Tikkun Olam – Repair the World

Dating from rabbinic teachings circa 200 CE, the Hebrew phrase Tikkun Olam means “repair the world,” where it expressed a concern with public policy and societal change. In a wider sense it means to do something with the world that will fix damage and also improve it.

In a mystical, kabbalistic context from the sixteenth century, it refers to the separation of the holy from the material, as the spirit is trapped within the body and needs to be freed, letting the spark of the divine shine through.

It contains the idea that the world is profoundly broken and can be fixed only by ethical human behavior and activity.

The evolution of the concept includes human responsibility for fixing what is wrong with the world, emphasizing the role of human responsibility and action in the world, and includes concepts such as the performance of prescribed religious rituals, the performance of good deeds, and charity towards the less fortunate among us, generating a more just world.

When a group practices tikkun olam, setting a good example for everyone else, the world would move toward a model society.

This responsibility may be understood in religious, social or political terms and there are many different opinions about how religion, society, and politics interact to create a better world.

The trick is to express tikkun olam with humility, thoughtfulness, and justice, while eschewing arrogance, overzealousness, and injustice.

Tikkun Olam is creating meaning out of confusion and creating harmony from noise, and ultimately letting the spirit shine through each thing.

Now let’s compare this information with modern psychiatry and psychology.

The word “psychiatry”, first coined in 1808 by Johann Christian Reil, means “doctoring of the soul” – from the Greek psyche (soul, spirit) and iatros (doctor). Ironically, psychiatrists have never addressed matters of the spirit or soul, instead concentrating exclusively on the brain.

In the late 1800s when German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt established the first “experimental psychology” laboratory in Leipzig University, he officially rejected the existence of the soul and declared -— without a shred of evidence -— that man was merely a product of his genes. In his words, “If one assumes that there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain and a nervous system, then one must try to educate by inducing sensations in that nervous system.” In a Wundt textbook, translated into English in 1911, Wundt declared, “The…soul can no longer exist in the face of our present-day physiological knowledge… .”

In placing man as the direct and unknowing effect of an authoritarian and soulless philosophy, psychologists and psychiatrists supporting this view are promoting the idea that one’s mental health depends upon an adjustment to the world rather than its conquest. This presumes that man cannot, therefore, effect positive change on the world around him but must submit to its random will, in rather direct contradiction to the 2,000-year-tradition of Tikkun Olam that man must effect positive change on the world around him.

The inherent decency in man cannot be nurtured in a world where psychiatric doctrine and thought permeate our culture with the philosophy that we are mere animals who have no hope of finding happiness outside of a medicine cabinet.

In 1940, psychiatry openly declared its plans when British psychiatrist John Rawling Rees, a co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), addressed a National Council of Mental Hygiene stating: “[S]ince the last world war we have done much to infiltrate the various social organizations throughout the country … we have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church… .”

Another co-founder of the WFMH, Canadian psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, reinforced this master plan in 1945 by targeting religious values and saying, “If the race is to be freed from the crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.” Viciously usurping age-old religious principles, psychiatrists have sanitized criminal conduct and defined sin and evil as “mental disorders” which can be “treated” with drugs, electric shock, and other debilitating regimens.

In 1946 Reverend Leslie Dixon Weatherhead of the Methodist Church in England joined with psychiatrist Percy Backus to establish psychiatric clinics as extensions of parishes and advocated electroshock, deep sleep treatment, psychosurgery, sedatives, and hypnosis as adjuncts to Christianity.

As a result of psychiatrists’ subversive plan for religion, the concepts of good and bad behavior, right and wrong conduct and personal responsibility for the world have taken such a beating that people today have few or no guidelines for checking, judging or directing their behavior. Words like ethics, morals, sin and evil have almost disappeared from everyday usage.

Until recently, it was religion that provided man with the moral and spiritual markers necessary for him to create and maintain a model civilization. Religion provides the inspiration needed for a life of higher meaning and purpose, so eloquently captured in the concept of Tikkun Olam.

The materialistic practices of psychiatry, psychology, and other related mental health disciplines are at the root of the problem. They were given virtually free rein in the molding of “modern” humanist thinking for most of the last century. Both psychiatry and psychology became the domain of “soul-less” science and the study of man was “officially” restricted to the material world – the body and the brain.

Today, psychiatrists and psychologists still claim that man is an animal to be conditioned and controlled. Governments have been persuaded of this idea and are paying public funds in the billions to those who can do the conditioning and controlling.

