how in the world would I even be able to properly gauge the critical thinking capacity of a person I’m hiring? The only fallacy here is that I’m not actually hiring a person yet but the question never said I should actually be hiring a person. It asks me if I would hire someone and since I believe in capitalism I would hire the best possible personnel in a heart beat and since I’m an anarchist, I know the world is too chaotic to even be sure if what I judge to be a critical thinking person and have already hired is the best person in my immediate vicinity until I work with that person even if they ace the interview so of course I’ll keep adding conditions, keep firing and rehiring employees – everything to earn more capital and invest in more services so that I can better create a world that not only matches with my own but encourages others who disagree or agree with me to work with me for that same vision either as employees, consumers or some other type of transaction.

    It’s the growth of my business/service that’s on the line. Not yours. (Unless you want to hand me over your entire business. I’d be cool with that too even though I’m anti-welfare)”

    And this is like a standard joke thread. They should already know the free market plenty more times than me but dogma and the ease of technology to reply and gives short answers leads to most saying “No” or “It depends”. (but keep in mind this is again just a joke thread there’s like 8 comments.)

    So (I’m not trying to convince you) cause you have to like compartmentalize all our replies into one single reply but to answer your question:

    “What kind of a world are we trying to build here with ANY of our so-called political activism?”

    We’re not building anything here. If Robert Whitaker for example gets debunked further (I think it is in this Jim Flannery interview that Whitaker said a Boston Radio host has done it to him already but as you already mentioned, psychiatry debates have always built a culture around de-fanging any critic of the system:

    Direct youtube link:

    So once something like this blog becomes re-viralized or gets picked up by the MSM, it’s like the case of having all the eggs in one basket.

    Everything built here and improved here is either going to make this place stronger or it’s going to fall apart. Either way it’s nothing new in history.

    Growth and Paradigm Shifts rapidly changes the way we think and converse across all facets of life. That’s still the planet.

    Always has been dangerous. Keeps getting more dangerous. Sometimes gets less dangerous, other times becomes more dangerous for certain minorities. (We’re not even talking indigenous people here, the current planet is more dangerous to every other Earthling that isn’t a homo-sapien while we as a species gnaw at each other but we have temporary comforts like being able to post on a blog that other species can’t directly do to show how many of them are being oppressed.)

    But there’s also the other reality that makes this reality much more richer.

    For every place that builds and has to weather the storms of debates and diverse voices, communities flourish and diversity produces stepping stones whether these stones become beachheads for the war or just a news report that says “in this country on this date there’s a meeting for indigenous people” or there’s a vast organic recharge in a movement that says “CAPA e-mails will now tell you before hand whether an indigenous keynote speech will be uploaded online or not so that you don’t have to keep asking or squinting at a blackboard for what the names of these key people are in an e-mail attachment” – these little changes are what leads to actual victories.

    Szasz will not be Ssasz if there was no market for a term known as “The Myth of Mental Illness”. He could have been famous in other books but those words are associated to him. He’s linked to that forever.

    Same thing with Basaglia. Had he not made Gorizia a successful place that empowered psychiatry – he wouldn’t have created the sleeping dragon. He wouldn’t have developed the patience or the elements that would lead to the Basaglia Law despite his death. All those individuals in that anarchy situation, had most of them not self regulated after Franco listened to them and made themselves marketable to a society that deems them as sub-human – there would have been no leverage for the Basaglia Law. It could have still made him famous but the law would have been stuck in theory land.

    All this exists because regardless of identity politics, as you said:

    “what is absolutely essential in any growing human rights movement such as anti-psychiatry, is the need for an ADVANCED political organization (to STAND OUT from all the others) that concentrates some of best and most dedicated ideological and political thinkers, who can develop a radical program for change and are also capable of organizing direct action type resistance against all forms of psychiatric oppression.”

    But the thing with who is the best or who is not the best or who is going to become the best is that it has always stood upon the shoulders of giants from the past.

    The best never got stuck in permanently worshiping these giants as statues of bygone victories.

    The best has always learned. Regardless of whether they adopted or softened or hardened their realities once they have to become the best rather than their heroes but it’s always been the freedom of any person to “sell” their view of freedom to build a world that is freer. Regardless of whatever space opens up in reality.

    Failure or success – the best learns and the best becomes the best not because they are the best. They just have to be the best and then history lists them down as some survivorship bias built icon (be they villain, hero or flash in the pans) as these so great people who rose above their calling even though they didn’t really rise like some sort of Hercules. They really just were in a horrible horrible spot and a bunch of them definitely were not going to just stand idly by so someone has to go down in history when that time comes and sell the narrative but it has always been built by growing numbers and diverse cultures that can set aside who is my buddy and who is not.

    If my Ancap buddy is going to backstab me and I have gained information on that – I’m definitely going to be one of those that stops him even if he just wants to get me banned on a Facebook group. It’s human nature.

    So setting aside this relativistic theory of opinions, we need serious examinations with regards to indigenous people under this comments.

    I don’t live in Canada. I can’t say buy the award winning Filipino movie Tu Pug Imatuy about the indigenous group of Lumads in my country to support the antipsychiatry scholarship.

    That’s still in Canada and whoever visits or watches a series of Bonnie Burstow events or whoever Alex Jones the whole Anti-psychiatry Scholarship training sessions – they still are the ones who have the potential to make us all view these information on a freer platform like youtube or some sort of Netflix/Peer2Peer streaming service if my country men can’t afford or can’t be bothered to say order The Other Mrs. Smith on top of other expensive books (compared to your avg. marketed towards the cheap e-book/book buyer crowds of most Kindle books) in order to inform myself so that I can actually get out of this current trap I’m in. (A trap that forces me to have almost zero time to read a book on my leisure days.)

    That’s the kind of world I see myself living in and I don’t just want to build an alternative. I want all the best guys. The most diverse guys. I want them to train me when I can afford them and I also don’t want to slack off. I don’t care if I’m on the sidelines or inside a psych ward. I’m going to move and I’m going to rest and I’m going to move bar none.

    I told this to Lucinda Meyer awhile ago when I donated to her 8 hrs. ago in a FB bday fundraiser that suppose to go to the Benzodiazepine Information Coalition (but even Lucinda admits she doesn’t how FB fundraiser quite works and my post was so long FB kept loading once I clicked on the donate button so I had to paste my optional post under the comments)

    …but regardless of what I did (that’s why I’m not going to link to her donation link because I don’t want to be accused of being a salesperson or creating a dummy FB account for money) but my last paragraph to her – I think best ends this post of what world I want to build:

    “Breathe. Strive. Breathe. We need more people like you who makes fundraisers on their birthdays. I need more people like you to keep me aligned with the reality of a planet that either sucks or leeches upon the fleeting hope I have for the human race. At least before I rest and recharge myself once again for the next bout of hopeleechness handed to me by my doctors/former doctors/legal guardians/relatives and people claiming to be my friends.

    The battle continues…”

  • Well the medium is always the massage as the book title goes and word limits per post…are sort of a limited archaic criticism (or commentary whatever would make better sense in a PC manner) when sharing diverse views especially in a blog.

    For example there’s a rise in themes about who is who in identity politics across these site recently…and yet me (a person closer to a Free Market Freedom type of poster) and say a Slavoj Zizek (a hardcore communist) would have totally hit it off. We would both agree on almost everything despite people thinking we should be all over each other’s throats just because of our ideologies but then your standard online comments will always break some word limit when people are just throwing general concepts around until some specific reference like books ties it all in.

    Well it’s because even Slavoj had to break the speech limit of Google Talks when he was merely explaining the concept of Ideology across the world:

    There’s no official word for it but I call it the Shapiro, Peterson, Weinstein, Rubin in one live online community effect as can be seen here:

    These guys are explaining concepts but the live chat replay and even the youtube comments can’t “handle” it so you get intervals of short comments not addressing the way these people are handling themselves and end up with situations like jokes and a regression to reference in online conversations such as:

    “Please pay attention to what Peterson is saying at 46:15. He is stating the reason why people do not want to listen, why they want to stay in their “low-resolution” comfort zone. The reality does not correspond to ideologies, it is much more complicated and demanding. God is in the method, Devil is in the details. That guy Peterson actually has thought about things.”

    Which all the parties, not Peterson alone have brought in like the first few minutes of the video. Not even that time period.

    So word limits you know censor beliefs. Are they troublesome because of a tl;dr “insisting” culture or because a bunch of people especially on the internet who want easy on the eyes or here’s a bookmark or here’s a link talking about a book info in these so called general popular socializing systems? Yes, definitely but word limit are no longer cases. They have been broken time and time again. They have been pre-explored by Macluhan and Postman pre-Internet and then post-Internet a bunch of services and concepts have already introduced methods to deal with this that no one adopted. (Cause there have been tons of niche sites, some fallen some barely used, that addressed this but don’t attract people or aren’t used by enough people that your standard site doesn’t just migrate over it.)

