spnation.org

I'm fully aware that the image here is rude, but my point is evident in that Lisa could've very well been objectified upon entering the mental health system where a protester that I met insisted that she needed to go, but she was instead held for seventeen days by the Scientologists before she died. I then realized that, by serendipity if you will, that Lisa offers us a perfect case example of the problem that exists with what is commonly referred to as "mental illness" and the means that's used as "treatment". The system is comprised to be of pure expedience, to not mince words. It's known that the concept is a social construct where there's a category of human cognitive ailment where a person will behave in bizarre fashions, maybe even equivalent to inebriated, but the person isn't drunk or "high" from taking an illicit substance (that's proportionate to the person's reaction, at least. It also could be obvious that a person is exaggerating in that aspect). A person could inadvertently hurt themselves or unintentionally hurt someone else (also to varied degree of intent and/or injury inflicted on someone).

In short and to the point, is that a person's behavior could be embarassing to family & friends, but (initially) not criminal. It is more common now, especially in the digital era where information about a perpetrator of a violent crime will be public within hours of an incident, that the person will be labeled as "mentally ill". Over the last few decades the term is associated more & more with violence. There is also a noticeable aversion to being considered as such and yet simultaneously it's become the only culturally accepted label to place on someone (even one who's committed no wrongdoing) and it's immediately associated with a person being inferior to everyone else. The person might be told exactly what rights they continue to have, but in any event it's accepted that whoever is in the person's immediate proximity is the authority of that aspect (if they can find the time, anyway).

So... On March 1, 2024 I was walking through my city on my way downtown and got distracted by people who appeared to be protesting and I asked them if they've ever read a specific book. They answered that they haven't. I told them that I have and that it's actually good. I told them that they should read it since it was associated with the entity that they were protesting. We talked back & forth a bit and as I was walking away the young man yelled out to me that I needed to see a psychiatrist and that I was mentally ill. It was at that very moment that the young man was no longer merely protesting, but engaging in an act of civil disobedience. The term he used is associated with violence and so subsequently the inevitable idea is that I would need to be restrained or incapacitated. (It's a vigilante posit.) So since the term that he labeled me while I was being broadcasted on a video feed that he controlled was intended to deem me as inferior to him, insinuating that I was committing some wrongdoing, implying that I'm unnecessarily violent, etc., ... I have a right to defend myself, and my reputation. So my going back there, even on the third time he pointed out that I was approaching him, is completely within my rights. (At any time all the young man needed to say to me is that he understood what I was saying to him and he'd figure out a way to incorporate the issue into his activism.)

I cover some of this in my "thetan.news" page; but I watched the video of when Jay was contacted by city police and it astounded me the way that he spoke to them. It was entirely opposite of the way he speaks to others and that tells me that the way he usually speaks to people is feigned while his behavior toward police is his true self. Engaging local city police in an issue which is decades old and where the protests consist of a handful of people is not reasonable. When the main lead protester is speaking to his live video feed audience about getting some "merch" to have available to sell them then the idea of him merely engaging in humanitarian, peaceful protesting is thrown out of the proverbial window.

I will link to the Wikipedia article, "Fundamental attribution error", here since it's applicable in this issue. A person who is upset, but not about the exact same thing as a protester is upset about, is stigmatized as being inferior and immature, etc., instead of being considered as having a valid point, is putting themselves at physical risk and then that in turn is frightening and yet people are going to insist that they just calm down and chat awhile about humans suffering. But I digress... I did need to point out here that in Lisa's case, she gave us the perfect example of risk to her of continued emotional/physical injury if she allowed herself to be admitted into psychiatric hospital treatment. Actually, I realized, it also eamplified an application of the rudimentary philosophy of "Theory of Forms" where the institution of "psychiatry" is brought up by protesters in a way that implies that it is a perfect system (or maybe if it's not then that isn't of their concern), when the absolute reality is that the system is rife with abuse, and always has been, which is really the crux of the whole issue. Lisa's case is our example and so let us play it out in a thought experiment of what might've happened to her upon entering a psychiatric hospital in a reasonable scenario...