Psychiatry and psychology have consistently trumpeted the call that people should be salvaged from the chains of religious upbringing and moral restraint. Rather than fixing and creating a better world, they have created more war and conflict by providing psychiatric drugs for making terrorists; millions are now enslaved by nerve-damaging drugs and other barbaric treatments; millions more are illiterate due to their corruption of educational systems; violence and suicide instead of rehabilitation are the new normal in prisons; police forces are the arm of involuntary commitment; and most importantly, religion has been subjugated and shackled.

A significant portion of religion’s misplaced reliance is on the “expertise” of psychiatry and psychology for the diagnosis and handling of emotionally distraught individuals. Foremost, persons in such desperate circumstances must be provided proper and effective medical care. Medical – not psychiatric – attention, good nutrition, a healthy, safe environment — these are the sane things that Tikkun Olam recommends. Activity that promotes confidence and effective education will do far more for a troubled person than drugging, shocks, and other psychiatric atrocities.

Click here for more information and recommendations on how to fix this sorry state of affairs and make the world a better place.

Psychiatry & Psychology Have Embraced the Entrepreneurial Spirit

Entrepreneur: One who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise, often with an additional connotation of far-sightedness and innovation with boldness and energy. [French, from Old French, from entreprendre to undertake; entre- between  (from Latin: inter-) + prendre to take (from Latin: prehendere to grasp)]

The U.S. government funded training for substance abuse researchers in entrepreneurship at Yale, so they could learn how to get more funding for their health care startups about substance abuse.

Scholarly articles have been published about “The Psychology of Entrepreneurship“. One such study we noticed focused on industrial and organizational psychology (it has its own abbreviation, I/O); many of its key conclusions were to plead for more research in that area. We think that one of the primary goals of this kind of psychobabble is to set the stage for getting more research funds, rather than coming up with anything truly useful.

Another news article in the Washington Postnoticed that entrepreneurs seem inclined to have mental health issues.” There are any number of news reports about “the problems entrepreneurs with mental illness often face,” and “managing your mental health as an entrepreneur,” and yet again “the psychological price of entrepreneurship.”

So it seems that psychiatry and psychology have latched onto entrepreneurs as a new category of those needing “help,” a new pool of potential customers. Entrepreneurs have been targeted by the mental health industry both as a new customer pool and a new way to do business. The competition for government funding and grants to address the problems of entrepreneurship is heating up, and the psychobabble is deafening.

And, like any entrepreneur, psychiatrists are looking to the future. Since they have never been required to cure anyone, they continually come up with new disorders, new drugs, and new treatments which they can apply to new communities of potential patients.

The news is full of these “miracle” treatments — marijuana, cannabidiol, electric shock (yes, they still do this, and it is a big money-maker), MDMA (Ecstasy), trauma-informed therapy, Ketamine, cognitive-behavioral therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, assisted suicide (yes, this is considered a “treatment”), deep brain stimulation, involuntary commitment, vagus nerve stimulation, addiction therapy (ignoring the fact that psychiatric drugs are addictive), and one drug after another — each new one designed to combat the adverse side effects of the one before.

Not to mention the profusion of new mental health related applications for your mobile device and the startups that create these. Not to mention this recent headline: “Entrepreneur Teams Up with Leading Psychiatrist to Address Depression, Anxiety, and Suicide“. Not to mention that the producers of “Shark Tank” mandated that “all entrepreneurs meet with a psychiatrist after giving their pitch, regardless of the outcome.

The news is devoid, however, of one thing — actual cures for mental trauma.

Click here for more information about fraud and abuse in the mental health industry. Read about how Full Informed Consent can help.

Mental Health “Care” Coming to Your Community

News articles extolling “Community Mental Health” continue to be published across the United States and abroad. We thought you should know more about this.

These articles generally discuss funding, either the lack or availability of public funding, for various mental health care programs — such as Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC), police Crisis Intervention Teams, Suicide Programs, Veterans Programs, Mental Health Courts, Emergency Management or Crisis Counseling, Violence Prevention, School Safety, or other public/private ventures in the mental health care industry. They also generally complain about the lack of a sufficient number of psychiatrists or psychologists in relation to the target population. Let us help put the record straight about this.

History of CMHC

In 1955, a five-year inquiry by the U.S. Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health recommended replacing psychiatric institutions with Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs). According to Henry A. Foley, Ph.D., and Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D., authors of Madness in Government, “Psychiatrists gave the impression to elected officials that cures were the rule, not the exception,” a claim that the psychiatric industry could not and still cannot substantiate.

