The reason so many of us seem to be walking contradictions is simply that we never recognize inconsistencies for what they are. …
There’s nothing wrong with you; you don’t need to be “fixed.” (And I suggest you avoid anyone who uses these metaphors to describe you!) The resources you need to change anything in your life are within you right now.i
—Anthony Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within (1991)
What would you do if you were diagnosed with “cancer” and told you that you had no hope of surviving it? Would you obey that doctor’s instructions? Or would you seek another opinion? What if you went to a handful of doctors who all said the same thing? Would you then decide to obey? And most importantly, would you value your right to decide for yourself what to do?
What if they all told you that you were going to deteriorate, and that you had no right to choose? What would you do?
In asking such questions, we are now considering the precious, life-saving value of disobedience. To illustrate this value, let’s start with a brief comparison of two different groups of people—one presented by Doctor Andrew Weil, the other by Psychotherapist Seth Farber. All of these people were diagnosed with crippling and fatal conditions, and all “disobeyed” conventional medical and psychiatric (allopathic) authorities, and did exactly what they were all told again and again was “impossible.” Then we shall dwell on the most extreme example of group two, Leonard Frank, as well as the pseudo-medical criteria used by the Ministry of Psychiatry to justify imprisoning him for nine months, electrocuting him thirty-five times, as well as giving him fifty induced comas—and still with only temporary success of “controlling his symptoms.”
Doctors of The American Medical Association (AMA) diagnosed the people of the first group as having biologically verifiable diseases, such as cancer, that they would either be disabled and/or dead very soon, and that there really wasn’t anything they could do about it. But the patients had the legal right to decide for themselves what to do. Since then, with the help and guidance Doctor Weil, a lot of persistence and hard work—literally a rearranging of their whole lives—they all either greatly improved or completely healed their conditions; they all did what is known to be impossible by the priests of modern allopathic medicine.
Psychiatrists of The American Psychiatric Association (APA) diagnosed the people of the second group as having biologically unverifiable diseases, such as schizophrenia, that they would all eventually be totally disabled, and that they had no legal right to decide what to do about it. Yet, they managed to escape APA by first playing the role of “confessing schizophrenic” (example: “Yes sir, I do know that I am a decrepit little schizophrenic, and I definitely do need and want psychiatric care and salvation!”) Once authorities were convinced of the victims’ firm state of obedience, that they would continue taking their “meds” if released, they were released. They then fled for their lives. Since then, with the help and guidance of Psychotherapist Farber, they too have all improved or “healed” their troubled situations; they all did what is “forbidden,” and thus known to be impossible by the priests of modern allopathic medicine.
Why are people who have objective conditions granted basic human rights, while people who have metaphorical conditions are denied basic human rights? All of these people were diagnosed as being hopeless cases, and yet they all achieved what was declared impossible by the allopathic orthodoxies of AMA and APA. Because all freedom-loving people take it for granted that anyone should have the right to accept or refuse medical treatment as they see fit, let us now review the case of Leonard Roy Frank to see what clues we can discern.
To give you Leonard’s story in a nutshell, in the 1950’s he graduated from college, spent a couple of years in the army because of the draft, and then had a string of real-estate jobs, which he felt had become drab, lifeless, and provided him no satisfaction. In Leonard’s own words: “Like so many people with my background in that area, I was striving to ‘make it’. In terms of my goals in life, I was a fifties ‘yuppie’.”ii By 1959, when he was twenty-seven years old, he began to undergo a change. He started to see life a little differently, and began developing new interests. As he put it: “… I became aware of the absurdity of my situation …”iii Losing all interest in real-estate, he eventually lost his job, which he saw as a perfect opportunity to take advantage of what he had been raised to believe was his constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his happiness. He decided to take a vacation from purely “thing” oriented activities and dove into prolonged private study of less tangible subjects that he found of most interest and importance. He did this until 1962, when his parents finally gave up visiting and pleading with him to return to being his former “empty shell” of a self, and had him committed. They couldn’t stand his prolonged lapse from his conformance to the norm; a stereotype that he felt he had become; the character or image they respected. Because he wasn’t being as they wanted him to be, there must be something wrong with him, or so they felt. And that’s all that is really required—a more economically viable family member who can sign a form.
