The psychiatric industry has such a tight hold on public discourse about their business, that anyone who disagrees with them and anyone who criticizes psychiatry is designated a Scientologist. I'm surprised they limit their character assassination to that. Why not just call all critics tin foil hat wearers too? The first rule of propaganda is to discredit critics. How does what the control freak psychiatric industry does differ from what U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy did to alleged Communists? Today (June 9, 2014) as I did errands one more Harvard University employee asked me if I was leafletting for Scientology. It shows how limited the range of thought is on the misguided and dangerous business of the fake science of psychiatry. Ask Peter Breggin what they did to him after he dared to testify in court about psychiatric abuses of children.
On June 8, 2014 a thoughtful couple, one man one woman, took time from their busy lives, shot dead two Las Vegas police officers, who were having lunch. They went on to shoot a civilian and then they killed themselves. No one was watching them. They were free to roam the land and plan their depraved violence. Las Vegas does not share the same public safety priorities as Cambridge MA and Harvard University campus police, who stalk, harass, provoke, insult, threaten, ridicule, humiliate and slander me every day all day.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/
It makes any attempt to enjoy life or to pursue happiness, a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, impossible. In early June 2014, PBS re-broadcast a special called, Happy. It described some of the ways that people enjoy their lives and live long ones. Being harassed every day, isolated from friendly people, and surrounded by hateful and hostile people, does not encourage happiness, nor does it enable long life. But that is what this charming Harvard University employee is doing every day in the name of some misguided good. Likely the good is covering up many years of criminal abuses by her, and her associates. It is a campaign which local, state and U.S. officials and human services professionals in Massachusetts ignore, and encourage by default.
For about one week during the last few days of May and the first few days of June 2014 a group of police psychiatrists took control of the surveillance and harassment, giving the graduate student a needed respite. The following events added to the reasons why my opinion of psychiatry changed from skepticism to outright hostility and fear. I was always skeptical of psychiatry after reading Thomas Szasz's and Peter R. Breggin's books, and listening to Dr. Fred Baughman speak before Congressional committees. Here's a link to some anti-psychiatry resources
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/
Psychiatry is an arbitrary discipline with an undeserved image as benevolent and scientific. It is a method of social control with no Due Process protections, masquerading as a healing profession.
60 Minutes broadcasts regular features promoting the psychiatric industry. The show has extensive funding from drug companies so it is not surprising. They never note that they get a lot of their advertising from the drug industry. On Sunday June 8, 2014 Steve Kroft hosted another one of these promos for drug treatment for persons accused of mental illness. As usual his expert was E. Fuller Torrey a well known hater of persons with disabilities, who he describes as dangerous and in need of forced psychiatric drugs. Nowhere on the feature did Kroft mention the role of psychiatric drugs as a cause of violence. He blamed the usual suspect, a fantasy illness made up by consensus. They used to blame a chemical imbalance of the brain, for mental illness. Until they were challenged by some disabled persons. The American Psychiatric Association was unable to provide any evidence for that elusive chemical imbalance. Like the dedicated propagandists that they are, now they show pretty images of the brain and say there is evidence of the illnesses we made up by consensus. They do not establish any connection between the images and the illness. They just say it and it is broadcast by the obedient, conformist, useful idiots among the journalism elite.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/untreated-mental-illness-an-imminent-danger-2/
A group of computer professionals held a three-day meeting (May 30, to June 1, 2014) to encourage and to facilitate making government information accessible to voters and taxpayers online. During the course of my visit I encountered a young man wearing sunglasses. He was speaking with another young man who enthusiastically boasted about his new job. He worked as a web designer and then took a new position working for the City of Somerville. He described his duties which included answering calls from citizens and residents about problems with city services.
At some point I related some of my experiences with local governments, Somerville, MA and Cambridge, MA. After adding details about speaking to the city council, writing bills for the state house (one about regulating use of human subjects in medical research) and hosting a local cable access TV show, I expressed what I thought of as the way to interact with public officials. I said they do not listen. Instead of getting upset, or banging one's head against the wall I take my lesson from Jessica Mitford. She allegedly said, "You can't change the world. But you can embarrass the guilty." I said, "That works."
The man with the sunglasses expressed his horror at someone having such opinions. He became hostile and aggressive. He asked me what I meant about use of human subjects in experiments. I said usually people accuse me of being against research. I told of one research misadventure I saw in the Boston Globe. Four people died in gene therapy trials at two Harvard University Medical School teaching hospitals in Boston. He kept interrupting me asking questions as if I was a witness at a trial. "How do you know that? They were desperate," he said.
