Skip to main content

Re: Bondi Junction Incident.

@chibam Just wrote nearly exactly the same thing on another thread re: governments and where they put their money.

 

SANE is the leading organisation in Australia in regards to lived experience - already having a Lived Experience Advisory Committee that reports to the board. 

Re: Bondi Junction Incident.

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful comments.  I hope you don't mind but I thought I would answer each point in turn.

 

You: I see a lot of the people in this thread commenting about the Bondi Junction Incident man's homelessness as a contributing factor.

Me: Have you ever been homeless?  I have.  I remember feeling the intense rush of anxiety that indicates onset of acute stress.  Being homeless cuts you off from a primary human survival need- shelter.  People die of exposure.  I think it is reasonable to consider his homelessness status to be a contributing factor purely because it is a potent stressor.

 

You: Keep in mind that there's a massive homelessness crisis in Sydney right now even amongst the "sane" population who, aside from being homeless, conform to all of conventional society's other expectations for them. So, right now, outliers like the Bondi man have no chance.

Me: Yeah, give it time I say.  Being homeless gives you a new perspective and an extremely jaded view of society- people often ignore you or treat you like scum which slices through your self-esteem.  You are literally the unwanted.  Trust me, this tends to lead to a build-up angst toward the heartless and selfish affluent people who care not one iota whether you live or die- at least among some of the homeless.  So I am not sure why you assume the Bondi incident is an outlier- I have a different interpretation: it represents the beginning of a trend of psychotic behaviour in society caused by the social pressures we are experiencing.

 

You: The government isn't just gonna "wake up" in response to this, and assign addresses to all the mentally ill people wandering around Sydney before winter sets in; because it doesn't have any empty homes to give them!

Me: Actually there are plenty of vacant properties owned by investors which could be rented out to the homeless- so it is a matter of putting pressure on the government and reminding them that they have a duty to the public first before doing their deals with foreign investors.

Re: Person with lived experience response to Bondi stabbing incident

Hi, thanks for your comment: Thousands of people who have severe mental illnesses don’t target women like that. It’s interesting how when people thought the assailant was nonwhite the purported rationale was terrorism but now it’s mental illness. I hope SANE’s stigma watch is keeping an eye on the repercussions of this kind of reporting.

 

To be honest I knew instantly that this crime was likely due to psychosis- I never thought it was a terrorist attack nor did I need a media outlet to convince me it was about mental illness.  I have been through psychosis and I know a lot of people who have been through psychosis so I have learned to recognise it when I see it. Are you suggesting an alternative explanation for the crime? I believe in crimes such as these the victims are symbolic targets. What message do you think he was trying to send? 

I'm not aware of what SANE's stigma watch is but it sounds a little bit like big brother hahahaha

Re: Bondi Junction Incident.

Hi, you said:

@Jacques  One thing I would argue (I'm assuming that you made the middle post in that screencap) is that I don't believe that the government is the principal factor in peoples' inability to get help. I believe that the difficulty in getting proper help is more down to the senior figures (i.e. "experts" et al.) who govern the mental health system.

 

Me: Are you talking about help with mental health?  I believe the government is responsible for mental health problems, and they get psychiatrists and their team of lackeys to apply a band aid solution to the ever-increasing problem of mental ill health.  The capitalist system endorsed and peddled by the government, backed up by propaganda would have us believe that society is functioning adequately, when in reality there are substantial social problems emerging.  There are winners and losers in society and the winners have a vested interest in silencing the losers, so they can maintain the status quo, and by extension, their winning status.  Hence the band-aid solution is applied to the losers who open their mouth to complain about the problems they are experiencing- they are the pesky evidence that the system is not functioning well for everyone in society.  By band aid solution, I mean the attempt to reprogram the individual by the use of punishment, institutionalisation to undermine individuality and self-esteem, immobilisation by medication and subjugation by stigmatisation and powerlessness.  In short, they try to break you- and so no, I don't think the government or psychiatry actually tries to give you "proper help" as you put it- actually they try to take you out, that is, silence you.

