Monday, January 20, 2020

Comments by rene

Showing 19 of 19 comments.

  • “The history of psychiatry is riddled with stories of abuse, torture, drugging, involuntary incarceration, shock, insulin coma “therapy,” lobotomy, and other coercive measures.”
    You only forgot to mention the systematic mass murder in Germany from 1939-1949:
    The Racism of Psychiatry and the Deadly Connection between German and International Psychiatry
    The murder of human beings in German institutions and the role psychiatry played in these murders can only be understood in the context of the “scientific administration” of populations. This conception of “scientific management” developed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and was differently realized depending on national and political contexts. In all Western states, governments focused more and more on two questions..
    Continue to read here:

    rene talbot
    Chair FOR madness
    Berlin, Gremany (Webpages in English: )

  • “The claim that Szasz would support “modern anti-psychiatry” is not supported by any evidence and is debunked..”
    Nothing more wrong than that, if “anti-psychiatry” is translated into “anti-coercive-psychiatry”, which it should name itself at the best:
    – E.g. he was a member of
    – He was engaged as the accuser in the “Foucualt Tribunal”:
    – and in the “Russell Tribunal”:
    – I was invited to speak at the Symposium in Honor of Thomas S. Szasz on his 80th Birthday, read my speech here:
    – He accepted the Lunatic-Offensive´s Freedom award:
    – And Thomas Szasz got the 3rd prize in the contest for the best title of this collaboration photo, see:
    “Psychiatric training is the ritualized indoctrination of the young physician into the theory and practice of psychiatric violence.”

    rene talbot
    Chair FOR madness
    Berlin, Gremany (Webpages in English: )

  • Thanks for this great reply!
    Just one little remark on your question: What did Szasz really have to say about so-called “schizophrenia”?
    I appreciate the following as the best citation:
    ‘Schizophrenia’ is a strategic label as ‘Jew’ was in Nazi Germany. If one wants to exclude people from the social order, one must justify this to others, but especially to oneself. So one invents a justificatory rhetoric. This is what all these horrible psychiatric words are about: they are justifying figures of speech, a label wrapped around ‘garbage’ – they mean ‘Take him away’, ‘Get him out of my sight’ etc. This is what the word ‘Jew’ meant in Nazi Germany; it did not mean a person with a specific religious belief. It meant ‘Vermin’, ‘Gas it’. I am afraid that ‘schizophrenic’ and ‘sociopathic personality’ and many other psychiatric diagnostic terms mean exactly the same thing; they mean ‘human garbage’, ‘take him away’, ‘get him out of my sight.’
    Source: ‘Interview with Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.’, The New Physician, 18 June 1969, p. 460.

    rene talbot
    Chair FOR madness
    Berlin, Gremany (Webpages in English: )

  • That is not what I said. My criticism is that a right to health is a false promise (as I explained above).
    Instead, what only could be said is that there is (or should be) a right to obtain medical/professional help. Such a claim is compatible with our demand for the right to illness.

    By the way, the right to illness has a good parallel in the demand for the right to lazyness.
    The right to lazyness would be fulfilled with the basic income, e.g. see here:
    “A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.”

  • That is not what I said. My criticism is that a right to health is a false promise (as I explained above).
    Instead, what only could be said is that there is (or should be) a right to obtain medical/professional help. Such a claim is compatible with our demand for the right to illness.

    By the way, the right to illness has a good parallel in the demand for the right to lazyness.
    The right to lazyness would be fulfilled with the basic income, e.g. see here:
    “A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.”

  • This invitation of the UN council for human rights is based on an illusion. They invited in good faith antagonistic functionaries, obviously by
    these UN special rapporteurs:
    – Ms. Catalina Devandas Aguilar, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Persons with disabilities
    – Dr. Dainius Pūras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
    – Mr. Nils Melzer, special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment

    In strong contradiction is this invited representative of the WHO:
    – Dr. Michelle Funk, Coordinator, mental health Policy and service development, World Health Organization (WHO)
    This invitation displays the paradox of the event because the WHO runs torture, it operates or supports and covers coercive treatment and coercion. Logically the WHO belongs to the criminals, the perpetrators of torture!
    Since when have torturers been invited to human rights advocates?
    Since when are rapists invited to meetings about women’s rights?