I said "I know they were desperate. But that did not justify using them without informed consent." I called the Boston police to ask if they investigated the deaths. The spokesman for the police told me "They do their own investigations."
"Oh," I said, "If I was arrested for homicide could I do my own investigation too?" She told me not to call there any more and hung up.
It is a First Amendment right to make inquiries of the police, a prominent division of the government. I called the next day and explained the First Amendment to the woman. She again told me not to call them. Then I called to the state Medical Examiner and to the District Attorney. State law requires that deaths in hospitals must be reported to one or the other. Neither office received reports of the deaths. The penalty for not reporting the deaths was $50. Not much of an incentive, especially for Harvard University Medical School researchers. They always act in the name of good.
One of eleven bills I wrote in 2001 and had eleven hearings at the state house, was to increase penalties for not reporting deaths in hospitals. I realized that if a person was used as a human subject (or if medical researchers said he was a human subject) for medical research and someone decided to kill him, the killer would never be found. Because the police and the state agencies do not investigate such deaths. Convenient way to kill, I thought. Negligent homicide is still homicide. I learned later that 90,000 to 100,000 persons die each year in American hospitals due to medical negligence. That is seldom mentioned by dedicated journalists.
This was met with hostility by Sunglass Man. I was careful not to say anything that would upset him more. I did not know if he was easily provoked to violence or just angry at me. He acted as if he knew me. He seemed to be extremely angry with what I was saying. When I told him of Jessica Mitford's doctrine, he walked away and said. "I'm done."
Done? What was he doing? This was a computer professional meetup. In retrospect I think he was a police employee doing an evaluation. Evaluations without consent violate state and U.S. privacy laws. One problem is due to the extreme arrogance of psychiatrists and especially Harvard University affiliated psychiatrists. They believe that laws do not apply to them. I think Mr. Sunglasses was a psychiatrist or worked with them. How many people react to discussion about use of human subjects in research passionately? Most people lose interest immediately. This guy was upset.
His antagonism was like that of the people who harass me every day. Control freaks get upset when they are unable to get and keep control of another human. They react violently in cases of domestic assault some of which lead to homicide. Maybe he was one of the temporary replacements conducting harassment for the usual graduate student?
It took me a few days to connect the dots between the recent reaction to a comment I posted about Harvard University's former Provost, psychiatrist Steven Hyman. He is the task force chairman to make Harvard University compliant with the requirements of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972. His statements attracted my attention for two reasons. He is a psychiatrist. Why is he chairman of that task force? What knowledge does he bring to address the issue? I realized it was two. Spineless leaders attribute extraordinary knowledge, omniscience, to psychiatrists. Second he was the Provost and knows about obtaining U.S. taxpayer grants. Non compliance with Title IX jeopardizes those grants. Harvard University gets about $175 million each year, not chump change. Hyman is also a prominent researcher in psychiatry in Cambridge.
So I made a comment which you can see, at this link.
http://enoughroom.blogspot.com/2014/05/solution-to-harvard-universitys.html
You will also see some reactions to it.
Then there was another related series of events described at this link
http://enoughroom.blogspot.com/2014/06/erasing-history-again.html
My question, "Is Sunglass Man more of that?" On June 2, 2014 I ate at home, and began to feel groggy. I realized that someone had placed drugs in my food. That is a violation of the poisoning statute, a felony. It happened several times to me during the past 43 years of brutal criminal harassment in mostly three states. Psychiatrists believe that they know what a person needs--drugs. And if the person refuses to take the drugs the control freaks force them on the person. One way is to provoke the person and have him arrested and held in a mental hospital. Then they can force drugs freely with no opposition or protection from the abuse.
They try to do that to me. I do not react to their constant provocations. Psychiatric proactive arrogance then implements Plan B. Harvard University administration, i.e., building superintendents can provide access to the apartment. Someone placed psychiatric drugs in my bottled water which I purchase because the tap water was occasionally polluted. Thwarting them at one entry caused them to commit a burglary to poison my food supply. Charming, no? Not the first time. Was it the same Sunglass Man? Was he working for Professor Hyman? I have no evidence. But I have my suspicions. It is not surprising to me because it's been done too often previously. I am not under the care of any psychiatrist or any psychologist. There is no court order to allow placing drugs in my food. It is three felonies. If there was enforcement of laws against psychiatrists for offenses like this the professional might lose his license. Or it could have been one more of those wannabes, crime family or police employees who once worked as a guard at a mental hospital and thinks he is psychiatrist.
That explains my hostility, my antagonism and fear of psychiatrists. Police agencies will not address such criminal abuses even though they are felonies. Psychiatrists get a pass and Harvard University employees, have a de facto exemption from criminal liability. That is a Massachusetts problem.
