At first, I was so gullible. I assumed I could be helped, which itself, must be based on the guilty premise that the individuals participating in the language game understood each others words and share similar, or the same, definitions, but this is flawed. In fact, I have concluded that there is a world of difference between the Eurostream medical model, and the related-medical model (i.e. personal, relevant, suitable.) This lead to multiple difficulties, and yet, they tend to come back to the same principles for, “to desire wisdom is to seek principles that cut through the superficial and trivial facts that clutter our intellectual landscape, revealing the basic shape of things underneath.” Rather than get locked into the particulars, in order to understand this, it is crucial that the operating principles are realised and the dominant patterns are read. Firstly then, in this case, the mistakes arose from communication, for the assumption was that I could safely relay information to the “practitioners” when in fact, this is false. With the history of white domination (i.e. expedience in sectioning and/or misrepresenting people) being the cause of so much injustice, it would be absurd for informed people to freely share information with “less-than-sympathetic” parties who already view vulnerable non-whites with veiled contempt.
Another dominant pattern that leads to a “breakdown” in communication (even before the exchange begun) is to do with “ideals.” Accordingly, whites expect to be “first” (irrespective of what it is, so long as it benefits them), and yet, other peoples are supposed to tolerate second place, or last, or simply not getting any “help” at all. There are many things which damage non-white people that whites, viewing them as normal and taking them for granted – and in some cases even benefiting from them – can overlook in the “care” of non-white people. Artificial light is a major example, for this dangerous beam can be very harmful when non-white people are exposed to it, and can register as a hidden or less-visible cause for distress, even if the white practitioners cannot register this. Also, speech itself is a major variable, for, non—white people can especially be made sick by simply begging obstinate people for help with living their lives and growing into independence. With these decision-makers and resource-holders so reluctant, and many times resistant, to share with those in need, often for fear that they might lose their exclusive status and actually have to be equal, they tend to sabotage the efforts of people who sincerely desire to better their lives. Experiencing being “blocked” or “thwarted” these victims can become paralysed by disgust, and again, further fall into illness which whites, themselves being adjusted to that sickness, failing to raise a flag, or be alarmed by this.
Often times, it is better that whites reveal their hostility overtly, as those “kind-hearted” practitioners tend to be far more dangerous for the victims least suspect them, even though they work from the same harmful assumptions. Although these “good” people might be keen to “help”, it has been said that this is not always ideal: ‘enthusiasm is not necessarily an enemy of thinking clearly, whilst it is indispensable for achieving great and difficult ends. The danger arises from the feeling that the intense passion of a belief provides any guarantee of its truth.’ If indeed, ‘nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known’, then practitioners (“experts”), if they really want to SERVE people, would need to focus on competence rather than confidence. In my case, this has not happened as I present a case that is so rare, that even if their text books explored it, they wouldn’t be able to recognise it, and for that reason, mistakes will always be made in my “care.” If ‘an expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject, and how to avoid them’, then in my case, apart from myself, these experts, even if potentially capable, are presently, incompetent.
In his talk on Garveyism, the late John Clarke wrote of a “white black nationalist named Booth” that would put Jon Brown to shame. “He was telling the Africans, because he was disenchanted with the missionaries, having quit them, that the white man can’t be trusted. And finally when the Africans grew curious about the question coming from a white man, to his ever lasting credit, he said, “no”, Unlike his contemporaries, for whatever reason, it seems that Joseph Booth was not obsessed with a need to “control” and “dominate”; to “possess” and “own”, but much rather, at least here, seemed content with the unknown, which was home-rule and sovereignty.
It was a clarity I’ve seen matched only by Arthur Miller who too, following the death of Marilyn Monroe, accepted that there are some things people cannot fix, and do not need to know or concern themselves with. He said: My argument with so much of psychoanalysis, is the preconception that suffering is a mistake, or a sign of weakness, or a sign even of illness, when in fact, possibly the greatest truths we know have come out of people’s suffering; that the problem is not to undo suffering or to wipe it off the face of the earth but to make it inform our lives, instead of trying to cure ourselves of it constantly and avoid it, and avoid anything but that lobotomized sense of what they call “happiness.”
In “Sanity, Madness, And The Family” (London: Penguin Books, 1964) R.D. Laing & Aaron Esterson argued that: ‘the condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal.’ In many ways, the group fits this bill, comprehensively. In being so desperate to have “answers”, these enthusiasts ensure that they never pierce the veil of illusions, and a key factor which plays into this disposition is the unruly desire to be “right.” In setting themselves up as the truth, the group comes to imagine that “truth” is what they agree with, as opposed to what it is, and with this a number of errors follow…