The below is OCEAN Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 3, Article 4 (Sep. 12, 2019) published by Russell J. Hatton & Daniel A. Wilson from the gulag in Moose Lake Minnesota.
Since 1952, there has been a 234% increase in the number of mental disorders. This is dramatically expanding the realm of psychiatry and narrowing the gap of normality – converting millions of people from being without mental disorders to being psychiatrically “sick.” Their criteria are based on psychiatric opinion only. The claim is that the issue is one of ‘chemical imbalance.’ However, there is no way to prove this. There are no blood tests, X-rays, brain scans or any other medical test to confirm any of these mental disorders.
In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) there has been an explosion of children’ s mental disorders that require drugs. This category has rocketed from three such “disorders” in 1952 to 55 in the latest edition, which translates to a 1,300% profit increase for the psychiatric pharmaceutical industry. The number of children under 2 years old prescribed psychotropic drugs in 2013 alone could fill 3 .5 football stadiums. From birth to grave, there is a “disorder” that can be billed to treat. Dr. Thomas Szasz, while (continues on page 4) still Professor of Psychiatry at the State University of New York, Upstate Medical Center and author of the book, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, when referring to the
pseudo-science of Psychiatry said, “Psychiatry is probably the single most destructive force that has affected society within the last 60 years. 1
• • • the adherents of this exaggerated faith … use it as a shield of illusion concealing some ugly realities … 2
Lawrence LeShan, when he was president-elect of the Association of Humanistic Psychology, said: “Psychotherapy may be known in the future as the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.”3 Dr. Martin & Deidre Bobgan and T.A. McMahon include others that challenge psychology: According to sound research, not only is psychotherapy less effective than it is purported to be, but in many cases it’s even harmful. After examining numerous efficacy (effectiveness) studies on psychotherapy, university professor and widely recognized researcher Dr. Robyn Dawes says, “There is no positive evidence supporting the efficacy of professional psychology.” Dawes further says, “Evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapy has led us to conclude that professional psychologists are not better psychotherapists than anyone else with minimal training-sometimes those without any training at all, the professionals are merely more expensive.4
In 1955 the American Psychiatric Association made a statement that remains true today: “Psychotherapy is today in a state of disarray almost exactly as it was 2 00 years ago.” In an address to the AP A the next year, Percival Bailey Said, “The great revolution in psychiatry has solved few problems … One wonders how long the hoary errors of Freud will continue to plague psychiatry.” I wonder how these men would feel to know the state of the situation here at MSOP over 60 years later. H. J. Eysenck, Director of the University of London’s Department of Psychology, wrote, “The success of the Freudian revolution seemed complete. Only one thing went wrong. The patients did not get better. Berelson and Steiner, in their book Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings, a survey of the progress of the behavioral sciences of the time said, “Psychotherapy has not yet been proved more effective than general medical counseling in treating neurosis or psychosis. In general, therapy works best with people who are young, well-born, well-educated and not seriously sick.” In an article in This Week Magazine for September 18, 1966 entitled “Farwell to Freud,” Leslie Lieber concludes:
Once bright with promise, psychoanalysis today seems hardly worth the millions we are lavishing on it each year … The truth is that not only the dramatic breakthrough and cure almost non-existent, but thousands upon thousands who have spent millions upon millions aren’t at all certain whether they are one whit less ‘neurotic’ than before they began … Many doctors are now sharply challenging the need for long-drawn-out excavations of the subconscious.
Jay Adams goes on to explain the sad stats of psychotherapy during his time:
Surveys show that of patients who spend upwards of 350 hours on the psychoanalyst’s couch to get better- two out of three show some improvement over a period of years … however, the same percentage get better without analysis … As a matter of fact, that same ratio – two out of three people got better in mental hospitals a hundred years ago … Patients get better regardless of what is done to them.5
In other words, the Medical Model does not work.
The Medical Model was used to corral criminals into the Mental Health system … for life.
To understand MSOP, we must understand psychology. To understand psychology, we have to go back to the beginning – to the Father of Psychology: Sigmund Freud.
Freud, taking his direction from Charcot, under whom he studied in France, adopted and popularized views of human difficulty under what we call a “Medical Model.” 6 Before this time the “mentally ill” were viewed as malingerers rather than patients. This propaganda has influenced the general public, along with “professionals,” to believe that the destructive choices people make are a result of a disposition, beyond the person’s control.
The Medical Model has been spread so effectively that most people believe that the root causes of peoples problems are “diseases” and “sicknesses” not recognizing that being sympathetic simply gives a person allowances to do what he wants. Sympathy is crucial for a free willed man to justify his choices, and delay due consequences.
Effectively, the mentality that the Medical Model spread – viewing criminal sex offenders as “diseased” – was one of the first elements that corralled so many into MSOP.
Eric Janus, former President and Dean Professor of Law Director at the Sex Offender Litigation and Policy Resource Center of Mitchell Hamline School of Law, plainly warned the legislatures involved in creating the current sex offender civil commitment laws, because he understood that criminals “don’t belong in the mental health system” because criminals make conscious choices, whereas the “mentally ill” do not:
… [L]et me put the matter somewhat bluntly: Using the civil commitment system, in my judgment, to commit people, to confine people like Mr. Linehan,7 who are not mentally ill, are not incompetent. . . is unconstitutional preventive detention. A law authorizing such detention would, in essence, in my judgment, establish a dangerousness court, authorized to lock people up indefinitely based on the predictions of some mental health experts about what they think these people might in the future do.
Applied to people like Linehan, 8 who have served their criminal sentences, this is pure and simple double jeopardy. Preventive detention, dangerousness courts, double jeopardy – These are each and every one of them, anathema our democratic way of life.”9
. . . Civil commitment was never designed to deal with criminal behavior. And all this morning, we’ve heard people talking about, “How are we going to confine these sexual criminals?” These people are criminals; they don’t belong in the mental health system.
Every 40 seconds someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, based on the idea that a person may be a danger to himself or others. Yet, psychiatrists admit they cannot predict “dangerousness.”
MSOP, however, is a system designed for just that purpose – to punish people for what George Orwell called crime think or a “thought crime” – having thoughts that were at odds with the government expectation. Crime think requires the ability to read the thoughts of the ‘perpetrator.’ Dr. Steven Rose, Professor of Biology at the Open University says:
In the current legislative climate, where there have been attempts to introduce preemptive detention for ‘psychopaths’ who have not yet been convicted of any crime, but such claims need to be addressed critically. They are and will be resisted by the judiciary, but recent developments suggest that this may be a frail defense against an increasingly authoritarian state ‘ 0
Well, doc, that authoritarian state is here and her name is MSOP.
FOOTNOTES
1 Szasz, Thomas. “Psychiatric Abuse Facts.” Citizens Commission on Human Rights, contact@cchr.org 1 (800) 869-2247, 1(323) 467-4242
2 Adams, Jay E. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., ©1970, pp.3, 4
3 Dr. Martin & Deidre Bobgan and T.A. McMahon. “Psychology and Psychotherapy (Part I)” The Berean Call, January 2018, p. 4
4 Ibid.
5 Adams, Jay E. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., ©1970, p.1-3
6 Adams, Jay E. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., © 1970, p.4
7 Mr. Dennis Linehan’s case was the model used to create the Minnesota Sex Offender Commitment Act.
8 The Third Segment of the First Installment of Transcribed Excerpts from the 1994 Legislative Hearings on the
Minnesota Sex Offender Commitment Bill, Disk 2 at 31 :37
9 Ibid. Disk 2 at 39:52
10 Icke, David. The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (and how to end it), David Icke Books Ltd.
©2007 p.503