 

Government can be a bit stingy with their funding of programmes; but essentially, whatever money they are willing to part with is divvied out according to where the "experts" tell them to send it. And policy formation is likewise based off of what the "experts" tell them to think; government members are rarely inclined to think for themselves on these issues, I've found.

That's why it was such a relief to hear last year that the government was setting up a new advocacy agency for the "lived experiance" community. Though, as I understand it, that agency hasn't yet been actually formed.

The government drags the chain on these things because it is not genuinely motivated to help people, it is motivated to silence people who contradict their agenda.  You are right- I have worked for plenty of government departments and the government workers themselves have no say in policy really, they turf this responsibility off to so called experts as you mention.  These experts often have their own ambition and agenda and they use the government to build their career.

 

Re: Person with lived experience response to Bondi stabbing incident


@Funnelweb wrote:

Hi, thanks for your comment: Thousands of people who have severe mental illnesses don’t target women like that. It’s interesting how when people thought the assailant was nonwhite the purported rationale was terrorism but now it’s mental illness. I hope SANE’s stigma watch is keeping an eye on the repercussions of this kind of reporting.

 

To be honest I knew instantly that this crime was likely due to psychosis- I never thought it was a terrorist attack nor did I need a media outlet to convince me it was about mental illness.  I have been through psychosis and I know a lot of people who have been through psychosis so I have learned to recognise it when I see it. Are you suggesting an alternative explanation for the crime? I believe in crimes such as these the victims are symbolic targets. What message do you think he was trying to send? 

I'm not aware of what SANE's stigma watch is but it sounds a little bit like big brother hahahaha


Like I said, thousands of people with severe mental illness don't target women like that.  It harms the rest of us when mental illness is labelled the cause, when most people with severe mental illness, including psychosis, are more of a danger to ourselves than to women and babies (and a refugee security guard) in a crowded shopping centre.

 

StigmaWatch helps us speak out against the irresponsible reporting of mental ill health.

Re: Bondi Junction Incident.


@Funnelweb wrote:
Have you ever been homeless?

I have a residance; though I don't think of it as a home.

Came close to being truly homeless once. And went on a bunch of awful camping trips when I was in high school (which I realize would be infinitely better then real homelessness) that convinced me I would never want to live like that. I decided a very long time ago that, if I ever were made homeless, I would pack it in right away. (That's as straightforward as these forums allow me to be, I'm afraid.)


@Funnelweb wrote:
I think it is reasonable to consider his homelessness status to be a contributing factor purely because it is a potent stressor.

I never suggested otherwise.😐


@Funnelweb wrote:
So I am not sure why you assume the Bondi incident is an outlier

No no... "Outlier" in the sense that he isn't one of society's "good little soldiers" who lives up to the picture that everybody is expected to live up to in order to be considdered a respectable member of society; lucrative job, proper housing, says and does all the right things, ect., ect. "Outlier" in the sense that he didn't seem to fit in with the mainstream (which all the information that's been released thus far seems to indicate very strongly).

I was not suggesting that his plight is exceptional. On the contrary, I realize that far too many people are in a very similar boat.


@Funnelweb wrote:

Me: Are you talking about help with mental health?  I believe the government is responsible for mental health problems, and they get psychiatrists and their team of lackeys to apply a band aid solution to the ever-increasing problem of mental ill health.  The capitalist system endorsed and peddled by the government, backed up by propaganda would have us believe that society is functioning adequately, when in reality there are substantial social problems emerging.  There are winners and losers in society and the winners have a vested interest in silencing the losers, so they can maintain the status quo, and by extension, their winning status.  Hence the band-aid solution is applied to the losers who open their mouth to complain about the problems they are experiencing- they are the pesky evidence that the system is not functioning well for everyone in society.  By band aid solution, I mean the attempt to reprogram the individual by the use of punishment, institutionalisation to undermine individuality and self-esteem, immobilisation by medication and subjugation by stigmatisation and powerlessness.  In short, they try to break you- and so no, I don't think the government or psychiatry actually tries to give you "proper help" as you put it- actually they try to take you out, that is, silence you.


Short response is: I agree with you. The traditional mental health system is more about coersion and control of patients rather then genuinely helping them. But I believe that the main villains behind this are the senior figures of the mental health system. The government are only responsible insomuch as they largely fund the system, and (until very recently) maintain willful ignorance of what it's actually doing.

