The Weaponisation of Psychology – LN24

Psychology has been a brewing threat in society. And yet, in all the times it was institutionalised and esteemed, not many people thought to question the credibility behind some of its theories and notable figures, and even the products that psychology justified for society’s consumption – especially when looking at psychotropic drugs. However, in its function as a threat to society, psychology has been very ambitious, extending beyond complimenting the pharmaceutical industry, to even serving as a tool in driving the paedophilic abuse of children, while even undermining processes of the criminal justice system – which is precisely what we ought to address today.
THE ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM: PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS WERE PRESENTED AS CHRONIC MEDICATION
And now onto our main discussion on the weaponisation of psychology, and we ought to start with the relationship between psychology and pharmakeia, also known as big pharma. Psychiatric medicines work by altering the nervous system. Stopping or decreasing too fast is a wrenching physical adjustment that can create the same states the drugs are meant to fix: depression, anxiety, confusion, and more. Even unpleasant feelings in the brain itself. We then have to ask: Is there an alternative? Well, in 1794, a doctor named Philippe Pinel said something revolutionary to his French audience. Dr Pinel declared psychological issues curable. By “cure,” Dr Pinel meant an outcome psychiatry still fails to embrace: which is hope for the course of medical treatment to come to an end, which would mean that psychiatric treatment is not created to be a chronic experience. Well, there’s context for why this idea is critical to highlight even in the status quo.
For some context, though psychiatric medications have existed since the 1950s, the idea of taking them permanently gained ground around the 1980s, as a biological view of mental “illness” replaced a more psychological one. Drugs like Prozac were promoted as correcting the “chemical imbalance” causing depression, an imbalance that would theoretically be lifelong. Pharmaceutical companies, seeing lifelong patients of psychiatric drugs as a profit making avenue, obviously embraced the idea.
As a result of this, a shift occurred then from defining [mental states] as episodic, temporary experiences to incurable brain diseases. Psychiatric language ALSO shifted from using terms like “reaction” or “disturbance” to “disorder” and “disease.” This was intended in part to reduce stigma. BUT the shift also had striking consequences for big pharma’s ability to have life long patients. This is to say that depression (for example) that is a “reaction” or “disturbance” implies not just a limit but an origin, while “disorder” does not—furthermore, the former terms emphasises cause over chemicals.
But, beyond the definitional changes, there was also a practical problem with this shift in seeing mental illness as a chronic suffering. In particular, medications like antipsychotics, anti-anxiety drugs, and antidepressants were in most cases developed for short-term use. Many trials of psychiatric drugs last less than two months, even though the length of time spent on a medication increases the difficulty of stopping it. ALL of this to say that there is an abundance of research that show the harms of psychotropic, or antipsychotic drugs.
PSYCHOLOGY MADE STAYING ON PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS A VIRTUE
Despite these problems, “staying on meds” has become not just the likely outcome in psychiatry but a test of virtue. “Good” patients stay on meds. Bad patients don’t, often because they’re “so sick they don’t know they’re sick.” To take meds is to acknowledge there’s something wrong with you; to shun them means something even worse. Yet drug withdrawal is far slower and harder than most people, including doctors, realise. Its effects are often misread as a return of symptoms. However, the biggest and underlying issue is that psychology made the consistent consumption of psychiatric drugs appear as virtuous or proving of recovery, while the chronic consumption of the drugs is a far greater threat, making withdrawal even harder.
ADHD: ONE OF THE LATEST PSYCHOLOGY AND BIG PHARMA PROJECTS
This brings us to something we’ve discussed previously, which is the recent feature of ADHD in the discussion on using psychotropics to create an income stream for big pharma. In essence, big pharma is attempting to create a new revenue stream through the forced medication of children – especially in public schools. Unfortunately, many if not most kids in public schools today face this threat daily. They can be identified as having ADHD or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. However, it turns out that there is NOTHING proven chemically to constitute ADHD! It is entirely a diagnosis applied based on behaviour as identified throughout a checklist questionnaire. The checklist is about fidgeting, forgetting, boredom, finishing tasks, various acting up, expressions of frustrations, and so on. In other words, what we have here is a list of all the signs you might expect when young children, in particular, are told to sit perfectly still at a desk for months and years and complete tasks assigned to them. Just have a listen to Dr Ben Vitiello from the NIH describe the symptoms for ADHD.
Firstly, the pharmaceutical industry seems sold on this lie that a lack of symptoms is one of the symptoms of an illness which would be comical if it hadn’t cost so many people their lives, especially during the covid pandemic era. However, based on the symptoms described by the doctor in the video just seen, doctors and teachers are likely to rope in a vast number of kids, particularly the exceptional ones and those once considered to be “gifted and talented.” But, it also appears that there is a vast industry working today to pathologise perfectly normal behavioural traits. And this affects boy children in particular very hard because, in general, they mature more slowly than girls and tend toward behavioural resistance to environmental adaptivity relative to girls. This then brings us to the question of what then could be the purpose of such a diagnosis?
