CounterPsych

Mindfreedom Update September 7, 2010

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

MindFreedom International Alert - 3 September 2010
http://www.mindfreedom.org/ - please forward

BELOW are eight (8) brief news alerts to win human rights in mental
health:

~~~~~~~~~~~

1) NEW YORK TIMES (9/1) covers drugging of 18-month-old with heavy-
duty psychiatric family of drugs known as "antipsychotics" or
"neuroleptics."

Quote: "More than 500,000 children and adolescents in America are now
taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a September 2009 report by
the Food and Drug Administration. Their use is growing not only among
older teenagers, when schizophrenia is believed to emerge, but also
among tens of thousands of preschoolers."[1] See:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/youth-mental-health/antipsychotic-children
or:
http://3.ly/NYTimesKidsDrugs

~~~~~~~~~~~

2) MOTHER JONES (Sept.Oct.) investigates how pharmaceutical
corporations are using struggling universities to corrupt psychiatric
drug research. See:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/psych-drug-corp/mj-irb-cros
or:
http://3.ly/MotherJonesPsychiatric

~~~~~~~~~~~

3) Psychologist/author Bruce Levine review's Robert Whitaker's book,
Anatomy of an Epidemic, in Z.

Levine mentions how MindFreedom helped lead public pressure to re-
instate Whitaker as keynote speaker at federally-funded Alternatives
2010 conference. See:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/psychiatric-drugs/what-about-bob/levine-whitaker-anatomy
or:
http://3.ly/LevineWhitaker

~~~~~~~~~~~

4) UPDATE: MFI Shield Campaign to stop forced psychiatric drugging and
free MindFreedom member Geetha Rathnamala.

You can now e-mail Governor directly, and join Facebook cause page. See:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/shield/gr/geetha-rathnamala-shield
or:
http://3.ly/Geetha

~~~~~~~~~~~

5) VICTORY: Emily Darguzhyte is now free in State of Washington!

Thank you to the many readers of MindFreedom Shield Campaign Alerts
who joined others to free Lithuanian-American Emily Darguzhyte from
Washington State Hospital where she was being forcibly drugged. For
more info:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/as/act/us/mf-wash/emily-western-state
or:
http://3.ly/EmilyD

~~~~~~~~~~~

6) Headed to NARPA?

The National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy (NARPA)
annual conference starts this Wednesday, 9/8, in Atlanta, Georgia.
This is a key event that supports activism in mental health. If you
attend, stop by the MindFreedom exhibit table staffed by Frank
Blankenship of MindFreedom Florida. NARPA is a founding coalition
sponsor of MFI. More info:

http://www.narpa.org

~~~~~~~~~~~

7) Headed to Alternatives 2010?

If you are attending the Alternatives 2010 conference in California
later this month, and want to connect up with MindFreedom
International? Let us know you're attending at action@mindfreedom.org.
MFI is not organizing this event, but has exhibit tables, workshop,
caucus, etc. It's Wednesday, September 29 to Sunday, October 3, 2010
at the Hyatt Regency in Anaheim. Author Robert Whitaker is one of
keynoters. More info at:

http://www.power2u.org/alternatives2010/

~~~~~~~~~~~

8) Headed to ICSPP?

Attending the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and
Psychology (ICSPP) conference in Syracuse, Oct. 7, 8, 9? Want to help
MFI exhibit table? E-mail: action@mindfreedom.org. ICSPP is a long-
time sponsor group of MFI.

More info see ICSPP's *new* web address:

http://www.icspponline.org/

Note: ICSPP's old web address no longer points to this nonprofit's web
site because of a dispute with the group's founder.

[1] Babies and preschoolers have precisely NO hope of ever figuring out what is wrong with them or why and will be forced to live out their entire lives as defined for them by authority figures who cannot be faulted. If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, it should. Commentary by PL not Mindfreedom

Start your own blog now! Free!

Social Anti-Social

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Anti-Social Socializing
When is 'Socializing' Actually Anti -Social Behaviour?

By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic

It is a question that doesn't get asked much, in fact, it does not even get presented as a question as it appears to be a contradiction in terms. In fact, it IS a contradiction but it is a contradiction that our dysfunctional society has come to accept as the 'norm.' What I am going to suggest here is that what a lot of people think of a 'socializing' is actually social climbing and anti social thinking and behaviour, being performed in groups who use the commonality of it as a means of gaining and maintaining status and 'popularity.'

Have you ever noticed that duplicitous people often describe themselves as having 'loads of friends'? If you pay attention you will often find that their friends are also duplicitous, angry people and that they act this out together on surrogates, who are those 'others' outside the group. Acting out on surrogates is actually part of the definition of ANTI social behaviour. Yet when such people do this as part of a group, which is doing the same thing, instead of individuals acting out their contempt for others alone, the definition of the behaviour changes to accommodate the group which is acting as one. I am suggesting that this behaviour is a lot more common than you think and I am also suggesting that this group behaviour is, in fact, becoming accepted as the 'norm' and that those who do NOT behave this way are more often now seen as the abnormal ones!

Do you find that hard to believe? Well let us do what we seem to need to do to make the point more real for you and use some real life concrete examples.

When people get together in groups and tell 'stories' based on all the negative gossip they are spreading themselves, is that 'socializing;' or is it anti social behaviour? Well try thinking of it this way: If ONE person was always telling contemptuous 'stories' about someone they don't actually know, would you call it a display of “good social skills”? Or would you call it something else?

What I am suggesting in this post is that what gets called 'normal' and socializing is often just the opposite but is disguised behind the style of thinking known as “group consensus.” In reality the dysfunctional group promoting such thinking and behaviour has a big 'perception problem' of it's own. Groups often do become an “it' which takes on a kind of life of it's own. This has happened in my own case.