The advent of Community Mental Health psychiatric programs in the 1960s would not have been possible without the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, also known as antipsychotics, for mentally disturbed individuals. Neuroleptic is from Greek, meaning “nerve seizing”, reflective of how the drugs act like a chemical lobotomy.

These community facilities and programs were promoted as the solution to all institutional problems. The premise, based almost entirely on the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, was that patients could now be successfully released back into society as long as they were taking these drugs. Ongoing service would be provided through government-funded units called Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC). These centers would tend to the patients from within the community, dispensing the neuroleptics that would keep them under control. Governments would save money and individuals would improve faster. The plan was called “deinstitutionalization.”

The first generation of neuroleptics, now commonly referred to as “typical antipsychotics” or “typicals,” appeared during the 1960s. They were heavily promoted as “miracle” drugs that made it “possible for most of the mentally ill to be successfully and quickly treated in their own communities and returned to a useful place in society.”

These claims were false, as neuroleptics are now known to have devastating side effects. In an article in the American Journal of Bioethics in 2003, Vera Sharav stated, “The reality was that the therapies damaged the brain’s frontal lobes, which is the distinguishing feature of the human brain. The neuroleptic drugs used since the 1950s ‘worked’ by hindering normal brain function: they dimmed psychosis, but produced pathology often worse than the condition for which they have been prescribed — much like physical lobotomy which psychotropic drugs replaced.”

Author Peter Schrag wrote in Mind Control, by the mid-seventies enough neuroleptic drugs and antidepressants “were being prescribed outside hospitals to keep some three to four million people medicated fulltime – roughly ten times the number who, according to the [psychiatrists’] own arguments, are so crazy that they would have to be locked up in hospitals if there were no drugs.”

After a decade of the Community Mental Health program, consumer advocate Ralph Nader called it a “highly touted but failing social innovation.” It “already bears the familiar pattern of past mental health promises that were initiated amid great moral fervor, raised false hopes of imminent solutions and wound up only recapitulating the problems they were to solve.”

As for the funding of CMHCs and psychiatric outpatient clinics, the fact is that psychiatry’s budget in the United States soared from $143 million in 1969 to over $9 billion in 1997 – a more than 6,000% increase in funding, while increasing by only 10 times the number of people receiving services. The estimated costs today are over $11 billion.

If collecting these billions in inflated fees for non-workable treatments wasn’t bad enough, in 1990 a congressional committee issued a report estimating that Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs) had diverted between $40 million and $100 million to improper uses, and that a quarter of all CMHCs had so thoroughly failed to meet their obligations as to be legally subject to immediate recovery of federal funds.

Psychiatrists have consistently blamed the failure of deinstitutionalization on a lack of community mental health funding. In reality, they create the drug-induced crisis themselves and then, shamelessly, demand yet more money.

The CMHCs became legalized drug dealerships that not only supplied drugs to former mental hospital patients, but also supplied psychiatric prescriptions to individuals not suffering from “serious mental problems.” Deinstitutionalization failed and society has been struggling with the resultant homelessness and other disastrous results ever since.

Accompanying the psychiatric push for expanded community mental health programs is their demand for greater powers to involuntarily commit individuals. Psychiatrists disingenuously argue that involuntary commitment is an act of kindness, that it is cruel to leave the disturbed in a tormented state. However, such claims are based on the dual premises that 1) psychiatrists have helpful and workable treatments to begin with, and 2) psychiatrists have some expertise in diagnosing and predicting dangerousness. Both suppositions are patently false.

In spite of receiving huge increases in funding in the United States, psychiatry and psychology not only failed but managed to make things drastically worse; rates of drug abuse, suicide, illiteracy and crime continue to rise.

The real message is this: in spite of an investment of billions of dollars for psychiatric promises, the world has received nothing but presumptuous demands from psychiatric vested interests for more money.

Contact your local, state and federal authorities and legislators and demand that funding for psychiatric promises be revoked until the mental health industry can prove its effectiveness with actual cures.

The Russians Are Coming? No, They Never Left!

In 1966 the movie “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!” dramatized the Cold War as a plot to make the world die laughing.

We had to laugh about it, because the reality of Soviet infiltration to topple America was too serious to confront.

In fact, as current events are unfolding, the Russians are apparently still at it — attempting to infiltrate via fake news and social media and destabilize American society for their own evil purposes. But frankly, this is nothing new; they’ve been at it since communism began around 1844, in one form or another.

For a communistic state to exist, slaves to the state need to exist. The marriage of psychiatry with communist regimes has spanned countries across the globe as an effective means to deal with political dissension by making people into slaves. They have been using psychiatry ever since as a significant part of the plot.

Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig University, who founded “experimental psychology” in 1879, declared that man is an animal with no soul, claiming that thought was merely the result of brain activity — a false premise that has remained the basis of psychiatry until this day. In 1884, Russian psychologist and physiologist Ivan Pavlov and his countryman Vladimir Bekhterev studied under Wundt. They later developed what they called “conditioned reflex” which laid the groundwork for much of behavioral psychology used in schools today. What is not well known is that Pavlov performed the same type of experimentation on children to see if humans could be conditioned that way, too.

The 1920’s Russian Revolutionary Communistic plan for world domination as originally conceived used psychiatry as a weapon designed to undermine the social fabric of the target country. Using psychiatrists trained as agents provocateurs that were sent in by the KGB (Soviet Secret Police), the Communists of Russia controlled a vast empire. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria (1899-1953), the founder of the KGB, using his crude and brutal methodology of beating a person half to death in his version of brainwashing, created a feared and dangerous spy network. Eventually surer techniques were stolen from the American intelligence services and then taught at the Lenin University in Moscow. It has been estimated that 80 million people have died as a result of coercive psychiatry in Russia.

Here are some relevant quotes from BRAIN-WASHING – A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics (Charles Stickley, 1955; from Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria). Click here to download and read this manual. You have to know what the enemy is up to in order to fight back against it.

“PSYCHOPOLITICS—the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through ‘mental healing’.”

“To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil.”

“You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology’.”

“With the institutions for the insane you have in your country prisons which can hold a million persons and can hold them without civil rights or any hope of freedom. And upon these people can be practiced shock and surgery so that never again will they draw a sane breath. You must make these treatments common and accepted. And you must sweep aside any treatment or any group of persons seeking to treat by effective means.”

“Entirely by bringing about public conviction that the sanity of a person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all of the goals and activities of that person. By demonstrating the insanity of a group, or even a government, it is possible, then, to cause its people to disavow it. By magnifying the general human reaction to insanity, through keeping the subject of insanity itself forever before the public eye, and then, by utilizing this reaction by causing a revulsion on the part of a populace against its leader or leaders, it is possible to stop any government or movement.”

“Exercises in sexual attack on patients should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative to demonstrate the inability of the patient under pain-drug hypnosis to recall the attack, while indoctrinating a lust for further sexual activity on the part of the patient.”

“Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out.”

“Mental health organizations must carefully delete from their ranks anyone actually proficient in the handling or treatment of mental health.”

“The psychopolitical operative should also spare no expense in smashing out of existence, by whatever means, any actual healing group… .”

“Should any whisper, or pamphlet, against psychopolitical activities be published, it should be laughed into scorn, branded an immediate hoax, and its perpetrator or publisher should be, at the first opportunity, branded as insane, and by the use of drugs the insanity should be confirmed.”

“By various means, a public must be convinced, at least, that insanity can only be met by shock, torture, deprivation, defamation, discreditation, violence, maiming, death, punishment in all its forms. The society, at the same time, must be educated into the belief of increasing insanity within its ranks. This creates an emergency, and places the psychopolitician in a saviour role, and places him, at length, in charge of the society.”

“The psychopolitician has his reward in the nearly unlimited control of populaces, in the uninhibited exercise of passion, and the glory of Communist conquest over the stupidity of the enemies of the People.”

The Loneliness Epidemic

A recent Scientific American has an extensive article about loneliness.
[“Loneliness Can Be Toxic“, by Francine Russo, January 2018]

Here are some relevant quotes from this article (plus our comments):
“Loneliness is defined as perceived social isolation and the experience of being cut off from others.”

[The dictionary basically says, “the sadness of being alone,” from Middle English alone, al all + one one.]

“…researchers have been probing the nature of different types of loneliness, their biological mechanisms and their effects on mind and body.”

[Recognize here the emphasis on the discredited biological (medical) model of psychiatry.]

“…insufficient social connection … is a major public health concern”.

[Recognize here the inference of a dangerous environment.]

“Growing evidence has linked loneliness to a marked vulnerability to a host of psychological and physiological ills…”

[Recognize here the invocation of a psychological aspect plus the psychiatric medical model.]

“Part of the problem in the scientific literature is that the standard tools for measuring loneliness do not necessarily gauge the same things.”

[Recognize here the admission that psychologists don’t really understand the issue.]

“The most commonly used measure of loneliness, the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, assesses individuals’ perceived dissatisfaction with the quality or quantity of their relationships.”

[This is a 20-item questionnaire purported to measure one’s subjective feelings of loneliness as well as feelings of social isolation. Participants rate each item on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often).]

The psychiatric billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) has no shortage of items that could be related to loneliness, covering pretty much all the bases — in other words, regardless of what the patient says is the matter, a diagnosis could be found here.

[The purpose of which is to be able to bill insurance for counseling or drugs for any of these diagnoses:]

“Problem related to living alone”
“Disinhibited social engagement disorder”
“Other problem related to psychosocial circumstances”
“Social (pragmatic) communication disorder”
“Social anxiety disorder (social phobia)”
“Social exclusion or rejection”
“Unspecified problem related to social environment”
“Unspecified problem related to unspecified psychosocial circumstances”
“Psychological factors affecting other medical conditions”
“Other personal history of psychological trauma”
“Unspecified personality disorder”

In 1959 a German psychoanalyst, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, thought that loneliness might arise from premature weaning; her own severe loneliness was apparently related to her own and familial deafness. In 2012 and 2016, published research reported that loneliness was age-related. Other studies reported loneliness factors related to being married, or being employed, or relations with parents, or issues with trust, or with health or discrimination. Again, psychologists don’t really understand it, but they can sure get funds for researching whatever symptoms they think could be related to it.

Then, too, a scan through the side effects of psychotropic drugs gives one the impression that many of these adverse reactions could certainly lead to feelings of loneliness.

At first we thought it was a joke when we read that Prime Minister Theresa May appointed a Minister for Loneliness on January 17, 2018, based on a report from The Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness claiming that over 9 million people in the United Kingdom are lonely. But they are entirely serious; perhaps too serious. One suspects, however, that this is really just another drug marketing campaign diagnosing common life situations such as sadness and loneliness as “mental illness.”

The main “treatment” for symptoms of loneliness is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is a form of psychotherapy that attempts to modify dysfunctional emotions, behaviors, and thoughts — by evaluating and challenging a person’s behaviors and getting the person to change those behaviors, often in combination with psychiatric drugs. Some recommendations are for drug treatment with allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid related to progesterone, although this is still being researched (naturally, since they don’t really understand it.)

So, what is loneliness, and how should it be treated?

Well, let’s stop explaining it in terms of symptoms and then trying to treat those individual symptoms with evaluative psychotherapy or harmful drugs. Let’s find a root cause.

The root cause of any feelings of loneliness is an absence or scarcity of communication. Communication is livingness.

There is certainly no scarcity of silence, which would be another way to describe aloneness, but silence itself is death. The answer is to provide more communication.

The American Psychological Association (APA) states that “Our mission is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.” How unfortunate it is that the APA does not actually use communication as a treatment.

The Radical Permissiveness of Psychiatry

Permissiveness: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior. A permissive person, society, or way of behaving allows or tolerates things of which other people disapprove.

Apparently the quote “DO AS THOU WILT because men that are free, of gentle birth, well bred and at home in civilized company possess a natural instinct that inclines them to virtue and saves them from vice. This instinct they name their honor.” [François Rabelais, 1534] has been shortened by the psychological and psychiatric industries to the first four words.

From where does this radical permissiveness come?

“The biomedical model [the biological underpinnings of mental disorders] currently dominates psychiatric clinical practice and research.”
“Psychiatry’s growth and power during the twentieth century also can be traced in part to its alliance with Western science’s goals of control and domination of nature. … For example, during this century, capitalism has simultaneously needed to increase consumption and the technical control of social reality in order to maximize profits. This creates a paradox in which morality is slackened to increase permissiveness, and consequently, consumption.”
“Biological psychiatry’s rush to transmogrify much of human life into clinical or biological entities has become increasingly suspect on scientific as well as sociopolitical grounds.”
[“The Biomedicalization of Psychiatry: A Critical Overview“, Carl I. Cohen, M.D., Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 29, No. 6, December 1993]

The problem with the biomedical model is that psychiatrists attempt to explain environmental, behavioral, social and spiritual phenomena with strictly biological factors. This is called “biological reductionism.” It places a heavy emphasis on the chemistry of the brain instead of searching for root causes of mental distress in areas that have more effective treatments. This leads to dependence on psychotropic drugs which have been shown to be addictive and harmful.

The transformation of psychiatry into a purely medical model was driven primarily by third-party reimbursement (insurance), the pharmaceutical industry, and government funding.

