Preppers

I first came across the term “prepper” when I read about the recent appalling loss of life at the Sandy Hook Primary School in Connecticut. Apparently the mother of the perpetrator was a “prepper” – meaning I believe, someone who is prepared for the worst case scenario or a disaster and there are no, or very few, survivors. So these “preppers” accumulate stocks of what they consider essential supplies – including weapons and the necessary ammunition.

Now I have no real quibble with the concept of storing food and while I have a philosophical aversion to having weapons in the home I recognise that there are certain situations when they are useful – mainly in a rural setting. I will admit to once owning a Beretta 9mm hand gun – this was about 40 years ago in Africa when things got a bit wild and woolly – but I never had occasion to use it and sold it after about five years. The problem was that I did not know where to keep it safe – particularly as we, at that time, employed servants.

My concern is about the psychological state of the “preppers”. What do they think will happen in a worst case scenario? Fighting off all comers to preserve your patch in a dire situation is not a good idea. No one can live in isolation and survive for long – we are gregarious creatures and need others of our kind for support, companionship and for our general well-being.

It is necessary to recognise that in extreme circumstances a community spirit is the only one that will ensure long term survival. A community spirit means sharing – both good things and bad; both times of plenty and times of hardship; both food, clothing and lack of food and clothing. If anyone has more than others - hoards and defends it against all comers others, who may have nothing, could possibly adopt the same attitude and attack to obtain the supplies they need for survival. If this happens then anarchy will prevail and anarchy means a complete breakdown of any semblance of order and is not good for the survival of anyone.

To adopt the presumed attitude of the “preppers” that, “I took the trouble to look after myself. It is your fault if you were stupid enough not to do the same. What’s mine is mine – you are not getting any of this. Go and look somewhere else”, is  not only very selfish but is a long term self defeatist attitude. There will be times when a “prepper” will need help of some kind. If a “prepper” is not prepared to accommodate the needs of others then why should others accommodate them?

We have to share and share alike; we need others around us to survive.

Absence

My one loyal reader will have been aware of my absence from this blog over the last few weeks. Not that I have to justify what I do but I would like this person to know that my absence was because I have been very busy selling my house and buying a villa in a retirement complex.

Moving is always stressful and getting rid of belongings that have been hoarded for years also has its problems. It is astonishing how much junk my wife and I have collected over the years. We had to adopt the approach that if we have not used it, read it or looked at it for a year then we should “bin it”, but this takes courage. We (that is people generally) become so attached to material things that we often identify ourselves with our material attachments – my house, my car, my boat, my whatever.To get rid of “stuff”, or try to pass items on to others I opted for a garage sale. Well! What a disaster – never again – just not worth the effort! In the end I took boxes full of all sorts to my wife’s church to sell at their monthly jumble sale.

The move was successful and we are now in our “new” home.

More importantly though during my absence from this page many instances of unethical behaviour and our inhumanity to others of our kind have taken place. For instance the senseless killing of children and others by people who should not have access to guns in the USA; the appalling incidence of rape in India; more disclosures about sexual abuse by Catholic priests; the continued mistreatment of those with mental health issues – to high-light just a few that immediately come to mind.

Regarding this last matter regarding mental health, just a few days ago – just before Christmas in fact, it was reported in the media that here in Perth a man was wrongfully identified as an escapee from a mental hospital. This unfortunate man was “captured” by police, “returned” to the mental hospital where he was administered a strong anti-psychotic drug – for schizophrenia. He suffered a violent reaction, was rushed to hospital where his true identity was discovered. He is now recovering – in a normal hospital.

I cannot believe that today we human beings still treat others of our kind in such a cruel and unthinking manner. Very obviously no identity check took place; very obviously no medical records were referred to – just a “come here you” and, as an “involuntary” patient, the forced administration of a powerful drug.

Words fail me – I am at a loss as to how to best express my outrage that such an event could take place in what is supposed to be a civilized country – Australia!

