Sunday, February 18, 2018

Comments by Slaying_the_Dragon_of_Psychiatry

Showing 100 of 810 comments. Show all.

  • Mr. Fontaine makes several good points, and he is certainly not the first person to note that it is a worthwhile endeavor to strive to understand the ancients. Mr. Fontaine has also done a great service by bringing Szasz back into the conversation. But a few corrections and observations are in order.

    First of all, the first mention of a “psychiatric ward,” was not found in the library in Alexandria. I understand that it was a tongue in cheek sort of comment, but we need to be clear, as Szasz was, about words and their definitions. The PSYCHES IATREION, or healing place of the soul, is in almost every respect the opposite of a psychiatric ward. I’m sure that Mr. Fontaine understands this, but it is important not to confuse the general public. The word “psychiatry” that we have inherited and as it is commonly understood was coined by Johann Christian Reil in 1808. This word was meant to denote the “medical treatment of the soul.” There is a big difference between a library that is a healing place for the soul, and a psychiatric ward that is for the medical treatment of the soul. As Szasz understood, it is absurd to claim that the soul can be treated medically. Again, I’m sure that Mr. Fontaine understands this, but his audience might not.

    Mr. Fontaine makes good points about the connection between the humoral theory of diseases and the chemical imbalance hoax, and he also makes good points about the illusive nature of “schizophrenia.” Szasz wrote an entire book on the topic called “Schizophrenia: The Sacred Symbol of Psychiatry.” This ought to be required reading for every aspiring psychiatrist. If more people visited the PSYCHES IATREION to study Thomas Szasz’ works, perhaps there would be no more psychiatry, or psychiatric wards.

    It is also important to recall that Szasz wasn’t just an atomist or an Epicurean who relaxed in his garden and philosophized about the myth of mental illness. He was an abolitionist who saw clearly the destruction that is caused by psychiatry. He attempted to resurrect the work of the original antipsychiatrist, Karl Kraus, and like Kraus, he paid a price for his truth telling. Like Kraus, Szasz has mostly been ignored, and when he hasn’t been ignored, he has either been rejected or misunderstood.

    For the most part, Mr. Fontaine is right about the decline of philosophy and the rise of “science,” and he is right that microscopes and brain scans don’t tell the real story of what is going on when certain behaviors are diagnosed as “mental illness.” This is something that Szasz understood more clearly than almost anyone, and the reason why he could assert that mental illness is a myth.

    In many ways, Szasz was the Socrates of psychiatry, and perhaps his suicide was meant to mimic Socrates in some way. He asked many of the right questions, and he articulated good answers to these questions. He championed liberty and responsibility. As a libertarian, his understanding of liberty was somewhat flawed, but at least he understood that psychiatry is a modern form of slavery that ought to be abolished.

    Hopefully it won’t take 100 years for Szasz’ ideas to gain traction, although it might take that long since even after almost 100 years hardly anyone knows who Karl Kraus was.

  • Obviously, many people have experienced death. Psychiatry has accelerated that process in many cases. Many others have had near death experiences. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. All of these people have actually experienced death, and some have even told us about it. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence for the claim that death leads nowhere or to some sort of annihilation or extinction, so I would be very skeptical of anyone who attempts to make such claims.

  • Most of the Founders were sincere Christians, many protestants, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Lutherans, and even a few Roman Catholics. Washington, Adams, Jefferson and many others were influenced by, and adopted deist perspectives, but they also held strong religious beliefs and defended the first freedom, namely freedom of religion. The founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not holy writ, but they might as well be, since, like the Bible, no one reads them or understands them anymore.

    Uprising, your word games don’t work on me. The word “escape” is derived from the vulgar Latin “excappare,” meaning “to get out of one’s cape, or to leave a pursuer with just one’s cape.” An atheist can’t tell you what the cape is, or who the one leaving the cape might be, or where the one leaving the cape goes. The claim that suicide causes a person to no longer exist makes no sense to the vast majority of people, and an atheist has no proof for that assertion. Escaping means leaving one place and going somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else? What if suicide leads to even greater suffering after death? Something to think about. In any case, atheists can’t provide any persuasive evidence one way or another.

    Finally, there is nothing twisted in the plain truth that I wrote about people of religious faith who understand that we have only one life to live on earth. Nonsensical is not a strong enough term to describe the claim that atheists appreciate life more than religious people. Absurd might be more appropriate. Is it possible for an atheist to appreciate life? I suppose so. Is it possible for an atheist to articulate the purpose of life? I have yet to hear a persuasive argument for that.

  • Matt, I would be curious to understand, if you know that psychiatry operates on the basis of coercion, drugging, electroshocking, and so forth, why do you choose to remain so close to it? I couldn’t quite discern the answer in your article. Do you oppose psychiatry or not? Do you oppose drugging or not? Thank you.

  • There is a big difference between “self-determination,” whatever that might mean, and self-annihilation, or killing oneself. And for the record, I am not reiterating anything about how irrational you are or how you should be beaten. That’s absurd. If anything, I reiterate the truth that you are free to choose and that I respect your freedom to choose.

  • Lilla, I respect and defend your freedom to choose. I understand the arguments that you have made, and the arguments that those who oppose you have made. Respectfully, I disagree.

    I don’t know if you are familiar with Thomas Szasz, but he tried to make similar arguments about a right to suicide. He was one of your fellow Hungarians, and a very smart and good man. It is unfortunate, because he understood very well the truth about psychiatry. I agree with you (and with Szasz) wholeheartedly that psychiatry has no business intervening in the lives of individuals, and that coercion and force are wrong. However, most of your arguments, on a variety of levels, do not hold up to scrutiny. It sounds like you have a lot to live for, including your father, your cats, your writing, your translating, your forklifting, your beautiful smile, and especially your opposition to psychiatry. We need as many opponents of psychiatry as possible, and we need them alive whenever possible.

    First of all, the notion that suicide is a civil right is so far from being a “self-evident truth” that its hard to know where to start. This was the furthest thing from the minds of the Founding Fathers, and particularly from the minds of those who created the U.S. Constitution. (By the way, there wasn’t just one author of the Constitution. It was the work of many men, backed by the three authors who defended this work under the pseudonym “Publius.”) When Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence he originally wrote the following: “We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable.” Franklin edited this phrase to read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” What were these “self-evident truths”?

