Therapeutic States

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of my books:
 

The empire of psychiatric power is more than three hundred years old and grows daily more all-encompassing. But we have not yet begun to acknowledge its existence, much less to understand its role in our society. [1]

Thomas Szasz has also said that the social institutions involved in psychiatric violence are the family, the medical institution and the state.

In political theory, one of the definitions of state is ‘the monopoly of violence’. A common civilian cannot exercise violence on another civilian under the law, but the executive power of a state, safeguarded by the legislative and judicial powers, can. The executive power doesn’t only count on an army to protect his (or attack another) nation, but through the police it can exercise violence against its own citizens in those cases stipulated by the law.

If psychiatrists were normal and common citizens they could never exercise, or threat to exercise, any violence. But psychiatrists represent a privileged class of citizens: society allows them to exercise violence on some citizens. Furthermore, they possess special jails for these ends that they call ‘psychiatric hospitals’, which are outside the jurisdiction of the common penal system. This is apparent in the laws of a nation like England and the international law on human rights.

The English laws of mental health are a means by which the right to liberty of a citizen is moved to the side, a right warranted by both the common jurisprudence of that nation and the Article 5.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the quotation of the English brochure I had already mentioned that the Mental Health Law of 1983 permits the compulsory admission to the psychiatric ward, and that similar dispositions in other countries exist.

This means no less than an exception within the law: the right to liberty is warranted between civilians except if the he is a psychiatrist. Just as the state, the psychiatrist has special powers to send another citizen to a prison. This can be proved by pointing out how the constitutional rights of an individual whom a psychiatrist has decided call him ‘insane’ become automatically annulled. If we take now as a paradigm the constitutional right of the United States, this individual is deprived from his right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment), the right to bail (Eight Amendment), and the right that no person be deprived from liberty without due process of law (Fourteenth Amendment).

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and many other countries are Therapeutic States, as Szasz calls nations that claim to be free but that through the medical and psychiatric institution have totalitarian traits. If in one of these States the accused of mentally ill doesn’t agrees with the legal exception of his country in favour of psychiatry, he cannot appeal to international law either. The Article 5 of the European Convention begins:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty,

However, the article continues:

save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law… the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants. [2]

We can agree with the statement regarding the prevention of infections and epidemics: the power to decide who is infected falls on scientists who can detect in their labs the existence of biological diseases. But just what the other group means, persons of ‘unsound mind’, is something that only the psychiatrist of a Therapeutic State has the power to decide because in these cases lab tests are not performed. The second part of the European Convention article of international law invalidates the first one: it leaves to the psychiatrist’s discretion to decide who has a ‘sound mind’ and who has an ‘unsound mind’.

To stamp someone with the label of insanity means that the first political step to his imprisonment has been undertaken (for instance, in the 1960s more Americans lost their liberty accused of unsound mind than the accused of a crime). [3] In short, psychiatrists have the powers to incarcerate an innocent citizen who has not broken any law.

This means that the psychiatrists have the power to derogate the civil status of a citizen to a lower level than that of the common criminal. Just remember how they wanted to commit George Lincoln Rockwell.

If we take as an example the bank assailant who killed a cop and some clients during the skirmish, after being caught he has the right to an impartial trial and to a lawyer, as well as the right to not being tormented or mutilated. On the other hand, the individual who has been identified by a psychiatrist automatically loses these rights: he is incarcerated without a trial and without a lawyer who can make an appeal. Moreover, he can be tormented with electroshock or even psychologically destroyed with neuroleptics or lobotomy.

For a teenager in conflict with his parents, his rights fall into an inferior level compared to those of the assailant or common criminal: he lacks any institution or state lawyer who could possible defended him. As we have seen, in generational conflicts of parents with their children the ‘identification’ invariably falls on the latter. Ronald Laing, the most popular anti-psychiatrist in the 1960s, stated in an interview of 1988:

Economics controls politics, so the pivotal issue is an economic one. To see what is happening, look at the textbook or manual called DSM-III, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition. Translated into economic and political terms, mental disorder means undesired mental states and attitudes and behaviour […].

