»The Reason I Rant Against Antipsychiatry«

Telling a mentally ill person there is no such thing as mental illness is like telling a black person there is no racism.

Based on everything I've experienced, read, heard and seen, I believe mental illness is not neurobiological but rather emotional. This is borne out by research which shows, for example, that mental illnesses are better treated with counselling than with drugs.

In part, it's a terminology issue.

And, Holy, I wouldn't be caught dead cavorting with a bunch of scientologists and/or movie stars

Well that dumb. That's like saying, "Blood isn't crimson, it's scarlet." What do you think emotions are, ghosts? Or magic powers? Emotions are neurobiological processes occurring in the nervous organ known as the brain.

You are getting your information about mental illness second-hand, through political activist leaders like Thomas Szasz and R.D. Laing. Unless your name is followed by an "M.D." or "Ph.D." you are not qualified to question the scientific establishment like Szasz and Laing do. No reputable physician or scientist will ever take you seriously without scientific or medical credentials; I can tell you this first-hand, having grown up in the scientific community and having refused to participate in upper-level science classes because I found them insulting. Thus no physician or scientist takes my ideas on science seriously now, nor will they ever.

Let me put it to you this way, dear: my theory of mammalian evolution from dinosaurs is more likely to become widely accepted in the scientific and political circles that determine national policy than is the idea that major mental illness is better treated by counselling than medication.

So really you are tilting at windmills, Francesca. Why are you doing this? I can tell you why. You had bad experiences with psychiatry and are now prosecuting an information vendetta, which is really a failed endeavor from the start, as you should have gleaned from the whole IMO experiment.

Get back to me when you start stockpiling weapons or making credible threats. That's a language I speak fluently.

No, it's all a terminology issue. You don't like the idea that a person who is hallucinating voices or slitting their wrists has an "illness." You prefer "emotional crisis."

But why should a person in such a desparate situation that they cannot make rational choices for themselves be forceably held or medicated until their condition stabilizes? Your fringe movement will answer with cries of "Unethical, immoral, illegal." What are ethics, morals, laws, compared to the machinery of a nation-state? Nations are born by force, and they die by force. The whole North American/European hegemony is currently dying by force from within, and I welcome it. The strong, who know how to operate the system, will survive. The weak (i.e. whiny protesters, political activists, fringe elements) will fall. And remember: the established order is united by privilege, while all the fringe groups like, for instance, antipsychiatry, Scientology, and psychoanalysis, just in the area of mental health, are disunited and at odds with each other.

In the Bible maybe David kills Goliath with a stone and a slingshot, but in the real world Goliath looks for the guy holding the slingshot and tears him a new asshole.

As far as I can tell, the whole antipsychiatry movement is an outgrowth of 1960's counterculture, when the American left was blowing its mind on pot and acid and convincing itself it was also ending the Vietnam War and creating peace on Earth, while the Viet Cong went about their violent business and ejected the American presence from the southern half of their country, thus ending the Vietnam war. Just because you like to pretend psychiatrists are intimidated by you, or that you are ending psychiatry, doesn't mean that you are doing so. And this time I don't see any Viet Cong that's going to end by force the thing you hate. You'll have to do it yourself, and I guarantee you the Canadian government has just as many protocols for dealing with insurgents as the US government does.

That's good because they don't want to hang out with you either. Officers are never supposed to fraternize with the enlisted soldiers under their command. That military metaphor brings up an interesting point: if you armed a bunch of mentally ill people (including psychopaths, they're mentally ill too) and put them on an island with a bunch of armed antipsychiatry activists, who do you think would win? The bloodthirsty rapists and serial killers, along with some normal mentally ill people, or the kind of people who organize protest marches and their tweedy academic gurus?
And don't call me Holy. Holy got taken out by some bad shit. Now you're talking to MindSlave.

My lawsuit is a credible threat against the psychiatric establishment.

Oh what a surprise. Just in my own experience of your tactics, you have altered an NPOV site to indicate that a researcher with whom you disagree should be prosecuted for hate crimes, threatened me with criminal prosecution when I insulted you, and now you reveal that you are engaged in a lawsuit against some psychiatric entity whom you believe has wronged you.

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Something about what happens when fringe radicals try to hijack the legal system to serve their own ends?