All we have to show the public is how to cheat at the shell game of
psychiatry, if we do that, then anyone can get ahead. If the public
still chooses to accept psychiatry then they do so at their own
perils.
Everyone wants to change the world, nobody wants to change
themselves - Leo Tolstoy

--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozarkheretic"
<ozarkheretic@...> wrote:
>
> Most of us agree that Szasz has shown that "mental illness is a
> myth". That is to say, that the mental illnesses that people are
> supposed to have are not in fact "illnesses". (Some of the mental
> illnesses may be illneses, but the criteria for determining that
> they are illnesses have not been met.) The problems are not
medical
> problems. They are problems of a different kind. Szasz has
> referred to them as problems in living. They involve learning
about
> life and ourselves and other people, and they involve making
choices
> about what to do in life. Do we take the main roads in life or do
> we take the paths less travelled, or do we mix it up? (Is that
even
> a good analogy?) Taking the main roads will usually get you
> somewhere faster and safer, maybe, and that is nothing to sneeze
> at. Taking the path less travelled is often what an idiot does.
> (Do you agree with that?) What work do we do, either because it is
> what we want to do or because we don't have much of a choice?
Well,
> let's back up - are we even going to work? Who will be our
> friends? How do we find friends? Will we marry? Will we have
> families? How are we going to "fit" into the scheme of things? We
> face endless questions about life. We probably make good choices
> sometimes and we probably make bad choices sometimes.
>
> Who can truly disagree with that perspective? But a part of the
> forgoing description of living is the fact that there is
competition
> for many of the things that we choose. Competition is part of
> life. Some people compete fairly and some people compete
> ruthlessly. (Of course, we would argue about that, too.)
Dominance
> is part of life. Master and slave relationships. (Some of us may
> not be inclined to own slaves or control people, but it is part of
> of the social structure we exist in.)
>
> So Szasz is correct but... if you join him in trying to expose the
> ruthlessness and brutality of the coercive psychiatric state, you
> have to realize that you may be treated as an enemy by the people
> who favor and make their (nice) livings in upholding the
thereapetic
> state. If you do not believe as those who either deliberately
> support the therapeutic state or acquiesce to it, you will suffer
> the consequences. What are the consequences? They range from the
> very trivial to the most dire consequences. People will say you
are
> a trouble-maker, women may say that you, for example, are too
> strange and you will never get in their pants, men may say of you,
> if you are a woman, that you are mentally ill (!), and so on, and
> finally the guys who really have the power may get you committed -
> for your own good, of course, to help you get your mind right.
>
> What to do? If you can't beat them, should you join them? You
know
> that some people need to be hospitalized for their own good, and
> sometimes some people who probably shouldn't be put in the mental
> hospital are. But so what? Powerful people are sometimes going to
> be a little excessive. Hey, they don't bother you. This scenario
> reminds of affirmative action (racial discrimination against white
> people). Why should you care if some white person is racially
> discriminated against by the big shots who tell you they know what
> is best and they are making society more diverse and sometimes it
is
> necessary to sacrifice someone? Those guys get to make their nice
> salaries running the affirmative action programs and if some white
> person is treated unfairly, so what? I think there is a parallel.
> But I digress.
>
> What to do? Resist? How? One would like to know why the people
> who are the victims of the mental-health thought police don't
> complain. Of course, some do. Why risk your life for people who
> won't risk their lives to protect themselves? Is the answer that
in
> protecting people (who won't fight for themselves), you are
> protecting yourself?
>