The criteria in the manual are very useful for controlling the population because you can bring them to bear on practically anyone if the occasion seems to demand it. Look at this: ‘Oppositional disorder’ is a very good one. (Laing reads from the DSM-III:)

The essential feature is a pattern of disobedient negativistic and provocative opposition to authority figures. For example, if there is a rule, it is usually violated. If a suggestion is made, the individual is against it. If asked to do something, the individual refuses or becomes argumentative. If asked to refrain from an act, the child or the adolescent feels obliged to carry it out. […].

These are not exceptional examples out of DSM-III. The overall drift is what contemporary modern psychiatry, epitomized by this DSM manual translated into eighteen languages, is imposing all over the world—a mandate to strip anyone of their civil liberties […] to homogenize people who are out of line. Presented as a medical exercise, it is an undercover operation. [4]

That this is the disposition in modern psychiatry is observed in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Parham vs. J.R. of 1979. This decision gives carte blanche to the States to enact laws that permit minors to be hospitalized if the parents and a psychiatrist want it without any right for the child or adolescent to a hearing or trial. [5] Let’s give the floor to one of these victims of the Therapeutic State. Following next I quote a letter sent on 12 December 1999 to a lawyer who fights for human rights within the United States:

I’m a 16 year old girl who has just gotten out of a ‘psychiatric treatment center’. I was there for over 4 months because I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality disorder and Manic Depression. Borderline Personality Disorder is the biggest f— joke I have heard of. All it is a description of an immature teenager. Haha. I am also not Manic Depressive. The psych people there somehow managed to convince everyone that I was, including my parents. (‘She has severe highs and lows. And she’s impulsive too!’) They put me on lots of medication.

During the first 2 months of my stay at the hospital I refused to take it. My behavior, thinking, and stability were fine, but since I wasn’t taking the medication I was ‘noncompliant and not ready for discharge’. So I decided to cheek the medication. Just so I could get out of the damn place. They found out that I was cheeking it though. Of course.

I haven’t been discharged yet. I won’t be. Ever. Instead my parents have decided to sign me out of the place AMA [against medical advice]. They finally realized I do not need to be in that place, nor did I ever.

Perfectly normal people are kept in treatment centers. Perfectly normal teenagers. Nobody was crazy there. Not even one person. They were just teenagers with divorced parents. Or teenagers who did a few drugs. Or teenagers who got suspended from school. Suddenly we were all Borderlines, Schizophrenics, and Manic Depressives who ‘needed’ long term hospitalization. We also ‘needed’ medication. They put us on heavy doses of anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, antidepressants, anti-whatevers. I was the only patient who didn’t take the medication. I will never take psychiatric medication. I’ve tried it before. It does nothing except for turn me into a zombie. It dulls me out. Makes it so I can’t think straight. Everyone else took it though. [6]

There cannot be a clearer example of the alliance between parents and psychiatrists. In the United States, the sole will of the parents was enough to incarcerate or liberate a child. It’s noteworthy that Rachel, who wrote the above letter at sixteen, had a good grasp of what psychiatric diagnoses really are. In the dawn of the 21st century the diagnoses that were used against her and her mates (‘borderlines’, ‘schizophrenics’, ‘manic depressives’) are as fraudulent as the diagnoses that the psychiatrists used in the 19th century (‘moral insanity’, ‘folie lucide’, ‘nymphomania’). All this is camouflaged in medical language.

It was Lenin who said that dictatorship is a power not limited by law. How psychiatry could not be corrupted if the way they label a girl with the DSM to strip her from her civil rights has no law that supervises it in our societies? Psychiatry is a profession that regulates itself. It is a state within the State that carries out the function of control of the unwanted.

Unlike George Lincoln Rockwell, Ezra Pound was no so lucky. He was committed in a psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C., for over 12 years. His supposed insanity was due to the fact that he had moved to Italy in 1924 and throughout the 1930s and 40s embraced Benito Mussolini’s fascism, expressed support for Adolf Hitler, and wrote for publications owned by the British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley.