  • To add to what oldhead is saying, getting paid is also a form of “raising your profile” to deliver more peer support.

    So it’s not the initial “salary” or “hand-out” – it’s the form an amount of cash earned that pushes someone to be better than the next peer besides them.

    There are so called volunteer peers now like 7cupsoftea or just your average internet poster sharing information for people to be “aware” of your standard hesitation to approach a certain person.

    So this phenomena is sort of something that clashes with many beliefs which is why a peer system is both difficult and it gets abused so often. The peer payment system is often just an extension of the counselor system. That’s the sad reality.

    On the other hand, provided a person delivers a quality peer support, there will always be someone that can rise above this and that’s the irony of the payment system. There’s a gap in the middle but it’s often the middle people that creates these gap from a lowly salary peer support personnel to applying something like Bonnie Burstow’s trauma services…and it extends to that too.

    The whole Bonnie Burstow scholarship success story is built on top of this: she/he cannot challenge the fundamental operation of the facility unless willing to be fired summarily…

    but we’re not going to fire you (we don’t need to empower your voice, we’re going to make you Bonnie Burstow keep running around UoT’s hamster wheel until you modify your Antipsychiatry Scholarship or you drop out just like every other problematic zit that reaches our offices)

    So Bonnie didn’t willingly leave and give up. She offered leverage to get the scholarship approved under the status of academic freedom plus offering the scholarship to a competitor.

    At the lower levels, it’s the same sacrifice with getting paid.

    A supporter (peer support or friend) that is receiving more feedback or more customers or at least strengthening the symbol of an industry (regardless whether they are for or against it) are being baptized through capitalism in terms of ok…if I want to put more food on my table to get into a better mindset to support someone else even if it just means I slept well while they are stressed so that I can better listen to them: that’s constant incremental growth until you hit the point…where it’s no longer genuine. So much red tape. So much in-fighting, backstabbing and gossiping and your sort of standard scaling up to humanity’s real “asshole level” slicing up your so-called illusion of what is actual peer support if you are a peer who just wants to help.

    That’s the harsh reality of the sleeping dragon technique. 99% of what people focus on is the sleeping part. Not the dragon.

    So these kinds of stories are often cut short rapidly. Rapid could mean years. Rapid could mean decades.

    But eventually you want to organize a sleeping dragon…you have to become a dragon. Not just your baby lizard/komodo dragon/easily killed but seemed like a secret boss lvl 99 dragon that every random cheater just one shots.

    Dragons are dragons. They are sleeping but once they wake up – they have to radically change the landscape somehow and every step whether it’s a small number that seems big or it’s a big number that seems small have to face that reality. It’s called sleeping dragon becomes once people get alerted to you – you’ve gone through hell and back. You are not a dragon in name. You are not a king. You are not equal to your fellow dragons.

    You have proven to become this Asian dragon who is closer to Leviathan (a dragon that forced God to intervene) to borrow Thomas Hobbes’ version of the Biblical Dragon Leviathan and you deliver.

    Whether you eventually die off or you return to going back to sleep or some new offspring takes your place…genuine peer support has to acquire resources and in order for peers to have resources, they got to at least have some form of scaling up salary (or monetary/biological resource acquisition) in order to grow up into becoming a dragon to counter the opportunity costs of setting up a dragon-sized peer support training system…which let’s face it…it’s just pretty language at this moment. (as Sascha already said)

    No matter the number of peers or instant cash hand-out that someone receives – until they’ve proven the critics wrong that they are beyond great. (Sleeping dragons aren’t just great services. Not even top 10. You have to at least grow into some top 2.5 global peer system bar none to even bring down the pharmaceutical industry on this particular system. .5 powerful people will kill you once you become a threat. The Top Powerful System is not going to make you top dog regardless if you’re Top. Finally once everything hits at an elite large scale global systematic change…the top 3 are neck in neck. Even Zhuge Liang of the Three Kingdoms in his most romanticized form when he was nicknamed the Sleeping Dragon – lost in the story about him being so great at winning every major battles once Liu Bei recruited him.)

    If they don’t do that (different from “can’t” but it’s nearly impossible) then they’re just another peer support system using pretty languages that empowers oppression.

  • Hi Richard. We’ve never talked before (plus I don’t know why your post somehow got here, I thought you guys were talking about this in another article) but total numbers of people do count so yes uniting both the American Left and the American Right does water things down – but only if people are “united” based on a banner rather than based on the truth.

    However truth is troublesome, your Leftist truth is not someone else’ Republican truth. No different than your Leftist truth may not be similar to someone’s Leftist truth.

    So you can’t move people with what you claim to be truth alone. It must be as you revealed about the class based system but then what is a class based system especially for indigenous people? An umbrella term that doesn’t even quite reflect how indigenous people are often diverse tribes even among one geography that is far smaller than that of say the geography of 1 American county or one American state because they are forced to adopt and modify their feelings towards the dominant cultures.

    By insisting a particular Left truth, this leads to blowback that causes one group to push back against another group (not even among groups of enemies but groups of people accusing each other of being Left or Right) so it ends up enabling identity politics too and usually not even identity politics at that but identities of the Left and Right. Worse, often American Left and Right. (Sometimes this does devolve into a sort of grander “modern day” conservative and “modern day” liberals that can include neighboring countries like Canada but what about the “modern day” indigenous people? How can these minorities (let alone individuals within these minorities) get a word in when these two large terms Left and Right truths can immediately get their beliefs washed away in favor of what is truth for someone else?)

    You already said:

    “One of the solutions to this problem (the ignorance of the Left) is to actively link modern day capitalism to the evolution, function, and current role of psychiatry and the Medical Model in today’s world.”

    I don’t view this as a solution but I do view this as a key to unlocking a solution so why didn’t you start your comment on this article with this so that you can actively explain this link to readers wanting to know about how indigenous people are linked to modern day capitalism?

    Why start with this?

    “very much related to your wrong position that “conservatives” CAN BE 100% anti-psychiatry, is your wrong position that an advanced political organization building anti-psychiatry struggle should NOT have a “Left” orientation, that is, contain language linking psychiatry to the capitalist system.”

    and talk about some 100% issue and sell people short on the evolution, function, and current role of psychiatry and the Medical Model in today’s world and how it would affect and is currently affecting indigenous people?

  • It would be tough to expand on a post that I already expanded above Jonathan but I’ll try.

    I am not sure I can add anything else to what I already wrote though.

    I’ll focus on this one particular context (but this has already been addressed previously)

    “These are both places designed with the sole purpose of genocidal mass murder on an industrial scale”

    If you read my reply above, I compared Buchenwald specifically to Gorizia. (Right now I still see the link.)

    …and I mention this because it ties to the grander theme of more studies = more opportunities to not only recreate or re-strengthen/reintroduce the Basaglia Law in modern times (a law where Franco Basaglia didn’t manage to change the law of Italy but they couldn’t do anything except name it after him because unlike the CRPD that defends the rights under the guise of Human Rights, Basaglia specifically targeted the mentally ill. There was no vague random Human Rights report that says x person is being persecuted, here’s a HR report and here’s x number of people an entity like the UN has saved but then when you follow the news it turns out the UN can’t intervene in the case of the person being reported except…report it)

    This is all narrated to in that link. Franco Basaglia wasn’t a “here’s a bunch of people I saved guy” – no he was a believer that the mentally ill are functional and he proved it to society. Sure he needed other theorists or writers so that he wouldn’t just get kicked out of his position but he wasn’t a text book person. He wasn’t the type of guy who will just write The Myths of Mental Illness, go on a court case, lose most of the court case and then be famous for his books and then have fans of his mini-victories while the majority views him as a fringe who went on to join Scientology.

    He went straight at the people he wanted to help. This was why he is as much associated with radical mental health as he is with antipsychiatry. His theory aside (I don’t know much about this there are few Eng sources), his actions dictated I want you to help yourself so that I can help you get out AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I know this institution is ridding you of your autonomy the longer you stay in here and I can’t let you out immediately and let you roam around from place to place but I need you to understand that I am going to do something as swiftly as possible to your specific case.

    It had an ethical seriousness to this on top of a realistic understanding of freedom in his time (regardless of what political party he associated himself with)

    So Basaglia was in Gorizia and he needed to understand Gorizia and he needed to do something about Gorizia. He had no delusions or care whether people find it offensive that he was bringing all these doctors to this asylum and creating radical mental health.

    He cared only that the doctors arrived, he didn’t get fired and he continued to fight to bring down psychiatry as the quote shows where he hated Gorizia.

