Using psychiatry as a means of repression has been a particular favorite of Socialist-oriented regimes
Psychiatry as a weapon to silence religious and political opposition
By Doug Hagmann
August 24, 2012
Since reporting on the account of Jason Egroff, a 28-year-old Scranton, Pennsylvania web designer and Blog Talk Radio host of the weekly Revelation News Christian broadcast, I have received documentation of numerous cases where outspoken critics specific to the anti-Christian agenda of Barack Hussein Obama experienced similar encounters with “mental health professionals.”
In the event you are unfamiliar with the full account of Mr. Egroff, it is documented here. In short, Mr. Egroff was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility for evaluation due to his pro-Christian yet non-threatening religious views opposing those of the Obama regime. Of course, that’s not the official psychiatric diagnosis given to him, but after an extensive investigation into the events leading up to and following his evaluation, it might as well be. What was uncovered in subsequent investigations involving other “patients,” I am convinced that the common element in all similar cases is one’s Christian beliefs when combined with a vocal opposition to the Obama agenda.
The victims of these tactics are not fanatical, they do not advocate violence, and certainly do not represent any threat to themselves or others. Their common “crime” is that they believe in the Word of God, the Holy Bible, and vocally identify the transgressions of our current government as they relate to the Bible and Scripture. To the Obama regime, this has obviously become a dangerous political threat.
Obama tactics from the Communist playbook
With gratitude to the research of Mary Ann, a listener of the nightly radio Hagmann & Hagmann Report, this author was alerted to the January 2010 edition of the Schizophrenia Bulletin authored by Robert van Voren. The bulletin contains important documented evidence that reads like the mental health chapter from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security handbook, except that it details the strategies of communist Russia in the 1970s and 1980s. During the height of political oppression in the Soviet Union, for example, studies found that at least one-third of the political prisoners were locked up in psychiatric hospitals.
As noted by the author, “using psychiatry as a means of repression has been a particular favorite of Socialist-oriented regimes.” What are we seeing take place in the United States today? We are witnessing a sudden and widespread increase in the “thought police” and by extension, the “religion police.” In the aforementioned bulletin, the author states that “[T]he political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union originated from the concept that persons who opposed the Soviet regime were mentally ill because there was no other logical explanation why one would oppose the best sociopolitical system in the world.”
It is also important to point out that the author notes that under the misuse of psychiatry by the state, the “patient” was diagnosed as having sluggish schizophrenia. He adds that “[T]he patient with paranoid symptoms retained some insight in his condition but overvalued his own importance and might exhibit grandiose ideas of reforming society. Thus, symptoms of sluggish schizophrenia could be “reform delusions,” “struggle for the truth,” and “perseverance.” So, according to the nationalized psychiatrists of the former Soviet Union, it was accepted that anyone desiring to eliminate Socialism is mentally ill, and possesses the shocking symptoms and impairments as a desire to seek political reform, learn the truth, and exhibit perseverance in the process. Sound familiar?
As one digs deeper into today’s headlines, it is evident that the socialist inclinations of the current administration, from Obama to Holder to Napolitano and across the higher levels of government, are becoming more apparent. Noted in the study is a reference to Russia that appears to apply here in the U.S.; “the deteriorating political climate seems to create an atmosphere in which local authorities feel that they can again use psychiatry as a means of intimidation.”
Read the study HERE
**Written by Doug Hagmann**
Now ADD the Psychological weapon from an Obama Top Aide that Tea Partiers are basically “Simpletons”…..
Obama’s top aide: Need ‘simple booklet’ to educate tea partiers
by Aaron Klein
February 24, 2010
A simple booklet explaining President Obama’s health care and economic policies may help those in the tea party movement better understand White House initiatives, suggested Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s closest advisers.
Jarrett blasted the tea party movement as an “anti-government” organization that thrives on scare tactics.
Jarrett made the comments last week at a John F. Kennedy School of Government forum.
At the event, an audience member compared the tea party movement and anger at Obama’s policies with people who initially resisted computers because of their “failure to understand” the new technology. The questioner explained simple booklets eventually helped to educate the public on computers. He asked Jarrett whether “much simpler” booklets could be produced for tea party supporters.
“Could the Obama administration write much simpler booklets on housing foreclosure, on the health care bill, whereas a typical person, including those in the tea party, could understand the basics of it?” asked the audience member.
Jarrett was further asked whether the analogy comparing the tea party movement to people who initially rejected computers was accurate.
“I think it’s an excellent analogy,” Jarrett replied.
“Hope and change were so catchy because it was really very simple and it was something everyone understood the definition. And so I think part of what our challenge is is to find a very simple way of communicating,” she said.
Jarrett characterized tea party supporters as anti-government extremists.
“Even if they are in favor of, let’s say, a different form of health care insurance reform, fine; but what’s happening is it’s an anti-government – I mean, that’s the tea party. They really are, um, are, uh, trying to rebel against government at all. And I think that that’s … again, it’s an extreme.”
From Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26
Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:
“She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is‘ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.”
Whose world are they talking about?
Alinsky Rule #13
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)