Sunday, November 29, 2020

Comments by l_e_cox

Showing 100 of 310 comments. Show all.

  • I recently read an article “The Flight From Conversation” which originally appeared in the New York Times opinion section in 2012, but was reposted by a younger person interested in the topic. Written by Sherry Turkle, a psychologist roughly my age, it cites no specific research, yet we can assume her findings are based on research.

    What strikes me about these calls for “more research needed” is the sort of innocent naivete that they project. Don’t these people know that the rise towards dominance of “social media” was based on research? That it is a system designed to have certain psychological effects on the people who use it, the peoples of Earth?

    The research has been done! The decisions have been made! And we are in the midst of one of the most extensive tests of this system since in was put in place: Can you get an entire planet to fear something they can’t even see or touch? By a rough estimate, it has proved at least 50% “effective.”

    Are we, who watched psychiatry put it’s piece of this system into place starting many many years ago, not yet ready to conclude that this was all planned out – no matter how carelessly?

    In the mid 1800s, in response to a flood of translations into European languages of texts originally written in Sanskrit, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, or one of the Persian languages, the West turned its eyes towards the possibility that they had allowed their “Captains of Industry” to boldly expand without taking into account certain basics of life that might have informed a more balanced approach. This had as one of its effects the Abolishionist Movement, which sought to abolish slavery.

    These ideas, though, once spotted, were severely suppressed by “modern” psychology and its various allies in politics and culture. And then they were pounded solidly into the ground with two World Wars and the violent introduction of the next great path to world salvation: Dialectic Materialism.

    We live today in a world shaped in part by this conflict, a conflict that could be described a nearly eternal. And even though we know today that the “spiritual” thinkers of 150 years ago were walking on quite solid ground, we are also painfully aware that the materialists won the higher political ground, and have successfully retained it almost uniformly across the entire planet. Thus, now even if some of us are convinced of the importance of spiritual ideas, we are somewhat reluctant to bring them up, as the opposition has attained (through systems with Orwellian names like “mental health” and “critical theory”) the power to punish us for such beliefs.

    Social media, then, is only their latest attempt to divert Spirit from recognizing the truth of its own existence by giving it “entertaining” things to do that it will find (they hope) irresistible. And they seem to be, by most accounts, quite successful at this.

  • This is a sweet letter. I call it a “letter” because it makes me think of a message in a bottle.

    Yet it is not clear that Lisa is really asking for help (or advice) here. To me it seems more like an invitation to understand her and to forgive her. She cannot bring herself to be radically anti-meds. They have helped her too much, it seems.

    But, read between the lines, we see here another condemnation of psychiatry and its effeteness. She couldn’t even find a doctor who would suggest something for her to read, or was willing to just sit down and get to know her a bit. How shameful! The first thing my therapist did was suggest I read a book (one of her favorites, I can only suppose).

    I travel somewhat widely around the web. I have met people who just want to sell me the latest cool audio gear, engineers who seemed consumed by the problem (not really, I hope) of reducing the current draw of their designs to increase battery life, UFO nuts, and remote viewers. They all have things they are searching for, goals for themselves, or their families or the planet. They would all be assisted by a better understanding of the fundamentals of life. And yet almost all of them don’t really believe such an understanding is possible. Some are quite sure it is not. Some accuse me of being something unspeakable just for suggesting this might be possible or desirable.

    Too bad.

  • This article (although here it is being covered by a researcher who read it) is typical of what I have been seeing coming from people who are involved in these professions but are also trying to take them in new directions.

    It is confused. On the one hand, they want to believe that the basic assumptions of the subject they have devoted their lives to are sound. And on the other hand, they see that when confronted with a real life challenge, professionals in the field (at least academic professionals) act like helpless children.

    Their awareness has come up to the point where they realize something is wrong, but not up to the point where they really know what it is or what to do about it.

    Amazingly, it has been my experience with academics from all manner of disciplines, that most of them choose to live in an information bubble. I wish this topic were more explored on this website. I can’t really speak for them. I can’t explain why a being supposedly attracted to the academic world by the lure of expanded awareness of life and thought would end up putting self-imposed limits on that awareness.

    I make a point to seek out those rare ones who are less inclined to limit themselves, and I find them very rare indeed.

    Kwanzaa is mentioned. I had to look it up, thinking it was some sort of ancient African tradition that I had overlooked, like Vodun. It isn’t. Kwanzaa is a modern (1966) American re-interpretation of African tradition. It is a secularized version, tinged throughout by the nuances of Critical Theory, a cognitive construct created (ironically?) by mostly white European psychologists and sociologists who sought to somehow bring the ideas of political thinkers like Marx into other areas of the humanities. The whole construct has proven to be highly problematic. I would not take it seriously, but many academics take it very seriously.

    I suppose there is a kind of arrogance in thinking I know better than these people. “We each have to find our own way,” right? I am concerned, though, that our time to accomplish that is running out.

  • Why is it that I question this narrative of “well, the pandemic forced us to move in this direction…” ?

    I must admit I am somewhat in shock on several fronts as a clear assault on common sense continues to move forward, led (as expected and predicted) by Americans.

    I have now run into a sufficient number of individuals who seem to have totally lost their sense of self-determination over the last several months, if they ever had any such sense, that the true magnitude of the challenge we face is becoming more real to me.

    Shock causes a certain level of unconsciousness. And from there, hypnotic commands may be inserted, and will be obeyed, usually without question. We have seen this operation unfold in front of our eyes. Perhaps I should be simply bemused rather than mortified. But I am in fact totally mortified.

  • https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

    “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.”

    Hey, I’m not saying they are “Marxist.” I hate the use of that term. But one of their organizers Patrisse Cullors is quoted in a TIME article of 26 Feb 2018:
    “Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says.”

    So, what’s the problem here? I’m not that concerned about this organization, particularly how they appear on paper. But they are advocating ideas that would require in this country a different legal framework than what we currently operate on. And they haven’t convinced most of us yet that this is the way to go.

    Much of the rest of the anti-BLM accusations are just third party stories to keep the pot stirred up.

    As I’ve stated above, my major beef with groups like this is that they have not broken through to the realization that there is something wrong with materialism. They think there is something wrong with “whites” or “neocolonialists” when this is in fact a spiritual malaise that affects most people.

    The problem here seems to be that oldhead sees Marxism as more “mature.” And I don’t. I see it as a political philosophy written for criminals by a criminal. Psychiatry thrived in “Marxist” Russia. I want to have nothing to do with it.

  • It is my understanding that neuroscience is not there, basically, to inform mental health theory, but rather to develop more devious ways to make obedient slaves out of good and sane people.

    If Yael is really interested in helping people, she needs to get out of neuroscience and start working on how to help spiritual beings play saner games.

  • This is a theory-heavy little write-up. The proof is in the pudding!

    We want basic knowledge and practices that will work in any culture with any type of human being.

    The first problem with the “current system” is that it starts with the evaluative and invalidating finding that “You are sick.” Is this part of the neocolonial capitalist racist system? I try to stay away from all that ideological garbage. Are you trying to help a person live a better life? Then having an “expert” attach a label to them is a really bad way to start.