Does the huge group of people gossiping about me all these years while denying it, believe that I really don't know about the group behaviour? I think many of the group members still believe that is true. Those who know, that I know, all about them, are now trying very hard to pretend they don't know, that I know. Of course they DO this while continuing to gossip about it as always. I am still not fooled. As I once said to the group that started all of this, “If I were to confront everyone who thinks s/he is fooling me, or who is lying to me, I wouldn't have time to be doing anything else all day long.” I meant it then, and I mean it now.

They don't WANT to know otherwise, because if they DID, they would have to see themselves as I see them and that would (to quote one of them from years ago) “ruin all their fun.” You see groups getting together and targeting those who 'don't belong' for whatever the reason of the hour might be, is not NEW thinking or behaviour. It is very old, and very much defended, behaviour. Human beings tend to defend things they find useful, or enjoyable, and groupthink along with group behaviour, (thought comes before deed) is found to be both useful and

enjoyable to many people. Those who enjoy the behaviour, and there are many of them, tend to attract like minded 'friends.' It is in fact, quite easy to have lots of friends IF you are willing to think and do the things that attract them. It is even fairly easy to have lots of 'friends' if you don't agree with their thinking but are still willing to pretend to their face that you do. You can then use other 'friends' to complain about them 'covertly' while swearing the other 'friend' to secrecy in the name of 'loyalty' and 'friendship.' It is not so easy to stand against what the current majority is promoting as a 'norm' and it never has been. In my experience real friends who are genuine and honest are pretty rare. At times in my life when I have had one or two of them, I have felt very fortunate.

Let me give you three more concrete examples out of my own public experience (which is of course denied to exist) and use them as points of debate. Pretend they are just 'hypothetical' situations if it makes you feel better, but then really look and listen to them, and ask yourselves honestly if these are examples of “good social skills” or something quite different wearing a social disguise.

Example one:

One of the people in this hypothetical situation likes to pump for information and then runs and tells others anything she gets and together they evaluate it and me. This one is also very fond of playing the role of provocateur, a role enjoyed by several people involved and one that is also very common in many other dysfunctional groups. There is a certain level of power and control of others in that role and I think that is why many enjoy it. This one likes to make suggestions about me that get others to roll their eyes in a form of disdainful 'bonding.” It is a kind of 'thank God WE are not like her,' routine. This is a role the person plays in the family as well when looking for a convoluted kind of 'support' from others.

Is this, as described here, 'socializing'?

Example two:

A bus driver deliberately leaves me standing at a bus stop as I am the only one there so he can get away with doing it. He is motivated by the story telling of others regarding who I am, and what I am supposed to be about, and feels justified in doing so. Another one discusses a good way to make me miss the bus on an old route by telling other drivers, “She only goes to the stop a couple of minutes before the due time so if you can manage to pull away from the square a couple of minutes early, you can make her miss it.” Then, he and his normal bus driving friend have a good laugh over the idea.

Notice it is about covert power over others again. Now if that were to really happen in real life would that be considered to be good social skills or 'normal' behaviour to you? Many would call it passive-aggressive.

Example three:

A woman who lives in an apartment building and who takes the bus on a regular basis, enjoys telling slanted stories about all her neighbours, what they do at home, tales of their sex lives, and adds a little colour to them about how crazy they are (compared to her of course) and she shares these stories with bus drivers and other passengers, who all get a good laugh out of them at the expense of those the 'fun' is about. Of course she thinks she is 'concealed' when she tells these stories and does not think for a minute that the people she is talking about will know what she does. She's wrong. This belief in the group secrecy is how she convinces herself that what she does is all right. But if you really think about it, she KNOWS that what she does is not all right. If it was, she would not need to belong to a group that behaves the same way, and agrees to keep the truth about what she does a 'secret.'

So is this defined as a 'good personality' because the people she tells these stories to find her amusing for doing so?

Think about it. Isn't this splitting? Isn't this the kind of person who makes herself feel better and more 'normal' by looking down on those she sees as 'less than'? Is it realistic of this woman to expect 'friendly' behaviour towards her from those she targets for her mocking contempt? I don't think it is.

The point I am trying to make by giving these examples is that it seems to me that much of society has got it backwards. We seem to spend more and more time now calling this kind of thinking and behaviour as given in the examples above “friendliness” or “socializing” when in fact what it really is, has more to do with anti social personality traits which are being supported and enabled by groups of people who are behaving badly in the same way and that decision to do so, by members of a group, is making some very destructive behaviour APPEAR to be 'normal,' and also making many of the targets of it very ill.

A good test of this might be to ask yourself a question like this:

If someone you are using for your amusement were to treat YOU in exactly the same way, as you treat them, and doing it 'covertly' would you find that person to be friendly, nice, and normal? If the answer is 'no' then you are engaged in splitting to justify yourself by creating two different realities out of one.

If the answer is yes, you DO think that person is friendly and normal, leave me your name please and I will get really 'friendly' and 'normal' with you as my new topic to be shared with bus drivers, store associates and mall crawlers. I have a whole lot of interesting material to work with in my new comedy act; believe me. Here comes the new fare box Fanny.

Anti-Social Socializing

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

When is 'Socializing' Actually Anti -Social Behaviour?

By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic

Do you find that hard to believe? Well let us do what we seem to need to do to make the point more real for you and use some real life concrete examples.

Example one:

Is this, as described here, 'socializing'?

Example two:

Example three:

So is this defined as a 'good personality' because the people she tells these stories to find her amusing for doing so?

A good test of this might be to ask yourself a question like this:

This is Your Problem

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

I am handing it back

The thing you are finding so difficult to understand is this circular argument, which you have created in order to deny, that the psycho social reality of dysfunction is, what it is.

I get targeted by an aggressor with a hidden agenda of domination.

