The cult that is psychiatry:
 
 
Before we start getting into detail it is always important to remember that not everything is Black and White. Of course this puts us at immediate odds to the psychiatric profession and it's religious like belief in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, the DSM.
 
One indication that someone has a potential psychological problem is if they are only able to think in Black and White terms. The reason why some people more than others have some need to think in very Black and White terms is that fundamentally, they are very insecure about their view of the World, and because of this, they have an need to insist the World is the way they see it, and they want everyone else to be the same as that will make them OK and secure.
 
So psychiatrists like to think in Black and White terms. Another group of people who like to think very much in Black and White terms are those of a strong religious conviction. This is not an accidental similarity.
 
We will examine religion at a later point. But at this point it is worth mentioning that there is a difference between God, the religion and the Church.
 
Consider. When does a cult become a religion = when enough people join.
 
Psychiatry has many of the elements of a cult. There is an initiation and then an invitation to join. The narrow and slavish business of learning and repeating parrot fashion, data that is mostly concocted with no scientific basis. But again, we have to be careful about not falling into the trap of looking at psychiatry in Black and White. There are many areas of psychiatry that do have some value it's just that unfortunately psychiatry has become corrupted by vested interests in exactly the same way as we see religion have and are corrupted by the Churches who preach that religion. It's not a modern day feature of religions. It's always been like this.
 
Once you are a member of the psychiatric cult, only others of the same cult can associate with you when there is discussion about the rules and objects of the cult. For an outsider to question these rules and behaviors is to be dismissed as mentally ill. Even from within, if the rules and behaviors are questioned, then you will be ostracized. The cult reinforces it's beliefs by special gatherings called conferences where the ritual behavior is reinforced.
 
So where does psychiatry get it's power and social legitimacy from ? Well again we find the similarity with religions and the Church.
 
Historically, the Church has been a means of control of a population. Going back to the Middle Ages the The church played a role in politics. Church officials, kings, and nobles governed western Europe. Church leaders advised the king.
 
The parish priests told the people to respect the king, nobles, and other government officials.
 
The people were told to obey the king's law unless they went against church laws. People who disobeyed the pope or church laws lost their membership in the church. They would also lose their political rights.
 
 
The church became rich during the Middle Ages. Members gave the church 10% of their income.
Rich members gave money to build churches and gave land to the monasteries.
 
In the early 1960's the famous psychologist and lecturer, R.D.Lang stated that psychiatry was a mean of controlling the masses.
 
As I have already stated elsewhere, If a person breaks a criminal law, they can be arrested, charged and be taken to court. When they appear in court, there is the opportunity for the charged person to offer a defense, and a person or persons unconnected with the Police make the decision based on all the evidence put before the court if the charged person is innocent or guilty.
 
If a person behaves in a way which other people (who most likely have no understanding of the environment, context and history of the issues involved) deem to be not of a normal social behavior, then the person exhibiting the troubling behavior is deemed to be mentally ill often without any sound evidence to show that the person has a genuine mental illness.
 
But how much is such a view a convenient view for the individuals associated with the person exhibiting the troubling behavior. How much more easy for those who are exposed to the troubling behavior of the troubled person, to blame such behavior as some sort of fault of the troubled person. The label to such faults is termed a Mental Illness.
 
So now we have a pseudo power base to control those people who are not considered to be acting to what is required to meet a societal norm. What is never considered or discussed, is why they exhibited these problems in the first place.
 
The reason why these originating problems are never discussed as that to discuss them, would be to lay bare how the person so afflicted with the troubling behavior was a victim of the very society that condemns the individual as mentally ill.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So there is a huge governmental impetus for a government to use psychiatry as a means of social control and thus to cover up the failures of that very society.
 
Of course with the advent of an overblown and profit driven pharmaceutical industry that has direct ties to government and a pharmaceutical industry that has no moral compass, that then has no problem in falsifying experimental results, bribing doctors and other influential people all in the interests of profits with no consideration of the well being of the people who take such medications.
 
We are in fact describing an abhorrent system of control of which the psychiatrist is a willing participant.
 
Of course this is a generalization as there is much good work and research undertaken, but observation will demonstrate that this good work is often kept in the shadows.
 
What I am stating, is that on balance, psychiatry as it is implemented, should be abolished and replaced by a system that is more directly in tune with the real basis of human behavior and what it is to be human.
 
It is a mistake for the anti-psychiatry brigade to completely negate everything that psychiatry does.
 
As an illustration:
 
If someone works in a polluted noisy factory environment, with dangerous and poisonous chemicals in the air, then if the worker takes an aspirin, then may ameliorate the pounding headache.

But does that mean the aspirin was the answer to the
problem ?
 
Is it the aspirin that is the problem ?
 
Is not the real answer to get another job in a more healthy environment ?

The analogy is very close to the situation many people find themselves in.
They live in and/or have had a toxic life and are reacting as any ill person would.

Sure, the aspirin can be a temporary help, but that is all it should ever be.

It should not become the answer.

But of course, in this example, there are many vested interests who have a financial incentive to keep the toxic factory going in order to keep themselves in the lap of luxury, a luxury that was only as a result of chance – see free choice.