    The first is that all men are created equal. The second is that they are endowed by their Creator (a problem for atheists, since the Founders clearly believed that rights do not emerge from nowhere) with certain unalienable rights. The third self-evident truth is that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fourth is that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The fifth is that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. These are the self-evident truths that the Founders articulated. Nowhere was suicide even implied as a “self-evident truth” or a “right.”

    Second, it is a gross misunderstanding of classical Greek philosophy, politics, and culture to claim that suicide was not frowned upon or condemned. In fact, most ancient city states criminalized self-killing. Plato’s discussion of self-killing in his dialogues Phaedo and the Laws is nuanced. Since Plato wrote in dialogue form, it is difficult to discern his own true opinion, but in these works his characters condemn suicide as an act of cowardice and laziness by those who are too weak to deal with life’s problems. He makes certain exceptions, but it is simply inaccurate to claim that suicide was even remotely considered a good thing by the ancient Greeks. Aristotle’s view on self-killing was also nuanced. From his voluminous writings, his only discussion of suicide is found in the Nicomachean Ethics, and the question he poses is whether or not it is possible to commit injustice to oneself. Aristotle’s view was that suicide was harmful to the community. But even these commentaries on self-killing (there was no specific word for our modern conception of suicide in ancient Greek or Latin) make it clear that the ancient Greek idea of self-killing had no connection whatsoever to our modern conception of “rights.”

    Third, Christianity is not the only religion to condemn suicide. For good reason, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism… and many other religions also honor the sanctity of life.

    Fourth, the Enlightenment was almost the exact opposite of what you describe. Many of the Enlightenment rationalists rejected classical and medieval concepts of nature and natural law as well as the tenets of Christianity.

    So why isn’t suicide recognized as a right? Because thankfully there are too many people who still have common sense. I agree with you, however, that people should not be forcibly detained or “treated” against their will for talking about or even attempting suicide. Suicide prevention programs exacerbate the problem.

    Another problem with your argument is that you claim that suicide is some sort of an escape, or a “way out.” This is a major problem for atheists especially. A person can only escape from something if that escape leads somewhere else. Furthermore, it is nonsensical to argue that atheists appreciate life more than religious people because they realize that there is only one life, because most religious people also recognize that we have only one life to live on earth, and that it matters very much.

    And with all due respect, the argument that suicide is a celebration of individuality is the most irrational of them all. Self-annihilation is hardly a celebration of the self. Even though I’m sure that you are not a selfish person, the celebration of the self over everything else the very definition of selfishness.

    Lilla, I don’t deny that you have made these arguments based on rational considerations, and not just emotional whims. The problem is that your rational considerations don’t hold up to scrutiny. I hope that you will reconsider your reasons for self-killing, not just because you are a person of value who makes the world a better place, but also because we need as many opponents of psychiatry to continue to fight the good fight against coercion and psychiatric abuse. Nevertheless, I defend your right to choose.

  • “How many more people must die before this cover up ends and society takes seriously the role of psychiatric drugs in so many of these tragic events?”

    This is the question of the decade, if not the century. As long as the media fails to report on the direct connection between neurotoxic psychotropic drugs and the horrendous acts of violence, these tragic events will not only continue, but they will increase. Why? Think of how many more people there are now who are drugged up like Paddock, Harris, and Holmes. Remember Andreas Lubitz of Flight 9525 infamy? There are many others. Dr. Breggin’s book “Medication Madness” is an excellent book on this topic, and it shows how neurotoxic, psychotropic drugs can turn the mildest and most peace loving human beings into raving, violent lunatics. It’s a tragedy not only for the victims, but the perpetrators as well.

    Not everyone who takes these drugs turns violent, but the likelihood of violence is much stronger when neurotoxins are involved. Drug induced violence may be limited to oneself. Remember Robin Williams? Or it may extend toward others, as Paddock’s case demonstrates. See also:

    Perhaps the pharmaceutical companies’ grip on the media prevents such honest reporting as we have here with Dr. Breggin’s commentary. Whatever the case, unless the media starts to tell the truth about psychotropic drugs, I can predict that we will witness many more of these atrocities.

    “How many more people must die before this cover up ends and society takes seriously the role of psychiatric drugs in so many of these tragic events?” Sadly, my guess is that many more people will die before the general public catches on to the truth about psychiatry.

  • Yes. Thank you for your kind words. The conclusion is wrong, but even the method is wrong. I’m sure that Belmaker didn’t throw himself onto a gurney, bind himself hand and foot, and forcibly inject needles into his buttock. I highly doubt that Belmaker would be able to administer to himself doses high enough to compare with anything that happens to real life psychiatric prisoners. In any case, this is besides the point because the vast majority of people who advocate for psychotropic drugging don’t try these kinds of “experiments.” It would be folly to do so. The truly open mind will close itself on the endeavor to abolish psychiatry.

  • No one understands Israeli psychiatry as well as I do. I was involuntarily incarcerated, drugged almost to death, and left to rot in an Israeli psychiatric prison about a decade ago. The stories of those who suffered in psychiatric prisons in Israel sound all too familiar to me. It seems like just yesterday I was being thrown onto a gurney in an windowless white room, bound hand and foot, and subjected to repeated psychiatric torture.

    The prison? Eitanim Hospital. The psychiatric prison warden? Dr Katsenelson. The neurotoxic drug? Clopixol. In that dank prison cell I was once clobbered in the head and knocked to the ground by a huge Russian speaking inmate. I remember the other drugged up zombies that wandered back and forth through the dirty hallways. I escaped once, but was dragged back into the dungeon by psychiatric enforcers. After more than a month in this prison, a month of drugging, torture, and abuse, I was released, but my recovery, even after a decade, has never been complete.

    Miriam’s comment resonates with me: “The pills feel like a Holocaust, and they are like Auschwitz, and they bring the world down upon us. I used to pray to God that He would help me get better without medication.” How ironic that the very country that was established as the new homeland for the Jews, the State of Israel, would become a home to such psychiatric prisons that distribute “pills that feel like a Holocaust” and “like Auschwitz.”

    Loren Mosher’s Soteria house may have challenged the psychiatric paradigm to an extent, and Lichtenberg’s new project may challenge the current psychiatric paradigm in Israel in a similar way. Nevertheless, even these more humane institutions do not adequately challenge the underlying false claims of psychiatry. As long as the myth of mental illness runs rampant, including that sacred symbol of psychiatry, namely “schizophrenia,” psychiatry will continue to prosper at the expense of innocent lives.