    My big beef with BLM and the whole subject of critical theory is that an “identity” only lasts one lifetime. The personality lasts forever. It’s the same beef I have with psychiatry and psychology, too. If you ignore this basic fact, you’re going to get it wrong no matter how hard you try, unless your goal is something other than helping the person in front of you.

  • All these happy aphorisms are examples of high-level “laws” that can be applied in high-level situations. They are NOT appropriate in a situation where the person being “helped” is really hurting. Imagine if a doctor told his patient one of these things upon being told, “Doc, I broke my leg – ouch!”

    A person can learn to determine their own emotions. But this is Jedi-level ability. It takes a lot of practice and failures to make it up to that level.

    Fake it until you make it I’ve heard in the context of how you operate in a company, for example, while you’re still learning the ropes. It has some validity, especially in sales positions. It is not appropriate advice in therapy.

    You are responsible for your lived experiences. Totally. But you just don’t tell someone that and expect them to believe you! It can take a LOT of self-realization to just begin to see how this is so. It involves past life experiences and the whole nine yards. It has to do with spiritual practices, not mental ones.

    So, that’s how I see these things. I have seen so many examples of this that go way beyond the examples Megan has been discussing in her series. To me it is a sign of lack of professional-level skill in life to just go around spouting things like this, particularly to console or assist someone who is suffering.

  • This is an interesting article. I expected it to concentrate on the obviously overboard rights violations of the Australian system (at least Victoria’s) and perhaps delve into the criminal motivations that might lie behind it. But instead it spends most of its text in praise of the “social model” of care.

    Under current circumstances, the “social model” is probably more desirable. What you want (it seems to me) is a situation where no intervention or treatment will occur unless a person requests it. And additionally, a mechanism must exist to allow someone to pull out of treatment if he/she feels it is of no benefit. This, by the way, could also be called a “free market” model. Except that in most countries today, the taxpayers are expected to pick up the tab for any type of social service.

    But by ignoring the complicity of MDs – and those forces which helped to create the current level of power that we bestow on MDs – no real understanding of the situation, or a way out of it, is accomplished.

    The power structure can make almost any of these models “work” if the general population can be convinced, by various forms of persuasion and deception, to accept them. Even in the best case, the problem for the individual remains “how do I get something broken fixed?” And a power structure can take advantage of people simply by hiding the most workable technologies from them and promoting their own as “the best” in a way that makes them the only ones realistically available, even though they don’t work.

    The current trend is towards the criminalization of all unwanted activity. This has gone so overboard in recent times that it currently includes making it “illegal” to operate certain types of businesses that contribute to society and enable business people to feed their families without asking the taxpayers for help. This drives everyone towards dependency on government, and thus on those who finance government, for life itself.

    It seems to me that a viable way forward goes far beyond sorting out which “model” is the “best” and points in the direction of reigning in the power of MDs, and of criminals of all sorts, and learning how to reassert the supremacy of honesty and morality on this planet.

  • They are your opinion, oldhead, they are. “The mind.” It’s a noun and it stands for an object. It exists as a complex energy pattern around us. It is full of mechanisms. You don’t have to believe all this if you don’t want to. But this idea of the mind is workable. There are technologies based on it that work; both helpful and harmful technologies. You can leave all this business to someone else if you want. But I can’t.

  • This can get so heavy! I feel the need to “shake out” like we used to do before dance class. I just want to repeat that there is additional information out there about these issues that people are actually using successfully that almost no one on a venue like this has any idea about. I urge all involved to take a step back and look at the larger scene. Check your most basic assumptions about what is true and what isn’t. Maybe there is data out there suggesting your assumptions could be revised. I know this is sort of cryptic, but I think it needs to be. We can all slog on down the paths we have set out for ourselves or we can look up and realize there are others on other paths who maybe we should get into communication with.

  • Well, this is a point we disagree on. I believe “health” can be interpreted widely in ways that bypass or even totally leave out psychiatry. I don’t want to create a world in which, if someone comes along and tells me “I feel sick” my only answer is, “sorry, nothing I can do for you.” That doesn’t mean I should have the option of sending they guy to a psych.

  • I have a personal beef against “PTS” and “PTSD.” This acronym (or initialism) was already taken! It meant something else to me already, because in my training (which is mental health related) it stood for a different set of words. By “taking over” this expression, psychiatry entered a near-permanent confusion into the larger field of mental health (yes, the field does extend beyond the boundaries of psychology and psychiatry!).

    In my experience with the world of “common” English, many DSM expressions have become so ubiquitous (due partly to their constant usage in entertainment, including movies and TV shows) that many people use them without any regard at all to their clinical meanings, but simply as a shorthand way to describe various emotional responses. Similar to how someone might say “I have a cold” without any real concern about what actually caused their symptoms and without the feeling that it actually needed any medical handling. These expressions have been lost into the shared vocabulary of millions, as has “xerox” and “kleenex.” For most people, the use of DSM terminology may no longer imply to any great degree that they are speaking of an actual disease. Yet, as long as the formal connection between these terms and various medical interventions exists, the potential for misuse remains.

    Many DSM expressions connect with phenomena that are recognizable or “real.” That must be a part of what gives them power. Our task is to break that totally irresponsible link between the expressions and our ordinary concept of “illness.” My favorite strategy is to separate “mind” from “brain” at every opportunity. I realize that others may not be so certain of this distinction. But I believe that since it is a distinction that actually exists, it will eventually be the downfall of the “medical model.”

  • I feel the need to maintain a balance between providing references to back up my assertions and expecting others to “do their own homework.”

    For example, we ordinarily do not provide references to back up our comments about the failures of psychiatry, though such references are numerous and most can be found or at least reported on at this website.

    While that is not the case with broader medical-policy issues, such as this current pandemic and responses to it, I assume – perhaps erroneously – that these sites are known about or findable. I can list some below.

    Beyond that, my point is that these issues to some extent transcend the boundaries of science and public policy to more fundamental subjects like human rights and human consciousness. In some ways this current debate reflects a very old debate concerning the rights of the individual versus the interests of group survival, which goes far beyond the usual boundaries.

    Since I have “nothing better to do” these days, I have spent quite a bit of time trying to find trustworthy information about this new disease and how to treat it. I have searched far afield. I trust some data that others, perhaps, would not. But here are some sites that draw heavily on the experience of real doctors and other experts:

    https://covid19criticalcare.com/
    https://americasfrontlinedoctors.us/
    https://www.grassrootshealth.net/project/our-scientists/
    https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/

    This is far from an exhaustive list.

  • I think this line of discussion goes a bit beyond our usual boundaries. But perhaps it is important to at least touch those boundaries now and again.

    Here we explore how psychiatry has been abusing its status as a “medical science” to get dangerous drugs approved and administered to trusting “patients.” It has been doing this for about half a century now. The dangers, harm, and lack of effectiveness of these treatments has been copiously documented, if they were not realized from the beginning. Yet the wider profession of medicine has done little if anything to get psychiatry into line and walking down a more ethical path.

    What, then, does that say about the ethics level of the wider profession of medicine?

    Why should we trust “medical experts” (mostly academics or bureaucrats) over the testimony of practicing clinicians concerning the advisability and effectiveness of certain “treatments” for this pandemic? And over the opinions of other very knowledgeable and concerned citizens from all walks of life, for that matter?

    There is also a strong argument to be made that hundreds of thousands of deaths COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED by cancelling the lockdowns and mask mandates and de-demonizing hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamins C and D, hyperbaric oxygen, and the other therapies that have worked in practice to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. To say nothing of the collateral damage being caused by the lockdowns themselves.

    It is EXPECTED that the “scientific model” can be used by different persons to achieve different conclusions. Science was never intended to be the final arbiter in public policy, at least not in a free society.

    Science is fine for informing a rational discussion. But it is misused, I think, when it forces us into irrational debates, or into making decisions that violate basic human rights, rights which are supposed to be granted by God, not by science. This discussion is about basic human rights, not just about the effectiveness of various theories or treatments.

    I hope this relieves the “deafening silence” to some degree.

  • God help us!
    Bottom line: Do as we say and you will “feel better.”
    No thanks, buddy.

    TMT is not a theory with particularly solid foundations, and seems to be used here mostly to remind us that we should be afraid of death and things that cause death, like this virus. These authors (THE TMT guys) want us to believe what we are told about the virus and go ahead and be scared.

    For me, what undermines their arguments the most is that they don’t know what death really is and show no interest in going there. One of the best (and well-reported) psychological boosters for the fear of death is to remember a time when you died. Here is one link to people who do this sort of research:

    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/

    I feel gaslighted by this article and see the implications it is making as harmful, unscientific, and negligent. It disregards important methods for improving one’s attitude towards life in the face of a phenomenon we all know is inevitable.

  • Hey, it’s OK. But this is what my religion teaches (we are non-denominational) so I’d like to see everyone join the discussion, too. That’s why I try to stress the spiritual side of the problem without naming the teaching I use. That’s one reason I mention Ian Stevenson so often. His work serves to bridge that gap.

    Sorry to hear about the car crash. I’ve had those in my family. It’s good you survived.

  • I am assuming that “neoliberlism” is a sort of code word for a political and economic approach informed by classical conservative thought? This is a difficult issue to approach because there is not a lot of evidence for how the basic assumptions underlying the various social theories actually correlate with mental wellness.

    “Me Culture” is not well-defined in this piece. Elsewhere it has been described as a sort of logical extension of the Enlightenment way of thinking that gave us science, modern human rights, and something called “individualism.”

    Would “We Culture” then, be a call to return to the more group-based mores of the Catholic Church and similar cultural institutions?

    The arguments here seem under-developed, almost fragile. What, exactly is the problem? And what is the solution?

    Magdalene can say that this is a problem of distress being inflicted on us by “the political-economic policies of governments.” But, which governments? The government of China? The government of India? The U.S. government? And doesn’t Corporate play a huge role in promoting “ME?”

    Madmom warns that any change will be meaningless without an “increase in consciousness.” Well, that’s probably true. But what, exactly, is she talking about?

    Others imply that the basic thrust of the article being reported on seems a bit misplaced. Do we really want psychologists deciding for us what sort of “culture” promotes higher mental wellness? Or what that even means? Maybe some of us are just more into “me” and others of us more into “we.” Maybe we should try to just co-exist or something.

    I see the current trend towards a new kind of communalism very much derived from “me.” The fact is that there are many facets of life, and we should probably strive to optimize all of them, even though some seem to conflict. Individuality is real. But so is the need for families and larger groups. We also have an important tie to all of humanity, to all living things, to the planet and universe as physical things, to the world of spirits, and to something many of us still call “God.” If we can “expand our consciousness” to embrace all these aspects of life, we could probably to better as a result. To pit these aspects against each other is only to remain confused and dysfunctional – a near-perfect description of our current condition.

  • Sam, I have been allowed. I am in a church, but a different one from yours. We fight to keep people, especially kids, out of the system. (I myself only drifted near the system for a short time.) But, alas, my church is looked down on these days. Many traditional churches are also under pressure. And so our larger “family” is being encouraged to splinter and fight among ourselves. Too bad. Shouldn’t we all be working together on issues like this?

  • Robert, you really shouldn’t have called my church a “cult.” That was very bad manners. You could have just said that our objections were faith-based and therefore not really about the science of the situation.

    But, what IS the science of the situation? As you have ably explained, that’s not really the purpose of this forum. However, it is my purpose to point to one or more places within the realm of academia where the nature of the psyche and alternative explanations for mental distress have been explored. I usually mention Ian Stevenson (a psychiatrist!). No one yet has taken me up on my invitation to discuss the work of Stevenson’s group. Perhaps no one ever will. But it is the key work within the realm of Science that would inform this problem.

    We are, it seems, hindered by certain aversions to certain data, aversions that we all seem to share. If more of us are unwilling to decide to look in those “taboo” places, I believe we face a future in which our freedoms will continue to be eroded by fearmongering, intimidation, and ridicule. You might well be accused of being a member of a “cult.” I have been. Yet, I wish to support your work. May I?

  • The “evidence-based” approach comes from engineering. There, if a bridge design results in a collapsed bridge, you find a better design. It could work in the humanities, but not if researchers treat people the way they do machines.

    Deception is a very basic problem in this society. You can only overcome it by learning how to spot it and then not tolerating it in your relationships. It’s too widespread to do this 100%, but anything in that direction should help.

    If I were a therapist, I would teach my patient the basic concepts, but try to get him to cooperate even if he were skeptical. But I would work with a supervisor who would grade my sessions for technical precision and correct me if I made any errors. I would pick a therapy that had been tested and proven effective, and would seek to deliver it standardly, with no variations.

    This is not the current practice in the field of mental health, and its current overlords seem so bent on failure, that I doubt it ever wil be. Though the therapies I have studied are said to contribute to “mental health,” they have no real resemblance to anything I’ve ever seen done in the field of psychotherapy.

  • I read the abstract of the study. It is very pro-screening, even though the process produces results that are nearly useless, even in these people’s own frame of reference!

    It has always been my group’s position that the ONLY purpose of screening is find “reasonable” justifications for getting more people (usually children) involved in the “mental health” system. This study confirms this for M-CHAT. The study authors are totally fine with continuing to use M-CHAT because it continues to result in more customers for their operation.

    I hope this is in some way persuasive in my argument that the current operation is basically a creation of criminal personalities.

  • In my dream world, the police would realize what psychiatrists were doing and take them out themselves. They would suddenly find the amount of lawbreaking greatly reduced and would retire or find more productive and less dangerous ways of life. Defund psychiatry – accomplished!

    And in psychiatry’s dream world…the police would join the “mental health system” and criminals could do anything they wanted (except mess with a psychiatrist). Defund police – accomplished!

    Which dream seems to be winning?

  • I’m sorry: This would be a very amusing article if it were not dealing with such serious issues.

    For me, “climate change” is just another trigger phrase, like “mental illness” that lead us out into long discussions about existential threats which end up ignoring the most basic source of all real shorter-term (hundreds of years) challenges here on Earth. The most basic source for all these challenges is the sociopath.

    His primary strategy is to give people things to worry about so they won’t notice it while he gradually turns them all into slaves. In a slave system, the sociopath can assume his rightful role as “master.” This is his fondest dream.

    For us to worry over all the other challenges of life – real challenges – without recognizing this primary challenge is self-defeating. We can only understand these real challenges when we recognize to what a great extent they are being caused – or effective handlings are being blocked – by sociopaths who occupy power positions in society.

    I write this immediately after reviewing a couple of long articles about the subject of “political ponerology” as developed by Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski. This material aligns quite well with my earlier training in this subject. For those who are willing to study it, understand it, and deal with it, is solves many riddles as well as pointing a way forward. I am surprised the subject is not mentioned more often on this website.

    I have also been reviewing the recent work of Dr. Peter Breggin. He continues to focus on the threat of authoritarian rule (Lobaczewski’s “pathocracy”) in the world, and particularly here in the U.S. We thought we had a fool-proof way to preserve basic human freedoms here, but even that is failing us under the onslaught of psychopathic ideas currently being promoted to us.

    I hope this will be a website where these concerns can be expressed and discussed. But as the pressure builds, that openness will become more and more difficult to maintain.

  • The clarification is appreciated. But then your first example is from a relationship, not a therapy session.

    While of course therapists will get nowhere if they say things that make their patients wrong, the same thing could be said for other relationships, even if there is less power asymmetry.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a “therapists’ code” that therapists would get trained in? And if a patient felt the therapist was violating that code, the violation could be reported to some sort of mediator? I know of such a code. It is not appropriate to promote it here, but it has been an important part of my training.

    “Give it time to heal” is a statement based on observations of how bodies heal, but shows an almost total ignorance of how the mind works. It is a great way to tell that a therapist has no real idea what to do to help you. Chances are the immediate effects of a traumatic event will wear off, but the potential power of that event to affect you later can only be handled either by addressing the event directly or by addressing the being’s ability to rise above such experiences.

    I understand the personal nature of this series of essays and that they are really aimed at the helping professions. But every person should be able to step in and help someone in a time of need. I have worn both hats (therapist and patient) but spent most of my life wearing neither. Yet I’m glad I have some training in this area, as you never know when a situation will come up where someone needs your help.

  • Well, let me leave you with this, then. Because I’m no big cheese on this site, nor do I always see much support for my arguments.

    I don’t know how old you are or how you were raised, but in my day it was OK to disagree, even quite stridently. It didn’t get anyone in trouble and “hurt feelings” were of no particular concern. Those customs are changing – but not, I think, because the new customs are better. So I hope you can see that I have no particular wish to tell you what you should or should not say or think. I’m only asking you to look at the same data I’ve looked at and consider it as you move forward.

    I did not discover the “problem” of immortality by studying the Eastern traditions. I had heard about reincarnation, but skipped over it, as most people in the West do. But then I found that a researcher in the West had validated it. And the acceptance of this reality of life had led to an incredible amount of new information and a whole new set of healing practices. Later I found that others in the West were also taking this seriously. Even some psychiatrists!

    I then took it upon myself to try to get others in the West, or any devotees of Western materialism, to consider the possibility of an immortal personality and what that could mean for human thought and life. It begins with the fact of past life recall. This is a simple, documented fact. The only question about this fact is whether you are willing to accept it or feel compelled to resist it. Many people in the West feel totally compelled to resist this fact. I don’t. I can’t explain exactly why. I welcome the possibilities that result from embracing this fact.

    How many past lives, for instance, can a single person recall? I know an adept, Dena Merriam, who has recalled at least seven (all on Earth) and has written about all of them. I have personally met people who have recalled at least one. But I have seen research indicating that this recall can go way way back. We have, for example, Robert James’ work Passport to Past Lives. He reports finding past lives on other planets. So you see, if we have a way to access this past life data reliably, this begins to look more interesting. Merriam’s book makes it clear that mental conflicts in the present life can be related to long past experiences. And the other data I have seen only reinforces this. As I mentioned, there is even a whole healing practice based on these discoveries.

    So, without going deeper into details, this is why I keep bringing this up. I see it as a huge blind spot in Western thinking that has forced us into a box we could easily free ourselves from. It has wide-ranging implications in human thought and practice. And it basically eliminates the need for psychiatry as we know it. So, I’m coming from the viewpoint that we already have a better answer, so let’s just get on with things. No need to spend endless years trying to “find the answer.” Let’s just implement the answers we’ve already discovered!

  • Hello evan, this is Larry. So we are coming here from very different places. I am trying to solve the problem of criminality on this planet. And you seem more interested in ideas about the psyche and personal experience.

    While that is all fine and well, we are here to share our views and experiences, mainly, on the topic of psychiatric abuse and what can be done about it. The problem has a political component, an economic component, a theoretical component, and a practical component. (There may be others).

    We are observing the phenomenon of a profession being driven, apparently, by a desire for profit (or even for the suffering of others) over excellence of result. The more cynical among us posit that this is the story of all professions, really. But these people are doctors. They are supposed to be bound by an oath to do no harm. Yet they participated in such atrocities as the extermination of millions by Nazis in Germany in the 1930s an 1940s. They have wounded or killed thousands (if not millions) around the world with barbaric psychosurgeries and electroshock. And today they freely use drugs to “treat” “illnesses” of the mind and spirit! (Psyche – spirit.)

    We gather to learn what motivates this (I suggest that those who participate willingly in such practices are basically insane, and suffer from antisocial personality disorder, by their own descriptions of this disorder!). We wonder how it can be stopped (there is a leaning towards the idea of simply discrediting the entire subject). We occasionally explore alternatives (such as Open Dialogue, nutritional therapies, or maybe just leaving people alone). And sometimes we discuss underlying theory (which I insist, for example, must include the realization that we exist as immortal beings – a conclusion somewhat supported by the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson and his team – one of many ironies in this world).

    While we occasionally stray into the world of mysticism, paranormal phenomena, and traditional healing practices, these topics seem to me to be well beyond our main focus. We realize that many other answers exist. We are trying here to address the dominance of this “answer,” which turns out to be a false and destructive one.

    I hope this assists in orienting you to why I am here, and that it is a fair portrayal of why this website is here. Steve, as our moderator, may have points to add or modify.

  • I have become convinced that, though facts do help build certainties that people rely on, in this case things seem to be boiling down to a question of belief, or relative values. I value freedom over mere bodily life. Others seem to value mere bodily life over freedom. Although this involves a great and noble debate that has echoed down through the centuries, it is unlikely that “science” will ever resolve it. I am discouraged, though, by the way some of the key arguments that got this country (in its current form) off the ground, seem so weak and unpersuasive now.