The fact is, they don't want the job of helping suicidal & mentally ill people. It's too much of a hassle. So it's a great relief to them that all these big-shot professors and doctors running the mental health system are there to say: "Don't worry. Send that crazy person over to us. We'll take care of everything. Don't give it another thought." The government can then just blindly trust that patient is being genuinely helped, while remaining ignorant of the terrible reality.

That doesn't make the government blameless, of course. But they aren't the real problem, either.

You are also right that the government are significantly responsible for why many "mentally ill" people are so distressed in the first place. Although, they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place there. There's not much they can change without inflicting new misery on a whole lot of other people. It boggles my mind why anybody would ever want to live here; but what I'm starting to understand is that a large portion of our society like the structure, norms and boundaries of our society just the way they are. And even amongst those of us who don't like it, there's no consensus on what we want to change, and what it should be changed to.

The only changes that can really accomplish any good are the changes that alter the world significantly for the people who are unhappy; while scarcely producing any recognizable change for the people who aren't; and that is a very difficult thing to accomplish in a blended society of many radically differant mindsets.

Re: Bondi Junction Incident.

Hi, loved all your comments.  
 
I get what you mean by outlier now- you mean he wasn't a sheep.
 
You are probably right about the senior psychiatrists calling the shots...they are megalomaniacs.  I definitely agree that the government don't want the job of helping the mentally ill- they also don't want to make the connection between their policy and its repercussions.

 

You said: You are also right that the government are significantly responsible for why many "mentally ill" people are so distressed in the first place. Although, they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place there. There's not much they can change without inflicting new misery on a whole lot of other people. It boggles my mind why anybody would ever want to live here; but what I'm starting to understand is that a large portion of our society like the structure, norms and boundaries of our society just the way they are. And even amongst those of us who don't like it, there's no consensus on what we want to change, and what it should be changed to.

 

I love this comment.  I have several comments to make in reply:

I suggest that we are going to get a big change in society and a lot of people, namely the sheep- who enjoy and endorse modern society- are not going to like it.  The forces of nature are more powerful than any structure or institution or rich individual that exists in society- so it makes no difference whether people from different backgrounds can agree on various aspects of life.  What unites us all regardless of race or religion is the need to survive and reproduce in order to endure.  As a society we are seeing signs of survival stress (homelessness, mental illness, suicide) and low rates of reproduction.  Modern society is essentially an experiment- and it is failing in biological terms. Nonetheless the propaganda machinery promotes the idea that modern society is superior, that is, more evolved than Indigenous culture- but this idea doesn't stand up to reason.  Civilization is not the indicator of the success of a society in biological terms, endurance is, and nobody has endured more than the indigenous people on any given land area.  Moreover, the land is more powerful than any of us or any ideology to shape us. I can't see why it wouldn't be shaping us in the same way it shaped the indigenous over many generations- so gradually, over many generations we will come to be more like indigenous people.  This means that indigenous culture most likely holds the key to us surviving into the future.  I am not suggesting a return to traditional Aboriginal culture, I am suggesting that society begin to adopt Aboriginal processes and principles of running community that are PROVEN to promote survival.  It follows from this that all newcomers to a land need to look to the local people, the indigenous, to get advice about how to survive on that land.  However, this frequently doesn't occur.  The newcomers tend to take the land by force and install their culture and institutions which ironically are often failing in the home country, prompting the need to overtake new land.  This is what has happened in Australia. 

Some examples to illustrate why it might be wise to incorporate aspects of indigenous culture into future governance models:

1. Principle of limiting waste and preservation of environment.  Indigenous cultures are characterised by habits that limit the wasting of any resource.  For example, any animal that is killed is fully utilised.  Animals are recognised as being part of an ecosystem and so their numbers are preserved to ensure that food supply is maintained over time.  By contrast, modern society promotes consumerism and the industrialisation of food production which generates an enormous amount of waste, and is creating environmental disaster- jeopardizing our survival long-term.