    This shows the dilemma the UN is now in.
    The UN tries to escape the dilemma by using an interesting rationalisation. In the preparatory document it is mentioned that the Human Rights council decided in the Resolution 36/13 (therefore click here on “E” for English: see quote from article 7 second sentence:
    While, in recognition of resource constraints, the right to health is subject to progressive realization, the freedom element in the right to health is subject to neither progressive realization nor resource availability.

    We do not have this dilemma, because we demand the right to illness.
    Contrary to us, the UN sticks to the old human rights demand of a right to health. This is dogmatically defended as it is an article of the human rights since the beginning in 1948.
    In our view, it is conceptual nonsense, because it is like including the right to an eternal life as any illness is defeated, even no fatal accident can occur – a very, very religious promise. (But this should not play any further right role in this explanation.)
    The UN tries to escape the abovementioned dilemma by a definition that the right to health includes freedom, see article 7 the first sentence, quote:
    The right to health contains freedoms (such as the freedom to control one’s health and body and the right to be free from interference, torture and non-consensual medical treatment) and entitlements (such as the right to a health system that provides equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest attainable level of health).

    By that the UN is trying to escape a fatal hierarchization of human rights: health is a prevailing right to freedom, which logically would be a health dictatorship, so that would be of course inacceptable for the UN human rights. (Basically that was a Nazi society.)
    If now the UN is seeking and demanding freedom in health, well, we can accept that 🙂
    For our project, it is not necessary to surrender the right to health to the right to illness.
    So we can use the conclusion of the UN: no health without freedom in our rhetoric.

    rene talbot

  • Kates important input on our movement cannot be overestimated.
    Our group visited her in 1992 on her farm and she incentivized us to proceed politically, see the video here:
    6 years later in 1998 she was the speaker of the jury of our Foucault Tribunal, see the video here:
    and in 2001 she was the speaker of the jury of the Russell Tribunal:
    see pictures here:
    rene talbot

  • Reductionism itself is dead completly, proof see here:
    On December 9, 2015 Toby S. Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia, and Michael M. Wolf reported in the journal „Nature“[ ], that a mathematical problem, which is basic to many fundamental questions of particle and quantum physics, is definitely unsolvable: even with the theoretically complete knowledge of all microstates it is impossible to determine the macrostate of a material! See: Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable, here: .
    Complete original text in English:
    Supplementary Discussion:
    Here a quote by Michael Wolf, professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University of Munich: „But up until now, such [in principle undecidable problems] were found only in very abstract corners of theoretical informatics and mathematical logic. No-one had expected something like this right in the heart of theoretical physics. However, our results change this picture, …because the insuperable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of the macroscopic properties of a microscopic description.“
    With that, the hopes in physics are ruined, just as Kurt Goedel dissapointed the hopes of the Hilbert program in mathematics.
    See also:

  • If what you write is true, Jim, then even more I can only recommend to concentrate on the struggle from now on by juridical means: Here in Germany 2 years after the law was in force allowing our bulletproof PAD, our supreme court “suddenly” discovered that in the history of Germany since 1949 there was never a forced treatment law reconcilable with the German constitution. You can read about it here:
    and what then happened you can read here:

    The power of the shrinks is deteriorating, even if we only have a loophole exit. So I can heartily recommend concentrating on the judicial battle for a “bulletproof” PAD or a “bulletproof” representation agreement. If it should be challenged, it has to be fought through as a precedent case, if necessary even up to the supreme court. In case you win, this PAD is the template which everybody can use to stay free from coercive psychiatry: “Insane? Your choice!”
    In case you should lose, it is obvious which political struggle has to be undertaken in order to change the law which prevented the juridical success.


  • Dear Jim and the other readers,

    > The enforceability of advance directives depends on state law, but in > the main, they are legally binding if the person was competent at the > time it was signed.

    If that is true, then it is only a matter of making it waterproof and promote this gate out of coercive psychiatry.

    > The whole idea of competence is pretty bogus in this context, but I
    > suggest that people include right on their advance directive someone > signing that they were competent when they signed because it is hard
    > for the psychiatrist to come back later and say that the person wasn’t.

    Yes, that is what we also recommend all people who have signed our PAD and have previously been libeled as being “insane”. If the first doctor shouldn’t write such a certificate, the second, third or fourth will do it. It is finally no problem to get such a document. Add it to the PAD! Additionally we include in our PAD a representation agreement so that in case a psychiatrist should nevertheless challenge the PAD, this authorized person can continue to demand an instant release. Additional security would be provided by a power of attorney signed in advance to act on behalf of the person so that instant legal action could be undertaken. In Germany we would win the case and the state would lose it and here the loser pays for everything. So the doctors and judges are very cautious.

    > The better the credentials of the person certifying the person is
    > competent the better. MD, outranks PhD, etc., but even a lay person
    > is better than nothing.
    > In the end, though, even though the advance directive is legally
    > binding, they are often ignored in practice.

    Such practice has to be ended! To concentrate on this is a key issue – all hands on deck to help 🙂

    > Of course, the docs don’t know what to do if they can’t drug people
    > into submission, but it is the lawyers assigned to represent people
    > who are not zealously advocating for their clients.

    Since 17 years we have published a list of lawyers who work single sided in our interests:
    I can only recommend to build such a list (probably through NARPA?) and publish it too. The shrinks will then get more cautious 🙂

    > This is the key place the legal part of the system is broken. The legal
    > system in the United States is based on zealous advocacy on both
    > sides and people facing the horror of forced drugging (and
    > commitment) are assigned lawyers whose main purpose is so the
    > system can say people have a lawyer.

    Of course such betraying lawyers should never be allowed to represent us. Instead one should take care of and update such a list of lawyers mentioned above.

    > I wrote a law review article about how people’s rights are ignored in
    > Involuntary Commitment and Forced Drugging in the Trial Courts:
    > Rights Violations as a matter of course.

    The conclusion of my concerns is: please concentrate on abolishing mental health acts and legal discrimination based on alleged or true “mental illness”. If there is any progress, like a binding PAD, use it extensively till all judges are forced to obey the law or one has to recognize which loop hole for coercion has to closed by a new law. Then of course such a new law has to be fought for.
    E.g. in British Columbia there is a nice representation agreement act. But of course they made an exception that a compentent! representative is not allowed for declining court decisions according to the mental health act. See here:
    Such discrimination has to be abolished, it is probably unconstitutional and for sure irreconcilable with the CRPD.


  • In my opinion waiting on a “revolution” is a waste of time.
    That´s why i suggest the reformist step to struggle for a new law, which permits a “bulletproof” PAD.
    Lying is luckily not for bitten – but selling services with lies won´t result in satisfied customers – I am sure it will soon proof to be a bad business

  • Dear Jim and other readers of the blog,

    In my opinion we should stop all attempts to be “better psychiatrists” or “better social workers” or stop any drugs producing industry, instead we should concentrate ONLY on the core task: stop any psychiatric coercion, forced treatment and incarceration, as long as a psychiatric advance directive (PAD) has not been signed beforehand, legalizing any psychiatric violence.
    If we concentrate on this, one can instantly see that it is a political question, as the mental health laws have to be abolished.
    As a step in between we need to achieve a waterproof PAD prohibiting any psychiatric diagnosis, any psychiatric coercion, any forced treatment and any incarceration, also on grounds of the insanity defense.
    The reason for this suggestion: as soon as coercion is banned, all “mental health” workers would no longer have the possibility for taking hostages, so they would have to offer their services and convince the customer that they be paid only for their efforts.
    We did have success here in Germany with this focus on the political question. One can read about our waterproof PAD here:

    Best greetings from accross the Atlantic
    Rene Talbot