Sunday, November 27, 2022

Comments by Xen

Showing 15 of 15 comments.

  • Actually my own madness revolved around letting go of rationality altogether. To envision any kind of act and consider whether I shouldn’t let go of any kind of morality. I want to live a life that’s based on functional outcomes, not predefined morals. I am aware that I’m indoctrinated, but the Dutch culture is *very* strong in that. I feel drugged. Submission is communicated on so many levels. In this country the basic premise is “trust the government, it takes good care of you.” I think people know me as the guy who has a big mouth – who criticizes everything – without knowing how to escape. At least in the USA, it is clear that the government does NOT take good care of you. But in Holland it is all-pervasive.. It is the reason why there are no good Dutch books on anything. If I want to read about food, I will read an American. If I want to read about economics, I will read an American. And same for psychiatry – I would read Whitaker. You have no idea how repressive this country is, and neither do the people who live here.

    What can I do?

  • I hope you will find a way to live in peace with the inner agent that may have made the same choices as they have, or continues to make them. Choices are made out of awareness, and they lack it. Even I lack it. I can only say that I try to grow my awareness. That’s all that separates “me” from “them” (as if there is a them). I chose to not equate the system-role with the person participating in that system. The system was created by people, yes. The system is supported by people, yes. People who are in whole or in part ignorant of the nature of the system.

    I will fight their ideas, and I will fight their actions. But they are the people who need to change. It is something they must find out for themselves… a light has to turn on in their minds.

    Two days ago a “chief personnel officer” of an Amsterdam mental health care institution was murdered in the street. I would suspect an ex-client to do something like that. If the people in the system are our enemy, why not kill them? Let’s go and kill the CEOs of all the multinationals, that will teach them.

    As much as it would please me to read “Walmart CEO fears for his life after threats” I rather doubt enmity and hostility to the people involved is going to help us at all in this cause. Much more would be gained if such a CEO would wake up and realize “WTF have I been doing?”


  • I like your attitude, but something in me has to die – some kind of tolerance – for me to think that way.

    There is a page in the book “Conversations with God” dedicated to this topic. It relates how all organisations have as their primary function survival. That is their prime operative. An organisation wants to continue existing. The issue is that real healthcare would be anathema to the current structure of western medicine. Introducing real healthcare would disrupt and deconstruct the current system. So the system defends and fights off this threat.

    Any psychiatrist or care worker operating within this system will act to protect this system. Their job description, as it were, requires them to do so. There is no escape from this, except when employees act on their own terms, outside of their functional requirements – thereby initiating a personal relationship with the client. As part of their job they will never betray the system for which they work.

    Now, take this care worker out of this system and instantly that person will transform into someone who no longer acts to defend the system. That’s why I always say that I have a problem with the role of the psychiatrist, not with the guy himself. I actually like the guy. And I like my psychiatric nurse. But I cannot fight their role within the system. I can only hope to inspire them personally. To inspire the human behind or beneath the role.

    Conversations with God says, and I quote: This is not malevolent, yet it is insidious. The profession doesn’t do this because it is evil. It does it because it is scared. All attack is a call for help.

    I believe the only way to remedy this is to create an alternative to which care workers can flock. They must be able to leave their positions. On the other hand, perhaps it is possible – and required in any case – to transform the people first through education. But, I very much doubt that the organisation itself can be transformed, unless it is redesigned from the ground up.

  • I have reached much of the same conclusions as you. But it’s hard to see through them, because the illusions are so pervasive. And it’s not ill intent for most people. I gave my care worker and psychiatrist a print copy of an article by Whitaker, and lent them a DVD of Daniel Mackler. They were very interested. The Anoiksis site lists a translation of a Washington Post article about a psychiatrist who has read one of Whitaker’s books, and was turned around. People are really interested. It’s not really their fault. Everyone tries their best.