2. Process of collective decision-making and goals. Indigenous cultures are genuinely democratic in that decisions are made by engagement of all the members of the community to discuss issues until consensus is reached.  This ensures that all perspectives are taken into account in any decision-making process.  Modern society however has a tokenistic democracy where we are often forced to vote for representatives that do not fully match our values.  People with money have more power to influence society, and they are currently shaping it by seducing the sheep in the middle class to endorse their system of capitalism, which is essentially a pyramid scheme- this is how they increase their wealth and power.  Rather than promoting collective decision-making and the setting of shared goals, individuals are encouraged to compare themselves to others and compete with them (divide and conquer).

3. Trade business. Direct exchange of goods and services without the use of money has advantages- for a business to survive in trade business (in a local setting), its goods and services must be of intrinsic benefit to the community- that is, they must promote survival and reproduction.  Unless goods and services meet our basic or primary needs, they will quickly be discarded as wasteful and useless by a process of natural selection.  Modern society by contrast promotes the use of money, which will always be secondary because it is merely a representation of value. It has no intrinsic value, hence the popular phrase: you can't eat money.  Importantly, in modern society, the use of money disconnects people from an awareness of what is intrinsically valuable.  This allows people to be more readily manipulated through advertising about useless and perhaps even harmful goods and services that are nonetheless touted as the latest "must have" in society- which of course leads to massive waste. If we moved to a system where we had a mix of both trade business and cash business, there would be less available tax dollars for the government (trust me, a good thing- but more on that later), as trade business is harder to tax by a centralised government.  Another benefit of trade business is that it strengthens community connections because the direct nature of the exchange of goods and services unambiguously announces to each party the benefit to self by the what the other party has to offer.  This promotes community cohesion and empathy as people are aware of the mutual dependence they have on each other.  It reinforces the idea that we need to work as a team in the community, towards the common goal of survival and endurance of that community.  Capitalism tends to limit community cohesion as people increasingly access their goods and services through corporate entities that monopolize the market, limiting the exposure of any individual to other individuals in the community, which would naturally promote cohesion and empathy (divide and conquer again).  Hence people now don't naturally endorse the idea that we are mutually dependent on each other for survival as social animals.  Instead, the idea of a competitive dog-eat-dog world is endorsed- which is a bastardisation and misapplication of a scientific concept (survival of the fittest).  This allows people to interpret disadvantage in the community as a sign of biological inferiority, which is totally incorrect.  Although it of course serves the purpose of inhibiting people from assigning blame to the government and the structures of society itself- it is easier to blame the victim.

4. Oral communication as the preferred mode. Oral communication is more efficient than written communication because it is direct and fluid.  Information is received by the ears and interpreted by the brain.  Written communication by contrast requires the learning of reading and writing- additional skills- which requires an energy investment, not generally favoured by nature, which tends to select for energy efficiency.  Writing things down can have negative consequences- it tends to freeze information in time, obstructing the natural flow of the evolution of ideas in a community. I believe the ludicrous level of documentation we have in society is in part due to the agenda of the legal system- a parasitic entity that has established itself by capitalising on divisions in a community and convincing people of the need for written contracts to govern any relationship. This of course provides them with continuing income and power in society.  If levels of cohesion and empathy increase in society, there would be little need for written contracts and lawyers, so of course the divide and conquer agenda benefits the legal industry most profoundly.  Ultimately, reading and writing is favoured by the power structure because it is an effective brainwashing tool- institutionalised education being a powerful mechanism by which the public are conditioned to endorse the agenda of the power structure.  It also allows people to control the version of history that suits them...again for indoctrination purposes.  

5. Respect for elders. This concept is very simple- it embodies the truth that experience counts in life, and that experience is the source of wisdom.  It is the idea that a person who has lived longer has likely had more life experience from which to draw upon when interpreting situations in life.  By contrast, modern society tends to encourage respect for people who have formal education qualifications over those with life experience.  But as I already mentioned, formal education is predominantly a brainwashing exercise- the knowledge gained by doing a course is vastly inferior to that gained by direct life experience.  It is a simple truth that reality doesn't lie, but a book certainly can...so institution-based education is always going to be an inferior preparation for reality than if real life is your teacher.  There is a darker truth here also.  The requirement that people must read and write to gain status in society serves to disadvantage those individuals who naturally prefer not to read and write.  These practical and action-oriented people are a natural threat to the pen pushers in charge as they are not amenable to the brainwashing program.  Hence, they are stigmatised by being labelled as learning disabled- a psychological ploy to undermine the confidence of realistic individuals that might challenge the indoctrination. Modern society also treats its elderly in a disgusting manner- warehousing them in old age homes, effectively sending them the message that all their life experience counts for nothing- what stupidity and what waste.