Freudian theory developed in the 1890’s called for radical permissiveness in sexual mores and child rearing, and left parents in constant worry of unwittingly perpetrating untold psychological harm upon their children.
[Chapter 3, Psychiatry The Ultimate Betrayal, Bruce Wiseman, Freedom Publishing, 1995]

To this day, thanks to the large-scale Freudian indoctrination of teachers, doctors, social workers, and others, many a mother and father is filled with dread, fearing irreparable mental damage, whenever some minor or major trauma strikes their child.

When lawyers turn to “childhood trauma” as a defense for criminality, it is assumed that the jury and the public will understand this: “everybody knows” that psychological damage comes from one’s childhood.

“The indiscriminate, ‘nonjudgmental’ approach, of dubious value with neurotics, amounts to a frank condoning of crime when applied to offenders and threatens to undermine and eradicate social and moral attitudes. This is the more serious, since this psychiatric-social work approach combines with the ‘permissive’ or ‘progressive’ upbringing of the home and school and a very lax enforcement of justice by the police and the courts.” The statement was made in 1962 by psychiatrist Melitta Schmideberg, president of the Association for the Psychiatric Treatment of Offenders.
[ibid. Chapter 8]

In 1966, schools began to be used as an ideological platform for the abandonment of self-discipline and morality. The assault on social values came with the textbook called Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers and Students. Children were asked to abandon values instilled through family, home and church, and substitute new values which they were free to make up.

This “therapeutic education,” or “behavior modification,” gradually replaced academics in favor of feelings and emotions, eroding discipline and promoting permissiveness, redefining and replacing earned self-esteem with psychological doubletalk like “anger management” and “mental health.”

The undermining of traditional education and values can be traced to a German psychologist, Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig University, who founded “experimental psychology” in 1879. Declaring that man is an animal with no soul, he claimed that thought was merely the result of brain activity — a false premise that has remained the basis of psychiatry until this day.

Wundt was a strong advocate of Gottlieb Fichte, head of psychology at the University of Berlin in 1810, who believed that “Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished.”

Influential educational psychologist Ernst Friedrich Wilhelm Meumann, professor of philosophy and education at Leipzig University and student and assistant of Wundt, sought to radically change schools by the “oppression of the children’s natural inclinations.” His book discussing Mental Hygiene in the Schools became required reading for several generations of education students in Germany and he propagated the idea that schools should be used for “preventative mental health functions.”

For more information download and read the CCHR report Harming Youth — Psychiatry Destroys Young Minds — Report and recommendations on harmful mental health assessments, evaluations, and programs within our schools.

Holiday Stress

We see a lot of news articles cropping up warning about stress during holidays.

Elf On A Shelf

Personally, we think a lot of it is motivated by some marketer’s bright idea, no doubt under the guidance of an “expert” psychologist or psychiatrist, about how to drum up business for the mental health industry.

Of course, you know what an “expert” is? An “ex” is a has-been; and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

Sometimes the advice given is just common sense; but other times the advice is dangerous. Beware, judgment may be in short supply when under a lot of stress.

The Missouri Magazine thinks it is essential to let us know this holiday season how to manage stress. Its advice is mostly common sense.

Medical News Today wants us to manage stress, also, but they recommend you “seek help from a healthcare professional.” Naturally; the marketer in action.

One psychologist recommends you seek help from the American Psychological Association. Naturally.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services even has a full-color brochure on how to handle holiday stress. They recommend, surprise, that you call the Missouri Department of Mental Health’s Crisis Intervention line.

Oh, and then there’s all the “research” about holiday stress. The Mayo Clinic thinks women tend to get more stressed during the holiday season. We’re pretty sure that a comprehensive search will find that some scientist, somewhere has reached pretty much any conclusion you care to name about this condition.

We wrote a whole blog previously about stress, you can review it here.

The DSM-V has several entries for stress:
– Acute stress disorder
– Unspecified trauma- and stressor-related disorder
– Other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder
– Posttraumatic stress disorder
We’re pretty sure you already know our opinion about the DSM.

There are even articles about “stress-free recipes for the holidays”.

Our advice? Read what we have to say about stress, pass this along to your family, friends and associates, let us know what you think about this, and then have a happy, safe, stress-free holiday!

Psychs Poo-Poo Intelligence

deja poo

A study published 8 October 2017 by three psychologists and a neuroscientist surveyed 3,715 members of American Mensa (persons whose IQ score is ostensibly within the upper 2% of the general population), who were asked to self-report diagnosed and/or suspected mood and anxiety disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. There was no actual control group; instead they manipulated statistical data to simulate a control group.

[High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities, Ruth I. Karpinski (Pitzer College) et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.09.001]

Diagnostic criteria were taken from DSM-IV, a fraudulent list of so-called “mental disorders.” The main thrust of the survey was to try to link intelligence in some way with something they called the theory of “psychological overexcitability,” which has no basis in actual fact. Then they massaged the data with extensive statistical analyses in order to come up with the conclusion they favored, which was, “Those with high IQ had higher risk for psychological disorders.”

The basic flawed assumption of this piece of poo-poo is their statement that, “those with a high intellectual capacity (hyper brain) possess overexcitabilities in various domains that may predispose them to certain psychological disorders.” The implication being that a “treatment” for psychological disorders might be something that lowers a person’s IQ.

Then they quoted 160 references in order to overwhelm any readers of the study with its bona fides — it must be right because look how many references can be quoted.

Naturally, due to the inherent flakiness of the research, they concluded that further research was needed; and because of the particular methodology of this study, the results conveniently cannot be compared with any other studies about intelligence and health. The authors also recommended further studies with mice instead of people, as if those results could yield any useful information about human intelligence.

There are a number of limitations which cast doubt on the study results. The raw data was self-reported, so it is subject to interpretation, bad memory and bias. There are over 200 different IQ tests which applicants can use to apply for membership in Mensa, so IQ itself is subject to interpretation. All of the participants were American, which may or may not be a limitation depending on other demographic or environmental factors. The simulated control group statistics made exact comparisons challenging, to say the least.

Without an actual, clear-cut definition of intelligence, this kind of research is hopelessly convoluted and clueless; but nevertheless representative of what many psychologists think about the rest of us intelligent beings.

Consider this interesting quote from another source: “We would do well to recollect the early days of applied clinical psychology when culturally biased IQ testing of immigrants, African Americans and Native Americans was used to bolster conclusions regarding the genetic inheritance of ‘feeble-mindedness’ on behalf of the American eugenics social movement.”

Not to be outdone by psychologists, the psychiatric industry has a history of deliberately reducing their patient’s intelligence, evidenced by this 1942 quote from psychiatrist Abraham Myerson: “The reduction of intelligence is an important factor in the curative process. … The fact is that some of the very best cures that one gets are in those individuals whom one reduces almost to amentia [feeble-mindedness].”

Evidence that electroshock lowers IQ is certainly available. Also, psychiatrists have notoriously and falsely “diagnosed” the creative mind as a “mental disorder,” invalidating an artist’s abilities as “neurosis.” There is certainly evidence that marijuana lowers IQ (no flames from the 420 crowd, please) — and marijuana is currently being promoted by the psychiatric industry to treat so-called PTSD.

Psychotropic drugs may also be implicated in the reduction of IQ; what do you think? These side effects from various psychotropic drugs sure sound like they could influence the results when someone takes an IQ test while on these drugs: agitation, depression, hallucinations, irritability, insomnia, mania, mood changes, suicidal thoughts, confusion, forgetfulness, difficulty thinking, hyperactivity, poor concentration, tiredness, disorientation, sluggishness.

If you Google “Can IQ change?” you’ll find about 265 million results; so this topic has its conflicting opinions. And as in any subject where there are so many conflicting opinions, there is a lot of false information. Unfortunately the “research” cited above just adds more poo-poo to the pile.

Missouri Receives Federal Crisis Counseling Program Grant

The Missouri Department of Mental Health received a $500,000 “Show Me Hope Crisis Counseling Program” (CCP) grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that funds psychological services for victims of flooding. The money is funneled to six Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC): BJC, Comtrea, Compass Health, Family Counseling Center, Ozark Center, and Ozarks Medical Center.

The CCP is a short-term disaster grant funded by FEMA and administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Federal Law authorizes the President to fund mental health assistance and training activities in designated disaster areas. President Donald Trump declared a major disaster in Missouri June 2, 2017 at the request of Governor Eric Greitens. There are other emergency funds being used for cleanup, recovery and other humanitarian efforts.

It is certainly encouraging that the federal government is backing up relief efforts to flood victims in Missouri; however, one does not consider psychological counseling as effective relief.

Natural disasters do not cause mental illness. People have emotions that are appropriate for the situation. If something terrible happens it’s only natural to feel bad. The severity of the disaster would determine the appropriate reaction of tears to hysterics. In fact, it would be abnormal not to have those emotions. Psychology and psychiatry would like you to believe otherwise. Psychologists and psychiatrists are taking the stress of disasters and making them into behavioral issues that can only be treated with “counseling” and harmful psychotropic drugs.

