|Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation or brainwashing intended to gain control of another person or group and make them question themselves, their memory, their perception, or their sanity.|
The term originated from the 1938 play (and subsequent film adaptations) Gas Light, where the protagonist’s husband slowly manipulated her into believing she’s going mad by dimming the gaslights and telling her she was imagining it.
This is apparently a common Hollywood theme; I recall seeing the same premise in a 1960’s Perry Mason episode.
If it’s common in Hollywood, chances are it’s common in real life.
In the current political and social climate, fake news is the new standard for gaslighting. Frankly, this is nothing really new; the Russians have been at it since communism began around 1844, in one form or another.
The psychiatric Connection
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. The practice continues today using mind-altering psychiatric drugs to overwhelm a person and create terrorists who have been drug-deluded into committing heinous crimes against humanity.
Not only do psychiatrists commit gaslighting in the form of manipulating terrorists to do their dirty work, but also they cover their tracks by diagnosing and treating the results of such manipulation. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) labels as a mental disorder being a “Victim of terrorism or torture”; or more generally, being a victim of psychological abuse.
And on the other side a person can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist as a perpetrator of psychological abuse.
They’ve got you both coming and going; gaslighting and being gaslighted. And then they can prescribe an addictive, mind-altering psychiatric drug to keep you there, since they don’t keep collecting your insurance unless they can keep diagnosing you and “treating” you with psychiatric drugs.
Don’t think we’re making this up; it’s right there in the DSM.
Coercive psychiatrists are themselves often thought by their patients to be perpetrators of gaslighting. This can create a conflict where the patient is unable to trust their own sense of their feelings and surroundings in favor of evaluations by the therapist. Gaslighting has also been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.
All in all such manipulations are unhealthy. Since the psychiatric industry itself admits it has no capacity to cure, we observe psychology and psychiatry taking advantage of vulnerable patients for their own purposes instead of the therapeutic care and treatment of individuals who are suffering emotional disturbance.
Don’t be caught gaslighted — execute a Living Will “Letter of Protection from Psychiatric Incarceration and/or Treatment.”
United Nations Promoting Sustainable Development
Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015
“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development“
Sustainable: Of, relating to, or being a method or lifestyle for using resources so that the resources can be maintained and continued, and are not depleted or permanently damaged.
[from Old French sustenir (French: soutenir), from Latin sustineo, sustinere, from sub– (under) + teneo (hold, uphold, possess, guard, maintain)]
The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals
The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and their 169 associated targets adopted in 2015 and accepted by all Member States seek to realize the human rights of all and balance economic, social and environmental factors towards peace and prosperity for all.
To this end we examine some of the existing factors which block or inhibit the realization of these goals, and which must be eliminated so that the goals can be achieved in practice.
SDG 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy
Target 7.a: By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.
How Psychiatry Obstructs Target 7a
Joel Stephen Kovel (1936–2018) was an American psychiatrist known as a founder of “eco-socialism”. He ran for the Green Party’s presidential nomination in 2000.
Eco-socialism is an ideology merging aspects of socialism with that of green politics, generally believing that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism.
Kovel believed it is more important to restructure societies to reduce energy use before relying on renewable energy technologies alone. As a staunch socialist he was vehemently anti-capitalism and anti-globalization. We imagine this would have made him antagonistic to the United Nations and its Sustainable Development Goals.
Apparently, though, one of the primary influences of environmental psychology is not a direct attack on renewable clean energy, but rather a profusion of psychological research and publications detailing the psychological trauma leading to mental health problems due to environmental concerns and effects, which of course can be profitably managed by expanding the funding and influence of psychologists and psychiatrists.
The United Nations also recognizes that achieving SDG 7 is related to the promotion of mental health. The unfortunate aspect of this is that the current international model for promoting mental health involves psychiatric and psychological services which are also known to be harmful.
Psychiatrists and psychologists proclaim a worldwide epidemic of mental health problems and urge massive funding increases as the only solution — funding that should rather be given, for example, to promoting access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. Decades of psychiatric monopoly over mental health has only lead to upwardly spiraling mental illness statistics and continuously escalating funding demands.
The claim that only increased funding will cure the problems of psychiatry has lost its ring of truth. Psychiatry and psychology should be held accountable for the funds already given them, and irrefutably and scientifically prove the physical existence of mental disorders they claim should be treated and covered by insurance in the same way as physical diseases are.
The many critical challenges facing societies today reflect the vital need to strengthen individuals through workable, viable and humanitarian alternatives to harmful psychiatric options.
