A week ago I found myself banned from Facebook simply for having linked to anti-feminist web site Return of Kings – http://returnofkings.com/ This social media platform has turned into an instrument of censorship, where one isn’t permitted to express dissenting views without being banned.
This isn’t the first time it happens to me, of course – I’ve been suspended 7-8 times before for simply having publicized the identities of convicted child molesters along with their personal information, something that angers Swedish authorities. What I don’t understand is why Facebook has to suspend me for this. The Internet is supposed to be a bastion of free expression, yet that’s not what it is today, unfortunately.
Below is the message I was faced with on the 23rd this month, the day before Christmas eve – even though though I hadn’t added any provocative wording to the post, and even though the article did nothing more than to advocate traditional gender roles. I got 30 days without being able to even respond to private messages sent to me – an enormous nuisance.
I admit I haven’t ended up writing much here lately since I’ve been quite busy with other stuff. But I still figured I should link to a few recent radio interviews I’ve done:
Red Ice Radio, 16 November 2016:
Red Ice Radio, 26 September 2016:
In general I’m happy to go on radio shows where rational and meaningful discussions take place – especially when the shows have got great hosts like Palmgren at Red Ice. So feel free to leave a message in my contact form if you want me on.
Some balanced thoughts on the psychology behind Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killing the marines – Daniel HammarbergJanuary 12th, 2022 by admin
I thought I’d philosophize a bit on the psychology behind this man committing this public massacre, comparing him to other shooters like for example Wayne Lo, and the narcissism exhibited by them.
Yesterday, this muslim man Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot dead four marines over in Chattanooga, Tennessee – a heinous act. This has sparked quite a lot of online discussion, where people tend to see what they want to see. As always, whenever someone shoots up some place, left-wingers seize the opportunity to promote gun control, pretending that imposing more restrictions on the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens will reduce homicides. They don’t care much about the majority of guns used in crime being illegal weapons that wouldn’t be impacted by such legislation though.
Some islam-hating right-wingers have wanted to explain the attack with islam, that this apparently isolated man was part of some terrorist cell, even though the evidence is very scant. More respectable right-wingers bring up the fact that military bases are gun-free zones thanks to former president Clinton, which makes it hard to prevent the acts from occurring. Even if I’m a right-winger myself, I don’t intend to talk about either islam or gun rights.
Instead what I want to reflect on is the psychology behind acts like these, and what factors most shooters have in common. Certainly it’s not good bring attention to acts like these and the people behind them, since you may encourage copycats. And I don’t intend to try to glamorize them or provide them a platform for their personal beliefs. I’m really just objectifying them here.
The main reason I believe America has suffered so many public massacres lately is because of the sense of entitlement people growing up in this society adopt. They’re showered with images of the rich and celebrities, and taught that that’s the only thing that matters in life. Which results in immense status competition – at a time when it appears that ever fewer people will reach their goals in life due to society and the economy disintegrating more and more. Which causes the bubble to burst for some people and they decide it’s better to go down in a blaze of glory than to endure an existence they don’t want.
In the news, Abdulazeez has been portrayed as nearly a model citizen, from a model family. The family are well-respected people, and he himself has a degree in a technical subject. Not only that, but he’s an athlete too, having competed in both wrestling and mixed martial arts. Yet here I notice where the shoe doesn’t quite fit for him. Apparently his family had wanted him to cease his MMA fighting due to religious objections. So the thing that appeared to have been his #1 hobby was denied him. I think this damaged his sense of identity, seemingly not getting the approval no matter what he does. It’s quite common that families that immigrate to America and know that they face possible antipathy want to make sure they have a perfect facade, and that their children serve as trophies for them. In such cases, the needs for the family to come across as respectable easily trumps the individual needs of the children.
This spring, it appears he started to self-destruct, getting a DUI and having a car that the officers arrested him thought reeked of weed. I’ve read reports that he appeared to have gone overseas to certain Arab countries too, probably in search of roots that he can relate to, which he didn’t appear to do to his family. He probably never fit into the life they had wanted to structure him into.
