There is a really worrying trend right now in the mental health field and that is to call anyone who is a "conspiracy theorist" mentally ill. I've also noticed some mental health "professionals" deriding and shaming people who question authority and/or authority figures. This has come to the fore because of covid19. If you dare question the one acceptable narrative, you're mentally ill, a conspiracy theorist and any other insults they can hurl at you.
Carl Jung is famous for popularising the phenomenon of individuation and if you have ever had the privilege of raising a child or seeing a child being raised, you'll know that at around 18 months to 2 years old, their most commonly used word is No. This is the natural start of the healthy individuation process from the parent and it is crucial that parents not only respect a child's No, but encourage it. All too often parents squash a child's No, making the child doubt and not trust themselves. So it really appalls me, and worries me, that some in the mental health field see questioning authority as a bad thing, or even as something linked to "mental illness".
What I'd really like to know is who gets to define what a conspiracy theory actually is? The mainstream? It seems so, because they are the only people who use the term, the so-called "normal" people. It isn't politically correct anymore to ridicule marginalised people, which of course is only right, but not if it's just for show, to signal virtue which really isn't there. The only group people are allowed, and encouraged, by the mainstream to ridicule, insult and disparage are the so-called conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, and on and on with these ludicrous terms.
Lissa Rankin posted an article the other day which truly appalled me. It was titled "The Psychology Of Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories: A Compassionate Lens to Help You Understand Loved Ones You Lost Down The Rabbit Hole".
Some quotes from the article that I found particularly awful:
"The truth is that you’re not likely to alter someone’s point of view with facts if they’ve been seduced into cultish conspiracy thinking, especially if the facts you use (mainstream science journals, mainstream media) are part of their conspiracy paranoia".
Another cracker:
"Where does black and white thinking come from? It tends to ride shotgun with mental illness, especially personality disorders. In short, it’s a trauma symptom and therefore deserves our understanding and our compassion. When people are hurt, especially when they’re hurt with early childhood developmental trauma and attachment wounding, there can be a tendency to polarize into immature cognitive processes like black and white thinking"
Lissa conflates conspiracy theories and cults, two totally different things. She tries to take a compassionate slant in her article but it ends up being patronising.
The first point I'd like to make is that people who are traumatised (most of the world's population to some degree) are NOT mentally ill. Personality "disorders" are often derided and shamed within the mental health profession. How is that helpful or compassionate? I've heard many say "they" are "unhelpable". Have you ever heard anyone from the mainstream saying that Bill Gates is on the sociopathic/psychopathic end of the personality disorder spectrum? I certainly haven't. And let's be honest, seen through that lens, he most certainly would fit the bill. If we're going to have one rule for conspiracy theorists, let's apply it to everyone for fairness sake.
Using Lissa's own logic, the mainstream is a cult. Mainstream thinking believes it is right, they have a monopoly on being right, everyone else is wrong. This is completely compatible with her idea of black and white thinking. Only ONE accepted narrative on anything is tolerated in the mainstream and again this is especially true with covid19. And if you deviate from the mainstream you're a conspiracy theorist. If that's not black and white thinking I don't know what is. The hypocrisy and lack of insight is astounding.
The second point I'd like to make is that many studies in scientific journals have been sponsored by big pharma so they have gross conflicts of interest. In my opinion, it is very wise and prudent to not trust/dig deeper into these studies which have usually been "cooked". Am I a conspiracy theorist because I say this or because I trust the real scientists who take these studies apart to show just how flawed and conflicted they are?
The mainstream has brainwashed people into believing covid19 is deadly, which is why the mainstream fits her definition of what a cult is. But they don't realise they've been brainwashed (typical cult behaviour). Covid19 is deadly to some, like the flu, pneumonia, tuberculosis, cancer, heart disease, starvation and dehydration is. Is it more deadly? No. Look at the facts, it affects mostly older people with underlying conditions. Is it more sad when someone dies of covid19 than starvation? No. All deaths, for whatever reason, are sad. Do we lockdown for anything else? No.
Covid19 does not justify older people dying alone, the scandals of people dying in nursing homes, lockdowns, isolation, people being punished with fines, public shaming, curfews, not being able to go beyond 5 kilometres form your home, not being able to go to funerals or weddings, mandatory masks, even for children in some countries, waiting for a vaccine (the saviour, another cult characteristic) so lockdowns can be lifted, people losing their homes, jobs, not being able to put food on the table, rising suicides, rising domestic abuse, rising child abuse, the disgraceful brainwashing of children that they are dangerous and vectors of a "deadly" virus and the world being under near total tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment