The Contrived 'Difference'
By Patricia Lefave, admitted Monophrenic

If the mental illness system does not have to come up with concrete proof that what I 'claim' happened to me did NOT happen, then why should I have to come up with concrete proof that it did?1
Do you know why the system likes the idea of a “mental health court”? Because the premise of that court, which many call simply the Kangaroo Court, is the opposite of a lawful court which, is aimed at least, at the concept of “justice for all.”
In the legal court room of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as in the court rooms of other countries based on the same concept, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In the 'other' courtroom for those who are 'mentally ill' we are presumed to be mentally ill (guilty) unless we can 'prove' we are not. We will not be able to “PROVE” that since the mental illness profession is NOT based on concrete evidence but rather on vague, ambiguous unprovable abstract notions of 'illness,' delivered to the identified patent in absolute terms.

I.E: if you think you are not sick that proves you ARE sick, since crazy people believe they are not sick.2
This kind of reasoning, which is not based on reason at all, but on emotional reactions, is a tautological (circular) argument. It is not however applied to everyone as a form of assessment but only to those who have already been targeted FOR assessment before the assessment even begins. The argument is a snare trap that the identified patient will not be able to see, or even suspect is there, until AFTER it is done. It is more of an ambiguous word game than anything else but even many psychiatrists don't see it. The 'them and us' mentality3 used as the premise of thought has much to do with that.
What of the rest of you; the undiagnosed? Or the yet to BE diagnosed?
Are YOU mentally ill?
Yes or no?
If you see yourself as just like me, the result derived from your answer to that question will be the same for you, as it is for me. The ONLY way it can be made to seem to be 'different' is if you split reality into a premise of “them and us” to justify the idea you are about to impose on the 'other' BEFORE the assessment even begins.
The person on the receiving end could not be able to see that coming as he or she would have to know something before they could possibly know it. That is why this kind of power works. The only people who have any chance of seeing that coming, even partially, are those who have had the same kind of experience on the conceptional, or psycho spiritual level at least, with someone before,4 and who have managed to escape from it, without being totally destroyed by it.
Someone like me, or perhaps a survivour of the Holocaust or some other form of group abuse, invalidation, of being overpowered, ignored, trapped, isolated, dismissed, denied and controlled. Fascism takes over by degrees and it depends upon the masses accepting such things a little at a time. If you accept a 'different' court system for 'THEM' the assumption in that is that YOU will never be in THAT other system since you are NOT one of THEM.
Sociopaths really love that about you. Your 'them and us' beliefs make it easier for them to control you, as they know just what you want to hear. There is that standard belief of the sociopath that many of you normal people share with them isn't there? Which one?
This one, “You can't really be a victim unless you choose to be.” (wink, nudge)
It is a sociopath favourite because they can use it to justify what they do to you. It is marvellously self serving for them. You see 'them and us' may well be an illusion but it is an illusion that WORKS for as long as there are True Believers in It who will enable and support it. Smoke and mirrors is smoke and mirrors, but if you don't KNOW it is all smoke and mirrors, you will accept it as reality.
So you who are not like me and who consider yourselves to be normal, tell me:
“Do you think you are mentally ill”?
All of my psychiatrists also tell me please: “Do you believe that you are mentally ill”?
What is the sane and normal answer to that question; the definitive answer, the competent medical answer, provable in a real courtroom where you can get sued for malpractice if you can't prove your case?
Should you be presumed to be guilty of malpractice in such a case if you can't prove otherwise? Or are you going to be in the 'other' courtroom where you are presumed to be innocent unless the other party can prove you guilty?
Should psychiatrist and psychiatrized be in the SAME courtroom (either one) and treated the same way? Or should we be in two DIFFERENT courtrooms, in different systems with opposite/split premises of 'proof' required, or not required?
Should I have a little ECT applied to make me stop asking such annoying questions of people who simply don't have the time put up with it? Will you call my refusal to accept the outcome of this contrived group experience my 'obsessing'? If so, will that justify your action, or your inaction?
Enquiring minds all over the city want to know. They are still watching and getting all the latest from the psych hospital, despite your ongoing and complete denial of the group phenomenon.
Should I understand that you are those who are focused on controlling/defining me and all those like me, as quickly and efficiently as any other business producing a marketable product (or item if you prefer)?
Am I the consumer to you, or just the product?
I feel more like the consumed.

I am a person.

Look for the hidden meaning in that.



1 The bits of concrete proof offered have not been accepted anyway. They have been ignored and suppressed.
2 What do sane people believe?
3 If you are not 'like me' then a different set of standards and judgements can be applied.
4 We learn from life by seeing patterns of experience and behaviour





For more posts on this topic please go to my website CounterPsych.com