In his interview with Farber in 1991, Leonard explained: “They said I was a ‘psychotic’, more specifically a ‘paranoid schizophrenic’, a term psychiatrists reserve for the most dangerous ‘crazies’, the serial murderers and people out of touch with ‘reality’. My psychiatric records, which I obtained 12 years later in 1974, reported some of the ‘symptoms’ they used to justify locking me up and hanging that label on me.”iv And as mentioned already, please keep firmly in mind that for earning this label, he was imprisoned for nine months, electrocuted thirty-five times, and given fifty induced comas. These symptoms, he went on to list …
… included: not working, withdrawal, growing a beard, becoming a vegetarian, “bizarre behavior”, “negativism”, “strong beliefs”, “piercing eyes”, and “religious preoccupations”. The medical examiner’s initial report said that I was living the “life of a beatnik—to a certain extent.”v
Compare this with some of the criteria used by the Thoughtpolice to segregate lunatics/thoughtcriminals in Orwell’s 1984, published in 1949:
The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. … to wear an improper expression on your face … was itself a punishable offense. … facecrime, it was called.vi
… to do anything that suggested a taste for solitude … was always slightly dangerous. … ownlife, it was called, meaning individualism and eccentricity.vii
Now with a leading psychiatrist and segregationist, Henry Maudsley, in 1873:
What are the bodily and mental marks of the insane temperament? [In some examples] … there are tics, grimaces, or other sporadic movements of muscles of face, eyelids, or lips … Stammering and defects of pronunciation … In other cases there are peculiarities of the eyes, which … have a vacillating movement, and a vacantly-abstracted, or half-fearful, half-suspicious, and distrustful look.viii
Finally, consider the 15th Edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1989 (after fetal brain tissue was first transplanted into the brain of a schizophrenic):
The general appearance and cooperation of the individual (e.g., neatness of clothing, evidence of personal hygiene, facial expressions, tone of voice, posture, presence of tics or other abnormal movements) provide evidence of contact with the environment and of possible neural disease. Signs of irritability, suspiciousness, hostility, suicidal depression, inattentiveness, or indifference are especially significant. Poverty of speech may signal depression; a continuous flow of words with punning or flight of ideas can mean manic excitement; senility is associated with repetitive and garrulous conversation, while speech is incoherent and rambling in delirium; strange new words … or high-sounding, apparently meaningless sentences often are observable in schizophrenia.ix
Isn’t it striking how similar they all are, even though they span from 1873 to 1989? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that these are simply lists of deviant behavior. For example, how can appearance and cooperation be an indicator of neural disease if a neurologist (a doctor of the nervous system) can’t find said disease because psychiatrists had to take a vote in order to know that it was a disease? Couldn’t a lack of cooperation mean that the person simply doesn’t want to? Perhaps the psychiatrist is being somewhat of a jackass. Poverty of speech may signal depression, or it may simply mean the person doesn’t feel like talking (perhaps because someone present is acting like a jackass). What about things such as a flow of words, punning, strange new words, or apparently meaningless sentences? Do these really refer to the observed, or can they simply reflect something about the observer? Strange or new to whom? These descriptions actually list facecrime, voicecrime, posturecrime, and even movementcrime as disease symptoms instead of what they really are: deviance from subjective expectations. How can irritability, hostility, depression, inattentiveness, and indifference be considered as somehow separate from the immense context that is the person’s life, relationships, and experiences? And speaking of the observer vs. the observed, the silliest sign of disease is without doubt suspiciousness. If a person is suspicious of others, it could be a sign that they’re paranoid, yet if the person is perceived by others as being suspicious, then it’s still a sign of their neural disease. No matter who perceives whom as suspicious, it’s always a symptom of the deviant’s metaphorical disease of the mind.
Don’t you find this whole matter rather suspicious?
Another superior illustration of pseudo-medical “robe-like” criteria is to consider the changing defin-itions of the terms psychopath and psychosis during roughly the same period (from 1874 to 1986) ac-cording to Oxford’s and Webster’s dictionaries (see Figure B, page 92). One can see from the usage of psychosis in 1874 (which, by the way, is a quote by Henry Maudsley) that psychotics were actually punished for being psychotic! (So naughty Ed would have been disciplined for accidentally slipping into full consciousness of his paradox?) One can also see that both terms could be summarized in 1956 with a single line, but thirty years later they had both expanded (like a fungus) into lengthy paragraphs of pseudo-medically objectified deviance. And most revealing is the fact that the psychopath was origin-ally recognized as simply morally irresponsible, which was known earlier as a sinner—as in one affected with sin. This would make one affected with psycho-pathy an objectified sinner, a secular heathen, or a thoughtcriminal.
As admitted by Lord Lawton L.J. of the British Court of Appeal in May of 1973:
Lord Denning M.R. and Orr L.J. have pointed out that there is no definition of ‘mental illness’. The words are ordinary words of the English language. They have no particular medical significance. They have no particular legal significance. How should the court construe them?x
The amazing thing about this admission is that after openly admitting the lack of medical and legal significance, he then asked how they could apply it legally anyway. This deserves repeating: A judge points out that a medical definition that is used to strip people of their legal rights has neither medical nor legal relevance, and then (as though he thought to himself: “Oops! Wasn’t supposed to say that!”) avoids the next most logical question: “So why are we applying it?” or “What’s it really all about?” Instead, he heads straight for “How can we contradict ourselves, and apply it anyway?”
Because Leonard was diagnosed with the rarest and most severe form of non-organic psychosis, it will only help to contrast his infliction with the most severe form of organic psychosis, Alzheimer’s. Alzheimer’s is a physical deterioration of the brain, and therefore takes the person’s thoughts, speech, and behavior along with it. Leonard’s deterioration, on the other hand, being non-organic, was only metaphor-ical. His “deterioration” from his former social status diseased his parents emotionally, threatened their stability, and thereby produced his disease of the mind.
Consider APA’s reversal between 1987 and 1994:
The distinction made between organic and non-organic psychoses … is strongly supported on clinical grounds. … Since most forms of mental disorders fall into the latter category … psychiatrists are unable to rely on laboratory tests to … confirm their diagnoses.xi
The term organic mental disorder is no longer used in DSM-IV [The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual] because it incorrectly implies that “nonorganic” mental disorders do not have a biological basis.xii
Are they kidding? There really is no longer any fundamental difference between Alzheimer’s and facecrime? Because we may accept as obvious that a person’s speech and behavior is related to what’s going on in their nervous system, we may then also accept as obvious that when said speech and behavior is suddenly declared to be “disorderly,” then they are still related to what is going on in the nervous system. This is not nor has it ever been the issue. The point is, and always has been, that non-organic conditions are unrelated to the nervous system in that there does not exist a single, re-producible laboratory test that can confirm their clinical existence.
The first paragraph from The Oxford Companion to the Mind (1987) admits the simple difference between neurological testing (Alzheimer’s) and psychiatric voting (facecrime). But the second, from APA’s own handbook seven years later, suddenly abandons this reality. As of 1994, APA adopted the belief that if they ignore this difference, it will simply not exist any longer. But alas, the difference remains in the world, it’s just forbidden to enter psychiatric consciousness. And by adopting this position, APA officially parallels the priestly segregation of biblical leprosy, which was one category including both diseases of the skin that made people multiple colors, and ritual impurities, which was whatever they voted on. (See The Oxford Companion to the Bible.)
By the way, according to Dr. Joel Wallach, in 1957 people discovered how to prevent Alzheimer’s in pigs using nutrition. Since then there has been a great decline in Alzheimer’s in farm and zoo animals, while at the same time, every other American who reached the age of seventy in the 1990’s developed it.xiii You see, animals with diseases are not profitable, but people with diseases are very profitable.
Or am I just being paranoid?
i Pgs. 127 & 129.
ii Farber, p. 191. Listen to Leonard Frank at www.youtube.com
iv Ibid, italics added.
vi P. 54, bold and italics added.
vii P. 70, italics added.
viii Porter, p. 95, bold added.
ix V. 24, p. 843-44, bold added.
x Porter, p. 193, italics added.
xi OCM, p. 466, 471.
xii DSM-IV, p. 123.
xiii Wallach, 1995.