    Psychiatric prisons and even psychiatric stabilizing houses would be obsolete were it not for the pervasive myth of mental illness by which innocent people are labeled with fictitious “diseases” and drugged into oblivion. As the critical psychiatry movement gains momentum in Israel, now is a good time to invigorate the antipsychiatry movement in Israel as well. While I certainly advocate for the humane treatment of all human beings, it should be obvious by now that psychiatry is inherently and diametrically opposed to anything humane. Belmaker and others may still make “a case for selective use of antipsychotics,” but that is because neither Belmaker or most of the others who make this case have ever been on the receiving end of the euphemistically named “antipsychotics.”

    In any case, this is an interesting article, and it is certainly a good thing that Mr. Whitaker’s work will be translated into Hebrew. Perhaps the Messiah will return before that time, but we shouldn’t wait until then to get the ball rolling for antipsychiatry in Israel. Yalla!

  • Then go ahead and do something Julia26. The rest of us are actively involved in slaying the dragon of psychiatry, and not just on the Mad in America site. Furthermore, the people who read these articles and these comments need to be educated and taught the truth about psychiatry. There is no reason why we shouldn’t do that here, as well as in other forums.

  • Read her book The Bitterest Pills. It’s a great book that unfolds a mostly accurate history of psychotropic drugs. But sadly, she fails to account for some of the most horrendous practices in psychiatry. This is outside the scope of her book, so she claims, but her position is as follows: “antipsychotic drugs can be regarded as implements of social control, but that they can also help individuals gain relief from intense and intrusive psychotic experiences or destructive emotional states.” (p. 18) That’s a very disturbing assessment from one who has studied psychotropic drugs so thoroughly.

  • Zoe_Awakes,

    those are real and perplexing symptoms of real problems, but just like any real and perplexing symptoms of real problems, they have nothing to do with fictitious “mental illness.” Furthermore, the symptoms that you describe are very often, though not always, brought about iatrogenically by psychiatry itself. The question is not whether or not there are real problems in the world. There are real problems in the world. But psychiatry is responsible for many of these problems and in no way remedies any of them. In fact, a person with the problems that you described will find his or her problems compounded 100 fold by psychiatric “treatment.”

  • Good points, all. Szasz entitled one of his books “Psychiatry: the Science of Lies.” That is a great book, and a great title. Perhaps the term “myth” is too congenial, since there are many good myths. Psychiatry is a fraudulent pseudo-science, and the mental illness illusion or chimera forms the base of this pernicious practice. This is one of the reasons why I chose the name Slaying the Dragon of Psychiatry, because it will take a good myth, or true symbols, to conquer the bad myth and false symbols of psychiatry.

  • Yes. Exactly Oldhead. This point is crucial. The only sense in which “mental illness” is very real is that “mental illness” is a very real myth. It’s not just that the fictitious diseases in the DSM are not scientifically true. That’s the outgrowth of a larger problem. The fictitious diseases of the DSM-V, for example, would not be so widely accepted if the myth of mental illness itself were not so widely accepted. What is called “mental illness,” therefore, is no more real than the Easter bunny, but it is a lot more dangerous. Szasz liked to refer to mental illness as a myth and a metaphor because he made a distinction between actual brain diseases (i.e. cancer, tumors, etc.), and fictitious “illness” of the mind. “Mental illness” is a metaphor that people who occupy positions of power and authority apply to those whose behaviors they dislike or who simply don’t fit into their preconceived notions of “mental health.” It’s a very powerful and convenient weapon that has been used against political dissidents, and many others. Think of it for a moment. What do people mean when they say “mental illness”? There is no biological marker or blood test or any other proof for the existence of such a thing, and yet millions of people are “diagnosed” as “mentally ill” and subjected to psychiatric “treatments.” It’s a veritable witch hunt. In former times, false priests ostracized and condemned certain people through the use of abstruse Latinisms and labelling people as witches. Nowadays, the pseudo-medical, pseudo-religious priests of psychiatry ostracize and condemn certain people through the use of DSM labels. False priests drew their authority from false religious beliefs and practices, whereas psychiatrists draw their authority from the myth of mental illness. Once the myth of mental illness is exposed, the entire enterprise of psychiatry collapses. This is why it is crucial to expose the myth of mental illness for what it is.

  • I don’t deny the reality of the thousands of people employed in such work. Thank you for your report. Could you please elaborate on what is meant by “co-opted”? Also, if you have any other insights into why psychiatric survivors would ever voluntarily choose to be a “peer” worker, that would be helpful as well. Thank you.

  • Can someone please explain all of this psycho-babble? Why on earth are there any psychiatric survivors who consider themselves to be “peers” in the ways explained in this article? It’s utter nonsense. What is meant by the phrase “psychiatric survivors’ experiential knowledge has been co-opted by the system”? Experiential knowledge? Really? Do we refer to those who escaped chattel slavery as having “experiential knowledge”? Do Holocaust survivors have “experiential knowledge”? The ex-patients movement? Who in their right mind would ever invent such a term or wish to be part of such a “movement”? Frank is absolutely right. This is nothing more than the corruption of what ought to be the psychiatric survivor movement. It’s all part of the psycho-pharmaceutical industrial complex mental illness industry, and survivors want no part in it, at all. I have some Barack Obama toilet paper, but Frank’s idea to create “psychology degree” toilet paper sounds great. Actually, “psychology degree” toilet paper would dignify the psychology degree too much.

  • Yes. Good luck Bryan. I hope that you will write more about your experience with the law, because your terrible experience with psychiatry is like thousands of others. Thousands upon thousands of lives, like your own, have been and are being destroyed by pseudo-medical quacks who pose as doctors. Psychiatry is a system of slavery that must be abolished, and if there is a way for the legal profession to catch up to this reality, that would be great. In all my research I could never find a lawyer who understood the truth about psychiatry or who was willing to fight these battles. If anyone out there knows of any lawyer, anyone at all, who has the wherewithal and the legal acumen to bring these psychiatrists to justice, please let me know. Thank you.

  • Oldhead, I completely agree with you that the so-called “health” industry does not heal, and that the “mental health” industry is a police force. These industries actually thrive on making citizens sick and keeping them that way. However, the notion that it is the responsibility of the U.S. government to care for the health of its citizens is relatively new. Szasz was right about this, and it is certainly a question worth pondering. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution makes it quite clear what the aims of the government are and ought to be, namely, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Even in the 1950s, as Szasz points out, the notion that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide ‘health care’ to the American people had not yet entered the national consciousness. It’s worth considering why and how this notion entered the national consciousness and whether or not it makes sense. There is a direct connection between the rise of the therapeutic state and the flourishing of psychiatry.

