Sunday, 7 February 2010


I think that multiculturalism, is in a lot of ways a good idea, but I also think that it has its limitations, for various reasons, and that some politicians, and very idealistic political people and groups, don’t understand this or admit to all these facts. Some people believe in complete or total multiculturalism, and that anyone should be able to live anywhere, and in any other country, without any laws and restrictions against this.

I can see why some people, want and desire total multiculturalism on principle - because we are all individuals and human beings regardless of race - but I also can’t think of any culture or society, where total multiculturalism in this way, actually works - other than in some communes - but most people who join communes, are very well-educated, middle-class people (like university students), and the vast majority of people are just not like that.

To have totally free and complete multiculturalism, it would take years and years of very hard social work, experience, and education, but most people don’t want to, or can’t be educated in this way, and some racism is biological and can’t be changed through education. Because of the reality of all of this, I think we do have to have some laws and restrictions on immigration, because otherwise, all that would happen, is that complete multiculturalism would just create a lot more racial conflict, and the very racist fascist political parties, would just gain more power.

So I agree that we have to have some immigration laws and restrictions, although what I don’t like, is the way the immigration legal system, makes isolated examples of people, using some racism, to do things like deny illegal immigrants social security money or jobs, and to force these isolated illegal immigrant individuals, back to their own country.

Still, this is the reality of the immigration legal system, and I alone cannot change that. I think the immigration system, should be more flexible and lax though, where illegal immigrant individuals - if they are nice, fairly moderate, and peaceful people - should be allowed to stay in this country, if they have partners here who they very much love, and need to live and be with, and if they are willing and able to study or work in some way.

The Personal, Social, and Psychological Nature of Depersonalisation

In the most basic and accurate description of depersonalisation, it basically means when individuals have feelings of unreality, and when they feel like they are not fully alive, or real persons, and social beings - and more importantly - when they don’t feel like they are real or complete human beings, but feel more like animals or things. Depersonalisation, also very basically means - and is in fact - a form of depression and low self-esteem, which can be accompanied by some or a lot of anxiety.

There are basically four aspects to depersonalisation: 1. A basic understanding of all the different types of accurate, and false things, that the term depersonalisation means or refers to. 2. The causes of depersonalisation. 3. An understanding of different types of persons, why some people experience depersonalisation more than others, and why some others don't experience it, and 4. An understanding of things like sexual, love-orientated, and erotic masochism, which are not depersonalisation, but which may involve some things which may appear similar to it to some others, and the way this gets overall falsely misunderstood and labelled as such.

I'll deal with these things in chronological order. Firstly, depersonalisation, is often assumed by others about the term, that it is a noun, and describing simply a thing (like simply a psychological thing, or simply a condition or disorder within individuals) - when if you look at the term carefully and closely - the term "depersonalisation" is actually an adjective, and is describing something which is being done to someone, through neglect, mistreatment, or abuse. Also, the fact that the term is "de-person-alisation", is only assuming that human beings are simply persons - or just individuals - and not also social beings. It is true, that depersonalisation is somewhat related to different types of persons or individuals, but it's also very much true, that the way people are treated by others socially and interpersonally, and these social influences, can also be a big factor in all of this.

Depersonalisation can be a terrible thing, and it is still not much recognised and acknowledged, by many psychiatrists, social workers, mental health professionals and some others, that a lot of people who experience this are very much suffering.

The solutions to depersonalisation, are therapeutic, social, and in some ways and sometimes the right psychiatric medication, can help up to a point - or for a while - if combined with other approaches, and with very accurate and unique understandings of all the complex realities, functions, and processes of it. Some depersonalisation, is not really a major problem, because there are psychological processes which can transform depersonalisation, into things like feeling more alive and complete again, and feeling loved, valued, and having better personal and social identification, personal and social support, and much better self-esteem.

Depersonalisation, is also related to mental and emotional experiences and perceptions, and physical sensory experiences and perceptions, and the way all these things influence each other and interact, both socially and psychologically. Depersonalisation, is also in some ways very much related, to the ways that some experiences and perceptions can be denied, distorted, fragmented and repressed by the self and others.

