Wednesday, July 6, 2016 (Updated 1/31/17)

The Hoax of Mental Illness: Stick Out Your Thoughts And Say "Ahhh!"

How does one differentiate/diagnose an 'ill' thought from a 'well' thought? Is my desire to kill someone intrinsically 'ill'? Not if I'm defending myself or my family from someone with intent to murder. However, if I believe someone to have intent of murdering me but that person is behaving peacefully, then one can rightly diagnose my thoughts to kill as being caused by schizophrenia. We therefore see there is no such thing as an 'ill' thought, since an 'ill' thought is a 'well' thought in another setting, but we do see there is such a thing as schizophrenia, which is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and is treated with drugs.

Or put another way…

If I defend myself by killing someone who is trying to kill me, how does that though to kill differ from someone who has the same thought to kill but is suffering from schizophrenia, where the person he believes is trying to kill him is actually behaving peacefully? We therefore see there is no such thing as an 'ill' thought, since an 'ill' thought is a 'well' thought in another setting, but we do see there is such a thing as schizophrenia, which is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and is treated with drugs. By definition a thought can never be ill, only the physical brain can be ill. Thoughts are neither ‘well’ nor ‘ill’. Thoughts are merely representations of what we believe reality to be, and that perception of reality can be adversely affected by a neurological illness, not a mental illness. Medical science has no jurisdiction over thoughts.

One’s emotions, too, are representations of what we believe reality to be, whether the reality is based on internal stimuli or external stimuli. For example, feelings of paranoia can be based on concerns that are real or totally imagined, but an imagined concern cannot be called ill since the same paranoid feeling in another setting is ‘well’. If the police informs a citizen that there's a contract out on the citizen's life, then feelings of paranoia will assist the citizen to be wary of new acquaintances and strangers, and to avoid deserted locations, thereby enhancing the citizen's chances of living. If on the other hand the paranoid state is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, then such feelings are caused by a physical condition in the brain, not feelings. Emotions are neither ‘well’ nor ‘ill’. Emotions are merely representations of what we believe reality to be, and that perception of reality can be adversely affected by a neurological illness, not a mental illness. Medical science has no jurisdiction over emotions.

Of course situational paranoia as exhibited by the target of a contract killing, a soldier on a combat mission, or the staff of an intelligence agency's counterintelligence section, has a different origin than those who suffer from non-neurological continuum paranoia. Non-neurological continuum paranoia begins in childhood where the affected child’s reality constitutes daily horrific realities. These are the formative years that children distinguish from what is real and what is not real. Their reality has instructed the children to trust nobody, to be always on guard because they ’know’ from experience that people are waiting for any opportunity to physically abuse, sabotage, deride and ridicule them. Fortunately this is but a small number of children who suffer such physical and emotional abuse, but what if such abuse was the norm? Then non-neurological continuum paranoid behavior would be the norm, and persons exhibiting outgoing, trusting, behaviors would be the ones suffering from ‘mental illness’ because they can’t adjust to the dangerous realities of society.

We therefore see that those exhibiting non-neurological continuum paranoid personalities are quite well, since they have learned from their personal experiences when growing up as a child that reality is harsh and brutish. Calling their thought processes ‘ill’ is a misnomer at best, and a pejorative at worst that denies their emotional and physical trauma. The affected are quite ‘well’, their thoughts reflecting their formative experiences when a child.

Even critics of mental illness have failed to observe this basic principle of science. Dr. Thomas Szasz broke ground in 1961 with his psychiatry-bashing book The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct, seeing mental illness as the excuse a patient uses to evade life’s difficulties-expectations. Nowhere in the book, however, does Szasz mention why mental processes – thoughts and emotions – can’t be ill! Thoughts are reactions to the stimuli being received by the brain, and the stimuli being transmitted can be reality or unreality in the case of a brain affected by a chemical imbalance. Thoughts don't initiate themselves, they require stimuli and in rare cases the stimuli is faulty due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Therefore it is chemically induced faulty stimuli requiring the medical attention, not the thought.

Mental illness propagandists are Marxists, preparing for the new ‘liberated’ world, which necessitates involuntary incarceration of those who would upset Marxists’ plans. And as in all matters having to do with Marxist schemes, we have the false opposition ‘critics’ of mental illness. This false opposition tactic is what Marxists call the Scissors Strategy, in which the blades represent the two falsely opposed sides that converge on the confused victims, neutralizing true opposition to socialism, thereby allowing the advancement of socialism to the bewilderment of the true opposition.