I’m certain you guessed it: the purpose for the ADHD diagnosis is that there are drugs for this supposed problem. They have various names: Ritalin (methyl-pheni-date), Adderall (amphe-tamine), Dexmethyl-phenidate, Lisdexam-fetamine, and more. And yet, not even one of them has been proven to be a chemical fix for any biological abnormality. They are all behavioural-adjustment drugs; which is to say that there are, in essence, psychotropic drugs; or narcotics for kids! However, millions of kids take them, in fact, as many as 13 percent of teens are on these drugs. The rate even grows higher in the college population. Some one in three adults are taking psychiatric meds. However, the problem fundamentally begins in school. But, while this is astounding, it fits with everything else we know about big pharma. It is an industry that is in a tight working relationship with government institutions like public schools, regulators, medical authorities that are throwing drugs at people with the promise of wellbeing but with results that actually ruin lives.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AND PSYCHOTROPICS
But, among the related factors is the odd relationship between school shootings and the wide distribution of these drugs. Many cases we know about already but the medical records of others are being withheld, even though the public is more and more understanding that the real problem is not guns but pharmacological products. And yet the activists themselves are entirely focused on taking away guns rather than looking more deeply. In fact, have a listen as Sheila Matthews decries public school psychologists diagnosing “problem children” & prescribing a “cocktail” of behavioural drugs; with now Director of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Robert Keneddy Jr also emphasising the role of these drugs in school shootings.
Furthermore, this approach has produced young adults who are addicted to (especially) Adderall. In many ways, to college students, Adderall is presented as a panacea. This is especially considering that in college, discipline over the use of time recedes into a low priority. Instead the demand is to turn in long papers on deadline, memorise vast material you can spit out on a test and forget the next day, and otherwise stay intensely focused sporadically. For many students, this drug is exactly what enables them to meet up with these demands: it permits hyper-focused all-nighters followed by a day or two of feeling out of touch and less like your normal self, while no one notices. However, as mentioned earlier, many develop addictions, particularly psychological ones: life without the drug begins to seem dull by comparison.
And, in addition, these students carry this over into professional life and attempt the same pattern. They can work all day and stay up all night and achieve something that seems significant but comes at a great cost. In fact, it said that one of the typical behaviours of employees who take these drugs and engage in this behaviour is that you don’t hear from them for days after consuming the drug, until they reemerge with no memory of even the work they did. And this pattern repeats itself – primarily because Big Pharma does not warn people about the addictive nature of these medications. But kindly have a listen to Dr Anthony Kaveh as he breaks down the scientific evidence behind the addictive nature of medication associated with anxiety and depression as well.
THE HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THE SEXUALISATION OF CHILDREN
This brings us to the second part of our discussion on the weaponisation of psychology, and we ought to address the relationship between psychology and the sexualisation of children. In particular, history has an important story to tell about the sexualisation of minors that has even been enshrined into the practice of psychology. You would note that psychology has progressively been exposed for its contributions to a number of social ills. One of them is the sexualisation of children, starting with one of the biggest names in psychology – Sigmund Freud. Sigmund Freud originally discovered that all his female patients had been sexually abused as children. Freud realised he had uncovered the origins of severe mental illness in his society. But when he revealed these findings on April 21st 1896 at the Society for Psychiatry and Neurology, Viennese society refused to accept his discovery and threatened to destroy his reputation. Unfortunately, in an effort to save his career and not the many victims he saw in his practise, he came up with an alternative theory that was to their expense; and has destroyed the lives of many others. Have a listen.
ALFRED KINSEY’S ROLE IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION OF PAEDOPHELIA
However, it does not end with Sigmund Freud; which brings us to a discussion of the actual reputation of misguidedly celebrated sex scientist Alfred C. Kinsey, who was unmasked as a fraud and pervert of the worst sort back in 1990. That was when Judith Reisman, Ph.D., and her colleagues released the books which outline how leftists used Mr. Kinsey’s research to weaken laws against pornography, rape and child molestation and pave the way for the Roe v. Wade ruling legalising abortion. The extent of the evil work that Afred Kinsey was engaged in is jarring.
First, Ms Reisman, proved that Mr. Kinsey was anything but scientific. He bribed test subjects, many of them prison inmates who told him what he wanted to hear. He fudged data. He forced his own staff to have sexual relations with each other’s wives and between men and men – and had it filmed. But, and really worst of all, he conducted or procured monstrous experiments on children. Graph Table 34 in his 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” quantifies sexual gratification in boys from five months of age to 10 years of age. One four-year-old had this so-called study or observation conducted on him in a 24-hour period. This essentially indicates the “researcher” (to put it mildly) molested the child around the clock. And it wasn;t just one child abused in this study: the book reveals experiments on a boy aged 12 years, and another aged 11 years.