If people who experience and suffer from depersonalisation, are simply being socially integrated, and then just told to change their lives, then this approach and very limited and ignorant social model, is very inadequate, insufficient, and unsatisfactory. Social integration, and mere instruction on how people must change their lives - purely in terms of distraction and activities - need to be very much combined with a social and psychological understanding, integration, and real liberation, of things like the persons experiences and perceptions - in terms of both emotional, mental or intellectual, and physical love and stimulation - towards healing and recovery.

The view that depersonalisation, is basically a form of dissociation, to protect a person from the trauma of emotional pain, is a very common and predominant theory amongst many modern academics, therapists, and mental health professionals. Obviously, there is often some truth in this theory and view - but again - by itself, it is very over-simplistic and incomplete. Whether a person, who is suffering from negative depersonalisation, really understand this about themselves, or are simply conforming to this very simple, or incomplete predominant view and theory of others, is sometimes questionable.

Where and when, depersonalisation has a protective and survival factor in this way, against emotional trauma, the side-effects or symptoms of this, can still often outweigh, the function and feelings of being protected, and there are much better ways to deal with and heal emotional pain and trauma, and feel more genuinely or better protected, and both sufferers and many professionals, need to learn about all this and keep all their options open.

Depersonalisation, as well as being a psychological and biological condition, can also be a social role coerced or imposed upon people, by psychiatric, social work, and mental health professionals. In a similar kind of way, sufferers will sometimes adopt the theories, which create their social roles as depersonalisation sufferers, and that is why sufferers need to in some ways realise and challenge this, and why new knowledge, and social, personal, and therapeutic approaches, models, and treatments are very needed and required.

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

On The True Nature, and Social and Psychological Functions of Colleges, Universities, and their so-called Teachers and Students

I have read the vast majority, of the theories and so-called findings of academics, and the vast majority of what the vast majority write and say, about human psychology, society, and human nature, is full of myths, lies, and wildly inaccurate. It is also driven by a very sycophantic and submissive underlying desire and tendency, for most academics to very blindly obey and serve the main so-called mainstream, and very outdated and stunted cultural and political ideologies, and the views and theories which most academics dictate and believe in, are simply slight variations of the views of other academics.

Indeed, one old friend of mine, said that if you wanted to study sociology or psychology, in terms of an approach which is critical about the abuse, labelling, prejudice, and discrimination, against people diagnosed with so-called mental health problems, then you have to get very friendly and favourable, with certain teachers who teach this at university, and which is like the fagging system in public schools.

In terms of the kind of relatedness, class-hierarchy, and so-called relationships, between students and teachers at colleges and universities, it is very much a master-slave type relationship, where the students are only allowed to have their own findings, theories, and views, as an adherence and "choice" between different academic theories, views, and opinions - and if the students do really question anything, think for themselves, and have their own very genuine findings, theories, views, and opinions - they are seen as very bad students or trouble-makers, by the other students and teachers.

Strangely enough, anyone outside the college and university circus and theatre, who genuine knows much more and much better, than all of these academics and teachers put together, is seen by the students, not as their master, but as their slave. This is curious and interesting, because I find the idea of being the students’ very wise and knowledgeable slave in this way, both erotic, strangely complimentary, and very exciting. This also shows us and very much reveals, the way students have been very repressed, in terms of the power-relationships between them and their teachers and lecturers, and that they secretly have no real grovelling respect, for their so-called academic masters and teachers.

There are some very good academics about, like Irving Goffman, and especially Dave Harper, who is a psychology lecturer in an East End London university, but Dave is one in a billion, and are aren’t very many academics around like him. Whilst Dave does write some genuinely great and innovative psychology articles, he has some very reductionist and black and white opinions about all psychiatric medication, and even his overall views and findings are still very much incomplete, and in some ways very inaccurate. I will send this article to Dave Harper, and very politely ask him for his views and opinions about it.

The truth and whole social nature and psychology of academics, is that they are regarded and treated, as kinds of magical gurus and royalty, and insulated and secluded from the reality of human experiences and behaviours in actual society, and in this way they are given an overall undeserved privileged status and respect, for this magical knowledge and power, and for the fact that they are really being given very preferential treatment, for being very subservient and ignorant.