Forced Medication is rape of the soul

It shouldn't be this difficult. It's about the use of force.

If I want to destroy what I think is going to destroy me I will do it unless I'm confused like some kind of pandering moron homo blouse everybody is beautiful imbecile. If I'm confused or lacking in courage I might have some intention to resist but yield because I'm not worth anything. I might be a person that might not have a "right" to walk on a footpath or venture into a shop. (Let's forget that the Pommy bastards murdered about a million "blacks"... oh ... and that the proddy/papist imbeciles are still waging war after about 500 years)

FORCED MEDICATION?

It's war. I've told the shrinks, you come at me and I will come at you big time. You drug me I will burn down your house. If you persist and I am still alive and able I will kill your children.

As it happens most of the coercive shrinks in Victoria are fat stupid unattractive people. They are remarkably ignorant, unable to reply if asked about anything. They might pretend that they are not willing to answer to disease but you can press them.

The atomic weight of carbon? They haven't got a clue. Our "carbon tax", $23.00 a tonne. Well it's actually $86.00 a tonne. Am I a mental defective? I hate their ######6 guts but that doesn't make me an idiot.

Do you think that I'm being picky? These are people who systematically and deliberately use hearsay to malign and slander people so that they can justify what they do.

I'll say here that there are people who are such bastards that they will use the false diagnosis of mental illness. I hope they die quickly.

Rod wrote: I've told the shrinks, you come at me and I will come at you big time. You drug me I will burn down your house. If you persist and I am still alive and able I will kill your children.

Nothing unique about your feelings , This web page provides resources for therapists in addressing patient stalking, threats, or violence. http://kspope.com/stalking.php

"Excerpt: "Among clinicians, violence toward psychiatrists is common and is an important issue (10–12); more than a third of psychiatrists have been assaulted by a patient at least once (10, 13). The risk of violent victimization is greater in clinicians with less experience (11). Reports estimate that 72% to 96% of psychiatric residents have been verbally threatened (12, 14–16), and 36% to 56% have experienced physical assaults ..."

They get there ass kicked alot. Psych Lock ups and chemical rapes piss people off, 95% of people can figure that out on there own without reading the study (12-23) while 72% of the 95% may want to read the study only 56% will read the whole thing retaining 77% of the information after 1 hour and only 55% after 2 days according to 23% of studys on the study.

This may be linked to and suggests... but it hasnt been proven,

Yo Copy_Cat, I'm surprised my posts are still here.

"Nothing unique..." about my feelings. That's reassuring (no sarc). The alternative would be that I am uniquely deluded.

I've deliberately not read the link to stalking coercive shrinks yet. I will, but I'm sure I don't need to, at least to write this post. If I'm still here I'll write more when I've read it.

Just from the excerpt, that "violence toward psychiatrists is common" I could say that it has much more to do with the psychiatrist than the patient. And that since psychiatrists are increasingly likely to be of the coercive variety that violence will be on the increase. Because the psychiatrist has been trained and has agreed to practice on the premise that the wisdom of the state trumps the situation of the patient. This is almost certain to magnify the distress of the patient. The shrinks know that this can create a killer out of a person who may well have previously been less likely to kill than the average person. So they drug them.

I have explicitely advised people against killing, injuring or threatening coercive psychiatric workers.

But then killing, injuring and threatening are not necessarily crimes in either the moral or the legal sense. So why would I advise against these actions? Because the coercive shrinks are liars and will always say that they were murdered, assaulted or threatened with murder or assault. (The shrink community rejoices when one of their number is killed, it gives them more power.) I agree with the shrinks, however, that very often when people kill each other (outside of mutually declared war) they are wrong. Or I could put it this way: Even though most coercive shrinks are bad people that I would hope would fall and break their necks, for it to be known that they were killed is likely to wrongly cause increased unhappiness. (This paragraph could suggest that their is a happiness equation dependent upon human consensus since for one thing a shrink is happy when another shrink is killed by a patient. I might have thought that happiness should depend more upon the light from the sun than from the minds of perverts.)

I have destroyed one shrink and at least two nurses, possibly more than one and two. But I didn't kill or physically injure them. The demise of the shrink is kept secret from the public and also largely within the shrink community because then they'd have to explain why they fired the shrink. For the time being I need to keep some details secret as well.

There was nothing special about the shrink except that I was able to spend more time on him. When I was last forcibly held I was released on the condition that I swallow their drugs and that I attend a clinic. I made no promises and had to be kicked out. I went to the clinic at my convenience and met "my" shrink. I told him him that I would never take his drugs and that I would make as many appointments to see him as I wanted. I told him that I would default on appointments when and if I chose and that I would demand "urgent" appointments at whim. I made regular FoI applications and was able to read his notes about every three months, which would cover 6,7 or 8 meetings of the previous 3 months. (I am fully aware that there will be a secret set of notes in my case.)

At our meetings I reminded him that in Victoria (pop ~ 6M) there are about 8000 held in psychiatric servitude. That is that 8000 people living "in the community" are being drugged by threat of force. By servitude I mean they serve a purpose. And 8000 out of 6M is the highest rate in the world.

How many of those 8000 are being unjustly humiliated, assaulted and die too early? 20, 50, 500...?

I say 8000. If among the 8000 there are people who are criminals they should be treated as such. If there are brain damaged people among the 8000 who might happen to benefit from close scrutiny and genuine care they should be recognized as such. They wouldn't want to lumped in with people who misbehave or appear to misbehave in the absence of brain damage. People without brain damage don't want to be lumped in with people who have brain damage.

Many of the 8000 are druggies. Most of the druggies are criminal by definition because heroin and meth and so forth are illegal. And we know that many or most of these engage in further criminal behavior and public nuisance. If you delve in amongst the druggies, as I have, you find that they do the things they do for a sensible reason. I have marvelled at the strength and sensibility demonstrated by some pretty terrible druggies.

So amongst the 8000 where are the "mentally ill" that require forced drugging? Are they the fat teenager that plays WoW 80 hours a week? Are his catholic parents who told him that if he touched his dick at 4yo that he would go to hell worried that he might kill himself? Are they worried that because Breivik played WoW that they should recommend people for psychiatric drugging? Do they phone the shrinks and do the shrinks tell them to tip the furniture over and then call the police?

I'll leave it here. More say (if I'm still here) about shrinks, lies, documentation, magistrates etc later.

For the people debating the meaning of "rape" and "soul" I feel copy cat is using the terms in their more abstract and classical (though no less legitimate) sense.

Rape does not have to be forced sexual intercourse, i can refer to any major voilating tresspass

Ex. Rome fell under the rape of the Goths. I remember when the Nazis entered my country and Denmark was raped. The rainforst is raped through clearcut logging. etc.
Any major violating trasspass, and or the aqisition of goods or resources through the use of force.

Soul does not have to refer to in immortal spirit, or ghost. It can refer to the most basic qualities or characteristics of a thing.

Ex. this house has the soul of victorian architecture. This vehicle has the look and soul of a sportscar. etc.

It's a violation so therefore is rape. The question is why is it legal in countries that purport to value human rights for the mental health system to rape you?

Hey HaxX,

If I understand what you are saying correctly the term "soul rape" means "a major violation or trespass of the most basic qualities or characteristics of a thing".

But what does that even mean? What are these basic qualities that are being violated? How are they being violated? What constitutes violation of the basic qualities?

To be frank, I have no idea what you are saying which is an obvious consequence of using the word rape in a Pickwickian sense (which begs the question why you are doing this when there is no shortage of linguistically accurate ways of describing forced medication including, forced treatment or forced medication)

If you want people to pay attention to mental health consumer rights then you need to communicate in a logical and coherent way or people tune out.

I agree there is no shortage of linguistically accurate ways of describing forced medication including, calling it forced treatment or forced medication. I was simply supporting copy cat because I understand the intesity of emotion which brings out the use of such terms. I would never use such informal language when engaging in any serious activism. However, it is difficult for many people to quantify or label the feelings they experienced with such termes as forced treatment, which is why many will use such passionate, although nebulous language as "rape" "soul" "violation of personhood" etc.

I can understand what you're saying. However, I think trauma describes the experience of being forcibly drugged quite well.

Some mental health care professionals validate and acknowledge that forced treatment, involuntary commitment and the impersonal and dehumanizing therapeutic milieu are traumatizing. Others don't and I'm not really sure what influences them. If I were to put forward a tentative explanation it would be that mental health care professionals who work in or support secure psychiatric units and their practices are reluctant to criticize them because it would necessitate a criticism of themselves and what they're doing.

I agree that trauma is a fantastic word, it is however a very broad term.
One can experience trauma from witnessing a car accident, or trauma from a dog bite.
I applaud you for keeping people on their toes with emphasis on correct use of language, (not enough people do it) and I do not feel that terms like soul, rapist, needle=penis have any place in the courtroom or higher level debate, but lack of emotional emphasis or specificity is a danger when relying soley on the most strict literary definitions of language when communicating with someone about these feelings of violation, especially to the layman.

My interest in such terms used in this context, and their potential value, lies not in legalese but in how the peppering of such terms convey the complexity and emotional intesity of the situation being explained. This is somthing which has been used by succesful revoloutinaries and provocaters from time out of mind.
Nothing quite like the word RAPE to rally the public.

I feel that the total exclusion of such words would be an impovrishment to communication, not an enhancment.





I am glad that there are some professonals who care about the stress patients experience when they are 5150d. I have never met one who seemed to aknowledge the issue.
But in my case the damage has been done and I now have a broad spectrum distrust and intense dislike for the mental health field.