Silenced here, but I will find a way.

Hello friends, you all will most likely not get to see this. I have been silenced on this site and deleted on the schizophrenia and schizoaffective forums for speaking my mind. I have time to waste posting a topic that will be deleted! If you DO get to see this, fellow anti-psychs, i will found a way to get the voices of the mentally ill and other victims of the system heard.
Goodbye, and good luck to all of you!
A few of my other posts have been allowed to stand for now, but I am most likely banned from posting.

Brutal. Ah, no wonder internet moderation is so popular, it gives us people an excuse to silence heretical mental patients, who are pretty much top of society's list of enemies. You must be hurt. I was hurt when I got banned from that ridiculous mutual admiration society of complete hypocrites, Mad In America, which is particularly harmful when patients like myself have been routinely silenced, ignored and given the silent treatment all my life, but they don't think or care about that, do they? Underneath all the humanitarian rhetoric and concern for "the mentally ill", people generally don't give a damn, they just want us to shut up and die, whilst pretending to hold the best interests at heart of those whose real interests suffer whilst they pursue what are actually their own interests. This is why we are treated so badly, why we are abused, tortured, poisoned, disabled, and if we still don't behave, treated like we don't exist.

As a general reminder, if anyone has an issue with a decision made by the mod team it is to be brought up through PM and not on the general forum.

Censorship, by definition is; supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society. Censorship has always been a topic of debate in not only America but also all over the world.

Check this out, it came up searching "censorship + psychiatry" first page !

I like putting random mixes of words in to search and finding cool stuff, below is paste and a link, check it out.

Many so called anti-psychiatry groups operate in ways that make them indistinguishable from psychiatry (or any other public institution). They have clear hierarchical power structures and use censorship. The Blue Panthers do not believe in censorship or leadership. We are a free and leaderless group. Nobody should have the power to decide for you what is or is not appropriate. Implicit in censorship is the message that someone’s thoughts and opinions are too dangerous for you to know about, and viewing you as an incompetent and fragile idiot one has to protect from “wicked” words and ideas. We do not believe in such a paternalistic system. Only you can make the decision over what is OK for you and take your own action.

http://bluepanthersparty.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-blue-panthers-party-on-censorship-and-leadership/

These guys from England are alright ,

http://bluepanthersparty.wordpress.com/tag/anti-psychiatry/

Awsome videos and writings, what do you think ?

Post them on here, the anti psych forum. If you feel more comfortable you can PM them to me. Possibly others in the anti psych forum with their own permission and disgreation. But Im willing to hear what you have to say, Im all ears. I like opinions.

Cheldwin, why did u get banned from madinamerica.com? what did u write tht was apparently so offensive? I've actually found madinamerica quite interesting and really strong views on the awfulness of psychiatry.???

Copy Cat, I love your post. I totally agree. Why do we have to have this hierarchy? I mean, fair enough if someone posts child porn or something but writing our beleifs on psychiatry should be allowed. We actually prob know *allot* more than most ppl about the harmfulness of psychiatry and there is info out ther how to taper off, if *we* don't give them the right info, something worse could happen. There should be free speech. It is definitely paternalistic, exactly like psychiatry in the first place "dr knows best, do what we say". Come on, this is not a fair rule for an anti psych forum. We *do* have allot of info about these subjects, we could even be experts on some of the stuff. So thank you, I totally agree with your post.

Devilock, it all started with a post I made about E Fuller Torrey. I described him as a rat in human form with a face that belongs on the front of a serial killer book and questioned his intentions (I believe Mr Torrey is deeply prejudiced against the "schizophrenics" and that his professions of "care and concern" are little more than a reaction formation against his sub-conscious hatred of "schizophrenics", more specifically heretical "schizophrenics", after all, we hate the things we hurt). This post got banned. In a discussion with someone-else about intentions, this moderator basically said we can't know somebody else's intentions, then completely contradicted himself saying something along the lines of "throughout history lots of people have done evil things based on good intentions", but if intentions are essentially enshrouded in obscurity, how does he know that? This was being a used a rationale for banning posts that question the intentions of others. I will continue in the next post.

The idea of a website where people aren't allowed to speculate freely on the intentions (although the moderator is on this issue as with most extremely selective. The guidelines governing conduct on that website are discriminatory in both form and application) of others didn't sit comfortably with me, so I just started breaking the rules in a non-abusive way, basically ridiculing posts invoking the constitution (which took on a different complexion for me seeing as it was published in a general atmosphere of disregard for the spirit that animated the formulation of that document).

It was with this post that I was banned, simply for pointing out this absurdity. After this, Whitaker and Cohen both made posts in response to an angry email I made to Cohen, whereby they basically rationalized their silencing of patients who don't or even can't conform to their Procrustean code that seems to me specifically set up to accommodate "normal" mental health professionals and the more "normal" patients and to eradicate the deviancy as manifested in the words of the many patients he bans, as well as rationalizing the simple fact that they had succumbed to the pressure of mental health professionals who obviously wanted some of us banned.

In trying to justify this, they basically demonized the survivors on that site, claiming that 99% of the verbal abuse was by angry patients, completely ignoring the reasons for our anger and strategically confusing it with "bullying", which, applied to myself, I wholeheartedly reject. I have no time for mutual admiration societies where one is expected to couch every criticism in the most insincere phrasing, where every photo is of someone pulling a fake smile, where every word must be marinated in honey, and where certain opinions are taboo because they might upset mental health professionals, regardless of their truth (although the moderators denied removing comments because of the content, and said that they only removed comments based on the form, but they protest too much, methinks!)

And the hypocrisy on that site! When people like Pete Earley were calling for Whitaker to be banned from speaking at NAMI conventions, everyone on there was invoking his right to freedom of speech! As far as I am concerned it would be justice if he were banned, to see him, figuratively speaking, perish by his own logic, after all, he and others invoke his prerogative as owner of that site to ban comments and individuals he doesn't like, so doesn't the same apply to the people who run these idiotic conventions? Aye, but in the eyes of some of his disciples, Whitaker's different, Whitaker deserves better than some looney. The facts are you can't please everyone in this world, and Whitaker, through his actions, showed himself to be more interested in propitiating his pals in the Mental Health profession, who have pretty much taken over that site, including certain arch-coercers who shall remain nameless, who revealingly, is usually the object of some of his more effusive praise.

Whitaker is no friend of mine, and as far as I'm concerned he is a phoney who identifies far more with the oppressors on this issue than the oppressed. He does not possess that intuitive affinity with the heretical patient forged from common interest and experience. For a while, that site was a place patients could articulate their grievances, but soon enough it became like almost every other site, a site for the oppressors to ventilate their prejudices and promote themselves and their interests under the usual cover of promoting the interests of patients. Whilst there are some people on there I respect, I would have respected them more if they boycotted the site in protest against the despicable exclusion of individuals from the conversation, all of them patients.

I think he is perhaps one of the least radical critics of psychiatry I've found. He uses the language of the oppressors, and thereby accepts the presuppositions built into that language, a language made up of words designed to forge the patient's fetters, to lay the conceptual foundation for his exclusion, for the scapegoating of the patient for things that reside in every man's nature, and of course, for his dehumanization and abuse. He seems to take for granted that the mental health movement is a philanthropic and not a persecutory movement, and has been conspicuously silent on the issue of coercion.