Mental Health

It has been reported for years that the rate of mental disorders in Australia (and, I might add, most of the developed nations) is an alarming one person in five (1 in 5). This is a truly astounding figure. In fact I would call it a national catastrophe.

Just imagine the outrage and panic if 1 in 5 were diagnosed with AIDS or contracted influenza. There would be panic and a national enquiry and millions would be spent on research and medications of some sort. But mental health? If 1 in 5 of the population will suffer from some mental problem – what then is normal and how is this determined?

It is worth remembering that with mental health: “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”. In such circumstances it is difficult to resist the temptation to cherry pick data to suit whatever popular theory is being promoted at the time. The flow is from theory to observation to statistical analysis and back again – if great care is not taken then cherry picking will again take place in a misleading and apparently endless loop. Convention, it seems, must be followed – this is obvious from the fact that authors of articles that are not “politically correct” find it very difficult to have them published in mental health journals!

Prescribing mind altering drugs to people already suffering mental issues is counterintuitive. Yet this is what happens. The problem, which the “experts” seem to find difficulty in accepting, is that medications in various formulations and strengths have been prescribed for mental “illness” for something like one hundred years. Yet the problems remain. Logically this leads to the conclusion that, ipso facto, either the medications are ineffective or the aetiology (the study of causation, or origination) of mental disorders is misunderstood and therefore, by default, misdiagnosed – or all three.  

Using the same methods over and over again expecting different results each time is not very clever – in fact I believe this is an indication of some mental problem! Following the same course of action – prescribing medications that cause problems that further application of more powerful medications cannot alleviate is, also, not very clever. And yet this is what we seem to be doing with the current approach to mental health!!!

It is almost as if psychiatrists and psychologists are circling around the subject of mental health without fully appreciating what needs to be done (for example, after nearly one hundred years of research there is no effective biological test for any mental disorder – it's a matter of a health professional’s judgement regarding the apparent behavioural and thought disorder patterns presented by an individual. Furthermore if some mental disorders are deemed to have a genetic base the questions relating to any evolutionary advantage will need to be answered). I find it bizarre that there are over 360 different psychiatric disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – fourth edition – text revised, published by the American Psychiatric Association) with the further understanding that U.S. insurance companies (through their close relationship with pharmaceutical companies) now require a DSM-based diagnosis before they will reimburse prescription drugs on health plans. So again I ask the question that needs to be asked - what now is considered normal?

In this regard an over reliance on pharmacology is fraught; a “chemical imbalance” in the brain means what, exactly? What is the “correct” chemical balance and how is this determined? There is no known test that can determine the “correct” level of chemicals in the brain! Furthermore it should not be forgotten that behaviour can never be considered a “disease”, as an illness. A person may behave in a seemingly bizarre fashion and may be ill at ease but this does not mean they are “sick” – unless there is a pathological (medical) reason, which would then be beyond the scope of psychiatry or psychology.

Nothing is more fitting or useful than to be considered a normal human being living a fulfilling life in society but then, if the Australian Bureau of Statistics is correct, and 19% of Australians will suffer some degree of mental disorder during their lifetime then, once more, what is normal?

The needs and necessities of individuals vary. What is a prison for one sets another free. Yet “normal” can range from mildly eccentric with not a few who are apparently happy when leading a life some may think as abnormal, non-social and “odd ball”. There are seven billion individual ways human life is currently being expressed. I repeat, what is normal and, more importantly, who is checking?

What is needed is a complete rethink on the “medicalization” of mental health; a complete rethink on the causes (aetiology) of mental problems and a greater realisation that there are real problems in the administration and application of the law - as it applies to mental health; real problems caused by the obscene imbalance of income between the very rich and the very poor and the continuing, corrosive, effects of injustice which is prevalent in all societies. These have a major impact on mental health generally.

More drugs are not the answer.

Israel - Stolen goods bring no prosperity.

I am not quite sure where I first read the phrase, “Stolen goods bring no prosperity”, but it rings true. Just think of any individual, business or government that has deprived anyone of what was rightfully theirs; just think about those who have fraudulently or unjustly used or taken advantage of someone’s intellectual property; think about those who make a living by avoiding or evading government regulations.

What brought this phrase to my mind has been the ratcheting up of the Israeli/Gaza impasse which has been bubbling away since 1947. I strongly disagree with anyone who advocates violence as a solution to any problem. Violence begets violence. People who feel aggrieved should avoid conflict at all costs – no one wins a war. Oh yes! Battles may be “won”; “victors” may assume sovereignty over land and peoples; trade may follow the “gun” but at what human cost? Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.

After the end of the Second World War the dispossessed Jews and those who had survived the appalling treatment meted out by the Nazis with the infamous “final solution” known to history as the Holocaust were “given” what is now Israel. This is a historic fact and I am in no position to argue the merits or demerits of this “gift” by the sympathetic Allies who had defeated Germany. What I can say with certainty however is that the Palestinians who were living in the Palestine/Israel area and who had been living there since Biblical times were now (in 1947) dispossessed of the land (and in many cases their possessions as well) to make way for the “new” nation of Israel. Many of these dispossessed Palestinians ended up in Gaza. It is my understanding that no compensation was ever paid or reparation ever made.

This injustice rankles. They were never asked; they never gave “permission” for the land to be expropriated. Injustice is never forgotten; injustice is burned into the soul – just ask the Jews! The Jews have been treated very badly by all peoples – from ancient Babylonia to modern day Christians and Muslims. They have been fighting and striving for millennia for Judea, their “home land” – what they consider their Holy Land, their God given right. Why should the Palestinians, dispossessed by the Israelis feel any differently about their “home land”; their Holy Land, part of which is now Israel?

The fact is that the ultimate source of land is beyond human ingenuity; we may surmise how land was formed aeons ago – but no one can create a single grain of sand. Land just “is” – therefore by default land belongs to no one; land, Holy or otherwise, belongs to everyone. We humans are merely the temporary caretakers.

The Israelis, if they want peace and stability, will, ultimately, have to share the land they occupy with the original inhabitants – the Palestinians. This land was in effect “stolen” from the Palestinians in 1947, and until the Israeli recognize this and accept sharing as a future reality the phrase that opens this post - “stolen goods bring no prosperity” – will haunt the Israelis and torment the Palestinians.

War and violence will never, ever, solve the problems caused by injustice.

Catholics priests, Paedophilia and Cardinal Pell’s response.

Something is dramatically wrong when a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, the titular head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal Pell can say (in apparent justification) that, and I quote from the Weekend Australian newspaper dated 11-12 November 2012, despite the Catholic Church having received hundreds of complaints of child abuse and notifications of paedophilia in New South Wales and Victoria he believed “it was no worse than any other organisation, and had been unfairly vilified”.

I find this statement astounding, utterly beneath contempt and unworthy of any “organisation” – particularly a church like the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell is obviously looking after his position and is protecting his back. The statement was obviously made to protect the “image” of the Church and to diminish anyone who dares to criticise the activities of the Church and its ministers.

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to recall the words of Jesus (King James - Matthew 18.6):

 “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.”

As I understand it the whole point of a “Church” is that it espouses spiritual values and is supposed to guide, to nourish, to uplift its members. The whole point of priesthood is the (supposedly) spiritual training priests receive which is (supposedly) designed to make them “better” that the average parishioner so that they (the priests) may better minister to the needs of their “flock”. 

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to also recall the words of Jesus (King James – Matthew 22. v37 - 40):

 “37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.”

How can anyone trust an “organisation” such as the Catholic Church that breaks its own Laws, with children, innocent children; breaks the COMMANDMENTS, no less, of Jesus and then have its leader (Cardinal Pell) say, “We have been unfairly vilified?”

This statement beggars belief. Not only should a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the many hundreds of accusations of paedophilia and abuse but Cardinal Pell should stand aside from his position until this whole messy business is sorted out and the Church “cleansed” of its defilement.

I paraphrase Oliver Cromwell and say to Cardinal Pell and the Church hierarchy, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

(For the record - I am a non-practicing Anglican).