I say so.

I am not believed as no one else around him sees that and everyone looks for the REASON he would target me, instead of seeing there is no REASON in what he is doing.

The group joins in and sides with the aggressor. They then act out with him but later they deny the participation as it might cost THEM something.

The group members, are believed because they are a group and Groupthink trumps the experience of the individual especially in the whacky world of psychiatry.

I then get officially psychiatrized for my “paranoid delusions and hallucinated conversations” which cause me to 'think' I have been set up for an attack when “really' I have not been.

I am now made completely invisible as a human being by my diagnosis.

My lifelong career as an inferior human, a genetic defective has now begun.

Reality has been switched, flipped around one hundred and eighty degrees and no one even notices.

The same reality from opposing points of view has now been magically transformed into two different and separate realities because keeping the victim invalided and in isolation gets everyone ELSE involved off the accountability hook.

Once the splitting of reality has been accomplished, the 'normal' people can act it all out in front of me like I am not there, having convinced themselves that a stupid nut like me won't know what they are talking about anyway. When I tell them that I DO know, and that they are perfectly obvious, they can't hear me since they have given everything I now say an 'alternate' meaning which allows them to maintain their own denial.

Short form: YOU can't be the people doing all the talking about 'people who 'think' people are talking about them' because you have deluded yourselves as a group that you are all 'hidden, in plain sight,' from an 'inferior.”

Shorter still: I am in touch with the reality of you who are talking about me.

You who are doing all the talking, and denying it, are OUT of touch with reality and trying very hard to maintain your group delusion.

Reyel Jensen Jardine-Douglas

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

By Graeme Bacque

Tragedy struck yet again in Toronto on the afternoon of August 29^th when 25-year old Pickering , Ontario resident Reyal Jensen Jardine-Douglas was gunned down by Toronto Police as he attempted to flee from a TTC bus.

Initially it was reported that police had been summoned in response to an ‘altercation’ on a bus, and that Jardine-Douglas had been fatally shot following a ‘confrontation’ with police.

Later on, it was revealed that no such altercation took place. Apparently Jardine-Douglas’s parents, whom had made repeated attempts to have their son involuntarily committed during the previous several days, were the ones to call the cops when he attempted to evade their efforts by hopping on the bus.

It appears that he panicked and attempted to flee when the cops stopped and boarded the bus – and the rest is now tragic history.

The police are claiming a knife was recovered from the scene of the shooting, but never clearly connected it to the victim.

This is the third fatal shooting involving the Toronto Police Service in the past eight months. In all three cases the cops have attempted to justify their trigger-happy responses by playing the ‘mental illness’ card.

This practice of involving law enforcement in emotional crises where no crime has been committed has to stop. Lives are being put on the line every time the Thought Police are summoned in response to someone’s visible distress.

The 'solution' being flouted in my jurisdiction and elsewhere is 'community crisis teams' which pair a cop with a psych. nurse on patrol.

This started as a pilot project in my precinct about ten years ago and after quietly receiving permanent funding there are now a dozen of these teams deployed in the City of Toronto .

There are even some psych. survivors I know who feel this half-assed 'remedy' is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I really have to question the thinking here.

However you try to pretty things up, at the end of the day it still amounts to a confrontation with a uniformed, armed police officer, and even where the victim physically survives the encounter the typical end result is still them being dragged off in shackles.

As well, this approach gives disturbing new powers to psychiatric personnel. Acting on their own, a psychiatric nurse (or other professional) has no more right to cross another person's threshold uninvited than does any other citizen.

By virtue of being paired with a police officer, all they have to do now is to express the belief that a 'medical emergency' exists within the home in question - which then gives the cop legal authority to force entry, and voila! Instant psychiatric home invasion, all nice and legal.

The victims in these cases will never be criminally charged, speak to a lawyer or get to have the circumstances of their detention reviewed by a judge or JP - but they still lose their freedom, and for most who enter he system this way, that's only the start of the fun. (Note the bitter irony).

I had my own run-in with this particular Mental Health Gestapo unit in April of 2009 when a misinterpreted Facebook status update resulted in my apartment being overrun with cops.

Two fortuitous circumstances saved my ass that spring evening. I had stepped out and wasn’t home when the cops arrived (eight or nine of them, according to the account a neighbor gave me later that night), along with the fact that several of my friends also responded and covered my back until I was able to disengage with the police.

I was lucky – a brief meeting with one cop in a public place (on the street corner outside my apartment building, in daylight) with my friends bearing witness was sufficient to bring the situation to a peaceful conclusion.

Far too many others are much less fortunate. Had my skin been a different color, or I hadn’t had the backing of my friends...

You'd think by now that people would realize this approach is akin to playing with old dynamite and literally puts lives at stake every time it happens.

But most folks are still too conned by the official 'mental health professional' mantra of aggressive intervention being the only way to go, or too freaked-out at the sight of someone else's emotional distress to stop and consider other possible options.

What we need is neighborhood-based, non-medical, hassle-free crisis centres, staffed by psychiatric survivors, where distressed people can go at any hour of the day or night to receive sympathetic counseling, or have a meal or to get a few hours’ uninterrupted sleep in a safe environment.

We need ‘community crisis teams’ of our own, not involving either the police or psych. professionals, that are trained to intervene nonviolently and de-escalate crises by offering reassurance to the frightened, lonely, confused souls who could otherwise become the victims of an inappropriate police response.

We also need on-call telephone peer-based trauma counseling available at any time of the day or night for people who simply want to talk.

This latter resource was provided to protesters by trained volunteers during the recent G-20 summit in Toronto – these anti-globalization kids are really on the ball with this kind of stuff! We can learn a lot from the example being set by these young people – we’ve got some potentially valuable allies there.

