How can you tell me that the answer is for me to get out of the "mental health system"
when
a) I have no idea how to.
b) I am not allowed to.
c) I have not in any sense been prepared for this.
d)...
?
The "mental health system" is, in its current form, the problem.
The "mental health system" has destroyed my life.
This is based on a psychologist who told me that the answer for me was to get out of the mental health system as soon as possible.
That's like a drug dealer telling you that the answer is to stop taking drugs...
He is admting that the mental health system is the problem.
Yet he is part of it.
There is no such thing as mental illness.
I suppose I keep a lot of people in work anyway.
In some ways I would have to be mad not to stay in the "mental health system."
....
So they punish you, imprison you, poison you and then tell you to get on your way.
I never asked for a single benefit. I was put on all of them by others.
31 January 2008
I'm an anarchist anyway
Emma Goldman said the the three things that we must be freed from
the tyranny of religion
the tyranny of property/capital
the tyranny of the state.
I'm an anarchist anyway.
!NESSUNO STATO!
!NESSUNA PATRIA!
the tyranny of religion
the tyranny of property/capital
the tyranny of the state.
I'm an anarchist anyway.
!NESSUNO STATO!
!NESSUNA PATRIA!
Telly is shit at the moment isn't it?
Anyway, there's a lot of crap on TV at the moment, isn't there?
30 January 2008
Satyagraha
I believe in satyagraha - "truth force"....
NON-VIOLENCE and NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE...
and NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION.
I believe in peace. In building peace. In doing all that can be done to make peace.
I believe that it is non-violence that is the way.
-------
In the "mental health system" there should be no violence or compulsion of any kind.
The best way to achieve this is by ourselves practising non-violence.
-------
I say these things in full cognisance of bellicose sentiments that I may have expressed.
These are often more metaphorical than literal.
It is possible that in some circumstances violence may be justified.
But I believe in working for peace.
-------
NON-VIOLENCE and NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE...
and NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION.
I believe in peace. In building peace. In doing all that can be done to make peace.
I believe that it is non-violence that is the way.
-------
In the "mental health system" there should be no violence or compulsion of any kind.
The best way to achieve this is by ourselves practising non-violence.
-------
I say these things in full cognisance of bellicose sentiments that I may have expressed.
These are often more metaphorical than literal.
It is possible that in some circumstances violence may be justified.
But I believe in working for peace.
-------
"Insanity" is a nonsense!
""Insanity" is a purely legal concept these days, with no direct clinical equivalent."
Mat Kinton, Senior Policy Analyst for the Mental Health Act Commission,
in The Guardian, Wednesday 30th January, 2008.
Thank feck for that!
It's a house of cards as a legal concept as well, but we'll leave it at that for now.
Mat Kinton, Senior Policy Analyst for the Mental Health Act Commission,
in The Guardian, Wednesday 30th January, 2008.
Thank feck for that!
It's a house of cards as a legal concept as well, but we'll leave it at that for now.
28 January 2008
Legalise All Drugs!
Legalise and regulate all drugs.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
Freedom! I would even say we have a right to them.
(There is a book called "Our Right to Drugs" by Thomas Szasz).
We should be free to do what we like as long as what we chose to do does not affect anyone else's freedom to do the same.
Just seen that Alex James thing about Colombia and cocaine. Great programme. Not sure if I agree with the conclusion.
Surely legalisation and regulation is the answer.
Same goes for heroin in Afghanistan - all that morphine could be used in hospitals!
I am anti-drugs. I think they're a load of cock. But I am pro-freedom and individual autonomy.
If you legalised and regulated drugs, maybe less people would take them not more!?
That's my belief anyway.
Surely, the best way to deal with the problem of drugs is to legalise and regulate them.
Same goes for suicide.
If suicide was legal and easy and a civil right as it should be, I think maybe there would be less of it.
Same with prostitution. It's a freedom thing. If it exists and if it is going to exist whatever you do, then legalise and regulate it.