The events that led up to Lisa being first admitted to the emergency room became public and inevitably the circumstances would've been noted in her admittance paperwork which many people would have access to while she was a patient. Although it would be ideal if all the hospital staff personnel were mature professionals, without one malicious employee among them, there is always possibility they all won't be. That idea may seem to be incredibly hurtful to hospital staff but in the human/social services field(s) it is customary to present possibilities from the outset. The people who work in the psychiatric system that are truly professional understand the possibility that there may be another that isn't so professional, but with that stated it could also be pointed out that with patients who are distressed and suffered trauma in their lives then there could be an unintentional slip or misspoke word, etc., that could be misconstrued by a patient, and could cause them to have an emotional outburst. The staff has authority to isolate and even restrain a psychiatric patient in a locked cell. That is a reality and the patient is not ever charged with any crime to where they'd be offered an attorney to represent them. A person in a psychiatric hospital has less rights than a criminal.

To address an argument that Lisa may not have been traumatized when she was younger (the "mental illness is just a type of disease" ideology aside here), but maybe it was the Scientologists themselves that traumatized her somehow, I would like to point out that she sought out the organization. She very well might have known a little about what their belief system was, and was a willing participant.† She was considered to be clear, and actually wasn't is really analogous to psychiatric care outcomes to where a person will be stable for a good period of time but some event or series of events will cause a mental breakdown ... at that point it's important that the distressed person's cognitive state isn't needlessly exacerbated. The psychiatric system is priced, and services rendered, according to socioeconomic status too, where a lower income person would be expected to submit to medication, receive minimal psychotherapy, and experience noticeable degradation in their quality of life. Side-effects of psychotropic medicines have been historically terrible, with weight gain being common. All too often a person will gain so much weight, so quickly, that by the time they are fully aware of their (new) problem it's to late for them to do anything except do their best to maintain their overall health. They have to accept a diminished quality of life and are at risk of being harassed and ridiculed. Their personal relationships with their family is forever changed. (They're scapegoated.)

When there's an outcry about Lisa being "held against her will" but in a dignified environment where access to her was strictly controlled, and then insist that she be forced into circumstances that the majority of protesters would avoid and vehemently deny ever needing, like it'd be something completely beneath them, is so hypocritical that only a complete moron would deny the contradiction. It all becomes obvious that the protesters desire to find some notoriety and the issue is a culturally acceptable, and even an esoteric niche, where the participants can experience a sense a self-worth & belonging & altruism that they'd refuse to give up at any cost. It'd be so helpful, if even out of sheer accident, that they'd protest against shock treatments. It'd be wonderful if we all could avoid the "it's bound to get worse before/rather than it gets better" on this subject since it's a serious issue for trauma-informed advocates, internationally.

† I mentioned the movie "The French Connection" to the protesters because in the movie the protagonist, (Gene Hackman's character), is a detective who's investigating heroin smugglers and they get him addicted to the drug. His friends have to lock him up in a decrepit, urban hotel room for a few days to wean him off. The point is that the "medical" way of treatment isn't always in a person's best interest. People have to have a better understanding of human physiology themselves to know that the word "patient" (a person in a hospital) and the word used as in: "be patient" aren't alike by mere coincidence. People who are introverted and timid (which is typical of those who've experienced trauma in their lives) can be convinced to sympathize with the medical staff in a hospital setting and give consent to taking medications that have atrocious side-effects. Psychiatry is experimental medicine with corporate interests involved. In the conflict of psychiatry and Scientology, it's the former that poses the greatest danger to low-income people and consists of a disproportionate representation of people of color. The other aspect is that oftentimes when people in the general public discuss the field they don't take into consideration the people diagnosed with "mental illness" in the prison system. Again, that is indictive of "Theory of Forms" where any of the exact details, or intricacies of an issue can be ignored by people in the general public when they engage in an argument (about other humans suffering).

See also: The Wikipedia article for "Fundamental attribution error".