Psychiatric fraud and abuse must be eradicated so that SDG 7 can occur.
The old joke, “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?”, brings us to the present observations. [Answer: Just one, but the light has to really want to change.]
It is currently common for the main-stream news media to carry stories about well-known people who are being castigated for something inappropriate they may have said or tweeted many years ago. Often these famous people are apologizing for some past insensitivity. The conflict the media enjoys promoting appears to be between those who say people cannot change, and those who say people can change.
We wondered where or how this conflict may have originated, since there is a very long history behind this conflict. We’re sure we could write a whole book about this, so we’re just going to touch on a few interesting aspects.
We think there is no hope for humanity and society unless one can change for the better, and many methods have been developed to address such changes. But when a person says they have changed for the better, and they no longer endorse some prior unfavorable position or opinion, there can be an enormous backflash of mistrust from those who cry foul about such a change.
There must be some basic lack of confidence or doubt in one’s ability to change for the better. We think this stems from psychobabble originating from psychiatry and psychology.
As an example, there is a persistent theme in psychology and psychiatry that there is no evidence that intelligence can increase after cognitive training, education, or any other treatment.
“Scholarly” articles abound about intelligence and IQ (Intelligence Quotient), but the reality is quite simple. Intelligence, which is often confused with IQ, is actually the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. IQ is a relative measure of so-called “mental age” compared to others, and has been abused and exploited ever since the term was coined in 1912. Today there are many different IQ tests, since there are so many theories and disagreements about exactly what intelligence is.
One crackpot theory comes from Lecture 36 of the Teaching Company course, Understanding the Brain, from neuroscientist and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine professor Jeanette Norden, Ph.D., who says “Short of having massive brain damage, what we call IQ doesn’t change.” This is the misanthropic psychiatric point of view which makes the ridiculous claim that no change is possible.
In fact, one third of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) patients indeed experience such massive brain damage, and many suffer a steep drop in IQ. Before-and-after IQ testing of persons given ECT typically show a loss of 20 to 40 points.
Unfortunately, IQ has been used by psychiatrists and psychologists as justification to suppress and harm entire populations. For example, eugenicist Paul Popenoe and psychologist Lewis Terman used biased IQ tests to belittle non-white races.
Psychiatrists developed the racial purity ideology used by Hitler which lead to the Nazi euthanasia program and, later, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. No wonder there is such an aversion to the true data about intelligence, IQ, and one’s ability to change — these have been used by psychiatry and psychology to commit eugenics atrocities.
The psychiatric industry also has a history of deliberately reducing their patients’ 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].”
Psychiatry has enshrined the difficulties of change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), with seven disorders under the category of Adjustment Disorder, which are a group of behavioral, emotional and/or physical symptoms that can occur after going through a stressful life event, indicating one is having a hard time coping with change. By emphasizing change as a disorder, they have given change a bad name.
So when someone apologizes for having said something stupid in the past, and says they now see the error of their ways, why not give them a break and take it on face value? Let’s acknowledge that people can indeed change for the better, in spite of the claims of psychiatry and psychology that “they know best!”
The earliest known psychotherapy consisted of getting a patient to laugh.
Laughter includes both surprise and rejection. We’re sure you can think of an example; here’s a start — think of a cartoon or a joke that made you laugh. Now observe the surprising part of it, and observe the idea or concept being rejected.
Let’s take an actual example of a joke:
A man goes to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist says “You’re crazy.”
The man says, “I want a second opinion!”
The psychiatrist says, “Okay, you’re ugly, too!”
The surprise seems to be the unexpectedness of the second opinion; it wasn’t predicted.
An individual who is too serious has lost his ability to predict, and cannot be surprised into rejection. When one rehabilitates the ability to laugh, just by laughing for no reason, it benefits the person immensely.
We recently have seen many examples of people being too serious and unable to laugh. There are Facebook pages devoted to various jokes and cartoons. One such page requires participants to actively ask for admission, so you know they are viewing and posting on that page on purpose. Then, they make comments on the various jokes and cartoons about how it isn’t funny, or how it is offensive, or how much they dislike it. They have essentially lost their laughter, and are going through life serious as a stone.
A person who is unable to laugh will be strictly literal, unable to tolerate confusion, and unable to appreciate remarks made in fun.
Some psychologists and psychiatrists have learned to respect the value of laughter; as the joke goes, how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but it has to want to change.
Other psychologists and psychiatrists may mistake genuine laughter for ridicule, which is decidedly not the same thing. And some may consider it only as a stress coping strategy rather than the simpler explanation described above. There was a period in psych-influenced education which considered that if you’re laughing, you’re not learning. We actually knew a high school principal once who thought that children could not learn unless they were quiet and sitting down.