 

So, as I see it- nature will make the decision for us before we have any chance of reaching a consensus though discussion.  What I predict will happen is a major readjustment in alignment with nature- this will necessarily mean an almost perfect inversion of the current power hierarchy to favour those who prefer to learn by life experience over formal education.  This dramatically changes the playing field in society...for the better.  We are in safer hands being guided and supported by people with diverse and relevant life experience- they are realists and thus their decision-making ability will outperform the ideas cooked up by a bunch of brainwashed desk jockeys, who flatter the academics, doctors and other professionals in a mutually beneficial relationship that short-changes the rest of society. 

I am suggesting that society needs an alternative model to consider- it is not about choosing affiliation to any political party- it is about choosing a new way of awarding merit in society, and would require a restructure of society.  The alternative model I have briefly outlined above strongly advantages people with life or lived experience over book learning- any kind of life experience is valuable, particularly adversity which serves to strengthen a person.  I suggest that this model would likely be preferred by all the people disadvantaged by the current system- a number which is growing daily.  At some point there will be a critical mass of disgruntled society members who have suffered considerable adversity as a result of government policy and want major change.  What is only necessary then is a spark...exactly like what happened in Bondi.  An individual who was denied status and community support in society lashes out at a symbolic target: the rich.  He uses the method of random violence which is the most effective way to maximise the fear generated in the community.  The crime hit the population like a ton of bricks because the offender defied the societal convention of non-violence and in doing so changed the nature of the playing field from a social competition (in this case the have not against the haves- where the victims were clearly the winners) to a physical competition (requiring a different skill set- where the victims were defeated resoundingly). This message will not be lost on those who belong to the same social class as the victims- who have had their weakness exposed (physical vulnerability)- and the random or unpredictable nature of the attack will elicit extreme anxiety in the community.  For the inexperienced or unaware, the attack would have been a shock, to those with life experience it is a message that survival pressures are getting intense, and something had to give. And importantly: expect more to come. It is an important reminder that not everyone will blindly follow the rules forced upon us by the establishment- and psychosis is an effective weapon used by nature to powerfully cut through cherished ideals and pretenses of social convention.  Survival 101.  As my ex-partner taught me: It doesn't matter how many books you have read, punch wins.  

 

You said: The only changes that can really accomplish any good are the changes that alter the world significantly for the people who are unhappy; while scarcely producing any recognizable change for the people who aren't; and that is a very difficult thing to accomplish in a blended society of many radically differant mindsets.

My reply: I have to respectfully disagree with you there.  I believe that the only way we can accomplish good is to make decisions that promote the survival of the community overall.  That is the best way of achieving happiness LONG TERM in the community. The people currently sitting pretty-with their fancy degrees and their office work are living in a house of cards.  They are endorsing and are rewarded by a system that is fundamentally at odds with nature.  And I back nature to win every time.  I feel no responsibility to keep these sheep happy, as they felt no obligation to ensure my happiness in life.  And I certainly don't believe that these type of people should be the running the show- after observing their antics while working for government.  My argument is they are experience poor and this limits efficiency and accuracy in the design of effective policy.  In my view, they have had a very good run- and it is time for SKILL to be valued. When I was working for government, I often thought to myself: if working class people knew what a giant rort government office work is- that their tax dollars are paying for- they would take up arms.  I take great comfort in my belief that AI will soon handle the workload of the vast majority of government office workers- and do a superior job. That means these people will soon be out a job- and watch how quickly their superiority complex dissolves when they are on centrelink- with no skills and very little life experience and a massive mortgage.  Who's got the mental illness now? It is as I said before: life experience is the best teacher- the only way to school the sheep is to create conditions under which they can develop empathy.  The most efficient way of doing this is nature's way: learn by experience.