    This was what produced a Basaglia Law. The lone global law in history that took the mental health industry face to face.

    It happened because Franco Basaglia (though he may or may not have desired the law) studied the specifics of an asylum. For years. He worked on it. He deployed the asylum. Made it more economically appealing even if it would temporarily strengthen the abuses in other geographically closer institutions of his time.

    He may not have loved the fact that he had to study and listen to all these random prisoners and treat them as individuals as opposed to anecdotes but he kept on learning. He kept on making a Franco Basaglia ruled asylum “better” instead of clinging to what should or shouldn’t be a moral treatment.

    No, he could worry about that later. Gorizia was his turf regardless of how much it was a small unknown territory and how much his fellow professionals said he wouldn’t amount to anything. He didn’t see these victims as a large group of anecdotes that needed to be freed, no he actually went out there to free these people and show them these actions free them…not in some kind of ivory tower text (though again I need to emphasize this was a two pronged attack – he also needed the ivory tower texts to protect him while he was doing the grunt work while helping educate him on how to make an asylum better) – because there was no room for theory when you can’t even go out of your way to offer a helping hand to someone.

    This is the first reason behind my reply.

    My 2nd reason involves a comment elsewhere in this thread related to markps2. I won’t re-copy my reply because that would be redundant but here’s the first line of my reply so that you can easily search for it:

    “This still exists today in my country”

    So there’s a whole misconception floating around these institutions to begin with.

    People want to bring down psychiatry but they end up demonizing these facilities without understanding them and so while most facilities are more pristine or other facilities have no cameras so that you don’t know how bad they are but they are still no concentration camps – a lot of the narratives have been obfuscated so that…yes, a ward is get brought down when a scandal strikes but then where is it often reported?

    In richer countries with a wider media exposure of course.

    To compound the problem, how does this waterfall “cleaning up on institutions” occur on lesser countries? (I can only specifically refer to my experience on my own country and I’ve only been to two wards. 1 was consider a halfway house where staff would hand say the filter of a cig they smoked to patients and 1 was a prestigious local hospital where everything was pristine but all the hospital policies allow for cases of mental torture inside in the three times I was sent inside. For ex. when (I think) a JCI inspector was coming staff were so concerned about putting a pillow on my bed to keep up with the standard but they had less urgency when they were inserting a tube up my nose. Everything was a joke to the lower level staff while the top level doctors and the mid-level doctors scurried around the institution and occasionally talked to a patient.)

    Everything looks pristine though especially if it’s your first time in and out. When it was over-crowded, it meant a room designed for holding up a patient that was sound proof would have a patient on it but you didn’t get any over-crowding because protocols were in place to keep a 1 patient per 1 room facility.

    Not to mention there were always hospital policies being hidden from you. For ex. it was only my third time that I could go out of the psych ward provided I was escorted by an off-duty staff but I needed this in my 2nd psych ward because I badly needed to consult other non-mental health professionals on top of my low energy levels requiring me to exercise. (the real functional method not some mat you place during break time inside the psych ward so that it looks like you are doing some activity)

    It didn’t happen though because it was only in the third time that a patient actually knew of this key word so she had this privilege and of course once she had this privilege I can also use this privilege provided I can present it properly to my psychiatrist that I knew this keyword and it would be “therapeutic” to me.

    So I need a lot of these details to better make my move since every element of these institutions waterfalls down into my country and if I need it, I know someone else needs it because the reports aren’t dwindling in terms of how many people are affected by the psychiatric business model as quickly summarized in this reddit post of mine:

  • No problem. I can only try provided I’m around when you need someone around.

    Like the post I wrote just now to JanCarol says, I may not have gone through your exact experiences but I had years where I made no contact with the outside world so I have at least that similarity with you in terms of avoiding human contact (except for family members who brought up food for me to eat)

  • No, but you don’t increase your chances of being listened to by shouting over people, you just increase your chances of being heard.

    That’s why every one of these three things – Basaglia Law, Bonnie Burstow Antipsychiatry Scholarship and the Rosenhan Experiment are keys to the movement because there are no pillars yet.

    Meanwhile your random talk session psychologist/psychiatrist receives at least how many patients per day? Patients who may desire a mother figure but find no one in their life that fills this gap. Patients who may desire a father/priest figure but find no one in their life that provides them with this secure figure.

    Providing those two things alone makes anyone hesitant to listen to alternative opinions about their situations while claiming the mantle of a messenger gets you ostracized not just in name but in terms that empower the mental health business because every small abuse on you is due to stigma, every big abuse is due to malpractice and every right you have is based on your capacity to be analyzed as a homo sapien over some arbitrary number that counts you as a person not only of legal age but who isn’t a danger to you or others.

    This is just your tabula rasa human. This isn’t even an actual human who got abused by others outside of the system much less realized they will be abused within the system.

  • “as for the young lesbian and her father having police authority over her then when she becomes of age the law is on her side and he no longer would have authority over her.”

    She was over the legal age and had a job. So am I when I was sent in.

    “but you don’t want to hear that do you”

    I do.

    “maybe things are different here”

    It is.

    ““The Bill also says that I won’t be able to access my own medical records if my doctor says it’s harmful to me.”


    Edit to add one more reference:

    “For a private mental health facility like Metro Psych, a nondescript khaki-colored building with tinted windows in Pasig, patient admissions have generally been involuntary. Dr. Fareda Flores, the co-founder of the facility, says involuntary admissions are normal as one of the symptoms of mentally ill patients is their denial of their condition.

    Flores also says, however, that there are patients who have already been left by their families in Metro Psych since they opened in 1999. ”

    Maybe John Cos’ Facebook posts might make sense:

    8 hrs. ago:

    “Is there anyone in Oregon who can take me in my wife and daughter are being destroyed by my illness I can’t keep doing this to them somehow please God have mercy”

    or maybe this messenger reply of mine to someone who was disillusioned by John Cos’ way of speaking would fit your bill since it’s shorter and doesn’t require getting the drift of what I’m writing since I doubt someone can post a reply this quickly considering the length of my post if they really read the entire thing enough to legitimately wish me well:

    “Thank you. Take care on your cause too. True, empowerment is key – to my experience though, these people often take ages to empower. Sometimes because people lose faith in them more and other times because they lose faith in themselves. I had been in and out of the same psych ward for 3 years for example and there was this one patient who only prayed and would on occasion call someone “I am uglier than you” according to some Bible verse in Isaiah. It took my 3rd time of going inside before I could prove that this person did not have any issues with communicating since he would never say this to me but because I was talking out loud to an atheist several times while my bed was directly in front of him while he was praying – those were the first few times when it actually empowered him to tap me on the shoulder and say “Could you kindly please lower your voice when I’m praying?”. It’s such a difficult situation for these people, they literally need an enemy to wake them up and force them to move and even then this was face to face. I don’t know if John is just creating a story in his head.’

  • Well no offense to Sir Simon Wessley but Franco Basaglia did change the law under worse circumstances.

    True the statistical probability is highly unlikely but there are courses provided by Tina Minkowitz for example that deals with educating people about the CRPD.

    In fact one of the major proponents of AOT was pushed forth when Misty Mayo’s mother (a lone woman) went on a one woman campaign to further strengthen psychiatric intervention for her daughter.

    “Linda knew Misty was homeless and unmedicated but had no way to contact her. Even if she did, Misty’s insistence that she was fine tied everyone’s hands, as the law requires that a person be an immediate threat to themselves or others before they can be committed to an institution for inpatient treatment against their will.

    In the end, Misty’s repeated arrests would be her salvation. She was remanded to court-ordered outpatient treatment as part of her parole. For the first time in nearly a decade, Misty was stable, on medication and participating in treatment. To Linda, the order of her daughter’s legal encounters (first jail, then court-ordered treatment) made no sense. What she wanted was a new first step that would prevent these difficulties.

    While Linda was venting at a local support group run by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, another parent asked: “Have you heard of Laura’s Law?””


    “Seems you are very ideological but not practical and down to earth.”

    In one of my 3 psych ward incarcerations, I approached a woman named Crystal who was throwing little bits of something (probably a cube of ice she collected in dinner time) while causing a scene where she threatened to punch me so I approached her, let her punch me (her shouts said face but she ended up punching me on my arms) and this led to her not getting tied up in that particular incident and the staff who saw it on camera merely told me to go back to the men’s room.

    In that same time period, I had to do other things such as make the fact known in view of the staff that I would marry this lesbian so that she could be with a female person she claimed to love because according to her, her father sent her there because he wanted her to stop being a lesbian. To do so, I had to rephrase it into a joke that would cause the lesbian and the staff to treat it like a joke despite my serious intentions in order to let these two people together.

