Wilson, Callaghan and Adolf Hitler

28/06/08 07:09 [Saturday]
Thursday and yesterday we went to London by Virgin trains on the route from Birmingham New Street I would without exception have used in my younger days (before I was ever drugged, or in the later 1970s when for perhaps two years, when I was living on my own in my own house, I avoided being drugged) instead of the Chiltern route promoted recently by the Authorities (this latter being cheaper but much slower). By ‘the Authorities’ in this case I mean those who determine what is said to me in nighttime hypnosis (or ‘advisory’ voicing related to hypnosis), and the reason we chose the better route (better given our circumstances, as it was better for me on my own in the 1970s and indeed as it must be better for almost any traveller, the Chiltern route being suitable really only for people travelling only part of the distance and not all the way from Birmingham to London) was that living in our own bungalow in Kingswinford it is extremely difficult for them to offer us this unwanted ‘nighttime advice’. The reasons things have not gone so well for us recently (for example causing us to waste money travelling twice to London when if we needed to go at all we needed to go only once; but because I was drugged quite severely during Thursday’s run I lost my focus this necessitating Friday’s repeat, and except that the drugging I suffered yesterday - Friday - was so little we might have needed to go again today) stem from the ‘nighttime advice’ I suffered when we slept away from home on recent occasions, at the Innkeepers Lodge Bessacarr and in a caravan in Skegness.
Things have been done in the past by ‘the Experiment’ which ordinarily would be illegal, and may have been illegal, although possibly legitimised retrospectively. To supply me fake websites which I have trusted as though they were genuine Microsoft websites I would expect to be illegal; and certainly Microsoft would have grounds for a civil action in that their name has been besmirched. Microsoft take a lot of trouble to ensure their software works with minimum flaws, and in doing this they are investing in Goodwill, that is people will trust Microsoft software (including extras supplied through genuine Microsoft websites) above other software on the basis of statistics which become widely known, that is the low statistics of failure of Microsoft software. In going to London to an address listed in a directory in Stourbridge library as an address for Microsoft (and also listed thus on 192.com via our Virgin Media internet connection) I was trying to ensure Microsoft are aware that false copies of their websites are supplied (as well as false copies of Microsoft discs - eg XP install CDs I have bought) in the hope this would stem the activities of ‘the Authorities’ and even bring The Experiment to an end. While what I suffer mainly from The Experiment is the drugging, nonetheless to have a true and proper internet connection, supplying true and proper and therefore trustworthy Microsoft sites, would be a boon.
Sometimes I fear that the object in drugging me - there is no indication those drugging me understand that it is what I would call criminal to do so, and certainly immoral (but that the dosages are now much lower - this however may be due more to my better practised techniques of evasion than from any new understanding of ethics the druggists may have come to) - is to still me, that is to deter me from publicising the abuses - as I say, on the face of it illegal and certainly criminal to use a word I think very appropriate - imposed in the past. A few weeks back I was thinking along these lines but putting the blame for the presumed intention to silence me regarding past abuse on ‘friends of Armond’. Now I think Armond was only a cog in a machine, and it is more or less the British Government - certainly the current Socialist Government kin to that of the 1970s who authorised ‘the Experiment’ in the first place - who are looking for such a way out. Apparently it is felt unacceptable to compel me in the way I was compelled in the past, and my fear is that recent scenarios engineered by The Experiment are hoped to produce behaviour from me - drugged but only mildly drugged. so that I can be said to be responsible for my choices - which will lead me one way or another into mental treatment possibly including hospitalisation and certainly including drugging which stills me.
With a mind this morning clear of the distortion of ‘nighttime advice’ I can see that it would be well to use this busy shopping day of Saturday to shop for a quantity of undrugged food. I can do this by selecting a store to shop at, randomly from a list, even without using a computer (now I have printed out the lists used by my computer prog to randomly choose a store).
28/06/08 09:18
Looking at the letters I have sent recently (looking at the Royal Mail website in fact - as presented via our untrustworthy Virgin Media internet connection - to see what it purports has happened to the deliveries), I can classify them into categories. Several of the letters have been sent as a consequence of drugging I suffered, to try to deter future drugging either by direct entreaty (eg to Whitbread as responsible for the PremierInn Wakefield City North) or by hoping to cause trouble and expense (eg to BT and to Royal Mail Customer Services the latter in respect of the jar of Robertson’s marmalade I returned for refund but which was lost - even though Premier Brands Foods Limited sent me £3.50 as though in recompense). Letters to Nominet and to 123-reg were motivated by distortions I have suffered in my internet connection (blameable almost certainly on Virgin Media in fact). Evidence that the letters to 123-reg do not reach their proper destination leads me to suppose that someone (‘the Authorities’) without the consent (or collusion) of 123-reg have been trying to get me to sign up with a hosting service more to their preference (such as Heart Internet, corrupted through and through to the ends of The Experiment, and owing me money which they show no morals in respect of at all). I can perhaps expect support therefore from 123-reg as someone (‘the Authorities’) has been trying to do them out of business (and similarly Microsoft, as explained above).
I don’t think Robertson’s gave their consent either, to the contamination of their products with drugs. Again, this assessment is based on failure to deliver my several attempted letters to them to the proper destination. I therefore anticipate support from Ranks Hovis McDougall (ultimate holding company for James Robertson & Sons Limited).
Rowse Honey I feel must be a small company easily leant on by the Government-backed ‘Authorities’, and going along with the consequences of the contamination of their products although probably initially not consulted.
28/06/08 09:38
Looking up a quotation I thought I half-remembered about a big lie being more easily perpetrated than a small lie, I find it comes not from an ordinary sort of Socialist but from Adolf Hitler: The broad mass of a nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. In other words if the State can get all sorts of falsifications put out by the Royal Mail, and through big companies like Virgin Media, and especially organisations conveying or purveying information, the man in the street may easily fall for it. A relic of the Wilson and Callaghan days of the 1970s indeed.