How to know if a modern society is a Therapeutic State? This is a state that searches for medical or therapeutical solutions for family and social problems; in the Western past, or in the Soviet Union, even for political dissidence. It is a society that can afford an extra legal system of penalties—the undercover operation of which Laing talked above—with the aim of sparing the dirty job on the constitution of a country. For legislators it would be too embarrassing to enact laws against women in disputes with their husbands, or against teenagers in disputes with their parents. Psychiatrists do the dirty job (‘moral insanity’, ‘dementia praecox’) that society in general, and legislators in particular, do not dare to do directly.

Szasz’s dream was to reform society to separate the state from the medical institution, just as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution separates church and state. Alas, although the Soviet Union and the psychiatric abuse of political dissidents is gone, in the West the inquisitorial power of physicians is well rooted, and civil society is doing very little to question it.

References

[1] Last words of a lecture by Thomas Szasz presented in the Foucault Symposium in Berlin University, May 1998.

[2] Tom Heller et al., Mental health and distress: module 3 (The Open University, 1997), p. 43.

[3] The manufacture of madness (op. cit.), p. 65.

[4] Ronald Laing, Interview (OMNI, April 1988), pp. 60f.

[5] Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (United States Reports, volume 442, p. 584), quoted in The antipsychiatry forum, section ‘Compliments’, answer of Douglas Smith to Lolobenchik (www.antipsychiatry.org). This website provides legal assistance in so-called psychiatric cases.

[6] Ibid. (www.antipsychiatry.org), section ‘Physical restraints’. Rachel signs her letter as ‘Rach’.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Jez Turner!

I met Turner on 22 August of 2014 at The Victory Service Club in Seymour Street, close Edgware Road in London: probably the best day of my 20-day trip to the United Kingdom. It was the first time in my life that I met several white advocates of the intellectual type in a private meeting.

Just see what the Jews did to Jez recently…

Published in: on May 24, 2018 at 12:02 am  Comments (2)  
Tags:

A podcast for Britons

In Lone Wolf Radio’s Episode 1, Chris White interviews Joseph Walsh.

It is five and a half hours: perfect for the British that feel alienated in a society that is actively exterminating them, especially in the big cities where miscegenation is endemic.

Published in: on December 10, 2017 at 11:11 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Fuck the British!

How many British men allowed this*
to happen without going full Breivik?

Andrew Anglin

_____________

(*) Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted
one million youngsters in the UK.

Published in: on December 2, 2017 at 12:01 am  Comments (52)  

Negroes & English roses


 

I wrote the following article
three years ago:

 

“I’ve never seen a real nigger, only in pictures.”

“Lucky you! That was kind of the idea behind the Revolution, sweetie, so you wouldn’t have to see one.” said Jenny.

Freedom’s Sons, page 579

 
As I said in a comment of my “parting word,” only if I have to say something important I would do it in this addenda to The West’s Darkest Hour.

Presently I am in the United Kingdom and am extremely dismayed at the quantity of both mixed couples and general miscegenation and fraternization among whites with non-whites in a country that still produces some of the most beautiful Aryan women, previously known as “English roses.”

I first visited London in 1982. I was not racialist but my mind did not register non-whites then. Now, in 2014 I see that the native English have become a minority in their own capital. If it were not for a surprisingly large amount of beautiful blond children and adolescents I’ve seen in London, some of them tourists I guess, I’d have no objection in nuking the Sin City.

Even at Shakespeare’s Globe Theater, where I had to pay £40 for a seat to watch Antony and Cleopatra, several Shakespearean actors are now Mulattoes and Negroes; and among the audience I had to watch a pubescent white girl being fondled by a dark Indian while watching the comedy. If we keep in mind that the Englishmen of other times treasured their Roses you can imagine the astronomic shift that has taken place in the island since I was born more than half a century ago.

