"The exact mechanism of action is not well understood, however...."
In Wikipedia article on trycyclic antidepressants.
20 November 2008
Buy Nothing Day and Buy Nothing Christmas!
"As we run out of money, resources and wilderness, and the planet keeps heating up, maybe it’s time to confront the root cause of our global crisis: overconsumption by the most affluent one billion people of the world."
Buy Nothing Day
28th November
www.adbusters.org/
----
Why not have a very merry Buy Nothing Christmas too?
Buy Nothing Day
28th November
www.adbusters.org/
----
Why not have a very merry Buy Nothing Christmas too?
Emancipate Yourself
"The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
Steve Biko (1946-1977).
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."
Bob Marley (1945-1981)
Steve Biko (1946-1977).
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."
Bob Marley (1945-1981)
Imprisonment
My contention is not only that all "psychiatric wards" a crime.
I further contend that they are totally unnecessary and always have been.
My two involuntary stays in psychiatric "hospitals" were unjustified and unnecessary imprisonments.
These two imprisonments were crimes.
------
The first hospitalisation was voluntary. I had been having a hard time and so decided to see if going "on the ward" as others called it, might possibly help me. I knew that it was something to be done in extremis. I judged my situation to be bleak. I genuinely thought that the hospital might help me and might be a place of healing as the name suggested.
As soon as I arrived I realised that it was a prison, that it did not really exist to help people, that its staff were jailors and that being "on the ward" was an unnecessary dehumanising torment that no one wanted to undergo. Admittedly, there were aspects of the experience that were designed to, and to an extent did, help people.
But mainly the psychiatrist had to keep you in there for a certain amount of time in order not to openly recognise the fact that it is a prison and not a hospital. If he let you out when you wanted to go then that would be to admit that it was a prison and not a hospital. They had to go through the pretence of it being a therapeutic environment of some kind, and that the amount of time you spent there bore some correlation with your "mental health". If it did it was probably more time inside meant more unhealthy.
Admittedly, it was a literal asylum of some kind for some people, people could get rest and escape from stress. But still it was also capable of being very unpleasant.
What do you need when you are distressed? One answer is certainly peace and quiet. The hospital was not often able to offer peace and quiet.
The only solution is to outlaw involuntary detention.
I asked to leave and was told that I could but that if I did I would be taken back the next day by police section.
The second tour/imprisonment began with me being taken to the hospital by police section. I hadn't done anything. I had just been distressed. I was fully in the role of a "mentally ill" person and was seen as such not just by the authorities but also by my friends and family. I regard what my friends and family did in this situation as a betrayal. But how are they to realise that psychiatry is a crime?
The situation I was in this time was compounded by the length of the first hospitalisation and all that that had entailed.
I further contend that they are totally unnecessary and always have been.
My two involuntary stays in psychiatric "hospitals" were unjustified and unnecessary imprisonments.
These two imprisonments were crimes.
------
The first hospitalisation was voluntary. I had been having a hard time and so decided to see if going "on the ward" as others called it, might possibly help me. I knew that it was something to be done in extremis. I judged my situation to be bleak. I genuinely thought that the hospital might help me and might be a place of healing as the name suggested.
As soon as I arrived I realised that it was a prison, that it did not really exist to help people, that its staff were jailors and that being "on the ward" was an unnecessary dehumanising torment that no one wanted to undergo. Admittedly, there were aspects of the experience that were designed to, and to an extent did, help people.
But mainly the psychiatrist had to keep you in there for a certain amount of time in order not to openly recognise the fact that it is a prison and not a hospital. If he let you out when you wanted to go then that would be to admit that it was a prison and not a hospital. They had to go through the pretence of it being a therapeutic environment of some kind, and that the amount of time you spent there bore some correlation with your "mental health". If it did it was probably more time inside meant more unhealthy.
Admittedly, it was a literal asylum of some kind for some people, people could get rest and escape from stress. But still it was also capable of being very unpleasant.
What do you need when you are distressed? One answer is certainly peace and quiet. The hospital was not often able to offer peace and quiet.
The only solution is to outlaw involuntary detention.
I asked to leave and was told that I could but that if I did I would be taken back the next day by police section.
The second tour/imprisonment began with me being taken to the hospital by police section. I hadn't done anything. I had just been distressed. I was fully in the role of a "mentally ill" person and was seen as such not just by the authorities but also by my friends and family. I regard what my friends and family did in this situation as a betrayal. But how are they to realise that psychiatry is a crime?
The situation I was in this time was compounded by the length of the first hospitalisation and all that that had entailed.
But basically I had behaved in a way that others disapproved of. That's all.
======
One interesting observation about my time "on the ward" is the following.
When I got there I noticed people continuously walking up and down looking zombie-like.