  • Cognitive impairment is such a clever euphemism for brain damage. It reminds me of many other psychiatric euphemisms:

    involuntary incarceration in a prison = hospitalization
    neurotoxic drugs = medication, antidepressants, antipsychotics
    labeling and stigmatization = diagnosis
    fictitious diseases = mental illness
    jailer and pseudo-scientific quack = psychiatrist
    torture and abuse = treatment
    suicide = emotional lability

    and the list goes on…

  • Yes. Study it out for yourself. Read Szasz’s book “The Myth of Psychotherapy.” Mr. Berezin’s reply further proves Szasz’s point. Szasz was not the “expert” or the “intellectual.” He was exposing the “experts” and the “intellectuals” for their fraudulent use of psychiatry and psychotherapy:

    “My aim in this enterprise has been to unmask the medical and therapeutic pretensions of psychiatry and psychotherapy. I have done so not because I think that medicine and treatment are bad things, but rather because, in the so-called mental health field, I know that the psychiatric and psychotherapeutic mythology is now used to disguise deception and conceal coercion – by psychiatrists, patients, politicians, jurists, journalists, and people in general.” (“The Myth of Psychotherapy,” p. xviii)

    Szasz’s analysis of psychotherapy was just as astute as his analysis of psychiatry. Psychiatry and psychotherapy are connected in ways that most people, including therapists, have yet to discover.

  • Psychiatry has not lost its way. If anything, psychiatry has come into full bloom. Psychiatry, the science of lies, naturally produces the terrible problems that it purports to cure. As for psychotherapy, Szasz understood it better than anyone:

    “There is, properly speaking, no such thing as psychotherapy. Like mental illness, psychotherapy is a metaphor and a myth. Hypnosis, suggestion, psychoanalysis, whatever the so-called psychotherapy might be labeled, are names we give to people speaking and listening to each other in certain ways. By calling some types of human encounters ‘psychotherapy,’ we only impede our capacity to understand them.”

    Szasz continues:

    “What, then, are psychotherapists and what do they sell to or impose on their clients? Insofar as they use force, psychotherapists are judges and jailers, inquisitors and torturers; insofar as they eschew it, they are secular priests and pseudomedical rhetoricians. Their services consist of coercions and constraints imposed on individuals on behalf of other persons or social groups, or they consist of contracts and conversations entered into by individuals on their own behalf.” (The Myth of Psychotherapy, p. 206)

  • Stick around waydownunder, and you may discover the truth about psychiatry. Even the notion that neurotoxic drugs produce “side-effects” is false. As yet, no one seems willing to answer my questions about just what constitutes “madness” or “these problems.” That is most likely because people don’t have a real answer. In any case, such speculation does real harm and serves as a major alibi for psychiatrists and other omnipotent moral busybodies. (see the C.S. Lewis quote above). I’ve read Joanna’s great work on psychotropic drugs, and her contribution in that regard is valuable. It’s just unfortunate that she still supports psychiatry and the use of such barbaric “treatments” for the so-called severely “mentally ill.” It will be interesting to see how she tries to work through these contradictions.

  • “In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.” – Thomas Szasz

    I hereby declare that everyone who disagrees with me or whose behavior I find objectionable is unequivocally and categorically insane and must be treated with the harshest psychiatric interventions possible, including involuntary incarceration and drugging.

  • Reasonably vague, yes. The argument thus far seems to be that…

    A. people have problems
    B. psychiatrists solve problems
    C. therefore more psychiatry

    It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? What it fails to explain is what these “problems” are, what psychiatry is, and how it solves these problems. It is, on all counts, a weak argument and just as vague as psychiatry likes things to be.

  • How did it ever become the responsibility of the U.S. government to care for the health of its citizens?

    “In the 1950’s, when I wrote The Myth of Mental Illness,” Thomas Szasz wrote in a new preface to his book with the same title, “the notion that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide ‘health care’ to the American people had not yet entered the national consciousness.”

    Ponder that for a moment.

    Szasz continues: “Fifty years ago, the question ‘What is mental illness?’ was of interest to the general public as well as to philosophers, sociologists, and medical professionals. This is no longer the case. The question has been answered – ‘dismissed’ would be more accurate – by the holders of political power: representing the State, they decree that ‘mental illness is a disease like any other.’ Political power and professional self-interest unite in turning a false belief into a ‘lying fact.’”

    There you have it. The lying fact of “mental illness” is now combined with political power and is so deeply engrained in our collective consciousness that we no longer question its validity. Furthermore, the notion that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide ‘health care’ to the American people is so deeply engrained in our culture that most people don’t realize that such lying facts have outmaneuvered the truth in a relatively short amount of time.

    Therefore, as the director of the aforementioned health insurance company, I would simply pose the same questions that Szasz posed in the new preface to his book “The Myth of Mental Illness.” Then I would look for a new job.

  • The approach doesn’t work, because psychiatry continues to justify its atrocities in the name of “caring” for this mysterious and illusive group of people who are referred to as the “mentally ill.” In the real world, thousands upon thousands of innocent people, including children, the homeless, and the elderly, are being labeled with fictitious diseases and subjected to cruel punishments such as involuntary incarceration and psychotropic drugging, all because psychiatry insists upon maintaining the appearance of a legitimate medical practice while it is nothing more than a pseudo-science. These so-called “severe forms of the problems that get called mental disorder” are the exception, and not the rule, and the problems would not be half as severe if they didn’t get labeled as “mental disorder.” In any case, this is psychiatry’s alibi. It is psychiatry that plays “let’s pretend that only psychiatry has the solution to the world’s problems because psychiatrists are the experts.” Perhaps that is how the real world currently works, but that is only because the myth of mental illness has permeated almost every corner of society to the detriment of many, including the most vulnerable.

