A Theory of a Fallacy

or, whence the multitude of 'disorders'.

Among the most "normal", the most sane individuals one meets, an infinite variety of behaviors can be observed.

This is absolutely nothing new. One person is known to be talkative, friendly, active, ; another may be known usually to be sober, serious. The numerous adjectives in the language can be seen to be applied with some noticeable regularity of frequency to various sorts of behavior.

What happens when some one goes psychotic (for whatever reasons).

In other words, suddenly, or gradually, becomes irrational to the point where there appear some problems or even dangers in his relations with others.

It seems arguable that the variety of human sorts, characters, types of behavior, commonly-seen treats, would be no less present among the entirely sane individuals as among those who (for some reason or other) went psychotic.

The one, and arguably only thing that latter sort have in common may be their having gone irrational, beyond the "normal" standards.

Such persons would still behave in markedly different ways — just as people do in the entirely, or at least acceptably, sane state.

This probably had led to classifications of 'mental illnessees'.

There might seem to be some truth in some of those definitions — but the fundamental theory to this all is nowhere to be found (when you look through this literature).

A post-traumatic 'disorder' would have some truth to it : some kind of trauma was too heavy on the individual. But it was the trauma itself (of which there may be many varietis) and its consequences that ails him (or her). Does he or she 'have' a 'disorder' ? He or she has had some trauma which presently ails them ;
    The varieties of possible traumatic experiences must not imply the actual existence of varieties of 'disorder' stemming from those.

'By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step.'

'A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of "mental healing."'

'You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.'

Comment the above has been attributed to Lavrentii Beria (KGB, the former Soviet Union). The date is somewhat uncertain ; by some statements this would have been before or circa 1936, by some other data in the text this would have been later. The above statements are from a pamphlet titled "The Soviet art of brain washing : a synthesis of the Russian textbook on psychopolitics" to which several authors had contributed.

The English version was based on a text published in German ; the lectures by Beria would have been most likely delivered in Russian,* the date of before or circa 1936 seems probable, some data in in the pmaphlet pertaining to the period ca. 1948-50 (or after that) may have been added during the editing work at a later date.

    * Possibly in bad Russian, since Beria, like his master Stalin, was not an ethnic Russian.

Please note that the KGB records of Beria himself have been destroyed   unlike the records of many other prominent Reds in the former Soviet Union.

Any person who might doubt that the Reds would not shy from any means, from any kind of evil to achieve the world-domination ("communism") might be what could be called "normal". What was really going on would be usually beyond some average guy's ability to conceive, even by the natively most intelligent ones.

Considerable amounts of propaganda could be seen in the USA ever since the plague began ; but somebody's freedom of the press may have nothing to do with the historic fact. The accumulating falsehoods might be the gravest danger presently to the American experiment — so successful, for the most part, during the 19th century — in democracy.

Whatever the actual geneses of this text, "Soviet art of .. psychopolitics", it stands to reason that such data as there treated of would be anything but intended to be accessible for the general scholar.

Observe the patterns, the reader, in these developments ; find out what is probable. The evidence is plentiful, of numerous irregularities, on the field of the mental health (so falsely called by now) in the USA. If this chaos* was not the result of somebody's sabotage then I for one would like to hear of some other explanation.

    * The ever increasing number of the "disorders", see it who can see, quite an exact statistic and just about the only exact thing on this field.

It surely makes money for the psycho-pharmaceutic companies, though those would rather seem to profit on what had originally been purely political actions than to have initiated such. In the meanwhile however, this could have individuated as a "strictly business" idea, especially when the official "science" is either 90% dumb on the matters or lies about them. Somebody's seemingly innocent "responsibility to the shareholders" could then entail inestimable harm abroad.

Do some criminals ever care about the scope of the harm they might inflict ? This was never the case with , e.g., J. Stalin and his henchmen. There, it was the least criminal ones who were eliminated or exterminated first (read any true texts on the Purges ) ; and it was the most criminal ones who had survived as part of the racket, there being some peculiar logic to this system of mutual destruction.

What does some guy care, who stands to make some money on "mental illness" ? Possibly not any more than did a Stalin, about how many millions would perish so that his party gain influence and ascendancy wherever possible.

At least some parts of this influence came from the former Soviet Union (this beyond any doubt, else, examine the literature). Then, one kind of crime could have spawned another, the accounts may be the criterion to decide what is "good" for the company ; so long as something sells, some people would not worry the least bit about any other aspects of what they supply.

So long as it is not illegal, the "responsibility" can be mainly to the shareholders, and so assist a grand hoax which, once started can keep going on, being just too large for it to be noticed, even to its own participants* in many instances — especially when people including the presidents of the most important countries in the world have been made half-literate.

    * "I have been duped", wrote the psychiatrist Coleman, frankly and truly. But to notice having been duped might come neither naturally nor easily ; to admit it being yet another question.

These are not easy issues ; they were not meant to be easy issues, by many of the persons who had influenced them, and quite exactly the contrary. Read on your own and evaluate on your own : just do not get buried in this all (pun) — this might require some caution, as though on a mine-field.

Some chronology :

1937 : depart William Alanson White (1870-1937), "the last sane psychiatrist in America".

This might be a little bit of an overstatement, meant to place these issues in a sort of relief. It arguably might be not an untrue statement, considering that Wm. A. White had been apparently the number one psychiatrist in the USA of his period — his key follower in the profession, Sullivan, being dubious in some ways. There is some more to this.

1946 sudden emergence from seemingly perfect obscurity of one George Brock Chisholm.

G.B. Chisholm was the founder of the World Mental Health Federation. He was also an acquaintace of the notorious Red agent Alger Hiss, with whom he had occasionally co-operated, as evidenced by the literature of the period.

The Grand de-Tour

1952   the publication of the patently fraudulent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, first edition, of the American Psychiatric Association.

Question   How many 'psychiatric disorders' does it take to drive the psychiatrist insane ?

Answer   The required number of 'psychiatric disorders' is, in principle, unlimited. At least by such criteria as can be seen in the Manuals of the American Psychiatric Association.

Note anyone who can read : just try to read through this literature, maintaining as unprejudiced an attitude as you can make it.

1952   the publication of the patently fraudulent "In The Name of Science" by a certain Martin Gardner (New York, Putnam).

This text thouroughly misrepresented some sorts of therapy or proposed therapy deriving from the psycho-analytic school (Breuer and Freud) on one hand, and some non-intrusive sorts of approach to the individual patient, mainly associated with the work by Wm. A. White (cf. above).
    This Gardner was a writer of some skill in the formal logic ; but this has naturally nothing to do with one's personal integrity. He had been able to fool some entirely honest skeptics ; there had also appeared some entirely fraudulent branches of the "skeptic", the difference may be not at all apparent from the face of the things but please consider that the "skeptic 1" may be quite unlike the "skeptic 2", etc.

    Could the nearly simultaneous appearance of that pair (as above) of texts be somewhat related ? They were demonstrably somewhat related by the subject-matter, was there more to this than meets the eye could be an interesting question for the scholar.

    Note that also in 1952 published was Witness by Whittaker Chambers (New York : Random House), possibly the best introduction to the history of the Red infiltration in the USA.
    Chambers was not at all aware of the psychiatric designs ; however, a brief but very telling account can be found in his text of the antics by a certain Carl Binger, an "expert" during the US vs. Hiss proceedings. (Make sure to check this one out, the reader).