Sunday, 19 February 2017


A Stigmatic Case of Chinese Whisper

"Don't draw what you think you see. Draw what you actually see."
Fine Art Instruction (Da Vinci Academy)

The fictional dialogue (pt 2 and pt 3) is inspired by an actual dialogue (pt 1) in which both real and fictional protagonists tackle a real life prejudice person. Pt 4 is the original envelope notes from which pt 3 is adapted to make it more congruent with the story.

Part One

Case Worker Jewel: “What happened with the job I set up for you with the Company? They told me they have not seen you for months.”

Honest Joe: “After wasting quite a lot of my time I finally accepted that they are not buying the paint and therefore I can not possibly paint their mural. I am still waiting for them to contact me via email to tell me they have bought the paint.”

Case Worker Jewel: “Oh. Well what about doing their website?”

Honest Joe: “I already explained to you that my company charges cost plus 10% for building websites. Which is the best deal on the internet. Most people are charging cost plus 500% or more. I don’t see why I should build your friends website for free. I have already requested you to advertise my company and put me forward for any business grants available.”

Case Worker Jewel: “Well that’s just crazy.”

Honest Joe had the good grace to say nothing because anything he did say at that point would have been to start an argument regarding his right to charge money for his time and skills. His Case Worker’s refusal to put him forward for business grants which he is eligible for combined with her insult that the suggestion to be “just crazy” highlighted to Joe that he is dealing with someone with a prejudiced opinion of him. Joe's belief in common sense is such that when it is clearly evident someone with an agenda has an opinion of you which is prejudice, it is best not to discuss anything at all with that person. The meeting ended very shortly after that.

Part Two

In which the character named Joe’s Logic might equally be described as A Voice Of Conscience. On and for the record, if you have a voice of conscience in your mind then you are technically hearing voices.

Joe’s Logic: “Why have you separated him out as a ‘special case’?”

Jewel: “He is mental health.”

Joe’s Logic: “Do you have a body?”

Jewel: “Yes of course.”

Joe’s Logic: “Health applies. Do you have a mind?”

Jewel: “Yes.”

Joe’s Logic: “Health applies. You also are mental health. What do you mean precisely by ‘he is mental health’ ?”

Jewel: “Oh, he has mental health problems.”

Joe’s Logic: “Explain that precisely please, not bias.”

Jewel: “Well, I don’t know the specifics. He has been diagnosed.”

Joe’s Logic: “Regardless of a GPs opinion*, or a generalization from a third party putting a label on him, what precisely is the nature of his alleged problems?”

Jewel: “Well, I don’t actually know.”

Joe’s Logic: “But you stigmatize him, based on zero actual evidence and a confession of ignorance.”

Jewel: “Well, I am ….”

Joe’s Logic: “Given that you are prejudice and with no verifiable justification of your allegation, it stands to reason that You are ipso facto the one with a mental health disorder.”

Jewel: “Shit, you are right.”


In real life, Nobody replies this way (by recognizing their own error of judgement) because it is a confession of self-delusion which breaks the person out of a cycle of self-delusion. Self-delusion is recognized to be a mental health disorder called ‘Cognitive Dissonance’.

What we have here is a scenario where a person evidently suffering from a mental health disorder (and yet with a position of social authority) is actively persecuting somebody who has not showed any sign of a mental health disorder, quite the contrary in fact, and yet who is being prejudiced against because of slander. This is why mentally healthy people do not judge other people by reputation.  

Part Three

Jewel: "You said, 'regardless of GP's opinion'. Why do you doubt a professional expert? Why do you question that authority?"

Joe's Logic: "How would a GP know whether a person other than himself hears voices? How would a third party know what is happening inside a different persons mind?"

Jewel: "Well Joe must have told the GP that he hears voices."

Joe's Logic: "That is YOUR assumption. The actual events were that a third party told a GP that Joe hears voices and when Joe denied it, the GP said that hearing voices is schizophrenia and that denial of schizophrenia is a symptom of schizophrenia, thus as Joe has two symptoms he must obviously be schizophrenic. Joe's explanation that the GP is using non-logic has been written up as his experiencing paranoia about state professionals therefore a third symptom."

Jewel: "So what you are saying is that Joe is not schizophrenic although the Professionals have diagnosed him as schizophrenic because of something that somebody else said about him."

Joe's Logic: "That is part of it, yes. That is exactly what has happened. And nobody will back down. The more Joe explains to the so-called Professionals that they have made a mistake, the more reports the Professionals fabricate describing Joe as having symptoms of being delusional about Professionals fabricating evidence to the detriment of his social reputation."

Jewel's Higher Logic: "Of which my own prejudice about Joe was previously a part of!" 

Joe's Logic: "State workers all back the official paperwork version of reality EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT IS BOGUS." 

Jewel's Higher Logic: "Which is why you described Cognitive Dissonance as a mental health disorder."

Joe's Logic: "Yes. You see what is happening now." 

Part Four

The GP who lied about me had my mothers smile. They are not prepared to discuss the possibility that muscle being mostly water holds an energetic form and configuration so facial expressions and body posture can reveal who a person has been programmed by - who is whose zombi. It is alarming how dishonest they are that they would have to be prepared to be able to discuss such a thing. It is common sense that a rational and functional person with a healthy mind should be able to converse regarding all that.

When I discuss this, 'they' regard it as insanity. You know to whom I refer by use of 'they' because it has already been established, were you were paying sufficient attention. They regard it as insanity and use that as an excuse to debunk my opinion, so as to cover their tracks. They are in conspiracy. It is a criminal offense at law.

The situation of state professionals telling me that I am mad is designed to destabilize my trust in my own cognitive abilities. it is a power game involving perception and exploration of reality. Expressing concern that i am not conforming to the social contract without accurately discovering what my orientation to that social contract is does not, logically speaking, have any bearing on my own mental condition - it describes the conspirators belief structure. They are using strawman arguments. It is crooked thinking.

Claiming them to be in conspiracy is regarded by the state professionals as being paranoia of the state professionals. At this stage their irrationality becomes bigotry and prejudice. Their paperwork trail does not accurately express my opinion about my situation and neither does it accurately describe my actual mental condition. It is fabrication of evidence, a criminal offense at law. They are guilty of neglect of duty, corruption of public office. These are socially regarded to be serious crimes. It is a Human Rights abuse committed by sociopaths with an agenda. Their job roles are a cover for that.

They cannot or will not accept my own version of me to be an authority on me.

Their assumption that they know me better than i know myself, which their reports indicate IS their game, show them to be making things up. This is symptomatic of a sick society in which this is allowed to occur.

©2017 Ordo Octopia. All Rights Reserved

Creche mentality


sponsored by Yr Hwb / back to work projects

No comments:

Post a Comment