To boot, during my visit to the Guildhall Art Gallery I discovered that it was closed for reparations until September, which means that I won’t see the collection of nymphs depicted in the pre-Raphaelite masterpieces.

In contrast to the paintings that I expected to see in real life but couldn’t, in this visit to the UK I have been bombarded with street and subway photos showing blacks everywhere as if they were the legit inhabitants of this country! A London Forum member told me that the media is even portraying blond women with black husbands and coffee-and-milk kids as something cool and fashionable. Even the front cover of a promotional brochure of the Museum of the Bank of England, that I visited, has a black girl beside a pile of gold bars.

Fortunately, the English are as crazy Keynesians as the Americans, which means that the coming crash of the dollar will drag the sterling pound too bringing this multiracial utopia into utter chaos.

PS of 28 August:

I’ve left the United Kingdom by now. Kevin MacDonald has published an article on an epidemic of non-whites raping pubescent white girls in the UK that perfectly diagnoses the runaway insanity in the UK. This is one of MacDonald’s phrases in the article: “This is a pathology so extreme that it should really be considered a collective psychosis.”

PPS of 7 September:

See also Andrew Hamilton’s article: here.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 41

the-real-hitler 
26th-27th October 1941, evening
 
Exploitation of the Eastern Territories—A British volte-face—Roosevelt’s imposture— Advantage to be gained from European hegemony—A Europe with four hundred million Nordish inhabitants.

National independence, and independence on the political level, depend as much on autarky as on military power. The essential thing for us is not to repeat the mistake of hurling ourselves into foreign markets. The importations of our merchant marine can be limited to three or four million tons. It is enough for us to receive coffee and tea from the African continent. We have everything else here in Europe.

Germany was once one of the great exporters of wool. When Australian wool conquered the markets, our “national” economy suddenly switched over and began importing. I wish to-day we had thirty million sheep.

Nobody will ever snatch the East from us! We have a quasi-monopoly of potash. We shall soon supply the wheat for all Europe, the coal, the steel, the wood.

To exploit the Ukraine properly—that new Indian Empire—I need only peace in the West. The frontier police will be enough to ensure us the quiet conditions necessary for the exploitation of the conquered territories. I attach no importance to a formal, juridical end to the war on the Eastern Front.

If the English are clever, they will seize the psychological moment to make an about-turn—and they will march on our side. By getting out of the war now, the English would succeed in putting their principal competitor—the United States—out of the game for thirty years. Roosevelt would be shown up as an impostor, the country would be enormously in debt—by reason of its manufacture of war-materials, which would become pointless—and unemployment would rise to gigantic proportions.

For me, the object is to exploit the advantages of continental hegemony. It is ridiculous to think of a world policy as long as one does not control the Continent. The Spaniards, the Dutch, the French and ourselves have learnt that by experience.

When we are masters of Europe, we have a dominant position in the world. A hundred and thirty million people in the Reich, ninety in the Ukraine. Add to these the other States of the New Europe, and we’ll be four hundred millions, compared with the hundred and thirty million Americans.

If the British Empire collapsed to-day, it would be thanks to our arms, but we’d get no benefit, for we wouldn’t be the heirs. Russia would take India, Japan would take Eastern Asia, the United States would take Canada. I couldn’t even prevent the Americans from gaining a firm hold in Africa.

In the case of England’s being sunk, I would have no profit— but the obligation to fight her successors. A day might come when I could take a share of this bankruptcy, but on condition of its being postponed.

At present, England no longer interests me. I am interested only in what’s behind her.

We need have no fears for our own future. I shall leave behind me not only the most powerful army, but also a Party that will be the most voracious animal in world history.

Published in: on September 19, 2015 at 1:11 pm  Comments Off on Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 41  
Tags: ,

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 60

the-real-hitler

3rd January 1942, midday

If there was a country that had particular reasons to avoid war, it was certainly Great Britain. The only way for her to keep her Empire was to have a strong air force and a strong navy. That was all she needed.