    The notion that there are approaches that “do more harm than good” is one of the great psychiatric myths that keeps the whole psychiatric enterprise cycling through endless loops of “reform” and “rethinking.” Thus psychiatry has reformed and rethought itself from whirling chairs and chains to lobotomies to insulin shock, electroshock, psychotropic drugging, and even brain implants. All this so-called reform in the name of “treating” a mysterious group of people falsely labeled as “schizophrenic” or otherwise is precisely why psychiatry has evolved into the beast that it is today. The iatrogenic harm caused by psychiatry is exponentially higher than any supposed harm that is caused by problems that others, particularly psychiatrists, label as “mental illness.” In fact, it is proven that in countries where psychiatry does not dominate, the rare individuals who might be subjected to psychiatric “care” actually recover and heal in a relatively short amount of time. In the United States, however, once anyone gets dragged into the dark web of psychiatry, it is next to impossible to extricate oneself. Psychiatry has nothing to do with assisting people with problems, and everything to do with exacerbating problems or creating new ones in order to keep the enterprise running and the dollars flowing. The horrendous thing is that psychiatrists and mental health workers continue to do this damage with the approval of their own conscience:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

  • I’ve lived and traveled in predominantly Muslim countries and interacted with Muslims in other countries and in the United States. I’m an avid student of Islam. I’ve read the Qur’an twice. I’ve visited several mosques. I’ve studied Arabic. Muslims are, by and large, wonderful people. But this is not how the term “Islamophobia” is bandied about today. Like “homophobia,” “Islamophobia” is not a helpful term. It’s a term that is too often used to silence dissenting opinions.

  • Precisely. Many people who think that they are being helped by the neurotoxins are simply suffering from that which Peter Breggin has called “medication spellbinding.” The question of whether or not drugs “work” depends so much upon what we mean by the word “work.” Do drugs sedate or excite the brain in such a way as to produce unnatural outcomes? Of course. If this is what is meant by drugs “working,” then I suggest that we might want to rethink the value of what “works.”

  • Ok. This is getting closer to the truth. Psychotropic drugs do, indeed, CAUSE suicide. This is an indisputable fact. But what is needed is not informed consent. What is needed is for pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists to be held accountable for their atrocious crimes. Why on earth are such dangerous neurotoxins allowed on the market in the first place, and why on earth are they permitted to be distributed as if they were “medication”? These neurotoxins are not medication any more than a bottle of Kerosene is cough syrup.

    There’s another aspect of this problem that too few people understand. It is true that psychotropic drugs CAUSE suicide, but so do suicide prevention campaigns. Suicide awareness and suicide prevention campaigns hook the vulnerable and drag them into the dark web of psychiatry, where they are drugged, involuntarily incarcerated, which trauma may even lead them to terminate their own lives. It’s the same problem with so-called “anti-stigma” campaigns. Here’s how it works: Someone starts an anti-stigma campaign to remove the stigma from so-called “mental illness.” The message is that no one should allow stigma to stop a person from receiving “treatment.” Next, the unsuspecting victim of psychiatry is convinced that “mental illness” is an “illness like any other.” Then the same unsuspecting victim seeks the help of a psychiatrist who then labels said victim as “mentally ill,” thus increasing the stigma, which requires more “anti-stigma” campaigns. You see how clever psychiatry is in drawing people into its dark web?

  • How is it possible to agree that we ought to jettison the concepts of “mental disorders” and “mental illness” and almost in the same breath to call for ways to reinforce these very concepts? With all due respect, it doesn’t make sense. What exactly are the “problems that we now refer to as mental disorders”? Who is the “we” in this sentence? Do people have problems? Of course. Have people always had problems? Naturally. Are those problems a manifestation of a “mental disorder” or a “mental illness”? Not at all. Does psychiatry have the capacity to address or to resolve such problems? Not remotely. The opposite is true. Psychiatry causes or perpetuates what is sometimes interpreted as “problems in living.”

    I did not imply that Szasz did not recognize that people have “problems in living,” or that they do not exhibit behaviors that “bother or disturb people.” My point was that this was not the crux of his argument. Szasz was far more critical of the purveyors of the myth of mental illness than he was of those who struggle in any way. Even so, Szasz didn’t quite comprehend the power of psychiatry to create the very “problems in living” that are so often interpreted as “mental disorders.” Psychotropic drugs, just to name one example, are one of the major causes of the epidemic of that which is perceived to be “psychosis.” Other cases are exceptional, outliers, and even these people ought to be respected, as Szasz was fond of saying, as responsible and free beings.

    Could it be that the most disturbing behaviors are actually those manifested by psychiatrists who persistently seek to “diagnose” and drug people? If there is one person in a million who thinks that he or she can fly, why not leave that person alone and go after the hoards of psychiatrists, social workers, and so-called “mental health” experts who think that they have the power and the authority to “diagnose” fictitious diseases, and by so doing, drug people into a state in which they not only think that they can fly, but also carry out their plans (yes, drugs often CAUSE suicide). The truly disturbing behavior is not some random individual who thinks that the CIA is after them or that the TV is broadcasting his or her thoughts. These people are the epitome of sanity compared to those who apply DSM labels to innocent people, including little children, the homeless, and the elderly.

    The kinds of problems that are routine in your practice would be much less so if your practice did not exist. Psychiatry causes the vast majority of those problems, and for the rare exceptions, it has been proven over and over again that in societies that are not dominated by psychiatry, people with such “problems in living” find healing and hope in their families and communities, and are eventually reintegrated into society instead of become social pariahs and scapegoats.

    And what is this about locking up people? That’s what psychiatry does best. As Szasz frequently pointed out, psychiatry inculpates the innocent (by means of “mental illness” mongering), and it exculpates the guilty (by means of the insanity plea). Under psychiatry, the practice of involuntary incarceration in prisons is euphemistically referred to as “hospitalization.” Drugging is called “medication.” Ostracism is called “diagnosis.” Jailers and wardens are called “doctors.” And so forth. Psychiatry is, as Szasz rightly demonstrated, the “Science of Lies.”

    And what are these patterns of behavior of which you write? Of course there are patterns of behavior that can be problematic… psychiatry produces a wide variety of disturbing behaviors, the most disturbing of which are manifest by psychiatrists themselves. But psychiatrists’ behaviors are more than problematic… they are harmful and dangerous. Szasz was very clear that the concept that patients are a “danger to themselves or others” is one of the most deceptive lies of psychiatry, but he was also very clear that psychiatry causes the very harm that it purports to cure.

    The most impaired kind of reasoning is the reasoning that produced psychiatry in the first place. Perhaps there can be a democratic debate about how to abolish psychiatry. Perhaps psychiatrists should be subject to trial by jury and held accountable for their crimes. How do you think that the concepts of “mental illness” and “mental disorders” ought to be jettisoned? In what way should psychiatrists be held accountable for their crimes?