    Once I got out, I would immediately click around this lesbian’s coworkers and non-direct family members that would introduce this supposed girlfriend of hers to me. This would be how I got introduced to Professor Janice Cambri of TCI Asia (who posted an article in Mad in Asia) before she argued in front of our country’s MH Bill hearing this year where she instructed me on how to approach the Commission of Human Rights.

    This led me to filling up this lesbian’s story under the Commission on Human Rights form on top of paying for an attorney to meet with this lesbian’s girlfriend but she opted out of meeting with this lawyer after I had already payed for the attorney because once the girlfriend got out, this person felt it was better to not re-connect the relationship with this lesbian because “she looked happy on Facebook” plus she feared for her life because the lesbian according to her story to me was kidnapped by the police since the father knew some high ranking police officer.

    Among other things, last month I had to quickly switch mental health professionals after I was gaslighted while feeling extremely ill in monthly counselling (still feeling ill but have to wait for e-mails besides monitoring FB) cause a hospital policy allows this particular psychiatrist to insist on her views once my legal guardians sends me back to this hospital that they have already sent me back in 3 times already which prevented me from seeking help with my health concerns both last and this month because it also involves a hospital hopping incident in my 2nd time around of being sent to this hospital psych ward.

    In this same counselling, the psychiatrist finally revealed we have different memories of why I wanted to switch mental health professional inside a psych ward – a memory that is fresh on my mind because this lesbian along with a former patient I was with was so scared of the doctor I was switching to because it was their doctor whom they cry over every time a in-ward talk therapy session is held – that they called me stupid both for wanting to switch to this doctor and knocking on the psych ward doors to the surprise of everyone even though I would have been involuntary entered inside of it anyway if I didn’t actually knock on the door.

    Yet despite the reality that I was mostly sleeping day in and day out these past 3 months, I would still e-mail other psychiatry related individuals such as asking James Gottstein how much for his consultation despite James Gottstein and Psychrights not replying to my tweets and e-mails, despite my lone MIA forum article “pleading” for someone to e-mail kindredspirits or Julia Greene and not receiving a reply, despite my messenger pm to Lauren Tenney who offers a Life Coaching course via Skype and not receiving a reply – I still trudged through creating this post for a stranger from Portland:

    The few who replied like Professor Janice Cambri told me the MH bill burnt her out and was handing me a document by Tina Minkowitz to show to any lawyer I could seek but once she stopped replying and I had to e-mail Tina straight up who then revealed CHRUSP doesn’t provide legal assistance and stopped replying too – despite redditors from R/portland accusing me of being naive regarding helping a total stranger named John Cos on Facebook that has reached 93 replies because I couldn’t get through to him and I have to wake up briefly at 2 am my time just to see if he replies and then sink back to bed unless some other issues like a comment by a MIA poster accusing me of being a troll forces me to keep awake on top of needing to do some other new assignment by my new clinical psychotherapist or my BetterHelp psychologist so that I may be exposed more to therapy methods, I still kept monitoring John Cos’ post, I still replied to r/therapy before being banned, I still filled up this legal form by RNWinston’s Lana Benton so that she would not get in trouble for helping me contact the person I need to contact because our country’s laws and lawyers are untrained in Mental Health cases except maybe if some rich guy can quickly tell his lawyer to sue the hospital before they get sent in…

    Despite the printer needing to be replaced, I still manged to sign the forms:

    And to put the cherry on top of this issue,

    I still plan to use every one of my 200,000 php in my bank account that my legal guardians could easily prevent me from using to visit Dr. Pesach Lichtenberg next year for the first time in Israel because there is no attempt at a Loren Mosher based Soteria House in my country much less an official Soteria House Philippines in this country.

    If you don’t know how much a cheap flight from Manila to Tel Aviv costs, here’s a random screenshot of a random date:

    Yes clearly from your response, I still need to learn more about empathy but I think you are sorely mistaken about me having not begun to learn anything about empathy.

    I have done everything including fill up this form that Sarah from handed to me after I contacted Jim Flannery asking him about how he got in contact with James Gottstein:

    “1. Have you ever been harmed or abused in the mental health system?

    Depends. At the time of this writing, to my knowledge, there is only one Filipina Prof. Janice Cambri who has the authority to argue that forced incarceration is torture. Unfortunately (although I do not mean this as a disrespect to her but as a compliment) as she revealed most Filipino lawyers are not informed of torture and she has limited information on certain things like she isn’t familiar with foreign laws when I mentioned whether she knows anything about getting an Alien Tort Statute approved. Her recommendation that I seek out the country’s CHR (Commission on Human Rights) was not based on strong evidence for me to do so based on my seeking out the CHR for one patient who claimed she was being forcefully incarcerated because her father does not want her to be in a lesbian relationship with another person.

    Due also to the nature of my life, esp. regarding how my family controls my life along with certain moral muteness from my relatives – there are just as much evidence that the mental health system “helped” me rather than tortured me.

    This of course in itself is a form of torture from a philosophical standpoint but these are experts who will say to you in talk therapy that your idea was actually the doctor’s idea. Lack of documentation also puts this argument in their favor.

    2. Are you a family member or ally of someone who has been harmed/abused in the mental health system?

    Depends. If this were a sports, I have attempted helping people but I have not to my knowledge helped anyone except for a single comment by a patient from my 2nd psych ward who happened to still be there for my 3rd psych ward who mentioned a patient from my 2nd psych ward stating I did something from him.

    To my knowledge, this patient commenting did not hint that she knew I visited the province of that guy.

    3. If you answered ‘yes’ to either of the above, what do you think should be done to protect people’s rights in the mental health system?

    Depends on timing. Last 2 months ago, I had to reveal to my psychiatrist that I was gambling it all to get to Pesach Lichtenberg’s Soteria Israel without knowing anything about Jewish culture or anything. In my words to her, it’s this 1% chance because to my knowledge no other Filipino is aiming at building an official Soteria house here.

    1 month ago, this chance increased because Mad in Asia gave Janice Cambri a platform for me to study her interviews but I was extremely weak at the time that in talk therapy the psychiatrist accused me that my studying of human rights is proof that I may be going into mania after telling her I was so sick that there were days where I just got up just to skim some articles about Miss Cambri.

    She would use my unemployment as proof that all these talks about human rights were just an idea. Due to the nature of her personality and limited time of talk therapy – I couldn’t just bring up the fact that I only needed 1 month before we start shooting an indie film when my 2nd psych ward led to my parents forcefully incarcerating me in Medical City.

    An incident where I was hospital hopping for an unexplained disease at the time involving “chronic weakness” and “eye soreness” except for one comment by a hospital nurse that it could be psychosomatic and later on an eye doctor did replace my Systane Ultra with Hyabak. It also didn’t help that I may have rubbed my eyes too much earlier in that incident.

    This incident changes my overall views of what should be done to protect these people’s rights.

    I believe Jim Flannery already interviewed a certain person in his website (could be Sean Blackwell) that problem with Soteria houses is that most people send the people to hospitals first during the early stages anyway.

    Me being on this other end where I’m so weak that I mostly stay in bed in this laptop while taking advantage of my parent’s ignorance that I am weak by occassionally getting up to eat when the maid cooks something – I feel there’s more of a moral need to communicate in such a way that people may find me rambling, abrasive but also detailed enough that say a family therapist of ours would say I am being eloquent where as my parents aren’t in order to better discover a format wherein a tortured person under duress would be able to say ask for help when they are poor at communicating but also relay a certain life story if they feel they may not have much time to relay a certain message.

    An example of this is where I posted a weird message on MIA’s forum asking if someone can help me contact kindredspirit. A tactic born out of necessity because I really wanted to talk to her but also inspired by this one incident where in r/antipsychiatry someone couldn’t just be theoretical anymore about their antipsychiatric beliefs of torture since their brother was forcing him to possibly send the person to a psych ward.

    The event was notable to me because rather than say someone with a camera or a car asking if they were close by and they could take a look and help, most of the advises fell into the category of what you expect from a social media site. People did the morally satisfying approach of stating some references, maybe offering some kind words and that was it.

    4. Are you a MindFreedom member?


    5. How did you find out about this project?

    Depends. Whenever I have the chance I browse r/antipsychiatry and Mad in America so that’s how I know the site Mindfreedom.

    As for the project, I never really quite understood what the project is about. I could have dig deeper but the opportunity wasn’t there because every month was like chinese water torture where I had to scrap all my plans so that I can prepare for a monthly talk therapy with a psychiatrist.