From about 1960 to 1974, two large organizations of criminals, politicians, government officials were engaged in a national war for power. I call them the Kennedy Cult and the California Syndicate. I was adopted by the Kennedy Cult when I was student in college. They admired the skills I showed during the student protests in 1968 at Columbia University. Without me knowing it, the California Syndicate began harassing me. To them I was the enemy. I was clueless about the war and these organizations at the time. I loved everyone and treated everyone with respect. I avoided unpleasant people. I attended law school and the attacks continued. Still I was clueless why people would harass me and insult me. I did nothing to provoke them. In retrospect I now understand what was going on. It was war and they saw me as a leader of the Kennedy cult. I was important to both organizations. One supported me the other attacked me.
When the war ended the two organizations continued their conflicting relationships with me. It continues today but takes different forms. At some point the Kennedy Cult changed their efforts defending me and created a false profile so that they could reduce the amount of resources spent defending me from the California Syndicate. One of their operatives said to me, "If you're not a lawyer you're nobody." The new profile included but was not limited to "a retired drug dealer," and an "Italian American homosexual." Previously the profile was "black, Jewish, homosexual from New York." The California Syndicate added "He's a racist. He's homeless and mentally ill." Fast forward to 2014 the Kennedy cult employs psychiatrists and psychologists, some from Harvard University Medical School. They do evaluations without consent, a violation of state and U.S. privacy statutes. But no problem. Psychiatrists and Harvard University affiliates are above the laws. These sociopaths have exemptions. So why not give some drugs to this unfortunate man? They seldom know any history beyond he is "mentally ill, and poor."
After several years (20 or more) of complaining to city, state and U.S. officials about criminal abuses by police employees and crime family associates, this is what transpired in June 2014. The Kennedy Cult which adopted me during their war, and made me a target, declared that none of the previous 43 years of criminal abuses happened. They simply erased it from history! How convenient. If I disagree, they simply say, "He's mentally ill and needs treatment, preferably drug treatment." But they know I will never willingly ingest psychiatric drugs, known toxic chemicals with a propaganda image of benevolence.
On or about June 1-3, 2014 I came home and had dinner. When I began to feel groggy I knew someone had placed drugs in my foods. There is no evidence of a break-in. That means someone gave the drug carrier entry to my apartment, where he put the drugs in my foods, in violation of the state poisoning statute, a felony. It is not the first time that happened. There are psychiatrists and some omniscient chumps who worked as guards in mental hospitals who designate themselves psychiatrists who know how to get needy persons to take the drugs in order to cure them of their illnesses made up by consensus. The Kennedy Cult treats people without consent. "Who needs consent? We know what you need. We are psychiatrists and know everything. And we are morally superior. Our genes have been cleansed of mendacity, greed and sadism."
Moving along into June 2014, I was joined in my life journey by some thoughtful gentlemen from New Hampshire once again. Whenever the team of control freaks in Massachusetts that annoys me each day runs out of useful idiots to harass me they reach into neighboring New Hampshire where there are plenty more who anxiously join in harassing a 70-year-old white man they say is disabled, mentally ill. I was surprised to learn how many police, human services professionals, politicians, and ordinary folks, as limousine liberals refer to ordinary civilians, have a strong urge to harass, belittle, ridicule, intimidate people they believe are weaker than they are. The fundamental flaw among the public is that government thugs only harass strong, wealthy and powerful people. It is the complete opposite. They focus only on weak people. As explained by Roger Morris in his book, Partners in Power, about the Clintons, the preferred leaders are weak with relaxed rectitude. They fear targeting strong people who are capable of returning fire and doing harm to the fragile image of the weak leader. Thus they only target weak people who cannot fight back, or at least are perceived as unable to do so.
Persons with disabilities are likely targets for these control freaks, predators, bullies and sadists. The New Hampshire team arrived and began intense harassment as per the usual pattern when a new team of lawyer, psychiatrist, and thugs begin their efforts. They try to recreate the police frame-up from 1990 when the California Syndicate hired Cambridge and Somerville police to provoke me and to arrest me after I complained to the chiefs of both police agencies. They paid seven lawyers not to put on a defense. Of the five judges involved, one threatened to have me put into a hospital if I testified about what happened to me. Another judge refused to appoint any more lawyers and ordered me to appear and represent myself.
So much for erasing history and declaring me mentally ill because I do not trust either of these criminal organizations. I am not certain that a third national organization is now trying to provoke me as the previous two organizations did. I suspect that the Midwestern Outfit has now begun the same kind of harassment and provocation as the California Syndicate did before them.
No comments:
Post a Comment