Most people are resilient and can cope with the stress resulting from a disaster. For those that can’t seem to bounce back or recover in a timely fashion, they will be the ones targeted by psychiatrists, psychologists and pharmaceutical companies to get them on counseling and drugs. Instead, the solution is not to agree with the false data and bogus diagnoses, but to actually find a true physiological cause of the symptoms. That way the cause can be treated and the symptoms would disappear.

Community Mental Health psychiatric programs started in the 1960s, made possible with the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, also known as antipsychotics, for mentally disturbed individuals. Neuroleptic is from Greek, meaning “nerve seizing”, reflective of how the drugs act like a chemical lobotomy. Service is provided through government-funded units called Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC). These centers tend to patients within the community, dispensing neuroleptics to keep traumatized individuals under control.

CMHCs became legalized drug dealerships that supply psychiatric drugs to their patients. There has been much debate within the psychology profession about the medicalization of counseling, since psychology has largely subscribed to the fraudulent biological model of psychiatry, in which psychotropic drugs are assumed to be needed to fix some chemical imbalance in the brain, an assumption that has never been clinically proven. Nearly every year legislation is introduced to allow psychologists to prescribe psychiatric drugs.

Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig University founded “experimental psychology” in 1879. Declaring that man is an animal, with no soul, he claimed that thought was merely the result of brain activity — a false premise that has remained the basis of psychiatry and psychology until this day.

The entirety of psychological and psychiatric counseling programs are founded on the tacit assumptions that mental health “experts” know all about the mind and mental phenomena, know a better way of life, a better value system and how to improve lives beyond the understanding and capability of their patients. The reality is that all mental health counseling programs are designed to control people’s lives towards specific ideological objectives at the expense of the person’s sanity and well-being.

A review of studies regarding disasters shows that the psychological treatment offered to individuals does more harm than good. Professor Yvonne McEwan, advisor to the U.S. government after the Oklahoma City bombing, said the booming profession [psychology] was at best useless and at worst highly destructive to victims seeking help: “Professional counseling is largely a waste of time and does more to boost the ego of the counselor than to help the victim….”

Click here for more information about the failure of community mental health programs.

Tell Debra.Walker@dmh.mo.gov what you think about this. Ms. Walker is with the Office of Public Affairs at the Missouri Department of Mental Health. Tell Mark Stringer at directormail@dmh.mo.gov, Director of the Missouri DMH, what you think about this. Tell Patrick Baker at Patrick.Baker@ltgov.mo.gov, Missouri Flood Recovery Coordinator, what you think about this.

Trust Us, We Know What We’re Doing

The June 5, 2017 issue of The Weekly Standard magazine discloses that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and fifteen other Federal Departments and Agencies have issued final revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the Common Rule). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017.

“For nearly 40 years, the federal government has enforced the ‘Common Rule.’ The rule required researchers in the social and medical sciences to get the approval of an independent review board, or IRB, for their federally funded experiments. The purpose of the boards, which are usually set up by the researchers’ universities, is to protect human research subjects—college students, usually—from potentially harmful experiments.”

“In January the Department of Health and Human Services relaxed its regulations governing the use of the review boards. For example, psychological researchers who believe their experiments entail only ‘benign behavioral interventions’ can exempt themselves from seeking the approval of their IRB…”

The article cites another example of the mental health industry trying to push its boundaries. “…members of the American Psychiatric Association are hoping to repeal the APA’s ‘Goldwater Rule,’ which forbids members from pronouncing on the psychological health of public figures whom they haven’t examined personally.”

The article concludes with, “…the exalted role social scientists have assumed in the public conversation requires that we view them with redoubled scrutiny and skepticism. ‘Trust Us, We Know What We’re Doing’ is a suspicious motto for any profession.”

Here is an extract of the actual wording of the exemption in the text of the Final Common Rule as recorded in the Federal Register:

“…the following categories of human subjects research are exempt from this policy:…Research involving benign behavioral interventions in conjunction with the collection of information from an adult subject through verbal or written responses…”

There are a lot of ifs, ands and buts in this convoluted rule. However, the bottom line is that the original goal of protecting human research subjects is being eroded in favor of the convenience of researchers. The ethics of allowing psychologists or psychiatrists to run experiments without independent oversight is questionable.

One of the essential problems with psychology is its reliance upon psychiatric or biological behavioral models—-a far cry from its foundations as the study of the human spirit.

For reference, here is a paper on Ethical Problems in Psychiatric Research.