  • It seems to me a bit that we are talking past each other. That’s all right. I write my comments for all to read, not just the one I am replying to. Particularly because I barely know most of you, but also because this is a public dialog, not a private one.

    I have never formally studied psychology or psychiatry. I have never read Freud, Jung, Adler, Hoffer or any of the rest of them, except for a tiny bit of Berne. My interests led me to material of a more spiritual nature. I write from that viewpoint.

    Are you familiar with the material I refer to? Rees’ 1940 speech about being a “fifth column?” Chisholm’s rant against morality? The avid participants in MK-Ultra? It is not that these men typified the profession. It is that the profession tolerated them.

    And you don’t mention the problem of ASPD. Neither do most psychiatrists. I think they’d like to remove it from the DSM. Maybe some day they will.

    My purpose here is to speak for the diminishment or eradication of current psychiatric belief and practice. That won’t make Jung go away, and that doesn’t bother me. His contributions extend far beyond the field of psychiatry. But this is my basic position and I try to argue for it and to caution against a more lenient viewpoint. There are a lot of lives at stake, and I try to keep that in mind.

  • I see this writer caught in a very difficult state of mind. This is the fate of the victim who depends for their meaning on a victimizer.

    Consider the possibility that Critical Theory, with its Colonizers and Deconstruction and all the rest of it, might come from a similar place as Jaffe’s theories. Consider if you can that Jaffe’s obsession might in fact have been his own illness. If you have never met someone who seriously lacks self-awareness, you might not credit it as a human possibility. I have met a few such people.

    I will not burden down this comment with further imaginings. Here we see the fierce proponent of a devastating evil meet his maker, while the evil quite certainly lives on. Obviously, the two are not the same. If you wish to understand more about these things, I suggest you leave the traditional boundaries of academia and explore, at least for a while, elsewhere. There is much to learn beyond the sweet safety of the ivory tower! And that goes for both the colonizer and his critics.

  • On the topic of Capitalism: I know we have some anti-Capitalists here. But I urge you to inspect how connecting an economic practice with what is essentially the political practice of psychiatry could muddy the waters of any argument against the latter.

    Practices like psychiatry have thrived under Monarchy, under Oligarchy, under Fascism, under Communism, under Socialism, and, yes, under Capitalism. And so has crime. Crime plays no political or economic favorites! It exists to steal and destroy, not to create a healthy economy and society.

    Decry crime in the “free” nations of Earth. Decry crime in the offices of corporate power, or political power. And you will have my full agreement.

    Decry an economic idea that has served us well, if not perfectly, for many centuries, and I become confused by your arguments. This is no longer something that is obvious to me. I wonder why it seems so obvious to you.

  • I see that you are uncomfortable with the urge to “dehumanize” psychiatrists.
    Do you think that is what we are doing here? Whatuser echos this concern: “It’s not because they’re monstrous people…” I would only note that in this statement, they remain “people” and so technically have not been dehumanized by the statement. Monstrous PEOPLE do exist! Do you not agree?

    I agree that to accuse an entire profession of being criminal looks like the application of a very blunt instrument. Yet if there is any group we would be justified in generalizing about, it would be this one. Are you aware of this group’s background and legacy? Are you aware of what their leaders have said and planned and done?

    There were, perhaps, “good Nazis” too. But if you were essentially a good person, why would you associate yourself with a group like Nazis? Perhaps some medical students are unaware of the atrocious history of psychiatry, or somehow expect that they will not turn out like that. But wouldn’t it be wiser, if you knew the truth, to just walk away?

    Perhaps some commenters here pick their words a bit carelessly. But most of us really want the entirety of what is known today as the subject (and profession) of psychiatry to go the way of Eugenics, or Race Science, or policies like forced euthanasia. We want psychiatry to die as an active, practiced body of thought. At least we want the human rights abuses to end. But in the case of psychiatry those are closely related goals, as the purpose of the subject seems to be to violate the rights of people without them realizing it until it is too late.

    Perhaps the concept of the criminal mind is foreign to you, or you feel it is incorrect or outmoded. Perhaps it makes no sense to you to label an entire body of thought as criminal. Well, we should probably work harder here to make these things more clear! It is worth discussing.

    Often contained inside a troubled “science” are the seeds of its own destruction. But I would advise all visitors here to learn what you can about the condition called “antisocial personality disorder” before they remove it from the list of “mental illnesses.” It seems only a matter of time before crime becomes embraced by”modern” culture as legal! We see it happening all around us now. If we do not speak out strongly for what is right, we could lose any remaining freedom we have to speak of this in public. That is my concern, and that is why I try not to mince words about this subject.

  • Anxiety is basically worry about what might happen. I don’t recall being very anxious when I was a teenager. But I almost went crazy once when I was younger and was told I needed to recite a story I had written from memory in front of an audience of parents. That’s anxiety!

    My father was a professor of Social Work, and he paid for his schooling with a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health – part of organized psychiatry. In the 1960s Social Work was not about therapy or counseling. Psychologists did that. Organized psychiatry helped push social workers into the field of psychotherapy. Now over half of all social workers do psychotherapy.

    She talks about “brain” when meaning mind. That’s being pushed by psychology and psychiatry. It doesn’t really make that much sense and I think it is really unhelpful. It leads to drug interventions.

    Psychotherapy is a step (or maybe several steps) closer to doing something good for people. But it is not all that is available. I know that it falls far short of what is possible today. I recently read a book about past life recall. It was about one person who had recalled several past lives. Her story made clear how important buried experience is in creating anxiety. Most “modern” therapies don’t even touch this aspect of mental health.

    I also notice (as when I was in therapy) that therapists tend to gloss over societal stressors that have to do with possible future events. These are a huge source of anxiety in people. This amounts to a sort of societal bullying or making threats via the media. When I was a teenager this sort of messaging was not getting through nearly as much as it is now. These days it is through the roof! Pollution has morphed into climate change, with the most strident messages bordering on the apocalyptic. Flu season has morphed into pandemic scares. Foreign wars have morphed into threats of violence in our streets. Good economic conditions have morphed into large debts and employment problems for many groups.

    Her theories and therapies sound superficial to me, like the pop-psych spots I used to hear on the radio. For me, this is part of a marketing campaign that gives the appearance of being helpful while actually legitimizing a “mental health” system that is failing us. She is saying that anxiety is a brain problem related to the amygdala, but also saying that we can handle it my managing our stressors and so forth. To me that’s a very mixed message that leads straight towards drugs if the therapy doesn’t work. We don’t need that.

    On top of this, she is acting stupid about how the “mental health” system leads to medical interventions. What’s with that? That’s our current system. We don’t have a quarter of the population on psych drugs because everyone is doing fine in therapy! Where’s the alarm about the drugs? She’s acting like nothing’s wrong.

  • This is a common perception about many professions, that the resistance they see to more truthful narratives is simply a matter of individual personal conflicts or ignorance. But this is not the lesson of history. And beyond that, all the professions have professional organizations, and there are other organizations that connect those organizations. We know that. They don’t even try to hide it any more. You may think if you wish that no cabal exists concerning this or other subjects of great concern in society today. But there can be no doubt that the potential for cabal exists.