From this data, Alfred Kinsey then formulated his theories about so-called “normal” childhood sexuality, promoting the view that children were “sexual beings” who deserved to sexually interact with adults at early ages – essentially waging a war on the innocence of children, and attempting to dilute the inherent evil that is child rape! Then, Kinsey’s other so-called “research” provided the alleged “scientific” foundation for the sexual revolution (so to speak) that has metastasised into a pornified internet, Drag Queen Story Hours for children, gender confusion, sexual mutilation and “pride” in every sexual aberration under the sun.
HOW PSYCHOLOGY IS UNDERMINING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF NATIONS
Finally, we must address how psychology has been undermining the criminal justice system. This typically happens in two respects: first, is the psychological manipulation of juries in countries (like the US), that allow juries to contribute to trials. In essence, trial lawyers have for centuries exploited psychological principles derived from intuition and experience. But amateur courtroom psychology then began giving way to science. For a price, professional psychologists are available to advise lawyers on all aspects of trial advocacy including what to say, where to stand, how to select a jury, when to object and what suit to wear. One expert stated that they essentially help lawyers position their cases to juries.
Well, historically, lawyers have employed these experts when the economic or political issues at stake warranted the expense. Now, however, lawyers are developing the capacity to systematically employ psychological courtroom techniques on their own. Continuing legal education programs are currently offered on these subjects. Recently published books on trial advocacy are devoted in whole or in part to psychology. In the last decade, scientists have published dozens of articles in journals for trial lawyers describing various psychology-based
advocacy techniques. This is often portrayed as simply a means of improving the delivery style of lawyers, but rather, it has become a celebrated practice to learn how to manipulate juries for a desired outcome – despite the substantive considerations of the court case in question – which is where the problem is. I’d like ot show you an example of this courtroom psychology that is used on juries.
So this is one aspect of the intrusion of psychology into the criminal justice system, and it can be moderately harmful, even though it is dangerous for manipulating juries against considering the substantive facts in a case. Then there is the second aspect, which relates to how psychologists inform whether a criminal is legally insane or whether they are rehabilitated enough to return to society. Let’s use the US as a case study.
THE INSANITY PLEA AND A CONFLICT OF JUSTICE
America was shocked when John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the shooting of President Reagan. A nation that watched Hinckley pull the trigger on countless television replays recoiled at the prospect of his being released from a psychiatric hospital within as little as six months. As the public vented its outrage,
the insanity defense came under renewed attack. The prevailing narrative (and correctly so) was that insanity defense “defeats justice, further discredits psychiatry, and enrages the public”. The root of the problem is the use of “expert psychiatric testimony” in insanity cases. Such testimony is inappropriate for two reasons. First, the public in general and the jurors in particular falsely assume that psychiatry is based on a scientifically tested theory and body of knowledge with definable elements. But, contrary to the popular assumption, psychiatric testimony consists of speculation derived from theories that lack a scientific basis.
The second reason why psychiatric testimony is inappropriate is the philosophical incompatibility of law and psychiatry. Law and psychiatry, the authors contend, are predicated on divergent views about whether humans are free agents. The law proceeds on the premise that one freely chooses to do an act. It therefore
holds people morally responsible for these acts and punishes them for their commission. Psychiatry does not make the same assumption about free choice. Instead, it assumes that behavior is determined by prior events or psychological or physiological states. Now this assumption from psychology is not inherently wrong. People’s behaviours are influenced by psychological factors, and at times, they are not exercising agency. We can see this even Biblically with the man who was possessed by a legion of demons and would even break the chains that bound him. This man was clearly not exercising agency.
However, psychology still undermines justice in the sense that it does not regard the role of retributive justice, not even for the offended, but especially for the victims. When a person murders another, it is one thing to say they were legally insane, and another to release them from a psychiatric hospital in a few months or years – especially because these people tend to become repeat offenders. We saw this with Jordan Neely, who unfortunately lost his life during an encounter with daniel Penny, where he was once again threatening to harm people in a train, after he never went to prison for assaulting an elderly woman in the train prior, and was sent for psychiatric care. We also saw this with Charles Meach. In 1973, Meach beat 22-year Robert Johnson, who worked as a grocery clerk, to death in Earthquake Park. He was charged with murder, found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to Atascadero State Hospital in California. Then, in 1980, psychiatrists decided that his illness was in remission and he was returned to Alaska under the supervision of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute. In 1981, Meach worked several jobs and was enrolled at the University of Alaska. But, then on May 3, 1982, armed with a revolver that he had bought from a man on the street, he shot four teenagers to death while robbing their campsite in Russian Jack Springs Park. And yet, what got him out was the word of a psychologist who decided he was in remission, and this often based on the word of the patient, like we saw in the case of Tyree Smith, a brutal murder and cannibal who pleaded insanity, and is now released because his psychologists say he confessed that he no longer has psychotic episodes. As you can imagine, the victims family sees this as a miscarriage of justice.
Write By Lindokuhle Mabaso