And while the idea may make some people uncomfortable, spiritual support tailored to the individual’s personal belief system would be a useful resource if someone wants it. My own feeling is that a large percentage of the issues being pathologized by psychiatry (and responded to violently by law enforcement and ‘mental health professionals’) are in fact spiritual in nature.

Most of the remainder can be attributed to trauma, in which case responding with force is the worst mistake that can be made. It makes no sense to intervene aggressively with an individual who is already frightened or in emotional pain. This is just begging for a situation like what resulted in last Sunday’s tragedy. At the very least it will only exacerbate the person’s distress.

Until people lose their irrational fear of others’ emotional distress; until people realize that calling in the cops to deal with such crises is a recipe for disaster, and until people realize that relying on psychiatry’s promised ‘quick fix’ approach to dealing with distressed (or merely bothersome) human beings is not the way to go, then tragedies such as befell Mr. Jardine-Douglas will only be repeated.

Graeme Bacque

August 31, 2010

Doing Something About It

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Let's Take the Idea

“What you do with problems is hand them to someone else.”

Is that an accusation, enlightening you OR an instruction for gaining power?

It is ambiguous, deliberately so, my opinion because that is how it is kept meaningless unless attached to concrete detail which is what gives it a meaningful structure.

'With' me so far?

I want to take you one step further now, to more structure with just minimal detail.

'Interpretations' of the same ambiguous statement:

What the est-ee nurse has done with his problems is hand them to me. (and to all of you as well) That gives him power over the one he targets for total control.

What I do with MY problems is deal with them directly.

What I do with his (or other people’s ) problems is hand them back to them where they belong in the first place. I refuse to accept responsibility for other people's bad behaviour. I will let you know I expect you to do that and though I can't MAKE you, I can sure tell you so.

For those of you who think that blame and vengeance are the same thing, let me give you some concrete detail so that you can tell the difference.

Vengeance means that I either do the same thing to the est-ee nurse that he did to me, which would mean setting him up for an attack and keeping my agenda of domination 'hidden.' Or it COULD also mean getting a gun and blowing his abusive head off for it, after the fact. I do NEITHER of those. To do either of those means that I am keeping the 'game GOING rather than ending it. This is part of the pattern of dysfunctional relating; a switch (positions) and repeat pattern which is caused by the failure to see and deal with the same problem, generation after generation. In the est-ee nurses training it is called the 'switch.' Instead of vengeance then, I blame him, and all of those who supported and enabled him, by concealing the truth about their participation and blaming me, the victim, for their own arrogance.

In other words I state my truth out in the open and refuse to accept responsibility for other people’s thoughts and feelings, or even their willingness, or unwillingness, to accept it , or acknowledge it. Other people will give up 'the game' when they are motivated enough by self interest to do so.

In other words, if the rest of them look worse trying to conceal it than they do by confessing it, self interest will cause them to choose accountability over concealment. (although I am sure they will try to minimize the impact of what they have done for the sake of appearances as usual) Not exactly what you would call noble, or ethical, but in these endlessly 'smiling' telemarketing times of politics, appearances and sound bites, it is going to have to do until those promoting such nonsense grow up enough to 'give it up.'

Time for them to “Do Something About It.”

Stop trying to 'find out' what I know, from other people who are trying to hide their own participation, in order to take care of their own interests, at my expense. Start telling ME what YOU know and lead me in a newer, saner understanding of how to behave by your example. The example you have been setting, and continue to set, is in tune with the power est-ee and in fact, I can hardly tell the difference between you.

Listen and Learn to Hear

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Though I do not agree with everything said in this video below , I do think it is important that you listen to the theme in this, from the patient, as it is reality based in one way or another. It is common to believe we are going to be killed to "Silence Us" and keep us from telling any truths that those with power over us do not want to come out. For no one must be blamed EXCEPT for the one who IS being Blamed. Though the details change, the PLAY remains the same. Why do you assume that if the play is the same, it must be all nonsense?

LISTEN and learn to hear.

What's in a Euphemism?

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Just as a matter of interest, in the times of est, (early seventies before the name change) another of the sayings about it was that it was about 'enlightenment.' Now the Leader who wrote the program for the training also is the one who calls himself 'the Source.' “The Source' is also a euphemism in spiritual matters which is the identity of Satan, or the Devil (which is “lived” backwards) or the one on earth who is most accurately representing the spirit of Satan.

The original name of the devil was 'Lucifer', which is a name which means, Light Bearer.

Does The est-ee leader know that?

Is he being 'amusing' when he says these things, using vague references himself? Is it designed to shock and frighten? (est concept: 'Let me see your fear')

Is he the real devil?

Does HE think he is?

Is he blind to the symbolism himself which is just coming out of his own insanity? Is it deliberate and conscious on the part of the leader or not?

Does it really matter?

Isn't the damage to others just as real whether the leader understands what he is doing or not?

The only difference there is in degree of guilt and 'responsibility.'

est quote: “It's about responsibility.”

There are two consciousnesses, in my own opinion who know without any doubt. The original one and the est-ee leader himself.

Nexus of meaning: Do we either 'get it' (really understand it as enlightened about it by Jack) OR 'get it'? (fail to see what is right in front of us and continue to be dominated by aggressors with hidden agendas who are after power, for power's sake, like Werner.) Do you see how 'understanding is the booby prize?'

By the time you understand what the aggressor is really doing, it is too late and you then get the UNDERstanding as an 'inferior,' who is beneath (under) him. You know? Like a genetic defective, like ME.

And this is the 'Zen like cuteness' of it as described by Fenwick. The integration of opposites, the joining of abstract concepts with concrete reality which puts, and keeps, the 'item' permanently 'at effect,' and 'the loser' in 'the game of life' which has now been 'created and defined' by the est-ee 'winner' who is 'at cause.'

Can you hear it? He is 'at cause' and 'the source of his own pain.' Pretty darned amusing of the Leader huh?

There are no 'winners' in est. It is a lose, lose, lose proposition from the start. Even the Leader loses in the end.

The only way to win this 'game' is to stop PLAYING IT!

What's in a Euphemism?

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The original name of the devil was 'Lucifer', which is a name which means, Light Bearer.

Does The est-ee leader know that?

Is he being 'amusing' when he says these things, using vague references himself? Is it designed to shock and frighten? (est concept: 'Let me see your fear')

Is he the real devil?

Does HE think he is?

Is he blind to the symbolism himself which is just coming out of his own insanity? Is it deliberate and conscious on the part of the leader or not?

Does it really matter?

Isn't the damage to others just as real whether the leader understands what he is doing or not?

The only difference there is in degree of guilt and 'responsibility.'

est quote: “It's about responsibility.”

There are two consciousnesses, in my own opinion who know without any doubt. The original one and the est-ee leader himself.

Can you hear it? He is 'at cause' and 'the source of his own pain.' Pretty darned amusing of the Leader huh?

There are no 'winners' in est. It is a lose, lose, lose proposition from the start. Even the Leader loses in the end.

The only way to win this 'game' is to stop PLAYING IT!

David Oaks on Normality screening

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

A Bird in the Hand or in the Brain?

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

If the electrical signals perceived as 'a bird' are not in the brain, is the Bird really there?

Is this YouTube video 'really' there if I am not watching it? Is it really just inside my brain?
Do I have a Bird-brain? Are you a Bird brain? Are YOU really reading this or do you just 'think' you are?

Should I call your pharmacist or an A.C.T. team?
ha ha ha

How to See and Hear the “Splitting” Phenomenon

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic

If you want to be able to see and hear the splitting phenomenon all around you and in your own thinking you are going to need to put aside, temporarily at least, the 'them and us' mentality and learn how to HEAR what has always been there. Then you will need a refresher course in personal boundaries and for some of you, it may well be the first time you have even really learned about boundaries at all. The most common mode of relating these days seem to be in emotional enmeshment and because there is so MUCH of it, it has come to be accepted as a norm. Just because something is common though, does not make it 'normal' and these two terms have unfortunately become interchangeable.

So for this post let's use a couple of commonly heard examples; one from 'normal' everyday people and two from 'normal' psychiatrists.

I want you to really LISTEN to what is being said as though you were from some other planet trying to understand the local inhabitants and the way they think. Here are a few of the things you are hearing with your 'alien' ears.

(Yes, you can dress up like a Klingon if you really want to, and no, there is no Psychiatric Alien Convention to go to...at least, not yet. But perhaps there WILL be after their new Psy-Fi novel in the series, the DSM V comes out.)

Normal everyday person:

Now we have all heard this kind of remark stated many times by people we know, often while someone is absentmindedly muttering to him or herself. In fact, one of the characters on one of the Star Trek sagas, (and you know how us psychos like Star Trek) Counsellor Troi once asked the captain about this thing that humans do;

“When you are saying to yourself, I'd better do this, or do that, to WHOM are you speaking?”

Most often this human phenomenon is expressed in a certain way when someone 'normal' discovers that s/he has been overheard talking to him/herself and responds like this:

“Oh I had better stop talking to myself or people will think I am a mental case.”

You don't say. Well let's look at that then, shall we?

ARE you a mental case? Yes or no?

You just admitted in fact that you WERE talking to yourself.

Do only people who are 'mental cases' talk to themselves? Is it a 'sign'?

Yes or no?

If you answer 'yes' to that, are you then ADMITTING that you are a mental case?

Are you trying to hide it by not doing it in places that people will not know about you?

Is that because mental cases always deny they are sick?

Do you think that if you kind of deny it, and then suggest that 'people' who think that about you are wrong, because YOU are different than 'real mental cases' (like me for example) that this idea will sort of throw them off and keep them from 'helping' you?

Are you 'in denial'?

Are you just afraid, or too proud, or ashamed to ask for help with your mental illness?

Is it the ten minute diagnosis and labelling session? Does that bother you for some reason?
Is it the stigma? (not that there is one as it is just like diabetes isn't it?)

Is your hesitation about it because you have no insight into your own condition?

Is your talking about it really a disguised 'cry for help'?

Should I find a gung-ho bio psych enthusiast to answer your barely disguised cry for help?

Now let's look at the same thing and how it seems if, when you are asked the question, Do only people who are 'mental cases' talk to themselves? ..you decide to answer this time with a straightforward 'no.'

You just admitted in fact, that you WERE talking to yourself.

ARE you a mental case then? Yes or no?

If you answer 'no' to that, as well, are you then DENYING that you are a mental case, even though you admit that you are talking to yourself?

Are you trying to hide it because mental cases always deny they are sick?

Are you 'in denial”?

Are you just afraid, or too proud, or ashamed to ask for help with your mental illness?

Is that because you have no insight into your own condition?

Is your talking about it really a disguised 'cry for help'?

Should I find a gung-ho bio psych enthusiast to answer your barely disguised cry for help, despite your resistance to treatment?

Or, are you saying that calling people 'mental cases' just because they talk to themselves (like you do) is not the right thing to do then?

Who do you think is crazier?

Is it the person who thinks anyone who talks to him/herself is a mental case and admits to it, confessing the insanity to others OR is it the person who talks to him or herself but then denies it is a sign of his/her own insanity, who is actually crazier?

Hmmmm...quite the conundrum isn't it?

Did you notice anything about this above method of thinking?

Whether the person who is talking to him/herself admits to it or not, he or she can STILL be defined as a mental case by others. The reason is because of judgements made and promoted as abstractions in absolute terms. The only way you can KEEP making judgements like that while exhibiting the same traits yourself while calling them 'just being human' for you, but insanity in 'others' is BY 'splitting.'

Splitting is used to redefine 'reality' in 'them and us' terms so that the SAME kind of thinking and behaviour, even innocuous ideas or behaviour which are hurting no one at all, can be see and heard by the splitters as two different realities, instead of the same one being presented while using a double standard. At times it is not even subtle, yet it goes unseen and unheard by the MAJORITY of the presumed 'normal.'

Let's move on to two examples with psychiatrists.

Example one:

Never accept anything the patient says at face value.

You don't say. Is that because whomever gets called 'the patient' is always lying, hiding it, making up stories, talking in riddles, making meaningless noise etc?

If 'the patient' wanted to talk to you, just as if he or she were human, how would you recommend he or she do that without saying anything that needs to be accepted at face value? Should s/he construct a few appropriately fascinating metaphors before arriving at the office for the 20 minute sanity check, hoping for you to find the hidden meaning in them? Or would s/he then be in danger of being diagnosed as psychotic?

Should we always then accept everything that everyone who is NOT defined as a whack job (like me) says at face value? Like for example, If you said, “this was a real roller coaster ride,” should I accept that you believe you are “literally riding on a roller coaster” and perhaps have lost your orientation to time and space?

Or is that perhaps always 'different” when it is you instead of say, one of 'them'? (me)

Which brings me to example two from psychiatry.

Example two:

If you never accept anything the patient says at face value then that means you have to look for the hidden meaning in it right? OK then; I am with you so far. However, I was told that if I find myself 'looking for hidden meaning' that was a sign I needed an anti-psychotic. So my question is:

Is looking for 'hidden meaning ALWAYS a 'sign' that the one looking for it needs an anti-psychotic?

If so, I do hope you keep that saucer of Haloperidol in the centre of the table at your DSM creation meetings to share together like hors d'oeuvres. We wouldn't want you to get totally lost on the hunt for the obscure.

One other thing...if it is not always a sign that the one looking for the hidden meaning is predisposed to go stark raving mad at the drop of a hat, does that mean that it is actually possible that the identified patient who sits before you, pouring out his or her pain and anguish, (for ten to fifteen minutes anyway) and looking for answers, may NOT need an anti psychotic? Or is that only true in your group ('us') and never in my group? (them)

How to See and Hear the “Splitting” Phenomenon

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic

So for this post let's use a couple of commonly heard examples; one from 'normal' everyday people and two from 'normal' psychiatrists.

(Yes, you can dress up like a Klingon if you really want to, and no, there is no Psychiatric Alien(ists) Convention to go to...at least, not yet. But perhaps there WILL be after their new Psy-Fi novel in the series, the DSM V comes out.)

Normal everyday person:

“When you are saying to yourself, I'd better do this, or do that, to WHOM are you speaking?”

Most often this human phenomenon is expressed in a certain way when someone 'normal' discovers that s/he has been overheard talking to him/herself and responds like this:

“Oh I had better stop talking to myself or people will think I am a mental case.”

You don't say. Well let's look at that then, shall we?

ARE you a mental case? Yes or no?

You just admitted in fact that you WERE talking to yourself.

Do only people who are 'mental cases' talk to themselves? Is it a 'sign'?

Yes or no?

If you answer 'yes' to that, are you then ADMITTING that you are a mental case?

Are you trying to hide it by not doing it in places that people will not know about you?

Is that because mental cases always deny they are sick?

Are you 'in denial'?

Are you just afraid, or too proud, or ashamed to ask for help with your mental illness?

Is it the ten minute diagnosis and labelling session? Does that bother you for some reason?
Is it the stigma? (not that there is one as it is just like diabetes isn't it?)

Is your hesitation about it because you have no insight into your own condition?

Is your talking about it really a disguised 'cry for help'?

Should I find a gung-ho bio psych enthusiast to answer your barely disguised cry for help?

You just admitted in fact, that you WERE talking to yourself.

ARE you a mental case then? Yes or no?

If you answer 'no' to that, as well, are you then DENYING that you are a mental case, even though you admit that you are talking to yourself?

Are you trying to hide it because mental cases always deny they are sick?

Are you 'in denial”?

Are you just afraid, or too proud, or ashamed to ask for help with your mental illness?

Is that because you have no insight into your own condition?

Is your talking about it really a disguised 'cry for help'?

Should I find a gung-ho bio psych enthusiast to answer your barely disguised cry for help, despite your resistance to treatment?

Or, are you saying that calling people 'mental cases' just because they talk to themselves (like you do) is not the right thing to do then?

Who do you think is crazier?

Hmmmm...quite the conundrum isn't it?

Did you notice anything about this above method of thinking?

Let's move on to two examples with psychiatrists.

Example one:

Never accept anything the patient says at face value.

You don't say. Is that because whomever gets called 'the patient' is always lying, hiding it, making up stories, talking in riddles, making meaningless noise etc?

Or is that perhaps always 'different” when it is you instead of say, one of 'them'? (me)

Which brings me to example two from psychiatry.

Example two:

Is looking for 'hidden meaning ALWAYS a 'sign' that the one looking for it needs an anti-psychotic?

You Mockers and Ridiculers

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Help is On the Way Wednesday, September 01, 2010

One of the rumours I have heard lately is that there are a number of people, male and female, of various ages, who are travelling in the same circles as I am, riding buses, hanging at libraries, shopping in my grocery stores, sitting in food courts etc, who are all associated with the university, as well as forensics cops, and who are engaged in observing and noting the group behaviour as part of a sociological study of all you fascinating specimens, out here, in the world of MY reality.

I wonder if this rumour is true? I suspect that it is.

If it is, then I would like to direct this question and information at the group of people acting out on the bus yesterday on route 1. Do you think there were any of them on the bus yesterday to witness your insane group performance?