Delayed posting from Friday 30-May-08

It seems to me then that the treatment I have been given, although unusual in being surreptitious and by virtue of that unevadable until recently, has been based on standard treatment in Britain for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. It must be that in recent years psychiatrists have genuinely taken me to be schizophrenic, although I find it difficult to believe Armond and his co-perpetrators in earlier years would arrive at the conclusion that I inevitably was schizophrenic merely on the basis of the schizoid personality which led me into all this when I went up to Cambridge in my student days. Presumably the conclusion was drawn that I was genuinely mentally ill, and the diagnosis of schizophrenia accepted, when I reported my suicide attempt at the start of 1986 (reported it then, that is). The extent to which Armond genuinely believed the diagnosis in 1986 I cannot tell.

The standard treatment for schizophrenia I find is left in the hands of people who think that what is important in life is to have money to spend on material things, and to a degree that it is a responsibility to work for money if one is capable. Such carers are not at all in tune with the things their patients would want and do if free (of debilitation from what I can agree is an illness given the context they find themselves in, but also from debilitation which in many cases I suspect is worse, from the treatment).

In my own case the law has been broken on more than one occasion, and, because I was regarded as mental, no one has taken much trouble to assist me in rectifying this (either in complaining effectively so as to deter a repeat, or in obtaining compensation). Advice I would certainly urge on those with ultimate responsibility would be to put in place procedures whereby the law must be strictly adhered to. (For example Dawn was detained beyond the time I as nearest relative ordered her release, and the procedure which Armond followed of insisting I sleep one night every few months in hospital was found to be illegal when tested in another case.)

The reason the law is not adhered to is that those treating the mentally ill feel they can do better than the law allows for their patients. Similarly they feel they can do better than manufacturers of the medication allow, by giving dosages in excess of the recommended maximum. As I have said before, they are fools beyond compare. Laws get debated extensively before being enacted and even should there be such a thing as a clever psychiatrist he is not going to do better than by following the law.