I’ve seen other cases like these before. Back in December 1992, a Chinese immigrant by the name of Wayne Lo shot up his school in Massachusetts in a similar public massacre, killing two people. Lo had a lot in common with Abdulazeez. They had both immigrated to America as children, with highly established and well-off families, enjoying a prosperous life and getting praise for their accomplishments. For Lo it was from being a musical prodigy, playing classical piano. But toward the end of his teens, Lo started to rebel against the life staked out for him. Whereas his peers appeared to enjoy nothing but freedom, his parents made sure he didn’t have much of that. So he started acting aggressive, calling for homosexuals to be put in concentration camps etc. Soon enough his rage had reached a boiling point and he got a rifle and shot as many people as he could. Thankfully only two people ended up dead that time though, and Lo ended up serving life without the possibility of parole.
I see lots of similarities in not only the family structure of these individuals, but also of their personalities. This guy Lo has repeatedly tried to portray Chinese as a persecuted minority in America, and Abdulazeez in his high school yearbook stated this:
“My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?”
America has seen a lot of public massacres the last two decades, and the most contributing factor I believe is narcissism – that it’s so expected of people to prove themselves as individuals, and that the only thing that appears to matter is whether people know your name. For the narcissist, if that person can’t reach his fame in a respectable way, he will go for more despicable ways. I also see narcissism in the families of both parties, wanting to come across as nothing but perfect. Hence in my opinion, they both contributed to the heinous acts.
So what are the solutions society needs in order to prevent things like these from happening? Well, judging by the large number of Oriental and Arabian shooters America has seen lately, I’d say there’s a limit to how many people from a foreign culture or ethnic group a society can assimilate. If you keep on absorbing foreigners, the attempts of the communities will inevitably fail, and you will have these immigrant outcasts potentially shooting up places. So tightening up immigration policies would be beneficial.
Another important point to make is of course that gun-free zones have proven to attract gunmen. If one wants to avoid becoming a victim of such attacks, one should stay clear of these zones. But society clearly needs to do away with them.
A significant reason why there are so many shootings today is also that the traditional values that used to keep people from acting out in this way aren’t in place any more. If people don’t get what they want, they have meltdowns and express their dissatisfaction. Which easily leads to chain reactions that tear up the cohesion in society. If one would be able to return to these values, such acts could potentially be deflected.
The fourth suggestion would be something that Christians won’t like, but that would naturally save many innocent lives – namely euthanasia. If people that didn’t want their lives could be offered assisted suicide rather than potentially carrying out a public massacre, innocent people wouldn’t have to die.
From the product description page up on http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0046ZS2PA:
Have you ever grown tired of the constant white-washing of Socialist countries by today’s mass media? Well, here’s the antidote – a 120’000 word exposé on the real contemporary Sweden, fully unmasked in all its vileness.
… the five teenagers who have taken their lives the last couple of years as a consequence of being forcibly taken from their families and put into orphanages.
… the families whose children were taken by the government as they attempted to leave the country, and the ex-Communists who want to make the very attempt to do so a crime.
… the social authorities justifying in official documents seizing a woman’s new-born child at the maternity hospital.
… the Muslim man who won a discrimination lawsuit after botching a job interview from refusing to shake a woman’s hand, and also sued the government after losing welfare payouts from not shaking the hands of the female welfare officer.
… the homosexual man who attempted to sue the municipality after he was prevented from browsing naked personal ads at the library, and about the prisoner who filed a complaint with the government after the warden in charge of him told him to shut up.
… the world’s most luxurious prisons and the inmates talking about how joyful their stays were. Swedish inmates get to choose where they want to do their time, and they can afford to be picky.
… the convicted rapist who cost society eleven legal proceedings to keep the porn magazines that had been taken fron him, and finishes by suing the government for damages because the prison had kept them from him.