    Certainly the key words were there as far as Human Rights and protests and mental health but it never really struck me as this urgent enough website. Important enough to read up on but like for every news about Open Dialogue training in x country – it would not only be expensive but even if I could afford it, it had these certain conditions like you had to be part of a study group that studies in your local community which meant a lone person in a lone country couldn’t even make it even if they won the lottery in their country.

    This isn’t to say MIA doesn’t have their own problems what with the emphasis on likes in their new commenting system and supposedly they only allow 4 personal stories for victims – something kindredspirit among many others were complaining about but Robert Whitaker is still a storyteller. You click one article on him and you could get this detailed story about say Bet Soteria. Still biased and long that it couldn’t be good enough to be handed out as flyers but a tortured victim doesn’t live in a vacuum you know? Every moment counts. Every new surprises can ruin months of research.

    6. Do you have a computer with a webcam and access to the internet?

    Yes. I never used a webcam before but this is a laptop with a webcam. Access to the internet is a trickier part.

    Philippines don’t always have the best net connection so for example we have decent enough connection right now and it doesn’t constantly drop but for some random minute you can find yourself temporarily disconnected. It’s not really a big deal in terms of fearing it would disconnect based on where I am currently but people of torture don’t always have access to the same rules.

    You can have the internet for example but maybe some documentary is not available in your country. Or maybe it is available but it’s too expensive and you also have to buy this other expensive book on psychiatry like the Sedated Society or Psychiatry Interrogated and then maybe you get sent to a psych ward again and every has to restart. You have to earn 100,000 pesos for Bennett Alcoba who was in Medical City while you didn’t have a job and then suddenly some other person is answering when you call his gf or sister and you have to convince the very parents that sent you to a psychiatric ward that you weren’t being weird when they give you a ride to some area where Bennett could have live but apparently the sister could be married so the name doesn’t check out but the name of a psych in the psych ward coincides with a person living there who also happens to be a psych of the same gender.

    Then in parallel you have to try to find out about CHR and get Brit a lawyer cause according to her gf, the legal guardian was a rich person who when they lived away from the legal guardian for years, convinced Brit that a company car had a flat tire and she had to visit the police station only for the police to kidnap her.

    Crazy enough story to begin with but when you finally pay a lawyer to at least sit down and hear the gf’s stories the gf would say she feared for her life despite earlier saying she would at least consider meeting with a lawyer (though she never promised she would file a case) and then she was just happy that Brit got out since in Brit’s FB page she looked happy.

    So not only were there inefficient methods that could reduce a person’s cash and time but there are days where you are just on the internet for the whole day waiting for someone’s reply that never comes and then there are days where you are barely on the internet cause you were a lone person who never had friends and was always putting a front for a family or relative that could come by un-announced for some special occassion.”

    This while having no current employment to earn money. While mental labels along with my legal guardians having control of my life for these past 4 years by sending me in and out of wards. – I am still increasing my level of compassion to reach out to you in a random comment in MIA.

    If my post about John Cos in this comment doesn’t differentiate me from the same strangers who made you think “as far as I am concerned strangers don’t buy into compassion.” then I can’t think of anything more I can do because I’m not feeling well at all these days.

  • To the mods, sorry. Ignore this report.

    I misclicked on the “report comment button” in this comment by oldhead. (I thought this comment is linked to her other comment which I reported.)

    Anyways, I guess I should contribute to the subject since I replied underneath it. (Didn’t really feel like replying since the topic strays away from the announcement Bonnie made.)

    People wanting to help others have a history of being labeled something. Eugenics doesn’t really compare to Genocide though and I think this is why people who could come to the conference should come. (I can’t afford it.)

    It’s most likely going to be a rare opportunity to gather something from this perspective since there is only 1 review for the Circle Game (and this is a Goodreads review not an Amazon one.)

    At the very least look up Residential School Syndrome because the standard views of racism and eugenics don’t match how the re-colonialism of these people are occurring. Usually it takes knowing an entire culture in a country for years just to get to this kind of snapshot look but I assume the advent of psychiatry have allowed this issue to be compartmentalized in Canada. (All these are just me hypothesizing about the keynote though since I don’t want my mis-click to derail the subject but this is nothing new for anyone who has an inkling on how a dominant culture would oppress minorities into acting closer to their ideals.)

  • @Bradford

    Agree on almost every point except this:

    “Pretty much everybody enjoys spending an hour or 2 talking about themselves. So-called “psychotherapy” is nothing more than formalizing normal human interaction,”

    There are plenty of people who don’t enjoy spending time with someone who may be gaslighting them for example and that’s just a sort of “finding yourself in a bad situation” example of psychotherapy. There are other less obvious ways of faux empathy occurring in those sessions – ones that both help people and also worsens people.

    This is because therapy has expanded beyond formalizing normal human interaction. It has techniques that go beyond just bowling with someone and this distinction needs to be made especially on a post involving a specific form of therapy called Open Dialogue.

    The loose way of describing psychotherapy as talk sessions is in itself just as wrong as saying psychotherapy is inseparable from mental illness. There are plenty of techniques that seem like the therapist is just talking that are not actually talk sessions.

  • But is it a workable concept beyond the principle? I guess that’s an entire debate right there.

    True though something has to be adopted urgently towards the masses. If it’s OD then it has to be OD but I hope the principle is actually addressed here rather than just the catchy title because to me it seems OD’s success is mostly based on the title.

    Edit: (There are studies of course on the technique but it’s not like this is the first transparent technique that has gained traction. There are concepts like DBT or even just the general principles of therapy that sound swell until the ones applying the technique work around the principle.)

    I hope we’re not setting up the world for another “Life Coach” title that appeal to audiences so much that the general techniques become an umbrella term instead.

  • I’m not sure either and I would also want this clarified but if you look at your standard Google Results, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that they are not utilizing the DSM. (There is no link between PDM and OD for example and most studies appear to be DSM labels based.)

    What OD appears to be saying is that the authority figure must be “open” to a diagnosis being uncertain and the treatment to also being uncertain. Seems like a weak argument but it doesn’t contradict what OD is about so I think a trained personnel should elaborate on this.

  • “Is it realizing the crap I have been through? Or is my brain too damaged to feel joy now?”

    It’s neither. It’s no one reaching the right amount of compassion to reach out to you yet.

    If you ever need to un-hide your full emotions and I’m around to reply and listen, you can always unload everything on me.

    I probably can’t do anything about your physical suffering unless you’re somehow geographically close to me in proximity and even then I’m not fully informed about your conditions but like the book the Upside of your Dark Side shows: Your negative emotions are still your emotions.

    Bless yourself in your Darkness (that’s also based off the title of a book) and then connect with others in the dark until you discover someone that will light your path temporarily before you shift back towards the dark and better re-discover someone who will once again make you move 3% better into the world where the rays of the sunlight has more chances to reach you.

  • “but how do you make sense of people in a world where nothing makes sense and you are vulnerable?”

    You get better. Evolve. Adapt. Marry. Raise future generations be they your offspring or not in such a way that they can actually do better than you in a fight.

    What we think as right environment in the scope of history has really been the wrong environment calling us to action to cherish every second of opportunity we have.

    “How do you read whether a policeman has compassion for you or is basically just doing his job and following the law.”

    You don’t read a policeman. You rise above him in terms of executing changes within the law that he has to rise above his job.

    It’s the old adage of a well equipped private militia able to fight for their rights better than any lawmaker. This isn’t limited to guns. It’s everything from groups to networking to joining a cause to even be the black sheep of a cause – all so that we’re more robust in imparting our compassion in times when we can barely care for ourselves.

    For ex:

    “The law says we should be taken to a place of safety.”

    Well then make the law realize they are not taking you to safety because we all have fallen before – it’s not a question of having fallen or rising up yet again. It’s about breathing. They took everything but our capacity to exist as a breathing creature with functioning eyes to consume information and other functioning body parts (whatever that’s still functioning) so we take it to them. Not in the sense of charging in blindly but we give what’s left of us to actually push the cause. Bar none. We pressure them into losing their environment and we’ll prove to everyone that the right environment for us is superior to the right environment these people created for us and for other people who don’t think like us.

    We mobilize our compassion where others merely show compassion to their fellow earthlings.

    We sharpen our knowledge where as others enjoy their bliss.

    We take the brunt of the attacks to the best that allow us to remain standing and we make it easier for others to actually build the right compassionate environment for those of us who are younger and have more potential to get better.

  • It is only as problematic as associating the word “link” (which can mean for example that someone or some organization has talked about another person) and rationalizing it as a synonym for “associate” (which have several interpretations too such as meaning a person was/is involved with another person that they may or may not necessarily support).

    As you revealed Bonnie, it is totally problematic when a person only takes “a part” of what anyone is saying rather than the whole of what they were saying especially when the whole comment is available for anyone to check out.