The study of laughter is called gelotology, from the Greek word gelos meaning laughter. There is even a branch of yoga called Laughter Yoga, which incorporates breathing, yoga, and stretching techniques, along with laughter. There are at least fifteen English words and phrases describing various kinds of laughs.
When neuropsychiatrists study laughter, of course they mean they are studying the brain; they get hung up in the physiology, brain waves, serotonin, hormones, and other mechanical aspects. They get all scientific on you, talking about “activation of the ventromedial prefontal cortex.” They seem to lose sight of the simplicity of the effect, so that they can patent it and manipulate it with some drug. You can’t charge someone’s insurance for a prescription for laughter.
They’ve even got it in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) as “cataplexy,” which is a sudden, generally brief muscle weakness, like weak knees, due to strong emotion or laughter. We suppose this is where the acronym ROFL comes from (Rolling On Floor Laughing.)
Well, what’s the bottom line? We think that psychiatry is a joke, but we’re not really laughing about it. Perhaps we should. Check out a few of our psych jokes here.
We recently watched the classic Mel Brooks movie “High Anxiety.” Besides the fact that it is absolutely hilarious, and relentlessly parodies psychiatry and psychiatrists, it also leads into a discussion of anxiety as popularized by psychiatry and psychology.
The American Psychological Association says, “Anxiety is an emotion characterized by feelings of tension, worried thoughts and physical changes like increased blood pressure. People with anxiety disorders usually have recurring intrusive thoughts or concerns. They may avoid certain situations out of worry. They may also have physical symptoms such as sweating, trembling, dizziness or a rapid heartbeat.”
The American Psychiatric Association says, “Anxiety is a normal reaction to stress … Anxiety disorders differ from normal feelings of nervousness or anxiousness, and involve excessive fear or anxiety.” But they go further and list many different types of anxiety disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) lists no fewer than 54 disorders using the word “anxiety,” plus a number of other disorders with different names but which may still be considered as a type of anxiety disorder.
Psychiatrist Dr. Richard H. Thorndyke, played by Mel Brooks in the movie, suffers from “high anxiety,” manifested as vertigo ostensibly from a fear of heights, which in the DSM would be a “Specific phobia.”
The English word “anxiety” itself means, among other definitions, “apprehensive uneasiness, worry, or nervousness typically over an impending or anticipated ill, or something with an uncertain outcome.” [Latin anxietas, from anxius, from angere “to choke”]
Psychiatrists and psychologists attempt to give it a “medical” definition, which is necessary in order to prescribe drugs for it. One medical dictionary says this, “Anxiety disorder: A chronic condition characterized by an excessive and persistent sense of apprehension, with physical symptoms such as sweating, palpitations, and feelings of stress. Treatments include the comfort offered by understanding the condition, avoiding or desensitizing exacerbating situations, and medications.” Google says this, “a nervous disorder characterized by a state of excessive uneasiness and apprehension, typically with compulsive behavior or panic attacks.”
The relationship of anxiety to stress should be self-evident. You might like to review what we have written previously about stress.
Anxiety, like stress, is not a mental illness, and cannot be fixed with a drug. It can only be fixed by finding and eliminating the causes of the condition. For example, many doctors and nutritionists are finding that anxiety attack symptoms can be the result of food allergies. There are many other potential causes. We recommend a full, searching clinical examination by a competent non-psychiatric doctor, to find out if there are any undiagnosed and untreated actual medical conditions.
There is an international nonprofit organization called “Anxiety and Depression Association of America”, whose purpose is the prevention, treatment, and cure of anxiety and other “co-occurring disorders.” Naturally they claim, falsely, that anxiety disorders have a biological basis, giving them a reason to prescribe drugs. The National Institute of Mental Health says, “Anxiety disorders are generally treated with psychotherapy, medication, or both.”
If you were thinking of an anti-anxiety drug, be warned that these can cause hallucinations, delusional thinking, confusion, aggression, violence, hostility, agitation, irritability, depression and suicidal thinking. They are also some of the most difficult drugs to withdraw from.
Anxiety is an emotion, and is really a conflict, or the restimulation of a conflict, or something containing indecision or uncertainty. It is exemplified by a conflict between something supporting survival and something opposing survival. It is rooted in an inability to assign the correct cause to something, which itself is rooted in an inability to observe. As we said, the cure is not a drug, but in finding out the correct cause.
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.
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 Post “noticed 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.
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.
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.”
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.