  • I know all too well the cost of telling the truth about so-called “mental illness.” Even Szasz refrained from writing or speaking of this “taboo” subject for many years, until he had the necessary credentials to be heard. Even then, he was mostly rejected or ignored, just like Karl Kraus before him. Of course I can’t possibly share everything that Szasz has written or said in one comment. He also said that cases such as the one that you mentioned, hearing voices or imagining things, or even cases such as the one mentioned by Moncrieff, are RARE and the EXCEPTION when it comes to psychiatry. In other words, psychiatry uses such rare and exceptional cases to justify its broad enterprise of labeling, drugging, and involuntarily incarcerating average people. Furthermore (and this is something that Szasz failed to understand completely), psychotropic drugs CAUSE people to manifest the very symptoms that are then “diagnosed” by psychiatrists as mental illness. If you don’t hear voices or think that you’re a poached egg, just start a regimen of psychotropic drugs and before long hearing voices or thinking that you’re a poached egg will be the least of your worries.

  • Where to begin? Moncrieff presents us with yet another article that attempts to legitimize or to solidify the myth of mental illness. As if this myth weren’t already engrained too deeply in our cultural consciousness.

    What is a mental disorder? It is a fabrication. It is psychiatry’s attempt to justify its own existence. It is a figment of the psychiatric imagination that is used as a weapon to destroy the lives of innocent people, including children, the homeless, and the elderly. A mental disorder is, in other words, a lie of egregious proportions.

    Of course it is more difficult to set out a positive notion of what a mental disorder consists of, because it is the futile attempt to make concrete something that is absolutely ethereal. To succeed in such a project would be even more disastrous than it was to invent “mental illness” in the first place.

    Moncrieff is right, however, that both Szasz and Wittgenstein would suggest that looking for the essence of mental disorder is a mistaken pursuit. But that is beside the point. Why would one wish to pursue such a disastrous course in the first place?

    As for Szasz, I don’t know how many times I need to chime in on his behalf before people will actually start to read his books, and to understand them. It is a gross distortion of Szasz’ thinking to propose that he understood so-called “mental disorders” as merely “problems in living.” This ignores entire volumes of his work in which he outlines in no uncertain terms that so-called “mental illness” is a myth. Read, for example, Szasz’ book “Schizophrenia: The Sacred Symbol of Psychiatry.” The thrust of his argument in this and in many other books is that psychiatry is fake medicine that helps fake physicians (psychiatrists) to coerce and control fake patients (the “mentally ill”). So-called “Schizophrenia” is just one of the many fake diseases that psychiatrists use to justify their fake medical interventions.

    “The claim that some people have a disease called schizophrenia (and that some, presumably, do not),” Szasz explains, “was based not on any medical discovery but only on medical authority; that it was, in other words, the result not of empirical or scientific work, but of ethical and political decision making.” Thus the only definition of so-called “mental disorders” is the definition that psychiatrists impose upon it in order to justify their practice of fake medicine.

    How should we respond to problems that are labeled as mental disorders? Simple. Stop labeling people with fictitious diseases. But this is the wrong question to consider. The real question to ask is the following: “Since so-called ‘mental disorders’ are fictional diseases concocted by fake doctors in order to control fake patients, why are these fake doctors allowed to continue to label people with fake diseases?”

    Moncrieff’s confused jumble of Wittgenstein, Hegel, Heidegger, Szasz, Laing and others does nothing but obscure the problem that she seems eager to perpetuate or to exacerbate. This is unfortunate, especially considering her sound understanding of the dangers of psychotropic drugs. In any case, who sets up psychiatrists as authorities as to what constitutes healthy reasoning vs. what should be interpreted as “mental illness”? Who else, but psychiatrists themselves.

    What if psychiatrists were to subject their own reasoning to the same critical scrutiny? Is not the practice of psychiatry, the so-called “medical treatment of the soul,” the craziest thing that a person can imagine? Should it be categorized as a disease? Perhaps the propensity toward practicing psychiatry could be called OMD, “obsessive meddling disorder” or IQD “insufferable quackery disorder.”

    Who is more detached from the everyday understanding of ourselves and the world than the average psychiatrist? By comparison, the young man in Moncrieff’s example stands out as supremely sane and reasonable.

    Again, what is a mental disorder? It is part of the deeply engrained myth of mental illness that is used to justify a system of coercion and slavery that is disguised as a branch of medicine. It is a figment of the psychiatric imagination that psychiatrists employ in order to justify their brain damaging and destructive practices. If there really were such a thing as a mental disorder, psychiatry itself would be the clearest manifestation of it.

  • Exactly. Santa Claus brings kids presents. The Easter Bunny may bring chocolate and make for a fun Easter egg hunt. The myth of mental illness, on the other hand… children and others drugged into oblivion, labeled with fictitious diseases, involuntarily incarcerated, ostracized, and sentenced to a life of psychiatric torture and abuse. Maybe we could start a new holiday? Mental illness day, where the mental illness fairy comes visits people with a “diagnosis” from the DSM-V, some syringes full of Haldol, and a few bottles full of psychotropic drugs. Let’s celebrate!

  • Robert, in a professional article you ought to cite your sources.

    “These kinds of comments, if taken literally, seem to reflect a form of ‘psychiatric nihilism’—a black and white view in which psychiatry is the dark side of nothingness. No good can possibly come from it, a blot of meaninglessness that is used only to inflict harm and traumatize anyone coming into its dark web.”

    As Frank rightly pointed out, psychiatry and nihilism go hand in hand, so antipsychiatry is also anti-nihilism. Moreover, there is a good that will come from psychiatry, and it is this: when it is finally abolished, future history books will contain a chapter on psychiatry that will be read by students alongside chapters on chattel slavery and the holocaust. It will provide future students of history greater perspectives on the nature and scope of tyranny and oppression.

    Robert, I like your analogy about the dark web. That is a wonderfully creative description of psychiatry that I can incorporate into future writing. Thank you.

  • I remember the self-indulgent fantasy of abolitionists during the Civil War. They didn’t understand the real world. Frederick Douglass, Lincoln, and the rest were living in a fantasy world. It’s a good thing that Dorothy finally woke up and that the fine institution of slavery was preserved. I also remember the self-indulgent fantasy of Winston Churchill and the allied forces. They didn’t understand the real world either. Fortunately Dorothy woke up, and the Nazis prevailed. Like the Wizard of Oz, Robert Nikkel makes excellent points. We should follow that yellow brick road toward the Emerald City where psychiatry reigns supreme. C’mon toto! If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why o why can’t I?