    Indeed no amount of rationalizing can make it okay once someone’s beliefs have been cut and sliced apart in an attempt to create a totally different narrative of what was written and it shouldn’t be happening at all in any place whether it be on MIA or any other place in the internet.

  • Acquiring truth via this matter will be hard when these words are part of the Politics in the English Language to begin with.

    The first few categories in the question can be “somewhat” defined for example but the last will ruffle some feathers because the word conservative is rooted to the word conserve which the word neo-conservatives have twisted around badly to begin with but then you have the entire word “conservative” which applies to most people on the left if you read most of the themes in this topic but it might shock a so called modern liberal to be associated with the term at all despite the fact that a simple Wikipedia search can show something like this:

    “Conservative liberalism
    Main article: Conservative liberalism
    Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or more simply the right-wing of the liberal movement.[12][13][14] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. Events after World War I brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[15]”

    In order to dig up the truth then, you must be able to see through the truth rather than merely ask the truth. A question such as “what is a conservative?” when dropped post-question about modern liberalism and Marxism would drive away any chance of a philosophical or a historical discussion behind the last question to begin with.

  • I would love to hear more about your way of testing out people. I too often find myself in this conundrum where I don’t want to test people but then if I don’t – I find myself entrapped in their own insistence of how I live, how I think and how I live life.

    Would be nice to read more about how others develop their strategies so that I could enhance my own techniques.

  • Actually blaming big government is not just a right wing term although modern day words have taken a life of its own and of course the American Party associated with the Right likes to use this while the American Party on the left likes to use corporations when they both mean the same thing.

    Proof of this from a copy-paste on the Wikipedia section of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution:

    “While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms,” and assured that “the existence of subordinate governments … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”

    If you look up the Wikipedia article on James Madison, this was no right wing conservative:

    “He became increasingly worried about the disunity of the states and the weakness of the central government after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783.[27] As Madison wrote, “a crisis had arrived which was to decide whether the American experiment was to be a blessing to the world, or to blast for ever the hopes which the republican cause had inspired.”[28] He was particularly concerned about the inability of Congress to capably conduct foreign policy, which threatened American trade as well as settlement of the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River.[29]

    Madison helped arrange the 1785 Mount Vernon Conference, which helped settle disputes regarding navigation rights on the Potomac River and also served as a model for future interstate conferences.[30] At the 1786 Annapolis Convention, he supported the calling of another convention to consider amending the Articles. After winning election to another term in Congress, Madison helped convince the other Congressmen to authorize the Philadelphia Convention for the purposes of proposing new amendments. But Madison had come to believe that the ineffectual Articles had to be superseded by a new constitution, and he began preparing for a convention that would propose an entirely new constitution.[31] Madison ensured that George Washington, who was popular throughout the country, and Robert Morris, who was influential in the critical state of Pennsylvania, would both broadly support Madison’s plan to implement a new constitution.[32]”

  • “Moreover, you insinuated that my being linked with Don somehow nullified the things which I have done. All of this, I find offensive.”

    I didn’t insinuate anything of this sort Bonnie.

    I never used the words nullified and my post to @Slaying_the_Dragon_of_Psychiatry was insinuating this:

    “but don’t sell her efforts short too and glorify them as some utopian thinking. (Social justice and racism and chattel slavery I leave that to you or other guys that reply to you but Bonnie Burstow’s belief is not rooted in utopia. – She might believe in a utopia but her life story cancels all that out.)”

    Which was a reply to his comment about:

    “In brief, Bustow’s brand of antipsychiatric social justice utopianism isn’t just untenable, it’s a boon to psychiatry itself.”

    Edit: It’s all contained in one single full comment Bonnie. Everything from Don Weitz to Scientology to utopia to MLK Jr. and Frederick Douglas paraphrased quotes.

  • I don’t know where to start with this Frank. You went from asking me about the originality of my post to asking me whether I want my own blog or something.

    “As I read it, you object to the scholarship program being offered though because you think it’s going to have some horrendous aftereffect on the world in general. Personally, I don’t see that happening.”

    I didn’t object to the scholarship being offered AT ALL. Like no post of mine said anything related to this.

  • Actually Gautama Buddha (and the many ways Buddhist sects interpret him) was always on about empathy. His empathy was so vast that he didn’t need to use this word and converted it into what the English term calls Nirvana.

    That’s why many of his early teachings were linked to ascetism and cruelty pre-attaining Buddhahood.

    This was a person who supposedly left his status of being a prince just to understand the compassion he needed to verify how much his compassion is:

    “After leaving his Fathers kingdom behind him in renunciation of his former plentiful life as a prince, Siddhartha Gautama began to drift from place to place as a devoted wanderer. In search of the ultimate meaning of life he found and studied with the wisest men of the time. But to his disappointment, no matter how far he traveled, not one knew the answer to ending the suffering that had so greatly affected him.”

    Empathy is no fad. Has it been hijacked by psychiatry that we need blog posts like this to realign ourselves with the term? That’s a strong possibility but a person’s mere compassion won’t lead them to put themselves into a famine-like situation just to figure out for himself how much compassion he has for those who are experiencing famine.

  • True we both agree on this.

    My only contention on this is probably your dismissal of the word “blowback” because it’s a specific term:


    Sure I used it loosely (although as you can see from my earlier link – I’m not the only person who uses this specific term loosely) but you don’t just dismiss an entire term and call it shrapnel or flack.

    Doing so takes away the meaning of that word. It’s in the same veins of why Don Weitz talked about how psych wards changes the term “taking our human rights away” into “full privilege”.

    It’s in the same veins of a feminist dismissing the term toxic feminism in understanding feminist acceptance to a society.

    It’s in the same veins of why apathy is bad.

    You want to have an original conversation Frank with no links, you have to do your own grunt work and at least do a basic Google search on why a term is being mentioned in context and not just go off on a tangent about sharpnels or flacks as if to somehow impart an impression where blowback is not to be treated as seriously as apathy.

    The applications of words are key to how arguments are formed and interpreted as you can see in these comment section alone.

    It may come with the job but guess what? Like apathy, if whatever your job has it – then chances are your not going to build much of a community within that job cause you are going to lose as much co-workers as much as you gain new co-workers when these two real terms aren’t emphasized as specific terms that create, produce and enlarge real suffering.

  • I don’t think it’s off the chart because I’ve been in a ward with a person who doesn’t understand our main local language (Tagalog) but he understood some English (too few to even make a conversation of) and he mainly spoke a provincial dialect but almost everyone in the ward was a Tagalog speaker so he was not only already in a scary situation in a place he didn’t know – he literally had no one except me as his roommate occassionally calming him down by handing him my blanket for example.

    …and if you look at it at a grander scale, this is nothing new:

    “Medical care that is provided to us is very minimal and general…. If you do not speak English, you cannot fuss, the only thing you can do is go to bed & suffer…. We have no privacy when our health record is being discussed…. When we’ve complained to the nurses, we get ridiculed with replies like: “You should have made better choices … ICE is not here to make you feel comfortable … our hands are [tied] … Well, we can’t do much you’re getting deported anyway … learn English before you cross the border … Mi casa no es su casa.”…. Our living situation is degrading and inhuman.[1]”

    See the reason why blowback is as much a danger as apathy is because when people sometimes form “well intentioned help” such as a service for indigenous people for example – apathy has the potential to be undone but it is also rebuilt sometimes when little things like what you are calling off the charts builds up into something big.

    For example, how did a course meant to fight (or at least research indigenous people) end up creating a conversation that assumes another person is blaming a refugee crisis, war, street gangs, etc., on a scholarship?

    It happens because one individual may support a cause like: I think violence against indigenous women is something we need to look into.

    But to them, this is also “just a course”.

    So I’m not singling you out because like I said it’s too early to tell and we just need to keep that in mind but these little things are the reason blowback as a term was invented.

    So much “support” for the cause but so much “dismissal” for a cause too.

    This is not just a course. This course is not only the lone Antipsychiatry scholarship an indigenous person can possibly obtain across the globe but they have to bleed so much just to possibly reach Canada.

    Unfortunately MIA ate my post on “I don’t think people will be taking a course that they can’t back out of if they chose to do so.” (although it could have been on my part)

    Desperate people don’t always have this convenience of choosing to back out of something when there is little alternative.

    That’s why I brought up Misty Mayo and Alyssa Gilderhus not just random refugee crisis, war, street gangs, etc. – because you’re not just creating a well intentioned activity.

    People’s lives are going to be affected by this and the people who they are going to deal with are also most likely people who may not understand the urgency of the course if the course is not executed well enough and these all creates potential blowbacks.

    So much focus on multiple subjects but then once something is controversial – who would most likely get ousted? Definitely the person who now has to deal with accusations of blaming a refugee crisis for example.