Includes cost to the economy

In the 1990s I had a number of pen-pals who I had got in contact with through the NSF (the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, by the old name it was then called). Possibly one of these, or possibly it was someone who came on TV with his story, explained what had happened to him: he had developed schizophrenia (according to doctors) and had been treated with antischizophrenic drugs. His mental organisation had become totally disrupted: whereas before he had been (I think) a Civil Servant, or anyway in some position needing ability to think clearly, afterwards he was totally incompetent. He himself believed the mental disorganisation was due to the illness, and presumably those treating him did.
I must be about the only person treated with such drugs for schizophrenia (or as if for schizophrenia) who already knew a good deal about the illness. I knew from the start that my mental disorganisation was nothing to do with symptomatology of schizophrenia, and in fact I knew the truth, that it was due to the drugs. How it comes that no one else has understood this I find difficult to unravel. Those testing the drugs seemingly don’t measure the right things, in measuring the effects. They don’t measure the effect on ‘mental organisation’: for example (to harp on again) Armond said that antischizophrenic drugs do not affect intelligence, so I think testers of these drugs must test the effect on IQ and conclude that the drugs don’t affect mental capacity because they don’t have a measurable effect on IQ.
The effect they have (on mental organisation) is as I have said comparable to the effect of lobotomoy. I saw a TV programme about a man in the United States who had had a brain injury destroying part of his prefrontal cortex. Whereas before he had been a high-powered legal executive, afterwards he could only hold down a job as a petrol-pump attendant. This is what happened to me given these drugs: beforehand I was highly regarded as a trainee accountant (for example at Round Oak Steelworks, and for a while at Dudley Council) but afterwards I was what I would call totally incompetent.
It may be - and I hope it is - that someone sensible recently, because of events, has cottoned on to these allegations I make about the effects of antischizophrenic drugs. If they have cottoned on and find a way of testing the truth of what I say (which, if I have been adequately observed, will already be well on the way to being done for my own case) they will discover it is true, and that giving these drugs incautiously results not only in horror for the treated individuals (which they naturally blame on their illness) but deprives the economy of useful workers.

Trespass

When I was a kid I had all sorts of ideas for gadgets, for example making use of transmission of information over a distance. I saw a TV programme about the invention of telegraph and - whether specifically suggested by the programme I can’t remember - afterwards made a telegraph of my own by winding a solenoid myself using ordinary low-voltage wire (probably supplied with a Philips Electronic Engineer kit I had) and arranging it to swing a needle to indicate dot or dash (or whatever) as in Morse code. Today I have been using my versatile intelligence (as I might call it) for practical purposes - security of our home - rather than (yesterday) writing intellectual (the word I use) or philosophical stuff. I mention the telegraph I made as a kid because nowadays wireless devices are easily affordable, and I am pleased with what I have achieved this morning along the lines of transmitting information from home to a handset I shall carry about with me when I am out and about.
Having achieved pretty competent security, my self-questioning asks the question, does anyone genuinely ever enter our home illicitly, or rather: have they in the past? On one occasion, in January 2007, we returned to the bungalow here in Kingswinford having been away in Nottinghamshire and there was slight damage in the bathroom. It seems very likely someone had entered, and at the time the only alternative I could envisage was that there had been a minor earth tremor. We called in the police but they simply took note, and took note (as we ourselves did not till later, and phoning the police found they had been aware of it) that the breakage of the bathroom window was the internal pane of the double-glazing (arguing the damage was indeed done from inside).
It seems not unlikely (for example because of the legal position that an Englishman’s home is his castle, which would require some special permission presumably in each case, for ‘illicit’ entry) that the advantage taken of us is more by way of (something like) drugging us into a heavy sleep and then walking in through open doors (to drug water stored in bottles in the kitchen, in January this year for example). The law might well regard that as little more serious than trespass.
I have to say the law is wrong and should be changed. The hurt in such a case lies in the drugging. Even being drugged with something like a ‘Mickey Finn’ (something almost certainly perpetratred on us) gives rise to headache in the hangover. And if it is used to further drug us, with drugs which are seriously offensive - say putting antischizophrenic drugs into bottles of water - the offence is severe. The hurt does not so much consist in physical ‘side-effects’ (like headache) as in the effect on one’s mind (certainly speaking for myself). Medical people are hopeless at measuring such hurt - consider for example Armond’s assertion that antischizophrenic drugs ‘do not affect the intelligence’ as though all mental capacity is measurable as ‘intelligence’ or its absence - and it is wrong to allow psychiatrists who are especially foolish medical people to prescribe mind-altering drugs with so little limitation or control on them.

Here's one I did yesterday

The drugs affecting me earlier - probably a mixture of stimulant and ASM [antischizophrenic medication] - have worn off (which for one thing implies the pleasing fact that they did not derive from the bread which I can continue to eat with impunity: probably they derived from the remains of the Sara Lee gateau, as I suspected at one stage this afternoon as well as a day or two back of the gateau then) and my mind is almost as it was when I was in my late teens, certainly as regards activity level (or ‘activation level’) although I suppose I must admit I have more experiential memories so that the subject-matter thrown around in the activity is more varied, and likely more realistically founded.