… the military man who while heavily intoxicated shot dead seven people and landed 48 out of 48 fired bullets against running victims, to then be granted furloughs after only a couple of years in prison.
… the male Supreme Court Justice who was convicted of having illegally bought sexual services from a young man and then was able to stay on his post.
… the elite of Swedish society during the 1970’s molesting underaged girls who were wards of the state, including two prime ministers as suspects; as well as the society that has only a fine as standard punishment for distributing child porn.
… the physically disabled and immobile immigrant who’s got eleven government-paid personal assistants so that he can drink whiskey and smoke cigarettes all day.
… the 79 parliamentary bills that address LGBT rights and cover everything in society, from elder care to foreign aid. “Unfortunately only a fraction of SIDA’s [the foreign aid agency] budget today goes to LGBT work” from one of the bills.
… how doctors can be sentenced to prison for refusing to perform abortions, and shepherds that risk being attacked by bears can’t even get permits for revolvers.
… how citizens can be convicted of cruelty to animals if they don’t spend “a couple of hours every day” petting their cat.
… the state TV that held a tribute night to Fidel Castro. “Castro isn’t a dictator in the sense the propaganda claims” – actual quote from this evening, on top of repeated programming praising “Che” Guevara.
… the many political dissidents sentenced to prison for the views they’ve expressed, and learn about what they had to say.
… the young man who already as a teenager was convicted of “hate speech” and who within 12 years would have gone to court no less than 12 times over such charges.
… the country that almost banned publication of the Bible for its stance on homosexuality, and about the Christians sentenced to prison for preaching it.
Yes… This is a compilation of stories, facts and anecdotes from what must truly be the most insane country on the planet, with nothing else like it, organized into twelve chapters covering different areas of society.
To include the table of contents:
“THE WORLD’S BEST COUNTRY”
I – THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
HomO, the Ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation
The parliamentary Ombudsman (JO) – A convict’s best friend
The Supreme Court – Den of indecency
Politics trumping law
The Civil rights movement… of Sweden
II – THE NANNY STATE
The population registration (Folkbokföringen)
The County Administrative Board (Länsstyrelsen) … and my cats
Abortions on demand – We’ll let you pick gender too
Circumcisions and the Swedish state
III – CRIME AND NO PUNISHMENT
The world’s most luxurious prison system
Protecting the public?
The crime rate
IV – THE GOVERNMENT AS PARENT
Suicides as a consequence of institution placement
Personal LVU accounts
“Children’s gulag” in the Swedish welfare state
Taken at birth
A discussion of ethics… or tactics?
The administrative courts
The social services and the rule of law
Hiding your child from foster care = “kidnapping”
The Berlin wall
V – A NATION OF SINNERS
Free love for all… including children
Prostitution and crime infiltrates government
Doris Hopp, the lesbian brothel manager
Doris Hopp is busted
A scandal emerges, and a memorandum is written
The truth is out… and is denied
It’s not over just yet
VI – THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
VII – LGBT NATION
VIII – EDUCATION OR INDOCTRINATION?
LGBT education as a part of the curriculum
IX – HATE LAWS AND CENSORSHIP
Ahmed Rami – political refugee turned political prisoner
One man – twelve hate speech trials and counting
Brottby – Mass arrests at a White Power concert
The 21st century – Freedom of speech goes down the drain
Christians start to bite the dust
Homosexuals impaled on stakes?
So much for tolerance
The gay lobby
Addressing the gay lobby
The Sweden Democrats taunt Muslims – The Swedish Government apologizes
The slippery slope of criminalizing speech
Brief appendix – official exposition on the HMF law
X – MASS MEDIA
State involvement in the “free press”
Sveriges Television – the state TV
XI – IMMIGRATION
The journey to Sweden
Social planning meets the intentional creation of an underclass
Diskrimineringsombudsmannen – Enabling victimization
XII – THE WEALTH OF NATIONS
You get one third, the government gets two thirds
Astrid Lindgren, children’s book author asked to pay 102% in taxes
Publicly funded addiction treatment
Mohammed has grasped the essence of life in Sweden
Work brings freedom?
Acknowledgements and inspiration
I got myself an invite to Red Ice Radio, a program that will air in maybe two weeks, so for that reason I’m undertaking a way overdue makeover of my site. For this reason things might not make all that much sense here over the coming days. Then again, the site was far from perfect before either, which is why I’m changing theme. But anyway, all the blog posts will remain up at least.
(an excerpt from the book “The Madhouse” by yours truly, available at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0046ZS2PA/)
Naturally, when government fails in an area, the ones in charge call for more funds, essentially making failure the optimal business plan. The practical application of the broken window fallacy becomes both to identify functional things as broken, and make sure the work that’s supposedly aimed at restoring them, rather keeps them broken. Big government is to society what cancer is to the human body – it only devours functional tissue, it can’t solve anything or even support itself, but dependent on healthy tissue upon which it attaches itself like a parasite.
Another way to look at the process is this one: Let’s assume for a moment that government employees are altruistic and desire nothing more than to successfully do their jobs. In a hypothetical soon-to-be socialist utopia called Screwupistan, the government hires two people to take care of society’s problems. Let’s say they work with addiction treatment and that that is something that other people than the addicts themselves can treat. Government worker #1, named Joe, is a skilled person who succeeds at anything he takes upon himself, while worker #2, named Bill, is a failure at everything, never having managed to get anything right in his life. Society’s drug abusers are split evenly between the two to treat. Joe manages to get all his addicts to quit drugs during the first year he’s employed. The addicts assigned to Bill are all still on drugs by the end of the year on the other hand.
When Screwupistan plans the budget for the next year, they see that Joe doesn’t have a workload, there’s no need to keep him employed any longer, hence he’s fired. Bill on the other hand still has the same work burden on his shoulder, so the government keeps him. By the end of the second year, not a single person in his care has quit drugs either. Out in society, people that formerly saw staying off drugs as something you had to do for your own sake, or you’d risk ending up as a drug addict with a ruined life, now start to feel that they can do drugs when they feel like it since society will take care of them. Hence by the end of year #2, Screwupistan has gained new drug addicts requiring no less than four people in total employed in addiction treatment.
For year #3, the government keeps Bill employed, and also employs his equally clueless twin brother Robert. Like Bill, Robert fails at everything he does, making him perfect for a government position. The government also hires Lisa, who’s a good worker who can solve the tasks she’s presented with, and on top of that hires Jimmy, who witnessed what happened during year #1 of the government addiction treatment. It’s hard to say whether Jimmy can really solve problems, but this doesn’t matter, since he’s learned that in order to keep a government job, you have to fail at the task or you’ll lose the job. By the end of year #3, Lisa has managed to get her addicts off drugs, while the ones assigned to Bill, Robert and Jimmy are all still on them. Joe on the other hand is paying 90% taxes on his job in the private sector to pay for their services. For the next year, Lisa is fired while the extended family of Bill and Robert start to flock to government, using their relatives on the inside as a way in, and plenty of people who would earlier have worked in the private sector in jobs that required you to do them right, started migrating towards government jobs out of convenience. In the end, Screwupistan had nothing left but drug addicts and government workers tasked with treating them. Joe ultimately committed suicide when the government started demanding 99% of his income, and then Screwupistan collapsed.
This is a simplification of the actual process that takes place in government, when you assign it the task of solving problems. Hence, when looking at government as a solution for problems, you can view it in terms of the movie “The Matrix,” with the familiar red and blue pills there. The blue pill preserves the illusion under whose influence people in general are deceived about the state of the world, while the red pill wakes you up to reality. It’s apparent that government can’t solve anything, so what are you going to do about the ever-increasing problems of the Western world? If you take the red pill, you see reality but become depressed since you realize that the world as we know it is disintegrating. With the blue pill, you can tell yourself there’s a future in socialism. Ignorance is bliss?
… because its own government says so.
I mean, what can you say about a country whose state TV even has a running show called Världens modernaste land, “The world’s most modern country?” A country that since 1945 has had a government propaganda agency called the Swedish Institute, with a yearly budget of $30 million, with one of its stated goals being to “within the framework of public diplomacy create an interest and confidence in Sweden along with continously evaluating Sweden’s image abroad.” A country that for the last half a century has thrown out accusations of human rights abuses against just about the whole world; as one British writer put it – “Internationally, Sweden is known for its main export being unsolicited advice.”
The other year, an organization connected to the United Nations called The Institute for Economics and Peace started to publish something called the Global Peace Index, a statistic said to measure how peaceful countries are. It joined other dubious statistics such as the Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders in presenting Socialist European states as success stories, while the USA is pretty much portrayed as a failed state. In the PFI, Sweden is ranked #1 in spite of laws criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ while the USA in 2007 was ranked #48 in spite of probably being the only country in the world where the government is completely unable to imprison its citizens over political speech.
Just as in the so-called “Press Freedom Index,” in the Global Peace Index, Sweden is ranked very high as well, #10 out of 149 countries in 2010. The USA is #85 this year. In 2007, the index gave an even larger difference – Sweden ranked #7 out of 121 countries, while the USA was at #96, beaten by such countries as Cuba at #59, China at #60, Mexico at #79 and crime-ridden Brazil at #83.
The value of the Global Peace Index was quickly endorsed by such men as CNN head Ted Turner, former President Jimmy Carter and former U.N. general secretary Kofi Annan. Endorsements by globalists and left-wing sympathizers make you a bit curious why the index is portraying the USA in such an unfavourable light – could it simply be because of an inherent anti-American bias in the index? Among the listed ‘peace indicators’ in the index are these:
- Security officers & police – the fewer per population, the better ranking. Hence a country with no police force at all would be ideal.
- Military expenditure – the less, the better ranking. Of course you’ll have peace if you dismantle your military, everyone knows that.
- Military capability/sophistication – the worse, the better ranking.
- UN Peacekeeping Funding – if you’re late paying your dues to the U.N., you lose ranking here. Now who would have guessed that the U.N. would favour an index containing such a post?
- Access to weapons – the more disarmed the population is, the better ranking. 9 out of 10 dictators agree with this one.
- Jailed Population – the more criminals locked up, the worse ranking. Of course it’s good if the murderers and rapists are out in the streets killing and raping people.
When taking into consideration just what the index is made up of, it’s no wonder Sweden ranks high – the country has nearly dismantled its military and severely hampered its law enforcement, while gun laws are very restrictive.
As of 7 July 2010, one of the indicators is “Potential for terriorist[sic] acts.” Now who can dispute that they must have done a good job with the index when there’s even a typo in there?
Well, enough of these globalist indexes praising Socialist countries. Will you let the likes of Ted Turner, Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan claim that Sweden is a much better country than the USA – that the USA is indeed one of the worst countries in the world? Or will you learn from this book what really hides behind the facade of the supposedly successful Socialist utopia? By reading this book, you’ll learn just why Sweden has such a need of coming up with development indexes such as these – it’s because of the simple fact that Sweden isn’t a good country to live in.
To paraphrase American Socialist Lincoln Steffens: I have been over to the future of American society, and it doesn’t work.
This is the introduction to newly released book “The Madhouse” by Daniel Hammarberg. To get the book for yourself, make a stop at the Amazon page for The Madhouse now.
Feminists at the Swedish state radio make fun of the suicides of famous male authors – Daniel HammarbergJanuary 12th, 2022 by admin
The Swedish state radio is infamous for its provocative feminist stunts. This reached new heights back on Monday when a list was published that celebrated the suicide deaths of a number of famous male authors, a list that has since been taken down after it sparked massive criticism. Google still has a cached version of it though.
The list that was published two days ago on the Swedish Radio website certainly has attracted controversy. A Swedish blog discussing it features lively debate, with people expressing their outrage over the fact that feminists gloated over the suicides of such authors as Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Yukio Mishima and Jack London. It’s a Western custom that you’re not meant to voice your antipathy towards deceased individuals, but feminists are obviously not playing by such rules. No, they can never contain their hatred, and take any opportunity to stir up trouble whenever they can. But the question is, haven’t they overreached with this move? Them eventually taking down the list after the criticism it evoked just might indicate that they’ve realized so themselves.
Here are a few excerpts of their comments, from a list entitled “Offended male authors who were so offended that they killed themselves”:
Celebrity status: has written a million trillion books and gotten among other things the Nobel peace prize but chose to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.
Reason: Tired of life
Heroic suicide scale 1-10: 0. Since Hemingway was so really bad simply at dying. After having survived not one but TWO airplane crashes, major depressions, major alcoholism and electro shocks Hemingway felt it was time to shoot himself.
Then they go on mocking the deaths of ten other authors. These feminists certainly don’t value the lives of men. Earlier this year a boy (some would say a young man) by the name of Lucas Hertzman, a very active member of FEMEN, who stood side by side with female feminists protesting the “patriarchy,” killed himself. Even though word of his suicide quickly spread around the net, no mention of it was made in establishment media. He was one of those LGBTQ individuals too, someone you’d take for granted that they would memorialize. But there was a problem – he didn’t kill himself due to Christians or any homophobic bullying; no, judging by his Twitter posts, he killed himself because of feminist bullying! You’d never hear that in the politically conformist tabloids though.
Horrifying Read – A Testament to Abuse of Power and Parental Authority (Book Review) – Daniel HammarbergJanuary 12th, 2022 by admin
This is a review of Randye Kaye’s book “Ben Behind his Voices” that I just posted on Amazon and Goodreads.
Horrifying Read – A Testament to Abuse of Power and Parental Authority
With the interest I have in getting an insight into the living circumstances of people suffering from schizophrenia and perhaps a glimpse of their unique way of seeing things, Randye Kaye’s book did catch my eye, So I went ahead and read it. It was even lauded as “inspirational” in the description, but to me it was anything but. What I really got out of the book was an insight into how parental power and medical authority trumped civil liberties – something I didn’t think possible in America. Up until that point, I had thought that the supreme court verdict in O’Connor v. Donaldson prevented anyone from being involuntary committed unless they constituted a clear and present danger to other people or at least themselves. Yet here I see how a mother wants her son committed because he talks about “psychic vampires” – and gets her way.
The book enumerates countless times this Ben is being involuntarily committed – usually because of minor psychiatric symptoms, though sometimes because of the side-effects his medication has caused him – on every single occasion instigated by his mother. There does seem to be some skepticism on the part of caregivers about having him committed since he doesn’t appear that ill, but Ben’s mother always insists. Hence he’s forced to take medications that sometimes have death as a common side-effect. Most alarming is her predilection for potent drugs. To quote a passage from the book:
Even with smart treatment, there’s no magic formula for successful treatment of schizophrenia. I’d read about a medication called Clozaril, but Dr. Taylor wanted to try that only as a last resort. “There are so many other medications that could work,” he said, “and I’d rather start with those.”
Clozaril, or clozapine as is its clinical name, is a lethal drug that killed hundreds of Americans every year during the period when Randye wanted her son to take it. It’s usually given to the truly hopeless cases, the ones that have been through other medications for years without any relief in symptoms, yet she wants her son on it right away! She must truly hate her son. You also get an insight into their dysfunctional family mechanics in passages like this one:
I glanced over at Ben; he was smirking. Smirking! He was looking at me like I was a lunatic, and he was the calm one. The superior one, tolerating my unreasonable mood, and just barely. It was all too much. All the months of patience, of waiting for him to come to his senses, of excusing his behaviors, came barreling in. My right hand reached across and slapped him. On the cheek. Hard. How did that happen? “Stop it!” I shouted. “What is wrong with you?”
Ben was stunned. He put his own hand to his reddened cheek and stared at me.
“You bitch!” he yelled. “You hit me. You hit me! You’re crazy, you are fucking crazy!”
And my right hand hit him again. I was nearing a red light and stopped the car, but I could not stop my hand. This time the slap landed closer to his eye. “You earned it!” I heard myself scream. “How dare you call me that?”
There was no objective arbiter of their dispute though. She was the one established in society, the one whose superior age gave her power over her son, and consequently it was her way of seeing things that was recognized by society. The book details innumerable abuses she commits against her son, like dropping him off far away from home like she does right after that passage, calling the police on him for no reason etc. I’m amazed no social welfare worker intervenes on her son’s behalf, but I assume her son wasn’t as vigilant about getting his way as she was. He simply didn’t bring in third parties like she did. She clearly is a danger to his health though, and I’m amazed he’s still alive today in spite of her.
I don’t see why she feels the need to have her son committed for the minor symptoms he displays, but I guess she might be suffering from a case of misandry. Ben’s father disappeared at an early age, you somewhat get the impression that Randye chased him away, and there’s a clear difference in how the male versus the female members of the family are regarded. Anything that can be presented in a bad light about the males, are, while the female ones are treated with kid gloves. The males are made to feel bad about everything. She accuses Ben of making up excuses, yet she has one of her own for every move she makes against her son. It’s always his fault she’s punching him, having him committed etc.
This isn’t to say that I idolize this Ben. Dropping out of school without a plan and smoking weed is obviously not acceptable or responsible behavior. But her reactions seem so exaggerated. Like, she has him attend AA/NA groups for this pot use. I’m straight edge myself and condemn all drug use, but it does seem awfully strange that he’s supposed to sit in these meetings with people much older than he is and relate how the drugs ruined his life, when they appear to not have had that much of an impact. I get the impression that Randye wants her son to internalize a negative self-concept by enrolling him in these things. He’s even forced to live in an institutional room for six months since she can’t arrange any other residence for him and doesn’t want him living at home. And this is a guy that has neither been violent with his family, nor stolen anything from them.
I can empathize with Ben since I went through similar events at the same age. In my late teens, my family had fallen apart and everyone but I had become a substance abuser. Yet instead of letting me become an independent adult, the social services intervened heavily in my life, demanded that I attend meetings with them where they attempted to deconstruct my identity – and even tried to have me institutionalized for supposedly lacking social skills. A completely unwarranted intervention that I will never forgive them for. Thankfully my mother (RIP) wasn’t like Randye though. She enlisted their help for her substance abuse problems, but didn’t want any coercion to be taken against me. The social workers did however read their own interpretations into living circumstances where I was the only one keeping order. That was such a stab in the back, and I had to suffer through two nightmarish years.
Randye talks a lot about her involvement with the NAMI in the book, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an organization funded by big pharma whose messages is mainly just “you need to take your meds.” I wonder if this book had found its way out there if it hadn’t been for her partnership with this organization, because there sure are a lot of people wanting memoirs in print who don’t find a publisher – me included. All I can see is a mother who first reacts to her son’s psychiatric symptoms in an atrocious way, then profits by selling a book about her experience, without letting its protagonist even have a voice in the whole matter. To top it all off, in the “about the author” section I read that she’s a diversity trainer for the Anti-Defamation League. Obviously she’s not much for psychological diversity, but then again – I don’t think “tolerance training” is much about opening people’s minds – it’s rather dictating to people how they’re allowed to think, something she appears very fond of. She also speaks ill of patients’ rights and seems to feel that psychiatry should have free hands in treating people in whichever way they want, something that in the past led to forced lobotomies and other such abuses.
For people interested in the liberty aspect of mental health treatment, I recommend an article entitled “Uncivil Commitment: Mental Illness May Deprive You of Civil Rights” or the writings of late Thomas Szasz. Society failed Ben in protecting him from his mother.