    Because he brought up a link that showed people who cared actually don’t care enough to understand the ramifications seriously?

    …and of course I’m just simulating the real “true” slippery slope because we’re just two posters talking but once blowback reaches its full slippage – this can end up being a boon to psychiatry like:

    “Oh here’s our mental health services that is so well funded so why bother with this indigenous scholarship that is only there cause you know some person saw a loophole to include studies on you that include psychiatric imprisonment as shown by this article.”

    Sure a lot of this can seem jokey for now because the scholarship just got introduced and like any formation within that scholarship – it’s not going to instantly lead to these kinds of thinking. It builds itself up little by little until someone sees the incentive of bringing this flaw in the roots of the scholarship up and if we do not perceive how important this scholarship is (not just now but going forward) these little opinions on why there’s a danger here will lead to more disconnected views such as “surely you’re not insinuating this or that” which plagues many minority groups across the world.

  • True. Apathy is bad.

    Blowback is just as bad though.

    A random Google search result on Indigenous Blowback leads to this link for example:

    “After three years of relative silence, the U.S. press has finally “discovered” the crisis of tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors piling up on the U.S. border. Although the coverage often began with moving stories of the hardships these young migrants faced, it soon turned ugly. For right-wing pundits and politicians, the “humanitarian crisis” has become a crackdown on kids.

    The dominant narrative has been that foolish parents, perhaps duped by scheming criminal bands, are sending hapless children north to take advantage of loopholes in U.S. immigration practices. This is just plain wrong. On every count.”

    We in the movement are already exposed to this on both ends.

    We know that for example every case where Misty Mayo gets lost on a bus can lead to AoT just as much as Emily Cutler being strip searched when she gets overdosed on Xanax can lead her to forming a group called Southern California Against Forced Treatment.

    We know that Alyssa Gilderhus’ escape from Mayo Clinic can lead to celebrations of her rescue just as much as it can lead to medical professionals being even more disgusted by how they are attacked when it gets revealed that Alyssa Gilderhus’ mom had domestic charges imposed upon her so these medical professionals are blinded towards how all the issues stem from Alyssa Gilderhus’ psychiatrist deeming her able to think for herself inside the hospital but unable to think for herself when she was kidnapped and wanted to be kidnapped.

    And that’s you guys in the West where your reports and facilities exist (despite the fight being hard) unlike my country who has no one after the lone Filipina Professor Janice Cambri checked out cause only one other person helped her argue that involuntary confinement is torture under the latest version of the CRPD during the Mental Health Bill hearings.

    Indigenous people have it just as hard. Once the media picks up something about them – they almost always have to rely on whichever group is going to hand them some food and cling to that and they too are prone to in-fighting cause no one wants some antipsychiatrist indigenous person ruining the hand-outs that their group might be receiving just as oldhead would not want me to butt into her business even though my reply wasn’t even about offering any help as a man towards her feminist beliefs.

    Each of these are highly volatile situations that the scholarship could do good on but could also make worse. It’s too early to tell. But this is nothing new on both sides of the globe (East or West)

    From the same link above:

    “Consider the case of David. Both David’s parents live in the United States, where they had hoped to bring their son up due to the violence in his neighborhood. Salvadoran gangs had been hounding the boy to join them. Sometime after he refused, his body was found decapitated in a vacant lot on July 12. He was 10 years old. Family members were afraid even to go to his funeral for fear of retaliation. A study by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees found that more than half of the child migrants had reported fleeing violence and threats, and were likely eligible for international protection. If they’re deported, many could face the same fate as David.”

    From my side of the globe:

    “[Translation: This shouldn’t be alarming because this is normal, in the sense that if they need assistance, we are catering to those needs at different levels, even at the lowest or most basic levels.]

    Purisima said around 30,000 people have availed of psychosocial first aid, stress debriefing, and psychiatric treatments.”

    “But since then, proposals for the clearing of debris and rebuilding have been kept from the public eye. The Bagong Marawi Consortium’s failure to procure necessary legal documents is another pothole in the road to rehabilitation.

    Even citizens outside of the MAA have voiced their dissatisfaction with the slow progress. As IDPs attend talks hosted by Task Force Bangon Marawi (TFBM), there are complaints of lack of proper discourse between officials and evacuees wanting to voice their needs.

    Alumni from Mindanao State University (MSU) who are among those displaced by the war relay their experiences with the forums hosted by the government task force.”

  • “Paul Keith, thanks for clarifying. Your prose is exceedingly difficult to understand.”

    No problem. So long as readers get something from it when the time comes.

    Lots of these quotes like:

    It is easier to build strong children than repair broken men by Frederick Douglas:


    Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.

    Sometimes are so good at their simplicity in showing what is needed to be done but when expanded upon – it can seem difficult to understand if the actual person doesn’t have status among his peers when delivering the same idea but really it’s all just utility and data.

    If a person can better fight for the cause for antipsychiatry then it’s good – if it just ends up making a Bonnie Burstow “sit out” of the comments section because the topic has shifted from the intent of her article to something like who is a progressive or who is not. Then it only serves to move away both from your intended purpose of warning Bonnie and also from the actual purpose of the antipsychiatry scholarships.

  • @oldhead

    I would say Buchenwald at a quick glance.

    Certainly a case can be made for Auschwitz being more commercially viable which means a non-Government Backed Soteria House closer to Loren Mosher’s model could potentially last longer if we learn more things about how it was able to expand on a more evil landscape but life isn’t about sustaining something and turning it into a greater commercial success sometimes and Buchenwald is also a successful concentration camp for its time too.

    Plus it’s arguably able to host a more diverse group.

    Sure both concentration camps are still concentration camps and not asylums but then the asylum in Gorizia that Franco Basaglia got sent to was no less than a concentration camp in name either which is why he hated it:

    “He never grew to love Gorizia. His small group of like-minded colleagues kept to themselves. When the town really got to him, he would put a record player on his top floor balcony and blast out the antiwar song Gorizia, ti sei maladetta (Gorizia you are damned) to the high street below.”


    So if we look at both camps’ qualities and the potential for a Basaglia to make a temporary base on it before it crashes down, Buchenwald had closer criterias for any movement that wants to bring down psychiatry because it almost matches Gorizia in terms of how it was kept.

    For ex.

    Buchenwald was run by almost two people:

    Buchenwald’s first commandant was Karl-Otto Koch, who ran the camp from 1937 to July 1941. His second wife, Ilse Koch, became notorious as Die Hexe von Buchenwald (“the witch of Buchenwald”) for her cruelty and brutality.

    Gorizia was run by Franco and his wife.

    Obviously there are other staff among many other factors to consider but Buchenwald had elements that would make it easier to rescue the people inside. It also had many elements within it that allow for diverse people to share their views. (Obviously as prisoners and not as scholars but this diversity was critical to influence Viktor Frankl to see the light at the end of the tunnel too in his days of hopelessness which these prisoners not only require but absolutely need otherwise Basaglia’s philosophy wouldn’t have worked)

    ” It was important to build up a relationship with the inmates and to listen to their stories. In one case, Basaglia and his first collaborator inside Gorizia, Antonio Slavich, spent four days and nights listening to the traumatic life story of a patient called Mario Furlan, who had repeatedly tried to commit suicide. Furlan went on to become one of the patient leaders of the movement inside the hospital. Basaglia did not just remove fences, gates, and barriers — as well as locks on doors — but encouraged the patients to take power. The patients themselves pulled down fences”

    So more data would obviously change these things around especially if we expand this to things like Danvers but the more we know how a pre-existing structure declines the greater data the antipsychiatry movement can utilize not only as researchers or readers sharing their text to their fellow group but also to use against our enemies when it comes to needing to hand out studies that shows why a Basaglia Law needs to happen for example. (Especially since regardless of how much Franco fought for the movement, he never really got to do anything about the Basaglia Law. It was just named after him and now there are other laws that are worse to pump up rather than bring down psychiatry such as Laura’s Law.)

  • @Frank Blankenship,

    True but do keep in mind even when indigenous populations are not killed they are often turned to slaves because their history of suffering is so great that they would cling to any symbol of hope for their future and sometimes these creates cultural blowback where a group ends up becoming narrower not because the symbol isn’t there that encompasses all those ingenious groups but the symbol ends up only fitting a narrow group of indigenous people and a narrow group of say psychiatric survivors because the general theme may have good intentions but they were also based on a mixture of trying to shoe-horn something in.

    Of course all these has yet to be seen since the scholarship only started but we do need to keep that in mind not only for our fight but for the other fights our potential allies might be facing in their lives.

  • “I would say that what Bonnie does with her “resources” is no one’s business but hers. Who is this “movement” you seem to believe should have a say in this?”

    The movement she is fighting for. The antipsychiatry movement.

    You don’t seem to understand why Bonnie had to rush her will.

    Like you said, it’s her business and she made use of her resources to make it her business to fight for me and other individuals who are for antipsychiatry not just in her lifetime but once she passes away.

    It’s very inconvenient to be talking about movements that aren’t secrets at all and then when a reply stating there is no secret about it gets replied with talking about what Bonnie Burstow does with her resources as if there was anyone telling anyone how she should spend it – it makes an already inconvenient commenting system even more inconvenient.

  • @oldhead

    “Thanks for getting that out of the way at the beginning. Since you are not female or feminist, and seem to have no interest in promoting either, my position here is that as a man you have no real business getting involved in or opining on any possible divisions between women or feminists. These are for women to resolve on their own; if and when they need help from men I’m sure they’ll ask.”

    No problem. I wasn’t getting involved in your business. I was getting involved in @Slaying_the_Dragon_of_Psychiatry’s business.

    I’m not even sure why you thought I was resolving any issue for you. My quote from that tweet was by a woman (Debra Soh) having issues with feminism for example which I happen to just reply under.

    I don’t really understand where the confusion came with regards to me somehow fighting for your cause. I never offered to help you to my recollection. Especially with regards to feminism.

    Maybe my memory is faulty and I asked you for some help in this site before but I don’t recall. I only recall asking for kindredspirit’s help and Julia Greene in this thread:

    And off-site I’ve only talked to Lauren Tenney and filled up the survey forms by Emily Cutler. So those are the women antipsychiatry activist/critical psychiatry proponent that I recall asking for help or attempted to…I guess contribute to their cause. (Wouldn’t call filling a survey for example as counting as help.)

  • @oldhead

    “We have a “movement” with “resources”? Who’s been keeping this a secret?”

    No secret. You only have to look at how much the antipsychiatry scholarship cost.


    Not really. All I did was paraphrase quotes by MLK Jr. and Frederick Douglas so they were pretty clear on what they were saying and I just expanded on them.

    There’s a difference between incomprehensible and and not facing the situation and just saying something is incomprehensible without going into details as to why.

  • Well to an extent it’s only a never ending conversation when no one actually wants to make things work by creating an alternative from the lessons gathered from these books you’ve published. (and may publish in the future)

    This never ending conversation does not apply to you cause every conversation restarts every time someone buys or reviews your books and someone else buys them again. I’ve just checked your profile but keep in mind there’s also a big difference between knowing the story behind “Danvers State Hospital” (so that people especially knee jerk commentating people can at least get as close to a proper picture even if they just skimmed the text)

    …and “telling the story behind places like Danvers or any other state hospital.”

    Which may spark debate but may also spark accusations of incomplete information towards the messenger so much so that many won’t even be able to view the message as something about Danvers but about a grand collection of vague state hospitals.

    This is my interpretation of why oldhead appears to not appreciate your contributions to society yet. (but keep in mind, my interpretation will instantly change when this person or someone close to this person can show evidence that my view is misinformed on that end)

    It’s the catch 22 with narratives in general. Just as you can contribute to society by releasing this books, you also have to consider why the critics of your article or book react negatively to this while the audience is not large yet.

    I’m sure you know this more than I do since you’ve actually published a book but I have to insist on you not being stuck on the sparking the debate thing.

    You have to get better at delivering the message even when someone just asks you to write something. You’re a public figure and we need you to go above and beyond sparking a debate on these specific locations and time periods.

    Not just in terms of acquiring more data or publishing more books but in actually being better at sharing these stories in such a way that unites us rather than makes us victims feel like you are obfuscating the truth because it is in that process that you will get more buyers, build up more credibility among reviewers but ultimately help us many who are overlooked by society to have resources that can help people care about us and just like those past time periods of Danvers – it can seem never ending but the conversation ends when a new conversation begins and it only begins once the story of something’s decline changes into a story of how something actually declined and why that should never happen again in our time.

  • This still exists today in my country:

    People who went to hospital/asylums at the time and who recovered were known as addicts. Once free to resume their addiction many went back to their addiction.
    This is not medicine but morals. Locking people up forced them to be moral or abstain from their addiction.

  • It’s offensive but it can be realistic too.

    If you know one concentration camp has a better way of being run versus another concentration camp – you pick up clues on how to actually build a better facility. That can’t be discounted.

    Is it going to lead up to debates? Maybe but life is not don’t talk about my hell – let’s build heaven.

    Yeah, where was heaven for Franco Basaglia and the people that worked in tandem with him? There was none so understanding the specifics of how these things are told are necessary because it stirs awareness. Maybe an extremely low amount of awareness for people who know about the place but then what about for those who don’t?

    The bad idea behind the article is that it’s one article on a blog. It doesn’t teach or show anything at all. It’s just a story.

    But to say why the existence of any kind of article that’s potential information looks like it can’t be a good idea? That’s calling for censoring of history.

  • I’m curious now. Is there a better written article or documentary on Danvers? (In this site or some other site?)

    I would love to read more about the actual economics of how a place runs especially going forward when such facilities need to built or maintained or expanded.

  • I don’t think he/she is against oppression as much as the dilution of a cause by turning it into a social justice issue.

    It’s not like there isn’t smoke among the forest when you look at current events.

    For ex. there are a growing number of feminists that have ushered in the term “toxic feminism” which then evolves into feminist speaking against any opinion they feel speaks against feminism so even women are turned off from being feminist more and more because it’s like these groups have hijacked the conversation and turned it into an issue about shallow issues when real oppression is occurring.

    That’s one issue and the other issue is of course allocations. The so called phenomena of creating many different types of grand message which leads to policies on oppression but no real collaboration into just brandishing a sword that would slay a dragon.

  • I don’t always agree with Bonnie too but progress towards action.

    Inaction or non-existent action is also activity that leads to no progress on our end not because there won’t be the existence of resistance but because there won’t be a resistance at all.

    You say:

    “But let’s stop pretending that antipsychiatry and the abolition of psychiatry necessarily depends on some larger, ill-defined battle against oppression.”


    The battle against oppression has to be defined and it has to be made known the proper size of the oppression exists.

    As much as people need to be aware of Dragons, people have to also move away from dragons when a simple screwdriver wielding criminal takes advantage of a victim of a culture sub-reported in the media compared to a high profile personnel.

    Does this mean any method leads to efficiency? Probably not but right now there is no efficient method at all because there’s almost no dragon survivor that wants to worry about a dragon because there are only pitchforks lying around to use against someone mugging their opportunity to grow and consider the ramifications of a dragon ruling over their lives.

  • Hey, I have a low chance of getting responses here for my own issues with psychiatry but I need some more info on this and you seem to know more so I’m cross-posting my reddit submission here:

    No need to click on the link, I don’t need upvotes I need information. This is the content:

    So I have my own issues which is why I’m not doing a longer run around with looking for actual professionals regarding this issue but I need some fast background (non-cliff notes preferably) with how this can mess up the spine and the neck to possibly help a guy.

    Reddit isn’t showing up lots of replies and I only found this because I did a search on it and saw this link and this sub:

    Can’t go into any more details because the person hasn’t given me much to work with yet but here’s some context of why I need this info fast:

  • There’s a critical flaw with your assessment Doc. It relies on survival bias to relay a general theme of treatment.

    Like you said, you had one instance where you managed to calm down a patient but what happens when you don’t and the person already had a gun?

    It’s one thing if you are using these events to make your case for some other concept but negative projections can vary from case to case and sadly these kinds of fairy tale success stories can cover up lots of things that make it hard for patients to defend or seek people who would successfully win their case for them.

    Your story in the article had already been tested to an extreme case in articles like this:

    George Reeves the 1950 Superman had a young boy point a gun on him

    The problem is not your success doc but what happens when therapists use their own success stories against a patient like in your article? They can’t just randomly hop around to whichever psychiatrist, psychologist and therapist writing about their famous stories and then go “doc, love your story – let me hire you as your patient.”

    Eventually reality sinks in and they have to limit themselves within their resources like money, geography and cultural beliefs and stories like this have a dangerous implication that these people need to let go of their negative projections as opposed to educating themselves about their negative projections including seeking a person who understands these words.

  • It’s less the author’s fault and more the addition of other words on top of psychologist and psychiatrist. Example neuro-psychiatry or psychodynamic therapist.

    The person you are replying to is probably referring to this issue in the narrative since alternative perspectives can be hard enough as it is but then MIA articles sometimes create looser narratives in order for better and simpler storytelling blog narratives. Something which is often helpful but can lead to problems when few other sites or blogs are competing with MIA to reframe the narrative of studies.