  • You may be right about all of this. Realize though that this is primarily a condition of being extremely uninformed. The same is true of most organisations that operate under the banner of public service. For instance, the Cancer Fund will state that “eating red meat poses a risk for developing cancer” but what they don’t tell you is that a completely vegetarian diet reduces the risk of many forms of cancer by about 50% compared to a regular meat diet. The national Food and Diet Centre may state that a vegetarian diet may have important health benefits but these are never quantified and the organisation does not take a stance. Instead they keep presenting the idea that “dairy, meat and fish contain much proteins and other important nutrients.” In this way the public is kept ignorant of the real data.

    And it is not even ill will. The people who write these things are uninformed themselves. Or maybe they are not allowed to take a stance because they are supposed to be ‘neutral’ and neutral means to keep representing the status quo.

    These organisations would never be allowed to present data that flies in the face of vested economic interests. If they did, the industry would protest it to be ‘biased’ and demand that it ‘represent the different opinions of experts in the field’ which means that scientific truth is ‘balanced’ according to what various people believe such that science becomes a matter of majority vote.

    The same is true of journalism: journalists are supposed to be ‘neutral’ and present both sides of the argument in equal measure, even though 95% of the scientific community might be in favour of the one, and only 5% might be in favour of the other. But because there are always economic interests, it is demanded that all voices are heard equally. In this way, people are kept in doubt and uncertainty.

    Every public service organisation in the Netherlands operates in this way. There is a kind of hypnotic spell that keeps people entranced in falsehoods and lies.

    New data only very slowly trickles through into the minds of the people. There are forces at work that keep it from doing so.

  • It is not easy to get away from these drugs when every person in psychiatry is initially treated with them. As you know, long term outcomes worsen drastically when drugs are given in the beginning. It is a *very* common experience that people try to get off them but after 6-12 months they are forced by bad outcomes to get back on. The Dutch GGZ (mental health care) is totally not equipped to deal with the real issues underlying SZ. It does not know how to give therapy or what the possible benefits of a different approach might be. As a result, the experience of patients gets determined right from the start by the pharmaceutical treatment approach, and there is virtually no escape once this alley has been entered. People would be better off – have better alternatives and better predictions – if they would not have been primed on these meds in the first place. It’s like a wasp caught in a wasp trap. It cannot find the exit.

  • Among members of Anoiksis’ forum, even those who are not affiliated with Anoiksis, the biomed model goes largely unchallenged. The general consensus is that there is no alternative for medicines. Alternatives such as Open Dialogue are being discredited before even having been considered. Then they conclude “unfortunately there are in all likelihood no real alternatives.” Most patients accept that they need the drugs and those that do not face a lack of alternatives and often have to resort back to drugs when their symptoms worsen. Because of experiences like this, it seems that there really is no escape for most people.

  • The people who know what schizophrenia means – such as my home doctor – already are prone to interpret normal behaviour or opinions as symptoms of this disease. When I make statements that my home doctor does not believe can be true, she interprets them as delusions. When I describe feelings my home doctor does not believe can exist, she interprets them as hallucinations. Purely because she knows my label. You are not taken seriously. You are not respected in your thoughts. It would be horrible if the masses started doing this as well. It is better for regular folk to not know my diagnosis. It is better for people to treat me as a regular person.

  • I am a member of Michael van Oostende’s forum. There are many patients who think the name change will help them, but typically there are also many patients who are “in cahoots” with psychiatry and do not really question its helpfulness. Personally, I doubt the change will have any effect, and although some forum members have started using PSS, it confuses me every time and I don’t think many people will [i]naturally[/i] migrate to the new name. I personally do not care much, and so I just use what I see fit – which is the old name. Only people who [i]care[/i] use the new name. I think this proves that there is not really a demand for it. People would flock to the new name if it was really an improvement. Such an improvement would be innately recognized. Currently I feel it is just a lot of effort over nothing. All of the stigma will trail the new name like a plague. It is not realistic to think that suddenly we will be able to launch an educational publicity effort that will abolish the negative connotations, since negative messages [b]will[/b] keep appearing in the media, relating this disease to all kinds of horror and violence. The media like death. You will never see a positive drug story either.