Bibliography

  • "The Myth of Mental Illness", Thomas Szasz, 1961.
  • "The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement", Thomas Szasz, 1970.
  • "Schizophrenia: The Sacred Symbol of Psychiatry", Thomas Szasz, 1976.
  • "Anti-Freud - Karl Kraus' Criticisms of Psychiatry", Thomas Szasz, 1976.
  • "The Theology of Medicine", Thomas Szasz, 1977.
  • "The Myth of Psychotherapy", Thomas Szasz, 1978.
  • "Insanity - the Idea and its Consequences", Thomas Szasz, 1987.
  • "Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market", Thomas Szasz, 1992.
  • "The Meaning of Mind: Language, Morality and Neuroscience", Thomas Szasz, 1996.
  • "Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide", Thomas Szasz, 1999.
  • "Faith in Freedom", Thomas Szasz, 2004
  • "The Medicalisation of Everyday Life", Essays by Thomas Szasz, 2007.
  • "Coercion as Cure: A Critical History of Psychiatry", Thomas Szasz, 2007.
  • "Psychiatry: the Science of Lies", Thomas Szasz, 2008.
  • "Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared", Thomas Szasz, 2009.
  • "Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine", Thomas Szasz, 2011.
  • "Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good", James Davies, 2013.

The Manifesto would not be a novelty but a reversion to the STATUS QUO!

The implementation and/or adoption of the Szasz Manifesto and its principles would not in any way be a novelty - but a reversion to the STATUS QUO of cultural norms that existed (and still does for some lucky cultures!) - all over the world before around 1890 or so perhaps.

"If you knew your history, you would know where you were coming from !...."

"Mental Illness" is an ethnocentric concept.
 Or perhaps an ERACENTRIC concept is more accurate.

The author of The Psalms would be "imprisoned - for an illness" under our current utterly unenlightened cultural paradigm.
We are medicalising everyday life. We must stop doing so.

CitizenSofa commented on
Nelson Mandela 'fake' interpreter admitted to psychiatric hospital.
20 Dec 2013:

"Schizophrenia" was invented in Darkest Switzerland in the 1880s.
It does not exist.

It is part of a European-in-origin crime against humanity called "Psychiatry".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chap concerned may believe that his odd or mistaken behavior is a "symptom" of an "illness".

Well how can that be ?
On its own terms!

I think he believes that because a culture told him that this was the explanation.
You can be sure it was not a native African culture that told him that that was the explanation!




2+2=4. Mental Illness DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXIST.

2+2=4.

Mental Illness DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXIST.

Please can we start Mathematics now?

I wish this was not an appropriate post but of course - SADLY - it is.




Medicine must remain free of ALL COERCION.

A great immorality that we are dealing with here is the totally evil and mistaken belief that Medicine of any kind can - in ANY context - have any moral right to use force, compulsion or coercion of ANY kind.

The belief that Medicine can encompass violence - in reality the exact opposite of Medicine -  is one of the most dangerous beliefs in human history.

The State has no role in compelling people to receive ANY medical treatment.

The Separation of State and (Fisical) Medicine [disregarding (voluntary) State Provision] must be maintained.

This has recently been threatened in the U.K.

Part of the threat does come from the crime that is "Psychiatry".

................

"The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry"

"The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry (Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy)" 
has recently been published and was on-sale in Foyle's (Medicine Section) today - Tuesday 10th December 2013.

It mentions "guru" Szasz in the index several times which is practically miraculous to me!

I do however find the book and the title to be disgracefully wrong and offensive.

"Mental Illness" is SELF-EVIDENTLY a bankrupt concept.

This book is also self-evidently pointless and bankrupt therefore.

I suppose it is for newly qualified Shrinks to feel a bit more intellectual.

The "shrink" or equivalent of the future will - in my ideal version of the future - simply need or have "The Handbook to Filosofy" and nothing else!.....

I would compare it to the title "Philosophy and Bullying and Poisoning" or; "Philosophy and Mass Murder"; or "Philosophy and Tarot Cards"...... or.......



Susan Boyle has "autism"/"Asparagus" syndrome, does she? Yeah Az If!!!!

Susan Boyle has "autism"/"Asparagus" syndrome, does she?

If she is "unaware" emotionally or in some other way of me and my existence - then why does she seem to be trying to take my heed off with her excellent mezzo-soprano voice?

She does not have "autism", the poor dear, because no one does.

It does not exist.

The people who told her or anyone that they have "autism" - and no one, no matter their money nor power (the same thing nowadays) is immune from this bullshit - are wicked idiotic bullies!.

"Freedom is absolutely necessary for progress".

"Freedom is absolutely necessary for progress in science and the liberal arts."

Benedictus Spinoza.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A "Citizen Sofa" Comment on recent new scientific "research".

RE:
"Older fatherhood: something interesting for society to consider."
23 August 2012. The Guardian.

This article is non-scientific. The so-called data involved is totally compromised by the fact that there are no such things whatsoever as "schizophrenia" nor "autism".

A point that my conscience as well as extreme obviousness compels me to continue to make is that "MENTAL ILLNESS" SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

To fill in the blanks - that even a "BLANKETY BLANK" contestant should be able to fill in - the D.N.A. data referred to in the article is totally meaningless because it is qualified as being from people who have totally non-existent "conditions" / "illnesses" / "diseases".

Freedom of speech is more or less an absolute for me.

You have to take the rough with the smooth. As Father Ted said. About something else.......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the term "Mental Disorder".

A few words on the terminology "MENTAL DISORDER".

"Mental disorder" is usually an exact synonym for "mental illness".

Like "mental illness" it simply does not exist.

To call a thort, a belief, a feeling, a behavior, a misbehavior or such like (anything non-fisical), a "disorder", is simply an (arbitrary) opinion regarding it. It implies - above all - DISAPPROVAL.
As of course does the term "mental illness".
Moral disapproval is not principally the task of Medicine.
Disapproval is mainly the arena of someone - anyone - who has a (moral) opinion.

A doctor can and should disapprove and approve of behaviors on the grounds that they could detrimentally affect (fisical) health; or enhance (fisical) helth respectively.
He certainly cannot enforce any behavior. Nor should he.

Part of his job is indeed to recommend a patient to desist from behavior or recommend behaviors.
Thus he can approve and disapprove of behaviors.
But this is not a moral question. It is a fisical health question only.
The Medical doctor's first task is FIRST - DO NO HARM.

"Disorder" is sometimes a (Fisical) Medical term.
For example one can talk of a disorder of the respiratory system or a disorder of the urinary system.

To use it in a fake branch of what remains of Medicine - the crime called "Psychiatry" - is an abuse of it.

The use of the word "disorder" in this context ("mental disorder") is, like so much else in this matter (and elsewhere nowadays) an abuse of language; and an abuse of the English language in this case.

And an abuse of every other language in which its equivalent is employed to - often deceitfully - translate the word "illness".

The media is awash with discussions of "eating disorders".

Let's be clear at the start - a behavior is not an ILLNESS.

A behavior can be disordered. But this would be an opinion.

"Disorder" in this question implies that there is a normal and helthy way to eat.
Well, broadly speaking there indeed is.

An eating behavior that is unregulated and out of control is indeed "disordered".

The thing is, the clear implication of "Psychiatry"'s involvement is that people have no choice.

The tragedy is that their choice is the only thing that can help them. It is indeed what must be causing the problem.

This medicalisation of behaviors is extremely harmful as a conception of problematic behaviors.

I have already discussed this question elsewhere.

If one's eating behavior is a problem - show me any other way to change it but by one's free choice, as a solution to the problem?

To call it an "illness"/"disorder" is to imply that one has no choice but to behave in a specific way.
This is such a harmful lie. Obviously so.

And of course - how can the belief that one has no control over one's behavior do anything else but encourage it and make the undesired behavior worse?

.........

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

'Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.' 

William Gladstone.

Justice has tarried for far too long for the millions of people DIAGNONSENSED by the CRIME that is "Psychiatry".


About Me

My photo
I am an amateur FILOSOFER. (I am not really a sofa). I dropped out of Cambridge University though I got an "S" grade in the entrance examination. I eventually received a 1st class Bachelors degree elsewhere. I received A.H.R.B. funding to pursue postgraduate study, but did not do so. Please enjoy my blogs. To parafrase Orwell, I am trying to make political blogging into an art. My intellectual heroes are Kenan Malik, Thomas Szasz and Noam Chomsky. I have made some mistakes in my life - and I would like to apologize wholeheartedly and from the depths of my cushions for any problems I may have caused and may be causing for anyone anywhere.