Re: Bondi Junction Incident.


@Funnelweb wrote:
 

What unites us all regardless of race or religion is the need to survive and reproduce


This is where it all falls apart for me; because many people, including myself, would argue that survival is only a desirable outcome in a very narrow range of circumstances. So to attempt to build a society on a primary agenda of insuring peoples' survival is, in my opinion, folly. Because all too easily you wind up in a situation where people are living very long, very worthless, very tragic lives; where you can't help but realize that they all (or most) would've been far better off dying as young as possible, rather then being subjected to the lives they've had.

A good society would make it's first and foremost priority to create and maintain the conditions that define a life worth prolonging; and then as an afterthought seek to prolong that way of life as securely as possible, but only if doing so does not undermine that quality of life. Even to the extent where the entire society will willingly die out, rather then abandon the factor that makes their continued existance desirable.

Quality over quantity. A very brief life that is predominantly defined by goodness, rather then a very long life that has nothing (or little) to reccommend it.

 

So again, I say that even those of us who want to see our currant society change can't reach a consensus over what we would see changed. Some of us would see the would change to adopt an even more fixated pursuit of survival; others among us would see the world change to view death in far more welcome terms, and to prioritize the cultivation of love and happiness above all else, even our own survival - both as individuals and a species.


@Funnelweb wrote:
 

I feel no responsibility to keep these sheep happy, as they felt no obligation to ensure my happiness in life.


My argument would be that it is incumbant upon us to be better then the monsters; to set the first example of virtue. As you say, we are miserable because they've made no effort to make us happy. We believe this is wrong. Hence it is incumbant upon us to demonstrate the wrongness of this by living by example; by living with an aspiration to preserve our enemy's happiness as much as possible, and thereby show them how they ought to have behaved with regard to us.

If we live with such careless disregard toward their happiness, how can we regard ourselves as being any better then them? One could argue that we would be even worse, since we understood from experience just how awful it is being on the wrong side of that dynamic. We understand full well the evil we would be perpertraiting, whereas those others may, to some extent, be naieve about such things.

And on a more practical front, if we turn this in to a war by callously destroying things that the reigning culture treasure; I believe it will make the road to a better way of life much more difficult and unpleasant for all of us. I'm not necessarily saying that our causes would fail, but achieving them would take much longer, and be much more painful. And we would've given those of differing mindsets cause to hate us, which could well lead to centuries of animosity, conflict, perhaps even bloodshed.

The best way to prevail is to be as invisable and inconsequential as practical to those who are of a radically differant mindset to you. Avoid antagonizing them by inadvertantly altering their agreeable world, as you strive to alter your world to better suit you.

Re: Thoughts for Sydney

We were in Sydney that day travelling around and Bondi Junction Westfield is a place we go to a lot when we travel down to Sydney as my surgeon is in the twin towers.

 

Ofcourse my heart goes out to the victims and their families, the people caught up in the event who were just out doing their usual shopping, looking after kids, staff working, visitors etc.

 

I also thought about the family and friends of the man involved and what they must be going through, knowing the media and social media would not doubt be harrassing them directly in the following hours and days.

 

I thought about the first responders and their mental health, the police woman suddenly thrown into the public spot light just doing her job.

 

I thought about the people who tried to help and put their own lives at risk to save others. 

 

I also thought about the number of people who pulled out phones and were recording the incident rather than in some circumstances could have been giving assistance to those injured and that made me quite angry, sad and appauled in a lot of ways.

 

I also thought about the further stigma around mental health that will happen and those who have any type of mental health condition and the run on effect from this event moving forward.

 

I also thought about the lack of privacy for all involved having pictures of family spread all across social media without their knowledge and consent to sell news articles and social media fodder for anyone who has access. And the further distress this causes and the fact it will continue over the coming days.

 

I also thought about the grief of the community and hope they do understand what vicarious trauma is and how it can effect you and to reach out to organisations like SANE in the coming days and weeks. 

 

 

 

 

Re: Thoughts for Sydney

See SANE's response to this terrible incident here Thank you SANE.