    To the extent that a potential for collusion exists, and that some investigators have found it when they looked, an offhand brushoff from peers or our “betters” seems not much more than gaslighting. In the case of psychiatry, historical cabal has been proven. This could be seen as reassuring. Perhaps if the grip of corrupt leaders could be loosened or broken, then fewer would be tempted into corruption.

    That is, after all, what this article is all about.

  • Could you please calm down about this? We are on an anti-psych website and you want to call someone out for forwarding a conspiracy theory? Let’s state our views without calling names.

    Everyone has their own boundaries regarding “science.” Can I favor Intelligent Design and research into past lives, all done by very competent academics, or is that off limits, too? These subjects are highly relevant to questions of human psychology.

  • Yes, so we see that some wealthy individuals and groups seem to control Big Pharma and are also involved in all the other multinational corporations who seem to be the “bad guys” in our current world. And that’s getting pretty high up on the pyramid of power. But I don’t know that it reaches the very top.

    Their only real defense at this point is their secrecy. And my hope is that as we find more ways around (or through) that secrecy, they can be dislodged. But we should realize that if we take down the top of that pyramid, we will have to replace it with people who can deal with the same pressures that those people are dealing with in a way that is more honest and humane. Someone has to walk in those shoes.

  • I believe “neoliberalism” may be a misnomer in this context. It is mostly a political-economic theory, not a social one. What the study is seeing could be characterized more, perhaps, as New Age.
    From the study:
    “The expectations were of an abundance of life and educational options, and a dominating discourse that young people in Scandinavia can become whatever they wish.”

    Here is a typical New Age pronouncement from Vikas Jain (corrected for one incorrect word):
    “With the changing business and social ecosystem, learning needs are also changing at an even faster pace. Organizations are getting disrupted through new-age technologies and innovations that require constant skilling, upskilling, reskilling, building industry-relevant knowledge, and more.”
    “In this New-Age Education, there are New-Age Educators such as Speakers, Coaches, Corporate Trainers, Seminar Leaders, etc. to disseminate the knowledge and skills through seminars, conferences, and various other interventions.”

    This is a push for corporate success through “mastery” of various skill sets. It’s all very catchy and slick. And you can see when you read this stuff that some of these people don’t have a clue what they are talking about. It’s marketing. “Be the best that you can be.” That’s not what they told me when I went to school!

    It puts tremendous pressure on kids. That’s all this study really tells us. Did we really need an academic study to tell us this?

  • Bhargavi has an interesting experience of growing up with her mother committed to a mental institution for many years. This was a British system that was obviously suppressive.

    Now she has adopted elements of Critical Theory to point out these weaknesses and advocate for change. She knows of some traditional methods that can be used, and her psychology training probably also informs her. But she doesn’t really have a new vision yet. That’s a weakness of Critical Theory.

    I listened to a radio interview with her where she tells a story of something that happened to her brother, I think, about a ghost trapped in a wall. It talked to him and convinced him to let it out! This is somewhat common in India. Can you imagine how many ghosts might be hanging around in a land that has been continuously inhabited by a similar culture for thousands of years?

    The West doesn’t appreciate any of that. And now many Asians are getting trained in the West, so they are losing their appreciation for these realities also. I have found a teaching that embraces both Eastern and Western aspects of experience. And that’s what they need in the East. So they can tell the West, “we’re doing just fine, thank you. We don’t need your solutions!” But I fear that most of Asia still looks to the West with great envy. They want what we have, and don’t care (yet) about the consequences. But some do realize that there will be consequences.

  • What scares me the most about these people is that they seem to be able to learn from their (marketing) mistakes. Their basic purpose never alters, while their propaganda strategies are forever fluid.

    Though I would not normally support the blanket condemnation of an entire group for the transgressions of some of its members, this particular group (psychiatry) has allowed so much atrocity within its ranks for such a long period of time, that I break this rule in this case.

    I am well aware of Chelmsford, of course. But as the article points out, that legacy continues. Right now we are just trying to hold back these depraved beings. At some point I hope we will be able to actually root them out.

  • (oh-oh – all typefaces rendered italic!)
    This is a kind of commentary enjoying a lot of popularity right now. But when you critique a broken system, you of course can find large numbers of problems with it.

    It would be one thing to critique a system that was actually working for one set of clients, but not for another. But what can you do with the knowledge that the system has cultural biases when the whole system works so poorly to begin with?

    All calls for “equal access” then devolve into a plea from practitioners for more money. For treatments that don’t work?

    There is an implication in most such commentaries that the existence of a system is inevitable and that it must be serving someone. But why assume that? At this point I am quite convinced that this is one system that we would all do better without.

  • So, the conclusion is that most researchers in this field are liars? This is what I would have expected, though doesn’t change the fact that it is a sad commentary on the field and on modern life in general.

    This reminds me of what happened to Transactional Analysis in the 1970s. Berne set forth a theory that was uniquely interesting and a method that should have been easy to learn. But no one wanted to do it his way. By the early 1980s there were almost no TA practitioners left, and the one I found wanted me to buy his book on his method.

    If each therapist does something different, then you can never test whether any particular therapy works, because there is no standard that any practitioner is bound to adhere to. So you can never find out what – if anything – works. A perfect plan for complete obfuscation and avoidance of the scientific method. This irresponsibility is part of the legacy of this subject.

  • OK: Foucault. “Foucault’s theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions.” – to quote Wikipedia, the ever-handy arbiter of “truth.”

    Foucault is being pointed to (at least by critics) as one of the important theoreticians behind what has come to be known as “identity politics” and a range of other unconventional political tactics and policy ideas that we have seen play out in recent months, including such bizarre theatrics as the two months of violence in Portland, and “diversity” policies in companies and colleges leading to the firing of several people for, basically, voicing their opinions.

    I see those who follow Foucault and his ilk as attempting to lead society in a more chaotic and disoriented direction than what it already suffers from.

    From Rose: “The general lesson is that you should never look for origins, never ask ‘why’, but instead ask, ‘how did this occur?'” Does this strike anyone else as odd? The basic idea behind this school of thought is that all knowledge is relative to the function it serves. And there is an implication that no creation-point or origin-point for any knowledge actually exists, that all knowledge is basically just expedient propaganda.

    From Rose: “We are in a very primitive state with brain interventions.” What exactly is he implying here? That psychiatry is basically correct, but is still too primitive to do most of us any good? Really?

    Again: “The conflicts are not a problem; contest and argument are how things develop.” He follows the idea that all ideas and processes arise out of conflict. That social conflict is vital to the creative process.

    On understanding psychiatry: “We must collaborate with psychiatrists from the point of view of critical friendship to understand how they think, to question them, and the weaknesses in their evidence and arrive at alternatives.” Why is he advocating this? Is this a requirement of the theories he believes in, or does he have other purposes for maintaining this “critical friendship?”

    Rose is basically a brain boy: “Brain research has made fantastic progress over the last 30 years.” He thinks that if we switch our approach to his way of thinking, we will get better answers.

    I am not a brain boy. I don’t want to be criticized for asking “why?” And the idea that knowledge is only created to suit the needs of power is useless to me if this means that knowledge not suited to the needs of power will continue to be ignored. I think real knowledge has a utility that transcends the short-term requirements of societies and their politics; that it can serve to elevate the individual to a place where politics are much less important.

    Foucault came out of a time of deep intellectual apathy (nihilism in philosophy). While in some higher esoteric world, the concepts of the nihilists might apply, in this world they are ridiculous. They skirt the basic “laws” of human experience in ways that are dangerous and arrogant. They assume that the fate of the individual is to be consumed by the society he is a part of.

    The “rationality” behind these schools of thought are complex and seductive. Rose, for example, seems to have some “right answers” about psychiatry. Yet he also seems to have some very wrong answers to life. If you want to live in a world where no one ever has to agree with anyone else, because “conflict creates knowledge,” then go with Rose and Foucault. I will attempt to continue to remind myself that we are living on Earth, not in Fairyland, and that we need games consisting of purposes, freedoms, and barriers, not endless chaos and criminality.

  • Perhaps we can “make friends” with some politicians and change their minds. This seems to be what psychiatry and Big Pharma has done.

    The only other choice is to – very publicly – make the whole system appear as corrupt as it really is so that its base of popular support eventually erodes away completely. They will have only about 2% of the public left supporting them – the true criminals of this world.

  • Psychiatry already knows it can do nothing about the real criminals (chief among those, the ones known as having Anti-Social Personality Disorder). They admit to this in many popular articles. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole concept of the “criminal mind” disappears from the DSM completely if and when it is revised again. And then they will be able to say, “we were wrong – there is no such thing.”

  • From what I know, the situation is as you state.

    Psychiatry is always in search of new populations that can be convinced to embrace their treatments.

    Most of the “educated” world now laughs at the idea that psychiatry might NOT be have the highest level of expertise in the field of “mental health.” And so research and state policies continue to bend in their favor.

    For me, it has come down to the need for an entire reorientation at a grassroots level. We can still fight against bad policy. But it seems the majority of policy makers have fallen for the psychiatric narrative. After all, the mind IS in the brain, is it not?

    It isn’t. But who is willing to believe that? It starts with those who already realize something is wrong.

  • Yes, this is the primary problem with their reasoning. Bless them for noticing that “psychiatry’s resistance to viewing these conditions as adaptations to adversity may be an example of psychiatry serving ‘the interests of the powerful over the powerless.'” But this smacks, frankly, of the new “critical theory” viewpoint of life and living, which overall has proven to be quite mindless.

    How much longer must we wait for broken academics to figure out a “problem” that has largely already been solved? I know that my belief that is has been solved is not widely shared, but this does remain my belief. And at the core of the academic problem is its fixation on biology and evolution. That is like giving an artist a palette with yellow and red paint on it and then asking him to make a realistic image of a tree. “Where is my blue?” he should complain. Instead he insists there must be a way to arrive at the color green starting only with the colors red and yellow. Good luck with that!

    Oddly, another article posted here just a few days ago, “Do We All Need Tinfoil Hats?…” was picked up by someone in a Facebook group that I am a member of. It’s the same problem there. They are like those cave dwellers in that story by Plato, who refused to go outside to see what was there, as they had become so accustomed to living in a cave that they no longer wished for anything different.

    Walk out of the cave and look around! The air is fresh! (Unless you live down wind from a forest fire). The flowers are full of bright colors! And the basic questions of the mind and spirit have been confronted and answered!

  • This is a very thorough piece of work, and I confess I could not make myself read the whole thing carefully.

    But to me it tells a story of criminality that runs deep in this system. And it raises the question: Do we really need the incentive of high profits to create good medicines? Or is this incentive more likely to lead people to lie, cheat, and kill?

    Though I turned away decades ago from the idea that some sort of anti-capitalist upheaval could result in a more ethical and less criminal society, the track record of the profit motive has included many dismal failures. My feeling is that any actual ethical “mental health” system would team up with a system of justice to identify the real criminals of society and restrain them from acting out their delusions on the population at large. If that could be accomplished, even if only partially, we would be on the right track, and ordinary people who the system currently labels “mentally ill” would be free to go about their lives with much less harassment from the truly sick.

  • First off, I don’t know a thing about schizophrenia, except for the fact that psychs use the term to describe someone who is “really crazy.” Give me a break! Since when do I trust a (crazy) psych to tell me who’s crazy?

    However, I know quite a bit (not as much as some) about ET. This is mostly a problem of how much time you have to expose yourself to the material and evaluate it. Over the last ten years, I had quite a lot of time. But I came into the subject already knowing: that past lives are real, that the core personality is immortal, and that most humans are trapped here because of naughty things they did (like trying to be honest) on other planets.

    I recently had an email exchange with an academic who works on the “problem” of Fermi’s Paradox (one of those fake academic problems that only exists because of their own unwillingness to look) who was unwilling to talk to me about this beyond saying that he thought that the “hiding” theory was illogical. This guy obviously didn’t know much about why and how some people hide. He was trying to see a psycho-political problem as simply a problem of scientific observation techniques.

    This is an interesting example of how academics limit themselves for specious reasons. There is a similar problem (and relevant, since the two problems are closely related), regarding our topic, “mental health.” All the data I had learned that applied to ET was obtained in the quest for improving mental health. And yet, even among those who know damn well psychiatry is wrong, most are not willing to LOOK at what other relevant data has already been discovered and how it might be applied to creating a better approach to mental health. Very few people. So, this is how we limit ourselves. This is how we think we are boxed in a corner, when actually there is a door right there, cracked open and just waiting for us to walk through.

    It has been an amazing experience for me to see how easy it is for people to blind themselves, even on an intellectual level when there shouldn’t be that much liability to going “outside the box.” I have been told it stems from an implanted fear of knowing too much. What a shame!

  • I am seeing a stridency in the mainstream that I’m not seeing with other sources. Also, there seems to be more than two “sides.” There are two sides that battle it out almost totally on the basis of whether Trump is good or bad. Then there is at least one other “side” that is trying to be more sensible about things. I try to find those guys. I can’t stand the strident attack dogs which we currently call “the left” but occasionally look at “pro Trump” people to see if they have anything sensible to offer. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. It’s too bad. I used to find the “liberal” sources tolerable. But that was 40-50 years ago. I can’t stand them now.

  • I’m Larry. Well, we do know where you stand on all this pandemic stuff, don’t we?
    What I’m trying to do is connect this to how we got sold on psychiatry and the current “model of care” (drugs). It should be noted that the same communication lines (TV and mainstream media) have been used for both that sales pitch, and the one trying to sell us on masks, etc. In both cases, an extreme lack of willingness to examine all available data has been demonstrated. And a certain radicalization based on fear has resulted. Both of these propaganda campaigns, in their day, seemed sensible and in society’s best interests. But the total failure of that earlier campaign to produce beneficial results, along with other coverups along the way, and the general tone of the media, has totally ruined it for me as a possible trusted source. I absolutely cannot trust the data and solutions it presents which have added up to little more than the promotion of a slave society. If one wishes to pick and choose between “sensible” and ridiculous content on those communication lines, be my guest. I won’t do it.