I thought to myself - "how fucked up do you have to be to walk up and down compulsively like that?". I was shocked at how they constantly walked up and down and at how "zombified" they looked. I assumed they were "mad".
Two weeks later I was walking up and down compulsively myself. Two weeks later I was exactly the same as them!
Nothing had happened to me in the interim.
I was walking up and down because I was very bored and desperate and I wanted to be let out of the animal pen! And I was being pumped full of medication that dulled all my brain functioning.
The reason I was taken forcibly by police section the second time was not because of my behaviour but because I had refused and resisted incarceration.
I had been being driven to the hospital/prison, by my family I should add, and the car had stopped at a garage at which point I had justifiably and understandably got out of the car and ran away back home.
Not long after arriving back at the house I was deceived into going to talk to some police who quickly handcuffed me and placed me in a confined cage in the back of a van.
There was no reason for the force or handcuffs. There was no attempt to communicate with me.
I regard all force, incarceration and compulsion in psychiatry to be a crime.
18 November 2008
L' única lluita que es perd ... és la que s'abandona !
A battle is only lost... when one gives up!
16 November 2008
The Pound Had A Quiet Day
The pound had a quiet day yesterday.
It got up, fed the cat and went back to bed.
It got up, fed the cat and went back to bed.
Why Is England?
I remember once seeing the title of a book.
It was "When Was Wales?"
My immediate response was "Why Is England?". :)
My answer is:
England is the greatest country in the world that saved the world at least once.
That's why England is.
It was "When Was Wales?"
My immediate response was "Why Is England?". :)
My answer is:
England is the greatest country in the world that saved the world at least once.
That's why England is.
Prositution proposals - Looneytunes!
The U.K. government's proposal is to make it illegal to pay for sex with a woman/man who is "controlled for another person's gain."
But not to outlaw paying for sex altogether. Yet it will not be enough for a woman/man who is accused of this offence to say that s/he didn't know the woman/man was being "controlled for another's gain."
Yet how is the woman/man supposed to know?
This is close to the effective banning of paying for sex (without banning it) and that is the expressed intention. Abusurdity!
If you are not outlawing paying for sex then legalise and regulate it so that the woman/man can be sure that the woman/man is not being coerced.
As the proposal stands women/men could end up taking the risk of doing something that might possibly be illegal, but which might not be illegal. It's not going to work this way! It's Loonytunes!
....
------
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step Towards Freedom.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Smith.html
----
Last week during a debate on paying for sex, Germaine Greer announced that selling it was better than "selling a child, a kidney or your soul for long hours for wretched pay stacking shelves at Tesco".
----
Prostitutes provide a service.
Not necessarily an indispensable one but a service none the less.
In some cases it is providing a service for people who have no other access to sexual activity.
......
----
'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'
Jacqui Smith.
Of course, matron.
What right does Jacqui Smith have to say this?
She is basically saying "I want people to have less sex!".
Effectively for some people she is saying "I want you to have no sex at all!"
Wasn't there something in a little book called "1984" about the Anti-Sex League....?
...
Obviously I am against exploitation, trafficking and slavery of any kind.
Surely a good strategy to combat this would be legalization.
This would be as good as any strategy.
But not to outlaw paying for sex altogether. Yet it will not be enough for a woman/man who is accused of this offence to say that s/he didn't know the woman/man was being "controlled for another's gain."
Yet how is the woman/man supposed to know?
This is close to the effective banning of paying for sex (without banning it) and that is the expressed intention. Abusurdity!
If you are not outlawing paying for sex then legalise and regulate it so that the woman/man can be sure that the woman/man is not being coerced.
As the proposal stands women/men could end up taking the risk of doing something that might possibly be illegal, but which might not be illegal. It's not going to work this way! It's Loonytunes!
....
------
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step Towards Freedom.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Smith.html
----
Last week during a debate on paying for sex, Germaine Greer announced that selling it was better than "selling a child, a kidney or your soul for long hours for wretched pay stacking shelves at Tesco".
----
Prostitutes provide a service.
Not necessarily an indispensable one but a service none the less.
In some cases it is providing a service for people who have no other access to sexual activity.
......
----
'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'
Jacqui Smith.
Of course, matron.
What right does Jacqui Smith have to say this?
She is basically saying "I want people to have less sex!".
Effectively for some people she is saying "I want you to have no sex at all!"
Wasn't there something in a little book called "1984" about the Anti-Sex League....?
...
Obviously I am against exploitation, trafficking and slavery of any kind.
Surely a good strategy to combat this would be legalization.
This would be as good as any strategy.
13 November 2008
The English invented the Concentration Camp
To continue the general "anglosceptic" thrust of this blog, which I believe to be a justified and needed perspective, I feel the need to point out that the English invented the Concentration Camp.
At the same time my perspective is pro-English with regard to the positive aspects of the English.
Like most things, there are good aspects to things and bad aspects to things.
I love the English I just don't like some of what they have done and to an extent still do.
And they don't always seem aware of it.
At the same time my perspective is pro-English with regard to the positive aspects of the English.
Like most things, there are good aspects to things and bad aspects to things.
I love the English I just don't like some of what they have done and to an extent still do.
And they don't always seem aware of it.
Would this work?
What about creating a world economic system based on needs rather than profit?
Would that work?
What would happen if production was geared around need rather than profit?
Would that work?
What would happen if production was geared around need rather than profit?
11 November 2008
How Mad Is This Programme?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/headroom/newsandevents/programmes/horizon_hmay.shtml
How mad are you?
Madness, mental illness, OCD, schizophrenia, depression, manic depression, social anxiety disorder [That's a new one - used to be called shyness!] eating disorders, ADHD....
None of these things exist.
This is obvious.
It's obvious that none of these exist as specific diseases or real diagnonsenses or conditions.
There is only behaviour.
You may say isn't someone who is depressed suffering from the condition of being depressed?
Yes but to call it a "condition" implies an illness and implies it has an independent existence of some kind when in reality it is a behaviour......
----------
I was so pleased that many of the assessments of the "mental health professionals" in this programme turned out to be totally wrong. Well, not wrong but meaningless.
They couldn't say which ones had "mental illnesses" because none of them does and no one does.
But it's not necessarily their fault. They are too victims of pseudo-science and oppressed by the system that they are part of.
The conclusions are obvious as pointed out in an excellent Big Issue article.
Hopefully such people can do what they surely want to do: help people.
How mad are you?
Madness, mental illness, OCD, schizophrenia, depression, manic depression, social anxiety disorder [That's a new one - used to be called shyness!] eating disorders, ADHD....
None of these things exist.
This is obvious.
It's obvious that none of these exist as specific diseases or real diagnonsenses or conditions.
There is only behaviour.
You may say isn't someone who is depressed suffering from the condition of being depressed?
Yes but to call it a "condition" implies an illness and implies it has an independent existence of some kind when in reality it is a behaviour......
----------
I was so pleased that many of the assessments of the "mental health professionals" in this programme turned out to be totally wrong. Well, not wrong but meaningless.
They couldn't say which ones had "mental illnesses" because none of them does and no one does.
But it's not necessarily their fault. They are too victims of pseudo-science and oppressed by the system that they are part of.
The conclusions are obvious as pointed out in an excellent Big Issue article.
Hopefully such people can do what they surely want to do: help people.
10 November 2008
Reading
I am reading two very interesting pamphlets that I got at the Anarchist Bookfair.
"The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism".
"Fascism and Anti-Fascism".
Absolutely fascinating and high quality as everything usually is at the Anarchist Bookfair.
"The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism".
"Fascism and Anti-Fascism".
Absolutely fascinating and high quality as everything usually is at the Anarchist Bookfair.
9 November 2008
People do not equal their deeds
I firmly believe that people do not equal their deeds.
I firmly believe that people can make mistakes.
People are free and free to make mistakes.
Due to stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding.
----
I speak as someone who regards himself as having done awfully wrong things.
I didn't a) set out to do the wrong thing;
b) necessarily think that I was doing the wrong thing - though I now see it was the wrong thing.
I did what I did through stupidity not necessarily malice.
And were there malice, I am so sorry.
......
I firmly believe that people can make mistakes.
People are free and free to make mistakes.
Due to stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding.
----
I speak as someone who regards himself as having done awfully wrong things.
I didn't a) set out to do the wrong thing;
b) necessarily think that I was doing the wrong thing - though I now see it was the wrong thing.
I did what I did through stupidity not necessarily malice.
And were there malice, I am so sorry.
......
Remembrance Sunday Quote
An interesting quote for Remembrance Day:
"The law of the state is that to save the state even the innocent must be sacrificed....
the death of a single man is an event more important and more tragic than the death of a state or an empire."
Nicholas BERDYAEV. 1946.
Quoted in "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" by Peter Marshall.
http://www.petermarshall.net/
-------
Like so many I tend towards the view that World War One was a tragic waste - that all sides were rapacious empires and that it was an immoral war - but that in contrast World War Two was possibly necessary.
[Bertrand Russell, for example, went to prison for his opposition to World War One, but later came to support World War Two because of the nature of the enemy....]
However, it is perhaps not entirely mistaken to regard the years from 1918-1939 as merely a pause in the fighting, as a French thinker asserted. (Must find the quote).
...
---------------------
I am opposed to the idea that music or any art form is an "industry".
....
"The law of the state is that to save the state even the innocent must be sacrificed....
the death of a single man is an event more important and more tragic than the death of a state or an empire."