Just as at that time as a teenager then, I ask myself - before doing anything much at all, including any writing - what point there is in it? The answer today is differently based from then, as regards writing, because I have a readership. Anyone with a blog can hope for readership, but in my particular case almost certainly a lot of what I put up is read by or on behalf of ‘the Authorities’. I put this forward as the explanation for my relative garrulousness in explaining matters such as I am here in these prefatory paragraphs, which would be different - perhaps non-existent - if I did not have in mind these readers for ‘the Authorities’.

A lot of what occurs to my mind to write, in fact, takes shape as though directed at the readers for ‘the Authorities’, and usually it is complaining about what I suffer, or explaining what it is the Authorities are doing that they shouldn’t be. I conclude that most likely such explanations and complaints aren’t understood although at times I have wondered if they are read at all.

Taking on the theory that from the time I was at Cambridge the Experimenters were intent on tracking through life a person thought liable to develop schizophrenia, and that in 1986 Armond (as one of the Experimenters, or employed by them) genuinely concluded I had developed schizophrenia - not entirely unexpected, as I say - and what has been happening since then is treatment of that supposed schizophrenia, using extraordinary methods including admixed heroin (not unheard of in cases of terminal disease in combination with something like chorpromazine, to give a kind of early death in life before actual death, but made happy - supposedly - by the heroin) and later admixed antidepressants and admixed stimulants (this last virtually unbelievable as countering - almost any scientist would have said so - the dopamine-blocking action of the antipsychotic leaving only side-effects of both drug types with zero benefit), with observation - that is, tracking - continuing.

Because, as I say, much of what I write to ‘the Authorities’ - formerly in letters to what was said to be Caroline’s address in Bristol but where a Water Rate bill I found was addressed to a Mr S Phillips if I remember right (because I was reminded of the actress Sian Phillips) and lately via my website - is not understood at all, I wonder what it’s all about. The conclusion must be - this supported by general evidence of the low intellectual quality of psychiatrists, not least of this being Armond’s failure to correct the mis-spelling of his own address in the Medical Directory I consulted (whether corrected since I do not know) - that the Experiment was a lackadaisical affair from the start and did not ever envisage gathering detailed information of the sort which might interest myself were I engaged in managing such a scheme. The failure of the Experimenters (Armond and others at the outset, I imagine) to take in much detail, let alone understand it, led to the error - quite common in psychiatric diagnosis in Britain, I should think - of giving me disatrously hurtful drugs and ignoring my complaints. I am hopeful that in the present phase more sensible people take cognisance and have ultimate control over the psychiatrists’ leashes (for one thing police officers must be quite aware of the sort of things perpetrated, and if my attempts to ‘publish’ are not stymied politicians too will become aware).

Hence my conclusion now (and, my mind clear of drugs, almost certainly this is the correct conclusion) is that my diagnosis of schizophrenia in 1986 on the evidence of my suicide attempt was a genuine diagnosis, so mistaken because Armond - and British psychiatrists generally - are fools. The treatment I have received in the twenty-odd years since has been based on standard British treatment for schizophrenia (but with the embellishments mentioned: admixed heroin, etc) and has resulted in my having a non-life thought to show typical symptomatology of schizophrenia (that is, British psychiatrists know so little they take the disastrous effects of the drug treatment as symptoms of the illness).

Goodness knows what will happen now but I presume I shall be freed.

¬¬¬

That’s how the ‘prefatory paragraphs’ have turned out, and backtracking, what they were supposed to preface was something to the effect that before I was writing to communicate to anyone - in my notes and diaries around 1972 - some of what I wrote (thinking particularly of notes on the computers I designed) was so complicated that after trying to explain them to my best friend I gave up ever hoping to explain such matters.

As regards what point there is in doing anything, I tend to agree with Sartre (at the end of the book Nausea) that to produce art objects is the way to go, because they are slightly less existent and being less existent in real-time have the hope of enduring forever (or a longish time, anyway: certainly longer than the statue of Ozymandias). With art objects I include scientific theories and mathematical (including computer) models.

Why have I been medicated?