Published in: on September 15, 2015 at 11:12 am  Comments Off on Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 60  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 62

the-real-hitler

 

6th January 1942, midday

The catastrophe of 1940
—The scapegoat.

 

This war will have helped to originate one of the world’s great upheavals. It will have consequences that we did not seek—for example, the dismemberment of the British Empire. Who are the guilty parties? The Jews. What happens to England is totally indifferent to them. A Hore-Belisha, who grew up in the ghetto, couldn’t have the same reflexes as an Englishman.

Experience teaches us that after every catastrophe a scapegoat is found. In England, it will probably be the Jew. But let them settle that between themselves. It’s not our mission to settle the Jewish question in other people’s countries!

Published in: on September 14, 2015 at 6:27 pm  Comments Off on Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 62  

Liberalism, 3

History of liberalism

Beginnings

The Agreement of the People (1647) [photograph: here] was a manifesto for political change, proposed by the Levellers during the English Civil War. It called for freedom of religion, frequent convening of Parliament and equality under the law.

Isolated strands of liberal thought that had existed in Western philosophy since the Ancient Greeks began to coalesce at the time of the English Civil War. Disputes between the Parliament and King Charles I over political supremacy sparked a massive civil war in the 1640s, which culminated in Charles’ execution and the establishment of a Republic. In particular, the Levellers, a radical political movement of the period, published their manifesto Agreement of the People which advocated popular sovereignty, an extended voting suffrage, religious tolerance and equality before the law.

Many of the liberal concepts of Locke were foreshadowed in the radical ideas that were freely aired at the time. Algernon Sidney was second only to John Locke in his influence on liberal political thought in eighteenth-century Britain. He believed that absolute monarchy was a great political evil, and his major work, Discourses Concerning Government, argued that the subjects of the monarch were entitled by right to share in the government through advice and counsel.

locke

These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology, by the English philosopher John Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism. Locke developed the then radical notion that government acquires consent from the governed which has to be constantly present for a government to remain legitimate. His influential Two Treatises (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. His insistence that lawful government did not have a supernatural basis was a sharp break with then-dominant theories of governance. Locke also defined the concept of the separation of church and state. Based on the social contract principle, Locke argued that there was a natural right to the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. He also formulated a general defense for religious toleration in his Letters Concerning Toleration.

Locke was influenced by the liberal ideas of John Milton, who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms. Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. In his Areopagitica, Milton provided one of the first arguments for the importance of freedom of speech: “the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties”.

Published in: on September 2, 2015 at 11:17 pm  Comments Off on Liberalism, 3  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 97

the-real-hitler

 

27th February 1942, evening

Slogans for the British.
 
 

I very well understand the emperors who were not tempted by the conquest of the East. These spaces had no roads, and no means of heating. Winter there lasted all the year round. It’s easy to say: “Blood and soil.” But for the particularism of the German princes, we’d have succeeded in Germanising the whole of Northern Italy. Racially, the West is to a great extent Germanic.

Himmler’s theory needs serious consideration. We pay far too much honour to Heinrich the Lion, for he helped in frustrating the policy of Barbarossa and Heinrich VI. If everyone had supported the emperors’ policy, what would we not have achieved? Supposing the expansion to the West had been pursued logically, we’d have a great Germanic empire stretching from Denmark to the Loire—and England would not have acquired the importance that is hers to-day.

The moment has come when propaganda can play an important rôle in our favour. It’s not a matter of attacking each Englishman individually to induce him to such and such a particular action. It’s a matter of a propaganda that sets forth undeniable facts, and consequently slogans that fall upon a soil well prepared to receive them. For example: “The British Empire is becoming more and more a colony of American Jews.”

On the organ of Westminster Abbey, the Internationale was played after the service. What can that mean, if not the fall of Christianity? It’s enough to compare the statements now being made in London with those issuing a year ago from Lisbon, to realise the change in the situation. It’s a turning-point in history.

Published in: on September 1, 2015 at 3:24 pm  Comments Off on Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 97  
Tags: