Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Use Of Language In Defining Reality
By Patricia Lefave
I believe that one of the most important things to understand about our problems with psychiatry and others is that Language is used to define control and manipulate by those DOING the defining. Let's use a common example that most of us hear repeated over and over ad nauseam to those of us defined as 'sick.' This is one of my favourite meaningless abstractions used to attempt to shut me up.
"We can't blame others."
It is never 'which others' under what specific circumstances with what evidence of what...It is always used as a generalization connected to nothing at all and delivered in absolute terms. The only time that changes is when the
person being 'corrected' changes to become the 'other'. Then it becomes a whole OTHER abstract truth. These things used to stop communications are the same kind of abstraction used to 'diagnose' me. No concrete specific evidence is wanted or 'allowed." The language used to manipulate me though does NOT apply when it is the other way around. It only applies when I am the one doing the 'blaming.' There are many 'other' people who blame me for both what happened to me as well as what has happened to 'others' as a result of it. But you see, in that case, 'blaming others' is all right.
I have found that throughout my experience with both dysfunctional people and psychiatry itself, this duality is ever present and almost always delivered as abstract ideas in absolute terms which does more to create a them and us mentality than anything else they could have come up with for just that purpose. The dual meaning is the one constant. Once psychiatrized, writing in a notebook cannot be seen as healthy expression regarding the release of emotion or an attempt to sort information. Instead it is pathologized as 'writing behaviours.' In this way 'language' is used to define us. So I believe that one of the things we must do is point this out publicly, over and over again until it sinks into the average mind.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
You Don't Know What Words Mean
By Patricia Lefave, Labelled, D.D.(P)
That title is one of the concepts out of my nurse co-worker/protagonist's so called training.
Let me give you a concrete example of that so you can see, what I am talking about when I try to explain.
What do you think this means?
"Bill Gains Strength"
Do you think you know? Are you sure? Does it seem 'obvious' to you?
Ok, well let's look closer. Who or what is 'Bill'?
Is this a man?
Is it a dog?
Is it the bill of a bird of some kind?
Does it mean the dollar bill in the U.S.?
Is it the bill for a meal you just ate?
Is it a bill for some other kind of services rendered?
Is it a political bill someone is trying to push through parliament?
What kind of strength is it, or 'he,' gaining?
Is the gaining of strength a good thing or a bad thing?
Is it irrelevant?
Is Bill working out at the gym and gaining big muscles?
Is a dog named Bill recovering from his trip to the vet?
Is the parrot's broken bill healing or is it just getting bigger as the parrot matures?
Is it the American dollar getting stronger on the international markets?
Did you put that meal for which you were just billed, on your credit card?
Are there more members of parliament willing to support the desired legislation?
So which is it?
Do you not know? Is that because you are stupid and/or crazy? Or is it because you do not have enough concrete information to be able to know? In one way though, you have too much information don't you? Let me help you; not by calling you crazy and drugging you, but by giving you the missing information you need to make sense of the information you already have, which will also involve eliminating all the extra information which does not really apply to THIS case, though it may apply to some other case, which is using the same WORDS but meaning something else.
Here it is:
The statement: "Bill Gains Strength", is from the weather network. That is the missing information in THIS case.
Bill is the name of the current hurricane and it is gaining strength as it moves up the coast to Florida. It is a simple truth isn't it? Of course you could have found out by just asking me but if you were trying to keep yourself convinced you were 'hiding' and also had an understanding superior to mine in this matter, you would not want to do that as that would ruin all your 'fun.' (not to mention your own delusions of grandeur)
Now try to imagine what that kind of non communication could do to a person who was targeted for 'confusion' by someone with a 'hidden agenda' of domination.
Psychosis can be triggered by just this kind of disconnect from concrete reality.
When you cannot pin it down, especially when you are on the receiving end of a bombardment of multiple versions of reality by those around you coupled with a non stop contradiction, it can become impossible to stay connected. The next thing that happens is your brain tries to help by going on a mad search for meaning that will allow you to make some kind of sense of your external experience.
That does not mean there is something 'wrong' with your brain. It is doing what it is built to do which is functioning like a computer sorting information. BUT when there is too MUCH information and/or some vital information missing, it cannot function as intended as the search for meaning does not result in resolution. THAT has to come from an external source like supplying 'a key' for the completion of the sorting action.
When I was in psychosis I 'saw' Solomon's 'key.' That was the symbolic imagery. That 'key' was the story of the false parent whose 'solution' was the acceptance of dividing the 'baby' in half to be 'fair' to all and not 'blame' anyone. Solomon knew that only a false parent would sanction the killing of her own offspring as a 'solution' to. a dispute between two sides.
That psychotic symbolism had great significance for me. To most psychiatrists of course, it is meaningless.
They are wrong about that.
There I go with my 'fault finding' again. According to some of the psychiatric hospital staff, on their next round of debate with me as their long standing topic, this indicates I likely need another stay in the loony bin. Should I be expecting the ACT team to knock on my door with a police officer as part of the new pre-emptive strike being delivered by those who deny that they know anything at all about this? Many think it would be for the best if they got me the 'help' I obviously need. At least, that is what they say when they talk about me like I am not there.
That title is one of the concepts out of my nurse co-worker/protagonist's so called training.
Let me give you a concrete example of that so you can see, what I am talking about when I try to explain.
What do you think this means?
"Bill Gains Strength"
Do you think you know? Are you sure? Does it seem 'obvious' to you?
Ok, well let's look closer. Who or what is 'Bill'?
Is this a man?
Is it a dog?
Is it the bill of a bird of some kind?
Does it mean the dollar bill in the U.S.?
Is it the bill for a meal you just ate?
Is it a bill for some other kind of services rendered?
Is it a political bill someone is trying to push through parliament?
What kind of strength is it, or 'he,' gaining?
Is the gaining of strength a good thing or a bad thing?
Is it irrelevant?
Is Bill working out at the gym and gaining big muscles?
Is a dog named Bill recovering from his trip to the vet?
Is the parrot's broken bill healing or is it just getting bigger as the parrot matures?
Is it the American dollar getting stronger on the international markets?
Did you put that meal for which you were just billed, on your credit card?
Are there more members of parliament willing to support the desired legislation?
So which is it?
Do you not know? Is that because you are stupid and/or crazy? Or is it because you do not have enough concrete information to be able to know? In one way though, you have too much information don't you? Let me help you; not by calling you crazy and drugging you, but by giving you the missing information you need to make sense of the information you already have, which will also involve eliminating all the extra information which does not really apply to THIS case, though it may apply to some other case, which is using the same WORDS but meaning something else.
Here it is:
The statement: "Bill Gains Strength", is from the weather network. That is the missing information in THIS case.
Bill is the name of the current hurricane and it is gaining strength as it moves up the coast to Florida. It is a simple truth isn't it? Of course you could have found out by just asking me but if you were trying to keep yourself convinced you were 'hiding' and also had an understanding superior to mine in this matter, you would not want to do that as that would ruin all your 'fun.' (not to mention your own delusions of grandeur)
Now try to imagine what that kind of non communication could do to a person who was targeted for 'confusion' by someone with a 'hidden agenda' of domination.
Psychosis can be triggered by just this kind of disconnect from concrete reality.
When you cannot pin it down, especially when you are on the receiving end of a bombardment of multiple versions of reality by those around you coupled with a non stop contradiction, it can become impossible to stay connected. The next thing that happens is your brain tries to help by going on a mad search for meaning that will allow you to make some kind of sense of your external experience.
That does not mean there is something 'wrong' with your brain. It is doing what it is built to do which is functioning like a computer sorting information. BUT when there is too MUCH information and/or some vital information missing, it cannot function as intended as the search for meaning does not result in resolution. THAT has to come from an external source like supplying 'a key' for the completion of the sorting action.
When I was in psychosis I 'saw' Solomon's 'key.' That was the symbolic imagery. That 'key' was the story of the false parent whose 'solution' was the acceptance of dividing the 'baby' in half to be 'fair' to all and not 'blame' anyone. Solomon knew that only a false parent would sanction the killing of her own offspring as a 'solution' to. a dispute between two sides.
That psychotic symbolism had great significance for me. To most psychiatrists of course, it is meaningless.
They are wrong about that.
There I go with my 'fault finding' again. According to some of the psychiatric hospital staff, on their next round of debate with me as their long standing topic, this indicates I likely need another stay in the loony bin. Should I be expecting the ACT team to knock on my door with a police officer as part of the new pre-emptive strike being delivered by those who deny that they know anything at all about this? Many think it would be for the best if they got me the 'help' I obviously need. At least, that is what they say when they talk about me like I am not there.
Brief Message off the TV
Just for Psychiatrists
This is from the episode in which the problems of a patient are identified by Jack as generated by the patient’s memories of a previous life. Jack and the attending psychiatrist discuss their beliefs, or lack of them, in regards to life regression and reincarnation.
Jack asks the other directly; "So you are actually a believer then?"
The Attending: "I would never say any such thing as it would do my career no good at all. It would finish it for me.''
Same episode another patient is getting messages from his grandfather off the radio. His psychiatrist accepts it as reality based, in some way, rather than dismissing it or ridiculing it and the patient improves and starts to get calm with it. Soon, he says, that his grandfather has left a message for his psychiatrist too and this is the message:
"Stay tuned; big changes are coming"
A lot of us have gotten the same message. I sure wish more psychiatrists would get the message....don't you? Try just thinking about it WITHOUT pathologizing it.
From the Fox Series, Mental
Also available in Canada on Global
This is from the episode in which the problems of a patient are identified by Jack as generated by the patient’s memories of a previous life. Jack and the attending psychiatrist discuss their beliefs, or lack of them, in regards to life regression and reincarnation.
Jack asks the other directly; "So you are actually a believer then?"
The Attending: "I would never say any such thing as it would do my career no good at all. It would finish it for me.''
Same episode another patient is getting messages from his grandfather off the radio. His psychiatrist accepts it as reality based, in some way, rather than dismissing it or ridiculing it and the patient improves and starts to get calm with it. Soon, he says, that his grandfather has left a message for his psychiatrist too and this is the message:
"Stay tuned; big changes are coming"
A lot of us have gotten the same message. I sure wish more psychiatrists would get the message....don't you? Try just thinking about it WITHOUT pathologizing it.
From the Fox Series, Mental
Also available in Canada on Global
from Robert Whitaker
Madness Radio: Sane Medication Policy Robert Whitaker
By MadnessRadio - Posted on 28 March 2009
First Aired: Madness Radio 2009-03-30
Show: Sane Medication Policy Robert Whitaker
Length: 51:25 minutes (47.12 MB)
Format: MP3 Mono 44kHz 128Kbps (CBR)
Has society's embrace of psychiatric medications led to recovery -- or chronic disability? What would honest medical policy and treatment standards be if they were free of pharmaceutical company corruption? Pulitzer Prize finalist Robert Whitaker, author of Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, discusses medications as a failed paradigm of care, and imagines what a sane alternative would look like.
www.madinamerica.com.
Rt/Ctrl-clck download
By MadnessRadio - Posted on 28 March 2009
First Aired: Madness Radio 2009-03-30
Show: Sane Medication Policy Robert Whitaker
Length: 51:25 minutes (47.12 MB)
Format: MP3 Mono 44kHz 128Kbps (CBR)
Has society's embrace of psychiatric medications led to recovery -- or chronic disability? What would honest medical policy and treatment standards be if they were free of pharmaceutical company corruption? Pulitzer Prize finalist Robert Whitaker, author of Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, discusses medications as a failed paradigm of care, and imagines what a sane alternative would look like.
www.madinamerica.com.
Rt/Ctrl-clck download
Circle the Profession
In Psychiatric Circles This is Also Known as the Double Bind
Catch-22 (logic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catch-22 is a term coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a set of rules, regulations or procedures, or situation which presents the illusion of choice while preventing any real choice. In probability theory, it refers to a situation in which multiple probabilistic events exist, and the desirable outcome results from the confluence of these events, but there is zero probability of this happening as they are mutually exclusive.
The archetypal Catch-22, as formulated by Heller, involves the case of John Yossarian, a U.S. Army Air Forces bombardier, who wishes to be grounded from combat flight duty. To be grounded, he must be officially evaluated by the squadron's flight surgeon and found unfit to fly. Any pilot willing to fly such dangerous missions would be found unfit, as one would have to be mad to want to take on such missions. But to get this diagnosis he must ask for it, which would prove he is actually sane because he wants to avoid dangerous missions.
The "Catch 22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy".[1] Hence, pilots who request an evaluation are sane and must therefore fly in combat, but those who don't request an evaluation don't receive one and as a result can never be found insane, meaning they must also fly in combat. Catch-22, then, ensures that no pilot can ever be grounded for being insane - even if they are.
A logical formulation of this situation is:
1. (Premise: If a person is excused from flying (E), that must be because they are both insane (I), and request an evaluation (R));
2. (Premise: If a person is insane (I), they should not realize that they are, and would have no reason to request an evaluation)
3. (2, Definition of implication: since an insane person would not request an evaluation, it follows that all persons must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation)
4. (3, De Morgan: since all persons must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation, it follows that no person can be both insane and request an evaluation)
5. (4, 1, Modus Tollens: since a person may be excused from flying only if they are both insane and request an evaluation, but no person can be both insane and request an evaluation, it follows that no person can be excused from flying)
The novel contains several examples of the Catch-22 regulation and other similar situations. One example occurs when Luciana is distraught because no man will marry her because she is not a virgin. Yossarian offers to marry her, but she claims he is crazy for wanting to marry a non-virgin like herself and says she can't marry a crazy man.
Major Major creates a Catch-22 when he instructs his sergeant that no one may come in and see him, unless he is not in. If he is in, people must be told to wait — until he has left via the window.
Besides being an unsolvable logical dilemma, Heller's text contains two more distinct clauses of Catch-22. In the first chapter, officers who censor the privates' letters must sign their own name according to Catch-22, and in the final chapters it is restated simply as “anything can be done to you that you can not prevent”. The latter clause, in some instances, provides a solution to Catch-22 which is captured by the old German expression, die Flucht nach vorne antreten (“to take flight [flee] forward”): In the case of Orr, a friend of Yossarian (Heller’s main character), the solution was to desert and flee to Sweden, a solution that Yossarian ultimately adopts himself.
Yes there is little you can do when trapped in the double bind other than distance yourself physically from the rule makers. Or... perhaps expose .all of the irrationality of it all to the public so that everyone can get a really good sense of what it is like to be on the receiving end of this. PL
Catch-22 (logic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catch-22 is a term coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a set of rules, regulations or procedures, or situation which presents the illusion of choice while preventing any real choice. In probability theory, it refers to a situation in which multiple probabilistic events exist, and the desirable outcome results from the confluence of these events, but there is zero probability of this happening as they are mutually exclusive.
The archetypal Catch-22, as formulated by Heller, involves the case of John Yossarian, a U.S. Army Air Forces bombardier, who wishes to be grounded from combat flight duty. To be grounded, he must be officially evaluated by the squadron's flight surgeon and found unfit to fly. Any pilot willing to fly such dangerous missions would be found unfit, as one would have to be mad to want to take on such missions. But to get this diagnosis he must ask for it, which would prove he is actually sane because he wants to avoid dangerous missions.
The "Catch 22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy".[1] Hence, pilots who request an evaluation are sane and must therefore fly in combat, but those who don't request an evaluation don't receive one and as a result can never be found insane, meaning they must also fly in combat. Catch-22, then, ensures that no pilot can ever be grounded for being insane - even if they are.
A logical formulation of this situation is:
1. (Premise: If a person is excused from flying (E), that must be because they are both insane (I), and request an evaluation (R));
2. (Premise: If a person is insane (I), they should not realize that they are, and would have no reason to request an evaluation)
3. (2, Definition of implication: since an insane person would not request an evaluation, it follows that all persons must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation)
4. (3, De Morgan: since all persons must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation, it follows that no person can be both insane and request an evaluation)
5. (4, 1, Modus Tollens: since a person may be excused from flying only if they are both insane and request an evaluation, but no person can be both insane and request an evaluation, it follows that no person can be excused from flying)
The novel contains several examples of the Catch-22 regulation and other similar situations. One example occurs when Luciana is distraught because no man will marry her because she is not a virgin. Yossarian offers to marry her, but she claims he is crazy for wanting to marry a non-virgin like herself and says she can't marry a crazy man.
Major Major creates a Catch-22 when he instructs his sergeant that no one may come in and see him, unless he is not in. If he is in, people must be told to wait — until he has left via the window.
Besides being an unsolvable logical dilemma, Heller's text contains two more distinct clauses of Catch-22. In the first chapter, officers who censor the privates' letters must sign their own name according to Catch-22, and in the final chapters it is restated simply as “anything can be done to you that you can not prevent”. The latter clause, in some instances, provides a solution to Catch-22 which is captured by the old German expression, die Flucht nach vorne antreten (“to take flight [flee] forward”): In the case of Orr, a friend of Yossarian (Heller’s main character), the solution was to desert and flee to Sweden, a solution that Yossarian ultimately adopts himself.
Yes there is little you can do when trapped in the double bind other than distance yourself physically from the rule makers. Or... perhaps expose .all of the irrationality of it all to the public so that everyone can get a really good sense of what it is like to be on the receiving end of this. PL
Lost in Psychiatric Ambiguity
By Patricia Lefave
Focus: Psychiatrists say that if you were REALLY crazy you wouldn't know it.
Question for psychiatrists: Is psychiatry crazy? What is your answer?
Yes or no?
This is the kind of conceptual experience we who are labelled have with psychiatry. That is because the DSM, their "Bible," is the same kind of vague ambiguous abstraction written in absolute terms, disconnected from all concrete evidence or specific detail, that is also used in cults, and all other dysfunctional groups.That makes it political, NOT medical.
When you are on the receiving end of this non stop tautology, it can actually get absurdly funny; at least for a time. It stops being 'funny' when as the psychiatrized one, you come to realize there is NO way out of this conceptual trap, since no fault can be found in either the system or those who create, enable and support the system in the name of 'help.' The system validates itself by invalidating all objections to it and then INCLUDING those objections inside the system's identification of symptoms of 'mental illness.' That makes it an infinite loop that can't be seen unless you either see the whole pattern, or get OUTSIDE the loop itself to see it from that perspective. It is a way of controlling those who find fault in the system by claiming they are 'crazy' for seeing it, and then including what is seen, in a book they write themselves, so they can show the objector it is written in a book, which 'proves' the system is right!
In this way, the 'splitting' of reality is maintained, just as it is in any other dysfunctional group. "Fault finding," the ambiguous concept spoken about in absolute terms, disconnected from concrete specific detail, is a 'symptom' of yours when you find the fault in psychiatry or the psychiatrist who is supporting psychiatry. ( as it is when opposing the controllers in other groups) It is NOT however, a symptom of either psychiatry or the psychiatrist's, when the fault' is found to be in you. When it is them doing it, it magically becomes a righteous concept not a 'fault.'
One of the proposed 'mental illnesses' for the next round of the DSM, currently being compiled in 'secret' by the CIA-like profession, is "Bitterness Disorder." I do hope the psychiatrist enthusiastically promoting this idea does not become bitter if it does not get included. If he does, there will be no one to get him the treatment for it he obviously needs and deserves.
He probably would not see the humour in this. Perhaps that is because he is suffering from Obfuscation Syndrome. I hope that some dedicated psychiatrist can get an intervention underway ASAP.
Focus: Psychiatrists say that if you were REALLY crazy you wouldn't know it.
Question for psychiatrists: Is psychiatry crazy? What is your answer?
Yes or no?
This is the kind of conceptual experience we who are labelled have with psychiatry. That is because the DSM, their "Bible," is the same kind of vague ambiguous abstraction written in absolute terms, disconnected from all concrete evidence or specific detail, that is also used in cults, and all other dysfunctional groups.That makes it political, NOT medical.
When you are on the receiving end of this non stop tautology, it can actually get absurdly funny; at least for a time. It stops being 'funny' when as the psychiatrized one, you come to realize there is NO way out of this conceptual trap, since no fault can be found in either the system or those who create, enable and support the system in the name of 'help.' The system validates itself by invalidating all objections to it and then INCLUDING those objections inside the system's identification of symptoms of 'mental illness.' That makes it an infinite loop that can't be seen unless you either see the whole pattern, or get OUTSIDE the loop itself to see it from that perspective. It is a way of controlling those who find fault in the system by claiming they are 'crazy' for seeing it, and then including what is seen, in a book they write themselves, so they can show the objector it is written in a book, which 'proves' the system is right!
In this way, the 'splitting' of reality is maintained, just as it is in any other dysfunctional group. "Fault finding," the ambiguous concept spoken about in absolute terms, disconnected from concrete specific detail, is a 'symptom' of yours when you find the fault in psychiatry or the psychiatrist who is supporting psychiatry. ( as it is when opposing the controllers in other groups) It is NOT however, a symptom of either psychiatry or the psychiatrist's, when the fault' is found to be in you. When it is them doing it, it magically becomes a righteous concept not a 'fault.'
One of the proposed 'mental illnesses' for the next round of the DSM, currently being compiled in 'secret' by the CIA-like profession, is "Bitterness Disorder." I do hope the psychiatrist enthusiastically promoting this idea does not become bitter if it does not get included. If he does, there will be no one to get him the treatment for it he obviously needs and deserves.
He probably would not see the humour in this. Perhaps that is because he is suffering from Obfuscation Syndrome. I hope that some dedicated psychiatrist can get an intervention underway ASAP.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
On Stigma
By Patricia Lefave
One of my readers was telling me that he had been contacted by a professional to participate in a conference about the 'stigma' of mental illness. My reader then discovered that the professional was not really interested in hearing what was being said, just as inside the bio psychiatric system he had not seen any interest in his point of view after the first few minutes when a diagnosis was reached. In part, my answer to his experience included this and I though I would post it here as i have heard it so frequently.
What 'stigma' means to 'them' and what it means to us is not the same thing. "They" want to get rid of the ''stigma" of 'mental illness' by training the public to become even MORE deaf to what we 'claim' happened to us involving other people, by strenuously promoting the idea that our CLAIMS are just a manifestation of a bio chemical illness 'just like diabetes.' See the difference? We on BOTH sides of the meaning admit to the ongoing existence of a 'stigma,' but the understanding of the actual cause of that is completely different. So, while we are using the same WORD, we do not mean the same thing, and 'OUR' side of our own experience is not invited to 'debate' it with the 'experts.' This extreme imbalance (ironically) of POWER and control is what is keeping this going. It creates a tautological argument that has been 'won' by the 'experts' BEFORE our experience of it has even begun. It is also doing a damned fine job of enabling and supporting abusers who want to believe THEY represent all this is 'normal' in the world and they are therefore 'justified' in their abuse of others since we 'others' are 'abnormal.' This is especially true if the abuse is psycho-spiritual/verbal in nature as we can parade out 'bruises' or 'injury' in a concrete way. It is all about the psycho-politics.
One of my readers was telling me that he had been contacted by a professional to participate in a conference about the 'stigma' of mental illness. My reader then discovered that the professional was not really interested in hearing what was being said, just as inside the bio psychiatric system he had not seen any interest in his point of view after the first few minutes when a diagnosis was reached. In part, my answer to his experience included this and I though I would post it here as i have heard it so frequently.
What 'stigma' means to 'them' and what it means to us is not the same thing. "They" want to get rid of the ''stigma" of 'mental illness' by training the public to become even MORE deaf to what we 'claim' happened to us involving other people, by strenuously promoting the idea that our CLAIMS are just a manifestation of a bio chemical illness 'just like diabetes.' See the difference? We on BOTH sides of the meaning admit to the ongoing existence of a 'stigma,' but the understanding of the actual cause of that is completely different. So, while we are using the same WORD, we do not mean the same thing, and 'OUR' side of our own experience is not invited to 'debate' it with the 'experts.' This extreme imbalance (ironically) of POWER and control is what is keeping this going. It creates a tautological argument that has been 'won' by the 'experts' BEFORE our experience of it has even begun. It is also doing a damned fine job of enabling and supporting abusers who want to believe THEY represent all this is 'normal' in the world and they are therefore 'justified' in their abuse of others since we 'others' are 'abnormal.' This is especially true if the abuse is psycho-spiritual/verbal in nature as we can parade out 'bruises' or 'injury' in a concrete way. It is all about the psycho-politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