  • Psychiatry is the CAUSE of the very “needs” that it addresses. Psychiatry, as a pseudo-science, supplies itself with the “needs” that it wishes to meet in order to sustain the illusion that it is a field of medicine. I suppose that one could also argue that slavery fills a need, or that Nazi experimentation filled a need. People have needs, it is true, but psychiatry creates “needs” that people would never have in the first place were it not for psychiatry. There is no reasonable sense in which psychiatry fills a need, unless we consider that there is a need for involuntary incarceration, drugging, and torture in order to maintain the power of the therapeutic state, or unless we consider that pharmaceutical companies need psychiatry in order to create and to maintain a market for neurotoxins.

  • It’s just so easy to take a few random quotations out of context and to isolate them for your own purposes. This is essentially what Robert has done in his article. It demonstrates a very shallow understanding of both psychiatry and antipsychiatry. After psychiatry is abolished, I would like to read his articles about what happened.

  • Working as a team would be great. I look forward to the time when Mad in America will do that. As for my article, to modify it would be to modify it out of existence. Compromise is not a one-sided thing. If Mad in America wants to make compromises in order to let the voices of those who are truly antipsychiatry be heard, that would be great. But I’m not holding my breath.

  • And thank you Richard for clarifying some of your theories about goodness. If I understand you correctly, Richard, goodness is measured by cooperation between individuals for the common benefit or the common good? Is that correct? In other words, your argument seems to be that goodness is what is good. That’s a puzzle. Then what is good? The obvious follow up question would then be, what is the common good, and who gets to decide what that is? I’m still perplexed by the idea that there is not good and evil, but somehow there is goodness that can be measured. I admit to being confused about that theory. As far as Marx, his words are all there, many of them in the Communist Manifesto, the handbook for some of the greatest atrocities ever known to man. And you’re still trying to get me to point out which words in Marx are evil without explaining how I can describe evil to someone who doesn’t believe in evil. What can it mean that a theory is wrong, if there is no right and wrong. This is where your theories confuse me. Is there good and evil, or not? Is there right and wrong, or not? Or maybe a better question, what is the standard by which one ought to measure what is good or evil, right or wrong? And who gets to decide what that standard is? As far as “mistakes by revolutionaries” … Nearly 100 million dead under communism and approximately 16 million slaughtered under Nazism (and don’t forget the French revolution)… These are “mistakes”? Sounds like some pretty bad mistakes. I wonder what the death toll is for psychiatry now… more mistakes. Whoops. And then you blame the nations who fought to defeat such tyrannies? I’m even more puzzled about what you consider to be good. Furthermore, if an atheist rejects God based on the false notion that religion causes the most violence, then he would also have to reject atheism, which has been the source of so much more of the aforementioned violence. In fact, even the comparatively minimal casualties of the crusades, the inquisition, and so forth (not even close to 100 million… more like 200,000) over many centuries amount to less than 1% of the deaths caused by atheistically driven violence under the totalitarian regimes of despots such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, and in the space of only a few decades. If your argument is that the Bible has caused more violence than the Communist Manifesto, then I really need to hand it to you for your creativity. As to your last point, slavery is also evil, and it is not unique to the west. Many civilizations have practiced and still practice slavery. Psychiatric slavery is a modern form of slavery that we ought to abolish, and hopefully it won’t take another Civil War to do so.

  • Excellent points Frank. I am very grateful for anyone who brings their different backgrounds and experiences to the table to expose the truth about psychiatry. Phil Hickey does excellent work. Burstow has also done some excellent work. Breggin and Whitaker have done great work. Szasz did great work. And there are many others. I agree with Oldhead that survivors should play a leadership role, because those with lived experience understand the horrors of psychiatry in a unique way that non-survivors can’t quite grasp. But it is great to work together with others who also oppose psychiatry. I also see “professionals” mostly in collusion with psychiatry. Then there’s the whole problem of so-called critical or reform psychiatry. That’s the problem with MIA, of course, but MIA can do some good in some ways. I’m intrigued by Szasz’s example particularly because although he was not a psychiatric survivor, he understood the truth about psychiatry long before he ever began to publish about it. As a youth he saw through the deceptions, but he waited until he had obtained the necessary credentials to begin to expose the truth about psychiatry. This was a smart move, because unfortunately, in today’s world, people don’t usually listen to what you have to say unless they see some letters next to your name (Ph.D., MD, etc.) He was a “professional” who worked from the inside to expose the truth about his so-called “profession.” That was great! And he gave voice to the very real afflictions of victims of psychiatric torture. The mental patient / consumer movement, on the other hand, has so many inner contradictions I don’t even know where to start with that. Frank, I agree with you 100% that it is the “mental illness” industry and the “medicalization” business that keeps the fraudulent enterprise of psychiatry afloat. The myth of mental illness, the chemical imbalance hoax, the fraudulent soul-doctors, fakes, and hucksters… all of it needs to go. This is what I mean by slaying the dragon of psychiatry.