The question arises - given that ASM [antischizophrenic medication] is by far and away the most significant factor in my life, and it is a factor motivating avoidance at almost any cost - why have I been given ASM and why am I now occasionally given ASM (as in the Christian coffee shop in Stourbridge yesterday)? I’m sure I have not been given it for the deliberate purpose of hurting me. Most likely recent psychiatrists presumed it was good for me. Armond may have had doubts and may have been able to swallow his doubts when I gave in in 1987 following improper suggestion potentiated with an opium-like drug, after which the dosage of ASM I imagine was stepped up. Indeed this seemed to Dr G in 2005 - presumably following that earlier procedure of Armond’s in 1987 - to be quite an acceptable mode of proceeding.

It is just about conceivable that latter-day ‘friends of Armond’ have cynically perpetuated his scheme of getting me stilled by ASM, in autumn 2005 giving improper directives to Dr G and others at Bassetlaw. This theory is one I have laid stress on when made paranoid by ASM in recent weeks. The presence of heavy police when I used to visit police stations to complain - last year, probably - tells me that someone had made an assertion that I was a danger when not medicated. Whoever it was must have made the assertion cynically, and while it could have been Bassetlaw psychiatrists (to excuse their treatment of me, otherwise unnecessarily vigorous) my thought is that it was whoever gave improper directives to those at Bassetlaw, in 2005.

Preceding correspondence

30 April 2008

Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr Pearson

I am writing you another letter now because my mind seems clearer of improper influence (from mind-altering drugs for example) than it has been in a long while. If it has seemed to you that I am mentally ill I can assure you I am not, although naturally you should retain an open mind as yet.

The difficulties I face stem from treatment over decades with antipsychotic drugs, but further to this an inadequate control over dosages (and introduction of improper adjunctory treatment, especially with stimulant drugs).

There are matters it is necessary to complain to the police about, not least among which is the improper diversion of phonecalls I made from home on our then Virgin Media line last June. I believe that some calls I made thinking I was speaking to the police were diverted and in fact I was not speaking to them. In one of these calls I requested that they look into the origin of my decades of treatment, which was back in 1980 when I was improperly (without my foreknowledge or consent) given amphetamine so that I presented a syndrome which a psychiatrist called Anthony Dew Armond treated as schizophrenia, detaining me in November 1980 under the 1959 Mental Health Act in fact. I have no documentation from that detention, and it is not impossible it was an illegal detention: but I do not know what documents I should have been served under the old Act. The response of those I took to be police (in June 2007) was to say it was too long ago to look into. However as it has led to such extended and severe consequences for me I think it should be looked into. Certainly the covert administration or supply of amphetamine was improper and presumably illegal.

Armond was my psychiatrist when I was detained three years later too, in March 1984, although originally it was a Dr R V Cope. I do not understand why she was removed and Armond substituted. After my release from hospital in the April (1984) Armond continued the arrangement of holding me on ‘long leave’, in fact until 26 July 1986. He required me to sleep one night in the hospital every few months so that I could be said to be resident there. I have read that this subterfuge was found in other cases to be an illegal means of insisting that patients who were not truly in-patients take medication. It is my view (in fact it is my certain knowledge) that I needed no such medication, and Armond may have had ulterior reasons for insisting.

For a number of years I was attending a Day Centre (at Armond’s insistence) but in the later 1980s I took on a course at Wolverhampton Poly. I agreed to continue medication from 1987 onwards for one thing because my father felt I would not do well without it. I lived with my parents till they died in 2003 and then felt able to discontinue the medication when I moved to Retford in Nottinghamshire.

In recent years I have, as in 1980, been covertly administered or supplied improper drugs. It is my belief the true reason has been to restrict my forthcoming about the matters referred to above, relating to the 1980s, but police and others (I believe) have been told what is going on is an investigation into schizophrenia using drugs of relevance to schizophrenia. The effect of this distortion is that police are less than ordinarily enthusiastic to assist me, although lately they seem to have been told something of the truth, that drugs given to me unknowing may affect my behaviour.

I object to being given drugs which distort the functioning of my mind, especially as often they cause me to seem mentally ill and further to have the unpleasant experience a mentally ill person has. If at all possible I should like the origin of these difficulties looked into and appropriate action taken, although my main priority is to put a stop to the drugging I suffer supposedly as part of an investigation of schizophrenia.

I trust you can give me your help.

Yours sincerely

Colin Barrass-Brough