How about the university aged female that went into her stifling laughter act?

Do you think they saw you doing it? I did. Didn't I?

I found you fascinating as hell, sitting right near you, watching you put on a performance of mouth twisting, eye lowering, fidgeting, smirking and attempts to control your face and not laugh out loud. Did you KNOW I could see you or was that one of the times that you decided I could not really see you? It is really so hard to tell with you dysfunctional normal whack jobs.

Oh, are you surprised or hurt that I would think of you that way?

Oh I'm sorry. Try not to be so sensitive and touchy. Let it roll off your back.

Seriously though, did no one tell you that you were visible when you are acting out like that from three feet away? See we psychiatrized people assume that you already know that, since it would be obvious to a five year old. and that you actually intend us to see you doing that every time.

Most of us did not know know, until recently, that you are actually self deluded.

Now here is a wee bit of a self awareness exercise for you:

Remember that performance that you and those teenaged boys that were sitting across from you, put on for me, and the other bus passengers yesterday, and then just visualize everything you did as part of the community acting out. Got that so far?

OK now imagine that you are someone else,[1] watching you, and from that other perspective, how do you think YOU looked to that person, as you were sitting laughing to yourself, smirking at 'nothing' trying to control your face so you won't be seen...

Do you know what they call people who sit and laugh to themselves when they are alone on a bus?

They call you crazy. Lucky for you I know lots of psychiatrists who will help you with your insane laughing problem. E mail me with your name and address and I will send them around for you.

[1] me, for example or the other lady who was watching me, watch you

Can I STILL Not Talk to You Directly?

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The nexus of meaning, as I told the Marquis over a decade ago, means in psycho-spiritual terms, the point at which the spirits of good and evil meet, being neither good nor evil but rather a point of potential only.

It is what you understand, what motivates you and the goal you set for yourself which makes it means something.

That is why this 'training' got called part of the 'human potential movement.'

At the top of the pyramid, which is split from the top down into 'sides', sits the one who wrote the program; Werner/Jack. He is the only integration point and he tells you that he (or It) is 'over your heads.' He also tells you that there is really no linear time except as an illusion.

He tells you 'trainees' that 'you are the Source of your own pain.' That is a projection, HIS projection, as he also tells you that HE is 'the Source' and I believe that he is right about that.

He has also said; “what you do with problems is hand them to someone else.” That can be either an accusation or an instruction depending upon which side of HIM is talking. Could it be an accusation (from Jack the Jewish victim) OR an instruction (from Werner, the German leader, who tells you 'it is about domination”? He also says that 'reality is all a matter of perspective.” (Which I knew about before my 'experience' with the est-ee nurse from hell.)

It is my opinion that Werner/Jack is using the SAME dysfunctional mechanism of splitting and projecting, which blames the victim for being a victim, while simultaneously excusing the aggressor for the aggression. Sanity is the exact OPPOSITE of this. In reality, Werner is 'the Source' of Jack's pain and he needs to see that and accept responsibility for it so he can give up his 'game.'

The only way to 'win' this game is to stop PLAYING it. The only way to stop playing it is by understanding it completely, as a whole paradigm, so you will see it is a lose, lose, lose situation and be motivated to get out of it, if for no other reason than that of self preservation. Even the Source can relate to that. I know that because he has said so inside the training.

The Gardening Story

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

As told by the sane and normal members of my building.

A few facts first:

I have removed most of the plants in the flower bed area under my window and intend to remove all of them, kill all the weeds and then cover it over with wood chips to keep the weeds at bay.

One of the hawk-eyes in the building notice the plants were all gone from my assigned patch, so they had to get together and go into one of their in depth character assessments over it. (This is a secret group behaviour now so don't let on to me that you know anything about it OK?) There has been quite a bit of the observation bit and some of that “now just what does she think she is doing'' stuff.

So one of them came up with another 'story' that may even rival the one about how I was supposedly standing and screaming at people, “You stop talking about me!”

(which never happened either but doesn't it make a good story for contemptuous people to tell so that they can compare themselves to me and feel 'superior”?)

That story was another 'interpretation' as passed along by the most recent key holder to the woman who feels she is there to speak for others since I am not capable of understanding anything she is sure she understands ever so much better.

(of course this too is all a 'covert' op so don't let on to stupid /crazy me that you know anything at all about it. Mum's the word...)This 'secret' group assessment though is why I told someone that I was sure she, who speaks for others, would be more than happy to take over looking after the other tenants interests. She seems quite sure her understanding of those interests is much better than mine so I agree she should take over.

Back to the garden 'story.'

They decided they needed to take turns going around the side to look at it and cluck over it and ridicule me for it and then they decided they needed to report that to the maintenance man.(who has not yet said a word either)

But the best part of the 'story' is this one. One of them decided, when they all got together at the assessment session, that since no one had SEEN me removing the plants and weeds that I must have done that about “3:30 in the morning.” They then passed this story along through the usual gossip mongering chain and one of them acted it out for me. Another one then laughed when she saw me in the hall and said “and they think I am crazy...” (this last one who has an ongoing relationship with the police, now believes she is my mental superior as well, and this is, as usual, based upon the 'stories' they make up themselves and then pass along 'as if' they were actually 'reality.' Once the 'stories' are repeated by enough people, everyone accepts the fantasy of their own creation as 'reality' and then treats me 'as if' that was who I really am and something I have really done. But they don't usually tell me that, or why, DIRECTLY, because this is a 'covert op' performed by the dysfunctional group, 'in secret” so that I won't 'find out'. The same people then smile at me in the halls, give out cheery hellos most of the time, and for the life of them cannot figure out what is wrong with me that makes me so 'unfriendly' towards them. 'They conclude that I must be 'anti-social.” (I will do a piece on the meaning of anti-social soon as well.)

Likely within a couple of days, this 'story' will also be acted out for me somewhere, like at the mall, or in the Library, or in the town square, etc. by the 'friendly' population and it will be accepted as truth. Usually I hear something like, ”Did you hear about psycho there? Apparently she was out digging in the dirt outside at three thirty in the morning.”

Of course this is the societal behaviour which psychiatry denies exists and calls it my paranoid delusions and hallucinated conversations. That is because all these people, most of who are strangers to me (and getting stranger all the time I might add) would have 'no reason' to behave this way. After all why would they make up such stories if it were not true? (Psychiatric Naivete Disorder)

I want you to notice though that there IS a grain of truth in the 'stories' and there usually is too. They just get 'spun' to suit the needs of the gossiping group. Then the group members react to their own fantasy oblivious to the fact that they are doing it.

Reality Based Fact: I am not interested in having a garden at this point in my life for several reasons which I won't offer here. I have already talked about this with the office of the landlord and was told I had several options I could use regarding my one personal space, which were laid out for me. The one I am choosing is removal, weed killing and covering it over with wood chips. I am allowed to do this and I would like to do it without a non stop commentary and reinvention of reality from other tenants.

This Week the Townsfolk who Do NOT Gossip All Day...

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

I only 'think' they do because I am crazy, are spreading a rumour that Homewood is going to get me the help I need. They have not yet talked to me but they plan to contact me as soon as they get the lawyers on board.

According to some of the public acting out, they now have some really 'good 'treatment' for me (like frying my brains to make me forget what happened there?) and my 'illness' that causes me to 'think' I have been 'set up' by a nurse performing his est routine with me as his selected target..

He Was 'Set Up'

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

On the planet I come from this is sometimes, but not always, true.

A politician on the news this morning says he believes he was 'set up' in conversation with a constituent and made to look bad. Is he crazy?

Does he have that new, now being field 'tested' 'disease' process called 'Psychosis Risk Syndrome'? (Definition: You might decide to go crazy one day so we will check now to see if you think you are being 'set up' or anything and then we can drug you BEFORE you go stark raving mad. It's for your own good.)

So how fast can we get a psychiatric team out there to get him the help he obviously needs?

The Nexus of Meaning

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic

All of the things which psychiatrists have been trained to hear as 'symptoms' of 'mental illness' are laid out in the est training for infinite power as the 'effects' which will be reproduced (recreated) if a power est-ee hears the training as an instruction for gaining domination over the 'item' [1] or target, of choice. The est-ee chooses whether he or she wants to gain power OR enlightenment. (the conjunction 'and' applies only to Werner at the topic of the pyramid where he is 'over their heads.' So what it all really means depends upon the premise, or initial conditions. The est-ee was shown that what everyone believes to be happening will depend upon from where they believe the starting point of the 'game' to be. The group will then tend to follow the leader based on that belief. He asks them what they think is happening in relation to his target because he knows they will project their own beliefs into it in order to make some kind of sense of it, on a concrete level. The est-ee is trained to decide whether he would rather be “at cause' (in total control) or “at effect.” (totally controlled)

This is done 'out here in reality,' basically as a good old fashioned double bait and switch con.

He was also shown that if the group gets caught behaving badly, they will deny they have done anything and blame the victim for being a victim.

This being done, he then gets to see my fear [2] when I 'realize my experience' is not what I thought it was, that it was a set up and that there is no way out as he has manipulated everyone else, right from the start to accept the 'starting point' he gave them by claiming he had no idea why I was saying the things I was.[3] (and still am)

When I got forced back into the mental illness system in 99, I saw my old recovery therapist again and when I got yet another psychiatrist [4] I told her,'great, now I have to go all the way back to the beginning and start explaining it again.'

She answered, ' well you don't have to start all the way back.'

'Yes, I do,' I told her, 'because if you don't understand what this is and how it got started in the first place, it can't be understood. The information needed to understand it is at the start. It is the premise that creates all the confusion.''

I have been trying to penetrate the resistance to hearing this for seventeen YEARS now and this is how hard it is when someone KNOWS what their protagonist is doing and even the NAME of the method he is using to do it. Can you IMAGINE what it would be like if I was someone who had never even HEARD of est and knew nothing at all about it?

This is why the so called power works. It is a hidden agenda of domination that very, very FEW people understand, and those who do understand are not believed because it would not be 'reasonable' for someone to go on an attack for no discernible or 'logical' reason .[5]

[1] item: (whatever that 'thing is that you would like to get rid of.')

[2] In the training, 'let me see your fear'

[3] In est, the end gaol is set first; first he wins, THEN he plays the game.

[4] The one who labelled me 'intractable' in 11 cost effective minutes for 'thinking' I had been 'set up'

[5] It is 'idiotic' says Fenwick but the power is REAL. estian concept, 'there is no reason in what I do' states the trainees.

Hey Man....

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

She's a Psycho

August 27, 2010

At least, that is what a boy of about fourteen was telling his friend when he pointed me out to him while adding this statement by way of explanation,

'My grandmother lives in the same apartment complex as her and she says she is a psycho. She talks about her all the time to all her friends at the apartment building.'

Then they both laughed.

( the chronic gossips don't do that though according to psychiatry)

Tomorrow, Psycho here, which is my new name for the last couple of weeks, will tell you the great new gardening 'story' my sane neighbours have invented and are now passing around as if the invention they have come up with was ‘reality.’
You are going to get a real hoot out of this one.

Also being passed along is the idea that I am a 'good actress' which may also have more than one meaning depending upon who is making the statement. One version of that is alleged to have come from our old gossip the shoe salesman in the downtown mall so you might check in for more juicy gossip with him.

More tomorrow from Psycho but bye for now