Definitely true of drugs. You can't really stop drugs being made so ... legalise and regulate it.
If drugs were given out to addicts by GPs or whatever - as they used to be- , it would also avoid a great deal of crime.
A very large percentage of crime is drugs-related.
.....
---------
An alternative would be abolitionist answers.
The response to such abolitionist answers would be:
Firstly, what about individual freedom?
Secondly, would abolition work practically?
.....
?
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
Freedom! I would even say we have a right to them.
(There is a book called "Our Right to Drugs" by Thomas Szasz).
We should be free to do what we like as long as what we chose to do does not affect anyone else's freedom to do the same.
Just seen that Alex James thing about Colombia and cocaine. Great programme. Not sure if I agree with the conclusion.
Surely legalisation and regulation is the answer.
Same goes for heroin in Afghanistan - all that morphine could be used in hospitals!
I am anti-drugs. I think they're a load of cock. But I am pro-freedom and individual autonomy.
If you legalised and regulated drugs, maybe less people would take them not more!?
That's my belief anyway.
Surely, the best way to deal with the problem of drugs is to legalise and regulate them.
Same goes for suicide.
If suicide was legal and easy and a civil right as it should be, I think maybe there would be less of it.
Same with prostitution. It's a freedom thing. If it exists and if it is going to exist whatever you do, then legalise and regulate it.
Definitely true of drugs. You can't really stop drugs being made so ... legalise and regulate it.
If drugs were given out to addicts by GPs or whatever - as they used to be- , it would also avoid a great deal of crime.
A very large percentage of crime is drugs-related.
.....
---------
An alternative would be abolitionist answers.
The response to such abolitionist answers would be:
Firstly, what about individual freedom?
Secondly, would abolition work practically?
.....
?
22 January 2008
16 January 2008
"Against Multiculturalism"
"A truly plural society would be one in which citizens have full freedom to pursue their different values or practices in private, while in the public sphere all citizens would be treated as political equals whatever the differences in their private lives. Today, however, pluralism has come to mean the very opposite. The right to practice a particular religion, speak a particular language, follow a particular cultural practice is seen as a public good rather than a private freedom. Different interest groups demand to have their 'differences' institutionalised in the public sphere. And to enforce such a vision we have to call in the Thought Police.
Multiculturalism is an authoritarian, anti-human outlook. True political progress requires not recognition but action, not respect but questioning, not the invocation of the Thought Police but the forging of common bonds and collective struggles."
-----------------------------------
I have in previous blogs misinterpreted what Kenan Malik is saying in his excellent essay Against Multiculturalism previously referred to in blogs.
He is against multiculturalism as he defines it.
He is not, as clear from the above, against "a truly plural society."
On the terms of the excellent essay "Against Multiculturalism" that he has written,
I must agree and say that I have to be against multiculturalism.
I agree with him.
Multiculturalism is an authoritarian, anti-human outlook. True political progress requires not recognition but action, not respect but questioning, not the invocation of the Thought Police but the forging of common bonds and collective struggles."
-----------------------------------
I have in previous blogs misinterpreted what Kenan Malik is saying in his excellent essay Against Multiculturalism previously referred to in blogs.
He is against multiculturalism as he defines it.
He is not, as clear from the above, against "a truly plural society."
On the terms of the excellent essay "Against Multiculturalism" that he has written,
I must agree and say that I have to be against multiculturalism.
I agree with him.
Mark Steel on Catholicism
Great article by Mark Steel in The Independent today about the Catholic Church.
"If you think Islam is medieval look at catholicism":
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-if-you-think-islam-is-medieval-look-at-catholicism-770426.html
I really like Mark Steel's articles for The Independent. I love his book "Vive La Re'volution!" too.
Once again a stand-up comedian is carrying the torch for humanity. :)
He joins the great crew of George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks.....
"If you think Islam is medieval look at catholicism":
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-if-you-think-islam-is-medieval-look-at-catholicism-770426.html
I really like Mark Steel's articles for The Independent. I love his book "Vive La Re'volution!" too.
Once again a stand-up comedian is carrying the torch for humanity. :)
He joins the great crew of George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks.....
Horizon on the Death Penalty
Michael Portillo's Horizon BBC2 programme last night "How to Kill a Human Being" was good.
I suspect there are even more painless, foolproof and quick ways to execute people other than the one that Michael easily discovers - Nitrogen gassing.
I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance.
I also believe that suicide is a civil right.
If the USA and other states wish to execute people - an activity that is quite immoral and pointless - they should be compelled to do so in a humane way and not in a barbaric way.
Execution or murder by the state is as much a crime as murder by an individual.
It sickens me the desire for vengeance so often voiced. The seething desire to cause pain and reek revenge. It's dirty talk. It's horrid and barbaric and seemed quite prevalent in the USA, even amongst educated people.
The Bible that Americans love so much could not be clearer:
Forgive those who injure you, and love your enemy.
That's a pretty clear teaching apart from anything else.
So often you heard "So what if they suffer? What about the people they harmed?"
Apart from anything else, harming them back won't change the original harm.
Two wrongs don't make a right. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Vengeance repeats and legitimises the original offence.
Killing the murderer will never bring back the victim.
It's a totally human impulse to want to fight back when someone attacks you, to strike back, to avenge. But justice not vengeance is our foundation.
Isn't the ending of the person's life punishment enough?
What purpose does making them suffer serve?
I am against torture in all circumstances. The current USA execution methods are torture; they are barbarous and pure evil, and flatly breach the country's 200 year old constitution. A travesty.
If you must punish by torture them then don't lie about it.
Don't pretend you are not torturing them by saying that you are executing them.
It was said that doctors could not be involved in execution because of the Hippocratic Oath - First Do No Harm.
I am very much in favour of this Oath and wish that it was obeyed by psychiatrists as evidence would suggest that it isn't.
But scientists should have the right to be involved in euthanasia if they want to be.
I suspect there are even more painless, foolproof and quick ways to execute people other than the one that Michael easily discovers - Nitrogen gassing.
I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance.
I also believe that suicide is a civil right.
If the USA and other states wish to execute people - an activity that is quite immoral and pointless - they should be compelled to do so in a humane way and not in a barbaric way.
Execution or murder by the state is as much a crime as murder by an individual.
It sickens me the desire for vengeance so often voiced. The seething desire to cause pain and reek revenge. It's dirty talk. It's horrid and barbaric and seemed quite prevalent in the USA, even amongst educated people.
The Bible that Americans love so much could not be clearer:
Forgive those who injure you, and love your enemy.
That's a pretty clear teaching apart from anything else.
So often you heard "So what if they suffer? What about the people they harmed?"
Apart from anything else, harming them back won't change the original harm.
Two wrongs don't make a right. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Vengeance repeats and legitimises the original offence.
Killing the murderer will never bring back the victim.
It's a totally human impulse to want to fight back when someone attacks you, to strike back, to avenge. But justice not vengeance is our foundation.
Isn't the ending of the person's life punishment enough?
What purpose does making them suffer serve?
I am against torture in all circumstances. The current USA execution methods are torture; they are barbarous and pure evil, and flatly breach the country's 200 year old constitution. A travesty.
If you must punish by torture them then don't lie about it.
Don't pretend you are not torturing them by saying that you are executing them.
It was said that doctors could not be involved in execution because of the Hippocratic Oath - First Do No Harm.
I am very much in favour of this Oath and wish that it was obeyed by psychiatrists as evidence would suggest that it isn't.
But scientists should have the right to be involved in euthanasia if they want to be.
7 January 2008
Johann Hari
Johann Hari - what a great journalist. And that's a rare thing.
http://www.johannhari.com/
Sick.
And they're shit anyway.
http://www.johannhari.com/
I agree with his criticism of the Chapman Brothers.
Buying Goya works in order to deliberately deface them?Sick.
And they're shit anyway.
1953 and 1973
In 1953 the USA destroyed democracy in Iran.
In 1973 the USA destroyed democracy in Chile.
These were two very important events with terrible consequences.
In 1973 the USA destroyed democracy in Chile.
These were two very important events with terrible consequences.
6 January 2008
Affluenza
http://www.selfishcapitalist.com/
Great stuff!
Really good stuff
But (one minor criticism) Oliver James still accepts unquestioningly - as so many do- that there is such a thing as mental illness and makes no mention of Szasz.
Many, many people - including many great writers and thinkers - for example, George Orwell and A.C. Grayling - never ever questioned the idea that there are people who are absolutely "mad" or "insane" or are "lunatics" or whatever.
But when you think about it it is obviously a meaningless distinction.
.......
Great stuff!
Really good stuff
But (one minor criticism) Oliver James still accepts unquestioningly - as so many do- that there is such a thing as mental illness and makes no mention of Szasz.
Many, many people - including many great writers and thinkers - for example, George Orwell and A.C. Grayling - never ever questioned the idea that there are people who are absolutely "mad" or "insane" or are "lunatics" or whatever.
But when you think about it it is obviously a meaningless distinction.
.......
Is that right regarding Eric Fromm?
"Erich Fromm, the Marxist psychoanalyst and Buddhist writer..."
Madeleine Bunting in Saturday's Guardian.
Rather a sententious description. But at least it's a mention of a thinker of great importance.
He was not a doctrinaire Marxist, nor a doctrinaire psychoanalyst either, if he was either at all.
As for Buddhist, well that's news to me. He was interested in the idea of God.
He described himself as a humanistic socialist.
4 January 2008
Orwell
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
George Orwell, in "Why I Write", 1946.
------
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."
Labour Party website, 2008.
------
The NewLabourPartyUSDemocratPartyofEngland is not at present a socialist party by a dictionary definition of the word.....
It is a pro-business party.
....
An example of Unspeak really.
....
George Orwell, in "Why I Write", 1946.
------
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."
Labour Party website, 2008.
------
The NewLabourPartyUSDemocratPartyofEngland is not at present a socialist party by a dictionary definition of the word.....
It is a pro-business party.
....
An example of Unspeak really.
....
2 January 2008
Donald Rooum
Happy New Year!
Even though I think that Steve Bell is a surreal political genius and the best mainstream political cartoonist of all time, I must blow the trumpet for the less well-known cartoons of Donald Rooum.
His anarchist cartoons are magnificent didactic pieces. They have literally changed the way I see the world and I wholeheartedly agree with most of the views that he expresses in them.
Even though I think that Steve Bell is a surreal political genius and the best mainstream political cartoonist of all time, I must blow the trumpet for the less well-known cartoons of Donald Rooum.
His anarchist cartoons are magnificent didactic pieces. They have literally changed the way I see the world and I wholeheartedly agree with most of the views that he expresses in them.
Work and why it must be destroyed before it destroys us!
Work and why it must be destroyed before it destroys us:
http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/
http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/work.html
Primordial anarchies
Unlike some anarchist theorists I do not believe that all primordial human societies were leaderless anarchies, without cheiftains or authorities of any kind.
The early emergence of leaders of some kind seems quite common, if only by consent of the governed.
However I do believe that leaders should be questioned.
That said, I think people are naturally anarchistic in the sense that most people instinctively don't like being bossed around and like to have consensus.
...
Anarchism means "I will not rule and I will not be ruled." This is a valid demand.
The early emergence of leaders of some kind seems quite common, if only by consent of the governed.
However I do believe that leaders should be questioned.
That said, I think people are naturally anarchistic in the sense that most people instinctively don't like being bossed around and like to have consensus.
...
Anarchism means "I will not rule and I will not be ruled." This is a valid demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)