Nicholas BERDYAEV. 1946.
Quoted in "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" by Peter Marshall.
http://www.petermarshall.net/
-------
Like so many I tend towards the view that World War One was a tragic waste - that all sides were rapacious empires and that it was an immoral war - but that in contrast World War Two was possibly necessary.
[Bertrand Russell, for example, went to prison for his opposition to World War One, but later came to support World War Two because of the nature of the enemy....]
However, it is perhaps not entirely mistaken to regard the years from 1918-1939 as merely a pause in the fighting, as a French thinker asserted. (Must find the quote).
...
---------------------
I am opposed to the idea that music or any art form is an "industry".
....
6 November 2008
Orwell's Art
"What I have most wanted to do… is to make political writing into an art."
George Orwell.
http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/
---------
We must guard against the institutionalisation of Orwell and his work.
That would be the ultimate irony. "Big Brother George" is watching you....
.....
George Orwell.
http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/
---------
We must guard against the institutionalisation of Orwell and his work.
That would be the ultimate irony. "Big Brother George" is watching you....
.....
5 November 2008
Voting and anarchism
At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism."
(Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19)
I fundamentally disagree with this. It's not true for a start.
- If I vote I am not surrendering any power I may have. I am merely voting.
Voting emphatically does not "legitimise government"; voting emphatically does not "divert attention from grassroots action". I am merely voting: It only takes a few moments.
I am not necessarily "consenting to let someone act for me rather than acting myself."
I am merely voting. I can still act for myself in any way I want. If I didn't vote I would still be in the same situation.
.....
I am not transferring my will and decisions. I am merely voting. If only as a tactic.
- What if voting helps secure the ultimate objective of achieving freedom?
- Voting is not compulsory.
(Though I think that voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory).
- If I don't vote, nothing will change.
If I don't vote nothing whatsoever will actually be achieved by my action of not voting.
No political government system that involves voting ever dissolved itself because not enough people voted in total. Low turnout does not mean that no one wins.
Low turnout won't mean that voting is abolished.
.....
- Whereas if I do vote I have the chance of changing things if only slightly.
Yes I agree with anarchism and I don't want government.
But I see voting as a door opening to achieve more freedom rather than as a door closing on the prospect of freedom....
At the least voting is just a tactic among many.
A tactic that should not necessarily be rejected.
....
-----------------
Anyway, if Chomsky votes "occasionally" and says that it's a good idea "to chose the lesser of two evils" and vote for the more progressive candidate then that's good enough for me!
Now that's surrendering to authority :)
.....
(Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19)
I fundamentally disagree with this. It's not true for a start.
- If I vote I am not surrendering any power I may have. I am merely voting.
Voting emphatically does not "legitimise government"; voting emphatically does not "divert attention from grassroots action". I am merely voting: It only takes a few moments.
I am not necessarily "consenting to let someone act for me rather than acting myself."
I am merely voting. I can still act for myself in any way I want. If I didn't vote I would still be in the same situation.
.....
I am not transferring my will and decisions. I am merely voting. If only as a tactic.
- What if voting helps secure the ultimate objective of achieving freedom?
- Voting is not compulsory.
(Though I think that voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory).
- If I don't vote, nothing will change.
If I don't vote nothing whatsoever will actually be achieved by my action of not voting.
No political government system that involves voting ever dissolved itself because not enough people voted in total. Low turnout does not mean that no one wins.
Low turnout won't mean that voting is abolished.
.....
- Whereas if I do vote I have the chance of changing things if only slightly.
Yes I agree with anarchism and I don't want government.
But I see voting as a door opening to achieve more freedom rather than as a door closing on the prospect of freedom....
At the least voting is just a tactic among many.
A tactic that should not necessarily be rejected.
....
-----------------
Anyway, if Chomsky votes "occasionally" and says that it's a good idea "to chose the lesser of two evils" and vote for the more progressive candidate then that's good enough for me!
Now that's surrendering to authority :)
.....
Over the Moon!
I am over the moon about the election result!
Cockahoop!
Proof that voting is worth it!
This change is momentous.
It would be so even if it were only symbolic.
And it is obviously far more than just symbolic change.
Some may say it makes no difference.
Look at what the alternative to Obama was and you'll soon realise that cannot be true.
Cockahoop!
Proof that voting is worth it!
This change is momentous.
It would be so even if it were only symbolic.
And it is obviously far more than just symbolic change.
Some may say it makes no difference.
Look at what the alternative to Obama was and you'll soon realise that cannot be true.
4 November 2008
What's wrong with shagging sheep?
What's wrong with shagging sheep anyway?
It's legal in Denmark.
Between consenting parties.
It's legal in Denmark.
Between consenting parties.
2 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)