  • Interesting video! You get to watch him riding through Pittsburgh while he talks!
    One of the oddest things I found on this subject was a site that was publishing data about this disease based on information received in late November of 2019. Totally under the radars of almost everyone, of course. But interesting that someone seemed to know about it that early.
    This seems incredibly off-topic but I think it relates somehow to the whole plan that resulted in the current “mental health” system.

  • Yes, Steve, it is a big stretch. But we have some opinion and some studies (mostly older studies I believe) on the importance of facial expressions in human communication and in child development. On top of that, mask wearing expresses, to some extent, a desire to hide the wearer’s emotions and true feelings or intentions – or simply identity in the case of robberies. We have experience with how psychiatry has been elevated in this world out of all proportion to its results. I judge that the result of a “conspiracy,” don’t you? What lengths will they go to to cow us, make us feel humiliated? I would not for a moment dismiss the possibility that masks are a part of that. And I am inclined to believe they are.

  • These arguments might move me if I had not been touched, with my friends, by what damage can be done through a barrage of “reasonable” lies. Live and learn. “Conspiracy” is real, and has been since long before the word was used to defame those who had found one where the conspirators, now more able to control the narrative, could not tolerate one to be found (JFK). Are you not familiar with the history of Rome? How many emperors were murdered by their own Praetorian Guard? And so it goes.

  • I know you have written extensively about your case on this forum. I haven’t followed it all, but it seems a bit complex.
    I know the main website gives people the opportunity to report their case in some detail if they wish. I don’t know how many cases they are able to assist on an individual level.

  • The point has been made to me many times that psychiatry creates the vast majority of the ills they blame society for. They are there to create a situation that will justify their existence. There is considerable evidence that if their practices were all terminated, many social problems, quite beyond what we call “mental illness” would largely disappear.

  • The challenge is to start educating oneself outside the box of mainstream science and technology. That’s all I mean by that. I don’t care about couching it in terms like “awakening.” And I don’t want to threaten anyone that things will go bad for them if they remain ignorant. But there is a lot to know that the mainstream is not telling us that we should really be talking more about.

  • Exactly my concern.
    Are psych meds really the only ones we are being misled about?
    Is the “science” that psychiatry uses to justify its atrocities the only “science” that we should be concerned about?
    I don’t see how someone could have it both ways.
    If our institutions are being corrupted, then they are being corrupted. That brings every institution involved into question, on every subject it is involved with.
    Perhaps that concept is just a little too overwhelming for some people. I know if I hadn’t decided to change course while I was still a teenager, and had gone into the system in a big way like my sister or brother, I would have a lot harder time disconnecting from it now. I know they do!

  • Spirit, calm yourself and remind yourself of what your name means. A being thrives on freedom. Courage counts for something now and it always will. Don’t forsake the many who want to be happy. I’m sorry if you get hurt. You wouldn’t be the first and certainly would not be the last. I could get hurt, too, but I support those who value freedom and renounce slavery. That is the direction of happiness.

  • In a just society, torturers would come to understand the depths they had descended to, make up for all the damage the best they could, and be reluctantly allowed to keep the streets clean (or some such task). But yes, for now, they should at least be restrained from doing even more damage.

  • Caroline’s difficulties in understanding some of these issues are clear in this article, and shared by many others. That it seems implausible, or even arrogant, to offer myself or my data as a source of “better” understanding doesn’t stop me from trying.

    The overall situation is obviously related to the problems we have and have had in understanding ourselves and each other. That a more “spiritual” approach is indicated is not clear to many, but it is to me. And of course, the most basic understanding, in that case, would be that we are in fact spiritual beings. Unfortunately, this understanding puts a lot more power and responsibility on our shoulders than most of us are comfortable with. That, however, is the correct starting place.

    Although a better understanding of the mind as a mechanism leads immediately to a more effective mental therapy and general approach to life, one soon enough discovers the more basic truth about personality. So I like to lead with it, even though it is a large conceptual step for many.

    From this basic comes better understandings of how politics and social interactions work in general, and how important it is, in particular, to guard ourselves from the poisoning of these relationships by people who are seriously “unwell,” the true criminals. It is ironic that they have convinced us that the only criminals are petty thieves and drug pushers and the truly “dangerous” are the mentally ill, when they are themselves the major cause of most of the bad experiences we run into in life, including petty crime and “mental illness.”

    Thus we have before us the obvious need for a self-education campaign. Such data is continuously fought against as “pseudo science” or “fraud.” If you as an individual are not able to rise above the avid craving for social acceptability that is currently being pushed by the latest generation of the criminally insane, then you will not be ale to benefit from the understandings that are – at this very moment – available to you.

    I don’t expect a flood of people to take on this challenge. But I would expect a few to be willing – out of desperation if no other reason. So far I have found very very few.

  • This is as an appropriate place as any to re-state my group’s position on this matter.
    The mental health system as it exists now should be abolished. Psychiatry should go with it.
    But that doesn’t mean there should be no one to turn to when one is suffering at home or at school, or has become dependent on drugs.

    Psychiatry – and many psychiatrists – wants to save itself for the “right” reasons. Because they got into the profession to help people… and the profession pays so well! It’s a moral conundrum few of them can really deal with. And then of course, there are the closet Nazis.

    Those of us who have been immersed in this issue longer than I have – since the 1970s – are quite clear about this: Psychiatry has to go. There is no redemption, no set of “reforms” that would be adequate to justify its continuance. But while we have identified psychiatry as the central strategy that criminal elements rely on to advance their dominance on the world stage, we also know that existing as it does in a larger context of harm and criminal intent, it cannot be defeated by any sort of ordinary campaign or “war.”

    Our basic strategy is to expose it and undermined all public support for it. We started with obvious vulnerabilities like abuses and treatments that don’t work. You’d think that would be enough, but they have on their side a very irrational fear of “going crazy” which they have continued to play on to maintain their position.

    While my group in general will continue to concentrate on the most obvious abuses, it is clear that more work is needed in the direction of demystifying the mind, how it works, what can go wrong with it, and what to do about it. In my work, I attempt to run out ahead of this coming educational effort with basic data and reassurances to those who know something is terribly wrong and something should be done about it that they are right about that, and that something can indeed be done about it.

    I am not particularly interested in sticking to the paradigm of “modern psychology” that is used by psychiatry to justify the use of awful practices like ECT and dangerous “medicines.” That’s where I differ from the academics on this site. They think that better data lies just around the next research corner. That we just need a few more studies in this direction and in that direction, and the whole subject will begin to clarify. Who are they trying to fool? Though others may have the patience to suffer such ignorance or self-aggrandizement, I don’t. The choices are right in front of everyone’s faces if they just care to look. I can’t make them look, but I can assume that if they refuse to look, their “expert opinions” can be thoroughly ignored.