  • Good points Frank, although if you mean by “guests” those who are psychiatric survivors, then there is something wrong with the dinner table already. The specifically antipsychiatry organizations are currently being developed. It ought to be psychiatric survivors who decide whether or not to invite so-called “professionals” to the dinner table. Like I said before, I’m fine with disagreement and differences of opinion. I’m actually open to learning about the reasons for people’s ideological commitments, because unless those are made explicit, there’s no way of coming to a consensus about anything. But it’s useless to pretend that a certain commitment to Marxism, or socialism, or any other “ism” is the be all and end all of antipsychiatry. Such bullying alienates those of us who don’t see the world through those lenses. Richard claims that I have a low opinion of my fellow man, and then almost in the same breath he asks me not to speak for him. Balderdash. I stand up to liberal bullying just like I stand up to psychiatric oppression. When he’s not busy dismissing my arguments as “fascism,” Richard claims that I am “stuck in centuries old forms of thinking of battles between ‘good vs evil’ where ‘evil forces’ are some sort of a priori abstraction from material reality.” What is one to understand from this other than that he rejects the reality that there is an ongoing battle between good and evil? Maybe I misunderstood what Richard meant by this, but I’m still not sure whether he believes in good and evil. He seems to believe in human goodness, but what does that even mean if there is no good or evil? Richard keeps asking me to point out evil doctrines in Marx, but he puts evil in quotation marks so I don’t even know what he means by good or evil. Who can possibly understand what he is talking about? He wants human goodness to flourish, and that is great. So do I. But when I point out the inconvenient fact that Marx’s philosophy promoted a struggle for a classless society that resulted in the wholesale slaughter of nearly 100 million people in the most evil totalitarian regimes, who can help but wonder if that is what he means by human flourishing. According to Richard, the key question is what what forms of human social, economic, and political organization will allow human goodness to flourish. That is a good question, I admit, but what can that question possibly mean if there is no good or evil? I confess that I am confused by Richard’s theories. In any case, if history is any guide, one might consider which regimes have been most conducive to human flourishing. If the blossoming of philosophy and every other form of human excellence in ancient Greece, or the imitation thereof in Rome, or the profound influence of Judeo-Christian ethics on everything from science to art, to music, to literature and more, or the compilation of it all in Medieval times, or the rebirth of it all during the Renaissance, and the questioning of it all during the Enlightenment, and the establishment of a foundation of government based on the consent of the governed and the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and which fostered a period of unprecedented human flourishing – if all this doesn’t count as human flourishing, then what can human flourishing possibly mean? My realistic view of human nature is that the same kinds of beings that produced the Brandenburg Concertos, the David, the Sistine Chapel ceilings, and the U.S. Constitution have also produced the gas chambers, gulags, nuclear missiles, and psychiatry. In any case, if there is one thing on which we agree, it is that there is something terribly wrong with psychiatry, and that it needs to be abolished. Should we not focus our combined efforts on that?

  • Your remarks about Savage and Dahmer have almost persuaded me to embrace psychiatry. I’m not sure why you ask me about evil, Richard, since you don’t believe in either good or evil. I have a very high regard for human beings and their great capacity and potential. I also have a realistic view of human nature. Do you really believe that the slaughter of nearly 100 million people under communism was a good thing? You’ve provided absolutely zero hard evidence that Marxism has accomplished anything good, but how could you, if you don’t even believe in good or evil? In any case, if Mad in America continues to be an echo chamber for reform and critical psychiatry on the one hand, and progressive ideologies on the other, it won’t amount to much anyhow.

  • Agreed. I do believe that the underlying philosophical and political arguments are important in terms of the consequences of ideas, and in terms of understanding psychiatry and antipsychiatry. But I am happy focus on the truths that we share in our common efforts. In any case, I respect differences of opinion, and welcome debate, especially when it is well informed debate.

  • Frank and Uprising, I suppose that both of you oppose psychiatry. So do I. As for the rest, I can see that it would be even harder to persuade either of you to view things through a different lens than it would be to persuade the average person to understand the truth about psychiatry (and we all know how difficult that can be). Frank, although I obviously disagree with you regarding many political and historical matters, I understand that you have thought through your position, and that you are also passionate about liberty. I agree with you that might does not make right. The great founders of western civilization already understood that and recorded that truth in their works. And Uprising, I seem to have pressed some of your buttons, but I suppose that you too oppose psychiatry. I know that Richard and Frank oppose psychiatry, and for good reason, and I can appreciate that, even though I heartily disagree with both of them in political matters. As far as Marx, of course I know that he wasn’t a savior, even though many people embrace (whether wittingly or not) his ideologies as if he were a savior. The claim that he provided useful analytical tools for understanding socio-economic circumstances is a gross understatement of the profound negative effects of his philosophy, including those genocides that we both abhor. We can learn from Marx, of course, but one of the things that we might learn from him is what not to think. As for the rest of your response, I don’t understand why you support the slaughter of innocent children, government theft through forced redistribution of wealth, and the kind of radical feminism that has harmed so many women. I’m sure that you have your reasons. Your final question is a good one. The answer to your question about rights and can be found in understanding the difference between the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, as the Founders understood them, and the modern Rawlsian conception of rights.

  • Perhaps psychiatry is a good thing after all. You are all persuading me in that direction. In a world view where Columbus, the Founders, Lincoln, Churchill, the West, western civilization, the American democratic republic, free markets, the judeo-Christian faith, and probably God Himself are viewed as enemies, I suppose it’s no wonder that people look to Marx as a Savior. While the United States has been a land of unprecedented freedom, prosperity, and opportunity, and a beacon of hope, not only through the American revolution, but through the great world wars, and even to a this day, multiculturalists would have us believe that all societies are equal. Nonsense. Imagine if Great Britain had won the war. Imagine if chattel slavery weren’t abolished. Imagine if Hitler had prevailed. What kind of world would we be living in? This is what is meant by liberal self loathing. Now there are many problems in modern America, including the murder of millions by abortion, the expansion of entitlement culture under a doctrine of limitless “rights,” and the welfare state (and I would include psychiatry among these problems). But many of these evils are the natural outgrowth of the progressive ideologies that actually trace their lineage through Woodrow Wilson and others back to Nazi Germany. In other words, American exceptionalism is the exact opposite of the kind of nationalism that is deserving of blame. Psychiatry and modern progressivism share a common ancestor in Nazi Germany. The history of psychiatry runs parallel to, and in many way corresponds to the history of ideas that has resulted in contemporary liberal ideology. Still, I’m glad that there are many people who consider themselves to be liberals who also wish to combat psychiatry. What this means is that most everyone wishes to be free, even if not everyone knows what freedom really means or where freedom comes from.

  • What is the difference between real liberals and modern liberals? Do you understand the connection between socialism and modern liberalism? What is the history of progressivism? Who were some of its major founders and primary thinkers? Do you know where your own ideas come from? Here’s another question. Do you know what genocide means? Do you know why the term “genocide” is anachronistic and wrongly applied to the decline of the native Americans? The Holocaust was an example of genocide. The Armenian genocide is another example. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge carried out the Cambodian genocide. Then there was Rwanda. These are examples of genocide. It is an affront to the victims of actual genocide to call what happened to the Indians “genocide.” Most Indian casualties were a result of contagious diseases that the Europeans transmitted to the Indians, but the Indians also spread contagious diseases to the Europeans, such as syphilis. The attempt to explain European conquest and victory in the Americas by “genocide” is the result of multicultural and relativist indoctrination, not a reflection of truth or historical analysis, and it is actually a disservice to native Americans themselves. Here’s a good article on the topic, in case it interests you: